Should the EU become the United States of Europe? What do you think?

[Ben No.3]

Sorry but thats naive, illogical and unrealistic, refugees are a drain on the EU, trade with Britain is a benefit, the EU by accomodating non citizens and foiling trade with Great Britain is cutting off its own nose to spite its face. It gains nothing for the refugees, it gains nothing for member states, all it does is ensure that the MEPs keep their jobs, keep their noses in the trough, and helps threaten member states thinking of independence and freedom.

 

Edit: Everybody loses except the politician in Brussels, this is not a simplistic lesser evil.

We gain nothing from refugees? They are millions of people willing to work, most of them educated, some even with a degree. A lot speak English. Their children can be send to schools to learn native languages, within one generation the former refugees will have become a efficient part of society. Which is a gain for both the refugees and the EU. Everyone wins and flies of on pink winged unicorns into the rainbow. Hooray!!

And as I said, if Britain will not be treated harshly at first, other countries may follow, and especially now, that would be catastrophical for the EU.

Besides what is the alternative? Send them back? Send them to turkey? Neither are good...

Edited October 9, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Nonek]

Long term, yes they can possibly be a benefit, as it is now they are not and also thwarting trade with Britain helps them in no way whatsoever, only a fool would say it does. More likely however is that no infrastructure will be made to accomodate them, no efforts will be made to integrate them, they will be dropped in working class locations without the consent of the native people, and ghettoes will form around them. This is a reality I have seen and witnessed repeatedly over the last five decades. There is a lot of cheap labour available however.

 

Refugees do not gain from Brussels punishing Britain, Britain does not gain from being punished, none of the European member states benefits from severing trade and being flooded with foreigners, MEPs sit comfortably in Brussels and never have to see a ghetto they have created.

[Ben No.3]

Long term, yes they can possibly be a benefit, as it is now they are not and also thwarting trade with Britain helps them in no way whatsoever, only a fool would say it does. More likely however is that no infrastructure will be made to accomodate them, no efforts will be made to integrate them, they will be dropped in working class locations without the consent of the native people, and ghettoes will form around them. This is a reality I have seen and witnessed repeatedly over the last five decades. There is a lot of cheap labour available however.

 

Refugees do not gain from Brussels punishing Britain, Britain does not gain from being punished, none of the European member states benefits from severing trade and being flooded with foreigners, MEPs sit comfortably in Brussels and never have to see a ghetto they have created.

Nobody gains from punishing Britain. It is not about gain, it is about avoiding futher loss to further countries leaving the EU. Obviously work needs to be done to integrate the refugees. And without Brexit, things would have been a lot simpler. But with it more and more people talk about leaving in more and more countries, so it needs to be shown that leaving is not a good option I am afraid. Life is brutal. In the long run, Britain will hopefully become a valuable trade partner, and everyone will gain from that. But right now further "leaves" need to be avoided. Brexit is besides many other problems also very ill timed Edited October 9, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Nonek]

 

So punish a nation and trade partner that simply wants self determinance for the sake of non European non citizens? Yes that makes perfect sense.

 

It's punishment for rocking the gravy train as I said earlier, and of course a blatant threat by Brussels trying to quench any hints of insurrection.

Punish a rich country by simply not giving it AS GOOD deals as other countries because it behaves in a way that has never been dealt with in order to help millions of people that have fled from war? I'd say it sounds pretty okay... Someone has to loose, so who should it be? The refugees or the rich country?

 

 

 

 

Long term, yes they can possibly be a benefit, as it is now they are not and also thwarting trade with Britain helps them in no way whatsoever, only a fool would say it does. More likely however is that no infrastructure will be made to accomodate them, no efforts will be made to integrate them, they will be dropped in working class locations without the consent of the native people, and ghettoes will form around them. This is a reality I have seen and witnessed repeatedly over the last five decades. There is a lot of cheap labour available however.

 

Refugees do not gain from Brussels punishing Britain, Britain does not gain from being punished, none of the European member states benefits from severing trade and being flooded with foreigners, MEPs sit comfortably in Brussels and never have to see a ghetto they have created.

Nobody gains from punishing Britain. It is not about gain, it is about avoiding futher loss to further countries leaving the EU. Obviously work needs to be done to integrate the refugees. And without Brexit, things would have been a lot simpler. But with it more and more people talk about leaving in more and more countries, so it needs to be shown that leaving is not a good option I am afraid. Life is brutal.

 

 

Didn't take long to do a complete 360" did it.

 

Before work being done to integrate the refugees first you might ask the native people who politicians are supposed to serve first and foremost whether they want that. Secondly don't sever trade links when you need them. Thirdly one could try and reform the Union into something that member states want rather than throwing a childish wobbly that democracy has been exercised, freedom and independence sought.

