Should the UK leave the EU?

[Chilloutman]

 

Really? When was the election for EU commisioners held? When was the election for EU president held? When was the election for EU commision president held? Did you vote for Juncker, Tusk or Shulz? Do you know anyone who did?

When did you vote for Szydło? Never. When did you vote for any specific government minister or bureaucrat? Never.

But you voted for PiS (or another party) that got the majority and therefore usually confirms the Prime Minister.

The election of Juncker worked exactly the same way. The large political parties in Europe ran with Juncker, Schulz, etc. as their top candidates for the job, and because the EP has to confirm anyone appointed as president of the Commission, the candidate of the majority got the job. That works almost exactly as it does in Poland. So - everyone who voted in the last EP elections voted for the Commission president, as well.

For the rest, see Elerond's post above.

 

 

Yeah, this is the problem, you dont want same people who run your country to run EU as well. So for example you want socialist party for your country, but you want EU to be managed by capitalists

[HoonDing]

rohtschild_conspiracy.jpeg

[Raithe]

[Meshugger]

Purge everything and make it into a collaborative open market, like it should be. No commissions, councils, parliaments or that kind of ****, just a a few trade deals, charters and an agreed court of uphold them. Send everyone currently involved in the apparatnik into retirement at The Fletcher Memorial Home for incurable tyrants.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8u-tBP-f3A

 

The winners will be quiet homesteads, the corner pubs in the small towns, women, laughter and summer sunsets. It's a win that we can all live with.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Meshugger

[Varana]

Sharp_One: Why do you change from Juncker to Tusk, now?

In the last elections to the European Parliament, the political parties (i.e. the European alliances, like EPP and PES) very clearly said that if they got a majority, Juncker or Schulz (or others, though only these two had any real chance of getting elected) would be confirmed as President of the Commission. Yes, technically, he is nominated by the Council but he has to be confirmed by the Parliament - just as in Poland, technically the President appoints the Prime Minister who has to be confirmed by the Sejm. Juncker is as democratically elected as most other European prime ministers.

The President of the European Council (i.e. currently Tusk) has basically no political power. It is an internal post: He has to mediate between the members of the Council but he has no vote himself. As such, it makes much more sense that the members of the Council agree on someone to take that job because in the end, it's only them who have ever to deal with him. (And to point that out again: The members of the Council are the democratically elected governments of the member states.) He is a prominent figure but without much real power - just like many heads of state in Europe.

 

That the European Parliament had "barely any power" is one of the great misconceptions about Europe. In fact, it has a lot of power - it's just that most people tend to ignore that.

And the blame for the EP having less power than desirable lies with the national governments. That the Council has a lot of power: the national governments are to blame. Electing a government which tries to limit the influence of the European institutions and then complaining about their lack of power is dishonest.

 

Meshugger: No, the way it should be, in a few decades, is a closer union. The nation state was a somewhat decent idea (at least sometimes) - in the 19th century. Ultimately it led to the self-destruction of Europe, twice. We should try to find something better.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Varana

[Meshugger]

Meshugger: No, the way it should be, in a few decades, is a closer union. The nation state was a somewhat decent idea (at least sometimes) - in the 19th century. Ultimately it led to the self-destruction of Europe, twice. We should try to find something better.

 

No, no and NO. A closer union is a centralization of power. It is the erosion of nation-states and people will lose their sense of belonging to something greater and it will be replaced by nothing sacred at all. It will destroy languages, customs, traditions and ethnic groups. It will be little death spiritually and ultimately the destruction of the west. 

[Barothmuk]

It is the erosion of nation-states and people will lose their sense of belonging to something greater and it will be replaced by nothing sacred at all. It will destroy languages, customs, traditions and ethnic groups. It will be little death spiritually and ultimately the destruction of the west.

