Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
Do you see it overall as being good outweighs the bad for example?

Overall, good. (I'll explain later)

No poll andyh?

I'll leave a poll off because I don't think a lot of people will like a clear cut yes/no on this one

My own opinion is that the EU is a good thing.

My reasoning is as follows:

a) I love travelling (and it'll boost tourism ofc)
b) I like the idea of a currency unit so I can see the various prices and make quick comparisons mentally quickly.
c) It will act as a tempering power to the US which has been a bully for far too long.
d) It will encourage people to see what they have in common rather than what they have which sets them apart.
e) It puts pressure on Russia to throw its lot in with the EU instead of China.

I do see problems with it, certainly with the lack of democracy in the EU parliament and the giant red tape it has made but that is inevitable when it comes to politicians everywhere.
As for one world govt, I hope to see evolution towards a world WITHOUT ANY govt of the rep democracy type that we have seen thus far and I believe the only way for us to evolve towards that is to perhaps play right into the hands of globalists on this issue as I believe it will backfire on them. I think that if enough people can become united on core issues then we might see positive change, such as the removal of tax havens...only something as powerful as a united Europe could do that.

EU law is above EU country member state, which means:
1) Member country looses it's autonomy (aka politicians loosing power and influence)
2) Free movement and employment in any of the 27(+1) member states (fear from the natives' part that anyone can come and "take their jobs")

I would like to argue the second. Nobody is gonna give anyone any jobs if they are not qualified, be it resident or immigrant, and this is a good thing, because it will weed out the incompetent, the scroungers and the lazy.

Overall, I'm against it purely because it was never set up to be what it purports to be. It was set up to benefit the people that now dominate the society, economy and culture.

Let me just deal with these points one-by-one.

That’s fine, I don’t have a problem with that, and ideally you would want pretty much completely open borders. But given the insane economic system it pretty much inevitably leads to economic tourism, which given the total lack of value that labour has and the fact that there are grossly differing economic circumstances in Europe naturally leads to the value of labour being battered down even further. The Swiss recently voted for strong curbs against immigration; in principle I am against this, in practice I can entirely understand why it has happened.

I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with this. Everyone got screwed when the currencies were converted, of course.

Are they doing this? Not convinced. Apart from European powers forming a significant part of NATO, they all get together at Bilderberg and wank each other off, so I’m not really sure that it’s doing much good in this regard.

Agreed. This is my one hope with regard to the economic situation.

I would be highly surprised if this happens considering everyone in the EU is broke apart from Germany!

It's good to be optimistic, though, maybe some good could come of it.

I see the EU akin to how I see globalization.
The complete bastardization of a good idea that precludes the good idea from ever taking hold.
Therefore I see the EU as inherently bad.
Plus, if you wish for direct democracy, or anything like it, it's not wise to hand power to folk even further away and more detached than Westminster say...

The EU started as a trade agreement and it is progressing towards the United States of Europe. Much like the USA in it's early stages there was a lot of civil unrest, they got over it (well sorta, apart from Texas).
But unlike the USA, Europe is very diversified. Are we ever gonna see a unified Europe? I doubt. Reason is... culture, different languages, different heritages.
The UK, that is so against the EU, is actually the one who started it in the first place.

I'd just like to point out here btw how already we can see how people on this forum disagree with me on some issues

So this idea that we all agree on everything is a bit of a myth.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I would say in reply to WUB here.

a) I meant tourism not working so I'm not looking at how its obviously nuts in that regard, I would agree there are obvious differences, however ofc I'm looking forward to a day when there are no such differences

b) Yeah, happens inevitably at first, settles itself out after a while though. Ireland had the issue only for a few weeks and mainly with small biz etc.

c) Yes, definitely. The EU people as a whole are against the US wars in the middle east, the british govt have up until recently supported them ofc. Theres also the argument of US corporations such as Monsanto and what they have been up to, the EU thus far is very anti-Monsanto and have banned GM foods and most of the EU (apart from the UK again) banned fluoride for example so there are many ways in which the EU is pitted against the US and the US certainly sees the EU as a threat, especially when concerned with the UK who they would prefer to be outside the EU.

e) Yeah, it is an optimistic attitude, hope is all you can have at this point. Certainly regarding the Ukraine for example, the ppl in the Ukraine are playing piggy in the middle between Russian and Western interests...I say western because the US is involved along with the EU.
Its ironic how the EU plays to US interests in this example but not in many other ways.

marina wrote:
Hmm I would say the Germans started it during WW2 and to quite an extent afterwards, I'm curious to see how you see the UK as starting it though. Perhaps you're looking at WInston Churchill in 1949? Remember the ECSC was formed without the involvement of the UK.
Although you are right to include that reference as he was no doubt one of the globalist elite.