 

Life is made brutal by politicians catering to themselves rather than those they are supposed to serve.

 

Edit: Why anyone would want to be in a Union that has to punish countries to make sure others don't leave is a mystery to me, what's next if the politicians in Brussels don't get their way?

Edited October 9, 2016 by Nonek

[Ben No.3]

Nice job... Well done... But sadly, I meant that no COUNTRY will gain from punishment, however it may stablise the EU and thus the REFUGEES will gain from it. But I will be more clear next time

 

Why does the EU need to punish countries? Sadly, people don't understand the EU. And because they don't understand it, it seems strange to them, not to be trusted. So anything bad that happens is quickly blamed on it. That's why populism works so well right now.

 

And why help the refugees? Because the EU is rich, and the refugees need help. It is a matter of empathy. Also, we can gain a lot, as I said before.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Nonek]

So you're assuming that restricting trade with Britain and instituting a policy of fear and punishment will keep member states in line, rather than sowing discontent and increasing the distrust of the EU? Well ruling by fear and punishment doesn't seem like a great way to build understanding, trust and empathy to me, you could try building a Death Star however if you wish to go down that route.

 

No this is a silly argument, restricting trade does not help refugees, punishing Britain does not help millions of refugees as you claim, nor does it help member states. The reality is that the fatcats are desperately trying to maintain their free ride, they are the only ones who benefit from this.

[Ben No.3]

So you're assuming that restricting trade with Britain and instituting a policy of fear and punishment will keep member states in line, rather than sowing discontent and increasing the distrust of the EU? Well ruling by fear and punishment doesn't seem like a great way to build understanding, trust and empathy to me, you could try building a Death Star however if you wish to go down that route.

 

No this is a silly argument, restricting trade does not help refugees, punishing Britain does not help millions of refugees as you claim, nor does it help member states. The reality is that the fatcats are desperately trying to maintain their free ride, they are the only ones who benefit from this.

Obviously creating a better Europe would be the best option. Only that is a bit late now, isn't it? What else should tge EU do in your opinion? What, that does not make leaving more attractive than staying?

[Nonek]

Already answered that, however it's really none of my business now, they can do as they wish and try to punish us all they want and rule through fear, we've endured worse and as always will endure.

[Ben No.3]

Already answered that, however it's really none of my business now, they can do as they wish and try to punish us all they want and rule through fear, we've endured worse and as always will endure.

Yeah, our two countries may not have an ideal history with each other... But Brexit really messes things up. :/

[Chilloutman]

last two pages were facepalm from start to finish

Edited October 9, 2016 by Chilloutman

[Nonek]

Sorry, couldn't resist having a bit of fun.

[licketysplit]

I'm all for regulated borders. Come at me.

[Chilloutman]

I'm all for regulated borders. Come at me.

You Monster!

[obyknven]

Meanwhile in Lithuania. Yep - i do want see UNITED Europe

http://youtu.be/6zrxizl28eU

[Gorth]

 

 

So, do you agree with me that the EU has been a big part of peacekeeping between its members? Yes or no?

 

No.

 

You're suggesting it's more peaceful within the EU than say 15 years ago? I don't think so.

 

No I'm saying it's more peaceful BECAUSE of the EU than say, between 1914 and 1945.

 

Based on *what* exactly?

 

Someone asked about your age and you dismissed it as irrelevant if I remember correctly (sorry, at work now, so not enough time to read through the entire thread again). But age matter, because if you are old enough, you'll know that EU is completely irrelevant and impotent when it comes to peacekeeping. What ensured peace in Europe since 1945 and until the recently was the threat of the Warzaw Pact countries and the membership of NATO. Nothing to make people dance to the same tune like a big scary, external threat. EU used to be good for economic growth, but as a governing body is inept and incompetent (and lacking popular support, you could argue also an illegitimate form of government).

[Mr. Magniloquent]

There is no need for some hegemonic state. People need no authoritarian structure to command and bind them if their interactions are voluntary and legitimate. In trying to create such an entity, one is openly admitting that they intend to bind others to their will--that their actions for "unity" are not legitimate or voluntary. Europe has had enough leviathans in its history.

 

Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

So, do you agree with me that the EU has been a big part of peacekeeping between its members? Yes or no?

No.

 

You're suggesting it's more peaceful within the EU than say 15 years ago? I don't think so.

No I'm saying it's more peaceful BECAUSE of the EU than say, between 1914 and 1945.

Based on *what* exactly?

 

Someone asked about your age and you dismissed it as irrelevant if I remember correctly (sorry, at work now, so not enough time to read through the entire thread again). But age matter, because if you are old enough, you'll know that EU is completely irrelevant and impotent when it comes to peacekeeping. What ensured peace in Europe since 1945 and until the recently was the threat of the Warzaw Pact countries and the membership of NATO.