"Muh feels" would have sufficed. Edited July 8, 2016 by Barothmuk

[Varana]

The erosion of nation states is exactly the thing we need. We need not forget that the nation state was a much bigger destroyer of languages, customs, traditions and ethnic groups. The construct of a unified French, German, British, Polish, Italian, etc. nation is nothing "natural", it is an effect of the 19th century nationalistic movement. Modern society with large-scale mobility (even within one country), unprecedented means of communication, very influential mass media, and so on is a much bigger factor of levelling differences between regions and classes, than government ever is. Most governments today explicitly support regional traditions, minority languages, and specialist economies. That is a new development; a few decades ago, national governments did the exact opposite and actively tried to suppress minorities (look at the Welsh language, for example). It is an example where we have overcome the destructive effects of the ideology of unified nations and found a better solution. And that is what we need in Europe.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Varana

[BruceVC]

 

Meshugger: No, the way it should be, in a few decades, is a closer union. The nation state was a somewhat decent idea (at least sometimes) - in the 19th century. Ultimately it led to the self-destruction of Europe, twice. We should try to find something better.

 

No, no and NO. A closer union is a centralization of power. It is the erosion of nation-states and people will lose their sense of belonging to something greater and it will be replaced by nothing sacred at all. It will destroy languages, customs, traditions and ethnic groups. It will be little death spiritually and ultimately the destruction of the west. 

 

Meshugger you have the Internet, you will always have the  Internet and that alone is like your community. 

 

Dont be so concerned with losing things like language, customs and ethnic groups. These things will always have purpose  and exist within places like the EU, the only thing that may change is how relevant some of these things may be 

[Elerond]

European Commission consist of 1 President, 7 Vice-Presidents and 20 Commissioners

 

A new team of 28 Commissioners (one from each EU Member State) is appointed every five years.

 

The candidate for President of the Commission is proposed to the European Parliament by the European Council that decides by qualified majority and taking into account the elections to the European Parliament.

The Commission President is then elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members (which corresponds to at least 376 out of 751 votes).

Following this election, the President-elect selects the 27 other members of the Commission, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States. The final list of Commissioners-designate has then to be agreed between the President-elect and the Council. The Commission as a whole needs the Parliament's consent. Prior to this, Commissioners-designate are assessed by the European Parliament committees.

The current Commission's term of office runs until 31 October 2019. Its President is Jean-Claude Juncker.

[Meshugger]

 

It is the erosion of nation-states and people will lose their sense of belonging to something greater and it will be replaced by nothing sacred at all. It will destroy languages, customs, traditions and ethnic groups. It will be little death spiritually and ultimately the destruction of the west.

"Muh feels" would have sufficed.

 

 

The collapse will come when society has no meaning to exist and social cohesion has dissipated due to lack of a higher principle or ideal. (The sacred, The Church, The Kings and Emperors of old, the ideals of the enlightment and nations of the new).  

 

The erosion of nation states is exactly the thing we need. We need not forget that the nation state was a much bigger destroyer of languages, customs, traditions and ethnic groups. The construct of a unified French, German, British, Polish, Italian, etc. nation is nothing "natural", it is an effect of the 19th century nationalistic movement. Modern society with large-scale mobility (even within one country), unprecedented means of communication, very influential mass media, and so on is a much bigger factor of levelling differences between regions and classes, than government ever is. Most governments today explicitly support regional traditions, minority languages, and specialist economies. That is a new development; a few decades ago, national governments did the exact opposite and actively tried to suppress minorities (look at the Welsh language, for example). It is an example where we have overcome the destructive effects of the ideology of unified nations and found a better solution. And that is what we need in Europe.

 

The argument against destructive principles is to make more destructive principles, right. No, no one wants a union except for those larping as aristocrats thinking that the plebs needs to be guided for their own good. Consider yourself lucky if it becomes a EUSSR which collapses on its own weight within a short period of time, or worse because of cohesion mandated from the top, a new empire is forged with a new Caesar and you can kiss all those precious "european values" goodbye in favour of a "roman hardness 2.0". Power must always be decentralized as much as possible or we will continue to see wars worse than those before. 

 

 

 

Meshugger: No, the way it should be, in a few decades, is a closer union. The nation state was a somewhat decent idea (at least sometimes) - in the 19th century. Ultimately it led to the self-destruction of Europe, twice. We should try to find something better.

 

No, no and NO. A closer union is a centralization of power. It is the erosion of nation-states and people will lose their sense of belonging to something greater and it will be replaced by nothing sacred at all. It will destroy languages, customs, traditions and ethnic groups. It will be little death spiritually and ultimately the destruction of the west. 

 

Meshugger you have the Internet, you will always have the  Internet and that alone is like your community. 

