Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NATO is not a big deal, France re-integration is anecdotal in truth. Basically, the EU will steer again to a France / Germany centric vision, that's a given.
Why do I consider the EU as critical for the continent? Because I believe the 2 world wars and other wars before were the biggest mistakes and the EU is preventing it. Norway or Switzerland all have huge treaties just to have access to the single market and are all part of the freedom of move of capital and citizens. The only difference? They do not get to have a say on the future of Europe. Therefore I am not sure I get your point. Could you explain?
The EU is a block that does not forget that despite the differences, the US are closer than Russia. I think it's really just down to that. I believe in the Federation of Europe, and Kant’s idea of cosmopolitan right. This will make it stronger, better, and again, peaceful within its boarders. And still have more power to negotiate a deal with whoever it may concern. If the UK believes that trading with the EU is of no interest, that's also fine. If it is of interest, they will basically become like Norway and/or Switzerland. Which is a form of union with no benefits.
First and foremost I dislike profoundly Kant's philosophy which states that "the truth lies in me" [me, the individual]. I believe there is an immanent truth bigger than me. So if you want, contrary to Kant, I'm a gnostic.But never mind. I'm all in favour of European countries having "huge" treaties between them and close commercial relations like ALENA , CARICOM, ASEAN, etc. I'm against an integrated, expensive, bureaucratic , centralized, meddling Europe like today though, and my little finger tells me I'm not the only one in Europe.
Now to set the facts straight, the EU didn't prevent wars. First of all it didn't prevent the bombing of Serbia by NATO-quite the opposite in fact, it helped it and condoned it. Right now it seems quite helpless in face of the war islamist extremists are waging against us. I even doubt it helped with the fall of the Berlin Wall, which was essentially the result of the policies of appeasement of Reagan and Gorbatchow.
And saying Russia is not as close to us as America as it is on the same continent and has the same European culture is an insult to my intelligence.
First and foremost I dislike profoundly Kant's philosophy which states that "the truth lies in me" [me, the individual]. I believe there is an immanent truth bigger than me. So if you want, contrary to Kant, I'm a gnostic.But never mind. I'm all in favour of European countries having "huge" treaties between them and close commercial relations like ALENA , CARICOM, ASEAN, etc. I'm against an integrated, expensive, bureaucratic , centralized, meddling Europe like today though, and my little finger tells me I'm not the only one in Europe.
Now to set the facts straight, the EU didn't prevent wars. First of all it didn't prevent the bombing of Serbia by NATO-quite the opposite in fact, it helped it and condoned it. Right now it seems quite helpless in face of the war islamist extremists are waging against us. I even doubt it helped with the fall of the Berlin Wall, which was essentially the result of the policies of appeasement of Reagan and Gorbatchow.
And saying Russia is not as close to us as America as it is on the same continent and has the same European culture is an insult to my intelligence.
Let's try to put things in perspective.
First, was Serbia part of the EU when the war happened? No. What I am saying is simply this: all countries, with nationalistic minds, will at some point end up in a war for supremacy because there's nothing preventing it. Economic ties make sure that we value those more than nationalistic (and quite frankly, xenophobic at this point) thoughts.
And in Europe, we have a history of being extreme when it comes to protect the nation. Recently, for a football games, some guys were ready to die. If you give them a nationalistic purpose, you know how this will end.
As a French citizen, I have never seen a war similar to world war 2 in France, and I am thankful to the EU for that.
Islamic terrorism, however you wish it, is not a war a la world war 2. Not even close.
Second, do you really believe that Russia is in line with the EU vision of the world? Traditionally, after the war, Europe had 2 visions: the West, and the East. You and I (I presume you are from the UK) are from countries in the Western block. East European blocks had different values, both politically and economically.
When the Berlin wall collapsed, most of the East European countries adhered to the Western values, which made them closer to the EU. Not Russia.
In contrast, the USA are plainly the symbol of Western values.
If we try to go back in History, the European heritage of Russia was never fully agreed. In the 18th century, the Tsar asked to create maps with limits to the Ural to make sure Moscow becomes an European city. Until that, Europeans used to consider Russia in Asia. So that's quite recent. However that vision stayed, and now Russia is in Europe - Eastern Europe.
I hope saying that is not an insult to your intelligence. It is not my intention anyway.