While that is true, the EU plays a huge part in peacekeeping in Europe. How you ask? The European coal and steel Union is a great example. Those two goods are critically important to produce weapons, and they are produced as a European good rather than a national one. I am sure you can see how this assures peace. The EU binds its members in a way that makes it hard for a single country to start a war against the others. Edited October 10, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

There is no need for some hegemonic state. People need no authoritarian structure to command and bind them if their interactions are voluntary and legitimate. In trying to create such an entity, one is openly admitting that they intend to bind others to their will--that their actions for "unity" are not legitimate or voluntary. Europe has had enough leviathans in its history.

 

Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

Leviathan, as in the monster?

See, while in theory, communism (which is an anarchy) surely is the best system. But it does not work. Any attempt to create a communist country has failed. And that is became humans are exactly that, humans. And everyone seeks advantage over the other. So some form of government needs to be put in place because otherwise chaos arises. And while "democracy is the worst system but the others" (Churchill), our system gives us 1. A system that splits up the power so no single figure can become the most powerful figure and basically be an autocrat 2. A system were the leading figures are not determined by the elite but by everyone.

 

By the way, isn't it "sic semper tyrannis"?

[Chilloutman]

Leviathan, as in the monster?

See, while in theory, communism (which is an anarchy) surely is the best system. But it does not work. Any attempt to create a communist country has failed. And that is became humans are exactly that, humans. And everyone seeks advantage over the other. So some form of government needs to be put in place because otherwise chaos arises. And while "democracy is the worst system but the others" (Churchill), our system gives us 1. A system that splits up the power so no single figure can become the most powerful figure and basically be an autocrat 2. A system were the leading figures are not determined by the elite but by everyone.

 

By the way, isn't it "sic semper tyrannis"?

lol communism is NOT anarchy, you clearly are not old enough xD. And by the way why east european states doesnt want EU is precisely because we already had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comecon

 

read it and think

 

as for leading figures... did you ever voted for Junker? did you ever voted for Tusk?

Edited October 10, 2016 by Chilloutman

[Ben No.3]

 

Leviathan, as in the monster?

See, while in theory, communism (which is an anarchy) surely is the best system. But it does not work. Any attempt to create a communist country has failed. And that is became humans are exactly that, humans. And everyone seeks advantage over the other. So some form of government needs to be put in place because otherwise chaos arises. And while "democracy is the worst system but the others" (Churchill), our system gives us 1. A system that splits up the power so no single figure can become the most powerful figure and basically be an autocrat 2. A system were the leading figures are not determined by the elite but by everyone.

 

By the way, isn't it "sic semper tyrannis"?

lol communism is NOT anarchy, you clearly are not old enough xD. And by the way why east european states doesnt want EU is precisely because we already had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comecon

 

read it and think

 

as for leading figures... did you ever voted for Junker? did you ever voted for Tusk?

Have you ever read Marx? The final stage of communism is an anarchist society without any government. This should be reached through a revolution and a temporary dictate of the proletariat, which Marx refers to as socialism. All real-world "communist" states never got beyond this stage.

Get your philosophy right

 

However, Marx himself admitted his goals were unreachable due to human nature. He himself said his communist vision would need perfect humans to work.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Chilloutman]

 

 

Leviathan, as in the monster?

See, while in theory, communism (which is an anarchy) surely is the best system. But it does not work. Any attempt to create a communist country has failed. And that is became humans are exactly that, humans. And everyone seeks advantage over the other. So some form of government needs to be put in place because otherwise chaos arises. And while "democracy is the worst system but the others" (Churchill), our system gives us 1. A system that splits up the power so no single figure can become the most powerful figure and basically be an autocrat 2. A system were the leading figures are not determined by the elite but by everyone.

 

By the way, isn't it "sic semper tyrannis"?

lol communism is NOT anarchy, you clearly are not old enough xD. And by the way why east european states doesnt want EU is precisely because we already had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comecon

 

read it and think

 

as for leading figures... did you ever voted for Junker? did you ever voted for Tusk?

 

Have you ever read Marx? The final stage of communism is an anarchist society without any government. This should be reached through a revolution and a temporary dictate of the proletariat, which Marx refers to as socialism. All real-world "communist" states never got beyond this stage.

 

However, Marx himself admitted his goals were unreachable due to human nature.

 

yeah I am not talking about Marxism, which may sound like nice idea but look where it end in reality. Again you need to work with facts and historical evidence, not with you wet dreams

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

Leviathan, as in the monster?