 

Dont be so concerned with losing things like language, customs and ethnic groups. These things will always have purpose  and exist within places like the EU, the only thing that may change is how relevant some of these things may be 

 

 

Organical development of ethnic groups, languages and traditions are inevitable. But superficial creations like the EU are a perversion based on a lofty idea of peace as its standing will only demoralize the general public. People are willing to give up their lives to protect their family, village, ideals and even their countrymen. No one is willing to die for the EU. 

 

No, back to the common market and reality.

[Raithe]

Is it me or are half the EU elected officials... the politico's who lost elections in their home countries? Almost like some countries use it as a dumping ground to get party opponents out of the public eye?

[WDeranged]

Is it me or are half the EU elected officials... the politico's who lost elections in their home countries? Almost like some countries use it as a dumping ground to get party opponents out of the public eye?

 

Not sure about other countries but it does seem a lot of UK politicians 'retire' there.

[Elerond]

Is it me or are half the EU elected officials... the politico's who lost elections in their home countries? Almost like some countries use it as a dumping ground to get party opponents out of the public eye?

 

That has been and still seems to be problem. Like for example ex-prime minister of Finland who had to resign because she leaked confidential documents about Iraq war and lied about it to our parliament is now one of our longest running MEPs.  

Edited July 8, 2016 by Elerond

[Meshugger]

 

Is it me or are half the EU elected officials... the politico's who lost elections in their home countries? Almost like some countries use it as a dumping ground to get party opponents out of the public eye?

 

That has been and still seems to be problem. Like for example ex-prime minister of Finland who had to resign because she leaked confidential documents about Iraq war and lied about it to our parliament is now one of our longest running MEPs.  

 

 

The running joke here in Finland is that we vote people we don't like to Brussels in order to get rid of them in the nicest way *cough* Väyrynen *cough*

[HoonDing]

just leave already

[Barothmuk]

The collapse will come when society has no meaning to exist and social cohesion has dissipated due to lack of a higher principle or ideal. (The sacred, The Church, The Kings and Emperors of old, the ideals of the enlightment and nations of the new).

More words and yet still no content.

Stop LARPing as a conservative and actually make a conservative argument.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Barothmuk

[213374U]

So Nigel will keep mooching off that EU Parliament wage for a couple of years still.

 

Not only that -- as a result of the financial chaos, he just got a pay rise of £8,000 pa.

 

"Brilliant".

[mindswayer]

Purge everything and make it into a collaborative open market, like it should be. No commissions, councils, parliaments or that kind of ****, just a a few trade deals, charters and an agreed court of uphold them. Send everyone currently involved in the apparatnik into retirement at The Fletcher Memorial Home for incurable tyrants.

 

[]

 

The winners will be quiet homesteads, the corner pubs in the small towns, women, laughter and summer sunsets. It's a win that we can all live with.

Thought it funny that you should post that song, because I'm 99% sure that Roger Waters would vote Remain.

Edited July 9, 2016 by mindswayer

[Meshugger]

 

The collapse will come when society has no meaning to exist and social cohesion has dissipated due to lack of a higher principle or ideal. (The sacred, The Church, The Kings and Emperors of old, the ideals of the enlightment and nations of the new).

More words and yet still no content.

Stop LARPing as a conservative and actually make a conservative argument.

 

 

What is there not to get? For social cohesion to be possible there needs to be a sovereign or ideal that abides from a higher principle that bounds people together and it needs credibility to support itself. The EU has no credibility, rather it is only tolerated because it is not too intrusive....yet. 

 

 

Purge everything and make it into a collaborative open market, like it should be. No commissions, councils, parliaments or that kind of ****, just a a few trade deals, charters and an agreed court of uphold them. Send everyone currently involved in the apparatnik into retirement at The Fletcher Memorial Home for incurable tyrants.

 

[]

 

The winners will be quiet homesteads, the corner pubs in the small towns, women, laughter and summer sunsets. It's a win that we can all live with.

Thought it funny that you should post that song, because I'm 99% sure that Roger Waters would vote Remain.

 

 

Agreeing 100% with your idols is never healthy.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Meshugger

[Barothmuk]

What is there not to get?

You have yet to make a point to get.

 

Even assuming I ignore the obvious impossibility of it, why should I give a **** about the continued preservation of the specific cultures, races, traditions and languages that exist right now.

 

For social cohesion to be possible there needs to be a sovereign or ideal that abides from a higher principle that bounds people together and it needs credibility to support itself.