The UK MSM has done everything possible to demonize the EU. Just think of the reasoning behind that, and who's behind that - the politicians, who are pro USA and have supported US invasions of other countries.

Good point, yes. They're not doing quite so well on the banking front, unfortunately!

marina wrote:


durka durka jerbs!!!

marina wrote:
Yes, they have consistently given far too much airtime to the likes of Nigel Farrage and UKIP despite them not having the vote required for that coverage.
We all know the guy is a fake. He makes a lot of money out of it though as he says lol...

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Yep thats the prime directive red line, no politician can cross that one

To ensure Germany could never threaten the peace again, its heavy industry was partly dismantled and its main coal-producing regions were detached (Saarland, Silesia), or put under international control (Ruhr area).

With statements such as Winston Churchill's 1946 call for a "United States of Europe" becoming louder, in 1949 the Council of Europe was established as the first pan-European organisation. In the year following, on 9 May 1950, the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed a community to integrate the coal and steel industries of Europe – these being the two elements necessary to make weapons of war.
wiki.

marina wrote: You see this is a legitimate argument which has been exploited to create something different. There is a lot of this kind of rhetoric with regard to the formation and continuation of Bilderberg. You can hear Tony Benn talking about this here:



Of course, there's little danger of a war in Europe today. Who needs a war when the establishment is completely in control?

marina wrote:
The thing is that at the time Churchill called for this, he was never intending the UK itself to be a part of it, lol

Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community

Signed: 18 April 1951
Entered into force: 23 July 1952
Expired: 23 July 2002

Purpose: to create interdependence in coal and steel so that one country could no longer mobilise its armed forces without others knowing. This eased distrust and tensions after WWII. The ECSC treaty expired in 2002.


Treaties of Rome - EEC and EURATOM treaties

Signed: 25 March 1957
Entered into force: 1 January 1958

Purpose: to set up the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).

Main changes: extension of European integration to include general economic cooperation.

Merger Treaty - Brussels Treaty

Signed: 8 April 1965
Entered into force: 1 July 1967

Purpose: to streamline the European institutions.

Main changes: creation of a single Commission and a single Council to serve the then three European Communities (EEC, Euratom, ECSC). Repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam.

Single European Act

Signed: 17 February 1986 (Luxembourg) / 28 February 1986 (The Hague)
Entered into force: 1 July 1987

Purpose: to reform the institutions in preparation for Portugal and Spain's membership and speed up decision-making in preparation for the single market.

Main changes: extension of qualified majority voting in the Council (making it harder for a single country to veto proposed legislation), creation of the cooperation and assent procedures, giving Parliament more influence.

Treaty on European Union - Maastricht Treaty

Signed: 7 February 1992
Entered into force: 1 November 1993

Purpose: to prepare for European Monetary Union and introduce elements of a political union (citizenship, common foreign and internal affairs policy).

Main changes: establishment of the European Union and introduction of the co-decision procedure, giving Parliament more say in decision-making. New forms of cooperation between EU governments – for example on defence and justice and home affairs.


Treaty of Amsterdam

Signed: 2 October 1997
Entered into force: 1 May 1999

Purpose: To reform the EU institutions in preparation for the arrival of future member countries.

Main changes: amendment, renumbering and consolidation of EU and EEC treaties. More transparent decision-making (increased use of the co-decision voting procedure).

Treaty of Nice

Signed: 26 February 2001
Entered into force: 1 February 2003

Purpose: to reform the institutions so that the EU could function efficiently after reaching 25 member countries.

Main changes: methods for changing the composition of the Commission and redefining the voting system in the Council.

Treaty of Lisbon

Signed: 13 December 2007
Entered into force: 1 December 2009

Purpose: to make the EU more democratic, more efficient and better able to address global problems, such as climate change, with one voice.

Main changes: more power for the European Parliament, change of voting procedures in the Council, citizens' initiative, a permanent president of the European Council, a new High Representative for Foreign Affairs, a new EU diplomatic service.

The Lisbon treaty clarifies which powers:

belong to the EU
belong to EU member countries
are shared.

Its a slow procedure and I can see some very difficult issues to overcome.
I've always said to the nazis that the reason why immigrants come to the UK is merely because its so shit in those other countries, not necessarily because its 'so great' in the UK.

The EU perhaps took on too much too soon and too fast IMHO. People are not electronic banking systems. But the twats running the show don't care ofc, they don't really give a shit about us. I think the last of those guys who had a tiny tiny semblence of give a shit were the likes of Heath,Benn and Meacher and they were idiots at the whim of their public servants just like in 'Yes, Minister!' which wasn't a comedy it was a bloody documentary IMHO