See, while in theory, communism (which is an anarchy) surely is the best system. But it does not work. Any attempt to create a communist country has failed. And that is became humans are exactly that, humans. And everyone seeks advantage over the other. So some form of government needs to be put in place because otherwise chaos arises. And while "democracy is the worst system but the others" (Churchill), our system gives us 1. A system that splits up the power so no single figure can become the most powerful figure and basically be an autocrat 2. A system were the leading figures are not determined by the elite but by everyone.

 

By the way, isn't it "sic semper tyrannis"?

lol communism is NOT anarchy, you clearly are not old enough xD. And by the way why east european states doesnt want EU is precisely because we already had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comecon

 

read it and think

 

as for leading figures... did you ever voted for Junker? did you ever voted for Tusk?

Have you ever read Marx? The final stage of communism is an anarchist society without any government. This should be reached through a revolution and a temporary dictate of the proletariat, which Marx refers to as socialism. All real-world "communist" states never got beyond this stage.

 

However, Marx himself admitted his goals were unreachable due to human nature.

yeah I am not talking about Marxism, which may sound like nice idea but look where it end in reality. Again you need to work with facts and historical evidence, not with you wet dreams

You were the one to say communism isn't anarchy. I was not making historical references to communist regimes in the past, I referred to the philosophical idea of communism.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

 

Leviathan, as in the monster?

See, while in theory, communism (which is an anarchy) surely is the best system. But it does not work. Any attempt to create a communist country has failed. And that is became humans are exactly that, humans. And everyone seeks advantage over the other. So some form of government needs to be put in place because otherwise chaos arises. And while "democracy is the worst system but the others" (Churchill), our system gives us 1. A system that splits up the power so no single figure can become the most powerful figure and basically be an autocrat 2. A system were the leading figures are not determined by the elite but by everyone.

 

By the way, isn't it "sic semper tyrannis"?

lol communism is NOT anarchy, you clearly are not old enough xD. And by the way why east european states doesnt want EU is precisely because we already had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comecon

 

read it and think

 

as for leading figures... did you ever voted for Junker? did you ever voted for Tusk?

 

Have you ever read Marx? The final stage of communism is an anarchist society without any government. This should be reached through a revolution and a temporary dictate of the proletariat, which Marx refers to as socialism. All real-world "communist" states never got beyond this stage.

 

However, Marx himself admitted his goals were unreachable due to human nature.

 

yeah I am not talking about Marxism, which may sound like nice idea but look where it end in reality. Again you need to work with facts and historical evidence, not with you wet dreams

 

You were the one to say communism isn't anarchy. I was not making historical references to communist regimes in the past, I referred to the philosophical idea of communism.

 

Yeah I get feeling that everything you write here is only philosophical idea, I am trying to show you how such ideas end up in reality

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

 

Leviathan, as in the monster?

See, while in theory, communism (which is an anarchy) surely is the best system. But it does not work. Any attempt to create a communist country has failed. And that is became humans are exactly that, humans. And everyone seeks advantage over the other. So some form of government needs to be put in place because otherwise chaos arises. And while "democracy is the worst system but the others" (Churchill), our system gives us 1. A system that splits up the power so no single figure can become the most powerful figure and basically be an autocrat 2. A system were the leading figures are not determined by the elite but by everyone.

 

By the way, isn't it "sic semper tyrannis"?

lol communism is NOT anarchy, you clearly are not old enough xD. And by the way why east european states doesnt want EU is precisely because we already had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comecon

 

read it and think

 

as for leading figures... did you ever voted for Junker? did you ever voted for Tusk?

Have you ever read Marx? The final stage of communism is an anarchist society without any government. This should be reached through a revolution and a temporary dictate of the proletariat, which Marx refers to as socialism. All real-world "communist" states never got beyond this stage.

 

However, Marx himself admitted his goals were unreachable due to human nature.

yeah I am not talking about Marxism, which may sound like nice idea but look where it end in reality. Again you need to work with facts and historical evidence, not with you wet dreams

You were the one to say communism isn't anarchy. I was not making historical references to communist regimes in the past, I referred to the philosophical idea of communism.

Yeah I get feeling that everything you write here is only philosophical idea, I am trying to show you how such ideas end up in reality

I'd say the refugees and importance of the European Union as both a political and economic union of common interest as well as its role in peacekeeping is pretty real. As is the EUs state of instability that is not exactly helped by with Brexit

[Chilloutman]

I'd say the refugees and importance of the European Union as both a political and economic union of common interest as well as its role in peacekeeping is pretty real. As is the EUs state of instability that is not exactly helped by with Brexit

I am getting lost, what is your point? Why do you want to govern other people who don't wish it? You agree with Merkel that you want refugees illegal immigrants as benefit to your country - yet you try to stuff them into other countries which don't wish them. Whole Germany is walking contradiction in EU