Third, for Kant, yes, if you do not like him, there's not much I can say. I do love the philosophy, and believe he was right on the fact that we need more humanity in our approach. Any economic cooperation only makes sense in Europe when it's coupled with a political vision. Otherwise, there will be troubles, disputes and wars. And one day, a Trump will come, build a wall and destroy a NAFTA deal with Canada and Mexico. That's it!
First and foremost I dislike profoundly Kant's philosophy which states that "the truth lies in me" [me, the individual]. I believe there is an immanent truth bigger than me. So if you want, contrary to Kant, I'm a gnostic.But never mind. I'm all in favour of European countries having "huge" treaties between them and close commercial relations like ALENA , CARICOM, ASEAN, etc. I'm against an integrated, expensive, bureaucratic , centralized, meddling Europe like today though, and my little finger tells me I'm not the only one in Europe.
Now to set the facts straight, the EU didn't prevent wars. First of all it didn't prevent the bombing of Serbia by NATO-quite the opposite in fact, it helped it and condoned it. Right now it seems quite helpless in face of the war islamist extremists are waging against us. I even doubt it helped with the fall of the Berlin Wall, which was essentially the result of the policies of appeasement of Reagan and Gorbatchow.
And saying Russia is not as close to us as America as it is on the same continent and has the same European culture is an insult to my intelligence.
The fall of Berlin Wall happened before the EU.
The EU can't prevent wars between all countries, and quite honestly doesn't always try to. The idea is to prevent wars between member states. Although I just can't envision a probable scenario in which Germany and France - or any other Western European countries - come to blows in any foreseeable future with or without EU.
And Russia may be on the same continent, but their mentality is not a Western European mentality. Just look at it's history, it's political structure, the strong and largely unbroken tradition of autocratic government / dictatorship. In that respect, the US or Canada are indeed closer to the countries like UK or Germany (although not the same).
The one thing you said that I am fully in agreement with is the bureaucratic, elitist, meddling and thoroughly undemocratic nature of EU governance. That alone is #1 reason to start from scratch.
The one thing you said that I am fully in agreement with is the bureaucratic, elitist, meddling and thoroughly undemocratic nature of EU governance. That alone is #1 reason to start from scratch.
??? Nothing gets into effect without the elected MEPs voting on it.
??? Nothing gets into effect without the elected MEPs voting on it.
Do the MEPs from each country have the right of veto ? Or can the EU impose rules and regulations on member states that the MEPs from these states voted against ?
Do the MEPs from each country have to follow that country's government's policy, or can they vote along the party lines in EP and against their own country's elected government ?
Finally, do people in Britain get to directly elect the head of the European Union executive branch ?
Do the MEPs from each country have the right of veto ? Or can the EU impose rules and regulations on metates that the MEPs from these states voted against ?
Do the MEPs from each country have to follow that country's government's policy, or can they vote along the party lines in EP and against their own country's elected government ?
Finally, do people in Britain get to directly elect the head of the European Union executive branch ?
Countries maintain a veto on key areas including constitutional change and the eu has very limited powers compared to a national government. The two chambers are made of the council with representatives from each national goverment and the 2nd made of the MEPs both have to ratify a bill.
MEPs are elected so can vote however they want.
The people of Britian don't get to directly elect the Primeminister of Britain - Cameron's replacement will not be elected. The eu heads are basically figure heads with power residing with the National Governments.
The EU will be fine. Even if France and/or Germany were to leave (doubtful they would), there would still be some sort of union in Europe. The EU is based off of the old Benelux cooperative system ( that's why the headquarters are in Brussels, they even experimented with their own currency) and were not dependent on a major powerhouse. France joined later as did a few other countries that led to the European Community and later the EU.
The EU will be fine. Even if France and/or Germany were to leave (doubtful they would), there would still be some sort of union in Europe. The EU is based off of the old Benelux cooperative system ( that's why the headquarters are in Brussels, they even experimented with their own currency) and were not dependent on a major powerhouse. France joined later as did a few other countries that led to the European Community and later the EU.
I wouldn't be so sure if i was you You really don't get how much money the UK was putting into the pot do you?
Where is that money gonna come from? Who is gonna provide free housing, free education, free medical care, unemployment benefits, chid benefits etc for the citizens of Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Greece etc ?
The EEC of old is nothing like the modern fascist state the EU has become!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You really don't get how much money the UK was putting into the pot do you?