And this is almost in complete contradiction to your initial point. By your own argument it sounds like a single culture would be better for "social cohesion".

 

Stop holding back man, tell me why you're against mixed relationships.

[Meshugger]

 

What is there not to get?

You have yet to make a point to get.

 

Even assuming I ignore the obvious impossibility of it, why should I give a **** about the continued preservation of the specific cultures, races, traditions and languages that exist right now.

 

For social cohesion to be possible there needs to be a sovereign or ideal that abides from a higher principle that bounds people together and it needs credibility to support itself.

And this is almost in complete contradiction to your initial point. By your own argument it sounds like a single culture would be better for "social cohesion".

 

Stop holding back man, tell me why you're against mixed relationships.

 

 

No, different people and cultures emerge organically and express themselves differently through languages, art and traditions, hierarchies of what is sacred and form societies based on such. That is reality and should be accepted as such. If you have no vested interest in preserving, or on the contrary, actively celebrating the destruction of such with the creation of artifical constructs like the EU, which has its foundation based on little to nothing, then i do not know what to tell you. Well, except for please find or create something worth protecting instead of embracing stoicism or quasi-nihilism, that **** ain't healthy for you.

 

By the looks of it, this discussion is starting now to sound way too personal for me to continue as you seem to have your own demons named 'conservative' to fight with. I leave you to it to find out yourself.

 

Oh, and love is, is what love is, in the end, no matter who you are with.

[BruceVC]

 

What is there not to get?

You have yet to make a point to get.

 

Even assuming I ignore the obvious impossibility of it, why should I give a **** about the continued preservation of the specific cultures, races, traditions and languages that exist right now.

 

For social cohesion to be possible there needs to be a sovereign or ideal that abides from a higher principle that bounds people together and it needs credibility to support itself.

And this is almost in complete contradiction to your initial point. By your own argument it sounds like a single culture would be better for "social cohesion".

 

Stop holding back man, tell me why you're against mixed relationships.

 

Hi Baro "waves " 

 

Where have you been?  

[Barothmuk]

No, different people and cultures emerge organically and express themselves differently through languages, art and traditions, hierarchies of what is sacred and form societies based on such. That is reality and should be accepted as such. If you have no vested interest in preserving, or on the contrary, actively celebrating the destruction of such with the creation of artifical constructs like the EU

The EU's existence came about as organically as any other political institution, nation-states included.

By the looks of it, this discussion is starting now to sound way too personal for me to continue as you seem to have your own demons named 'conservative' to fight with. I leave you to it to find out yourself.

Lol, please. You've supported an obviously controversial position and you don't even have the balls to defend it? Edited July 9, 2016 by Barothmuk

[Varana]

Consider yourself lucky if it becomes a EUSSR which collapses on its own weight within a short period of time, or worse because of cohesion mandated from the top, a new empire is forged with a new Caesar and you can kiss all those precious "european values" goodbye in favour of a "roman hardness 2.0". Power must always be decentralized as much as possible or we will continue to see wars worse than those before.

 

Organical development of ethnic groups, languages and traditions are inevitable. But superficial creations like the EU are a perversion based on a lofty idea of peace as its standing will only demoralize the general public.

I can only assume that you're not from planet Earth, as the "EU" you talk about has nothing to do with the one we have here.

 

The EU is just as natural and "organical" as the nation state.

Europe has a long history of close contact between peoples, constant migrations, cultural exchange, cosmopolitanism, common values, coexistence of ethnic groups, religions, and traditions.

It has also a long history of the negations of all those things, and the bloodiest and most destructive times were those where disunity and nationalistic fervour were at their height.

The EU is the attempt to draw on the former and further cooperation and coexistence under a common roof. It is a common project of the peoples involved, not the bogeyman of centralisation some people put forward. The EU is a step in consolidating the common European heritage in a world where it becomes increasingly difficult for small states to stand on their own, and where these positive aspects of European history are still under threat - not in the least from those within Europe who thrive on antagonism, factionalism, and conflict.

 

P.S. As someone who usually votes conservative in Europe, I would very much appreciate it if Meshugger's position were not called "conservative". One of the core beliefs of European conservativism, as I see it and has been in my country for the last 60 years, is exactly the support for European integration and unity.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Varana