The Student Room Group

Nutty EU bureaucrats, butthurt over the Brexit vote, propose abolishing countries

Their proposals include abolishing national armies and replacing them with an EU one, replacing national criminal law with law chosen by Eurocrats (did you know they're tax exempt?), setting taxes uniformly at a European level, and abolishing central banks.

Frankly I hope that they succeed in their fevered dream of creating the Fourth Reich. That way, the triggered-happy Remaniac virgins will finally have somewhere to emigrate to. 😋

Scroll to see replies

Reich = Holy Roman Empire
Reply 2
Don't worry, they don't ever want you to leave because it's for your own good, you silly plebeian. They decide for you because they love you.
Original post by Mathemagicien
You say that as though its a bad thing...

The main problem today with the EU is that the countries are so different, these proposals will help reduce that


Well, it is.

Got any ideas why it would be a good thing?
Reply 4
Original post by Mathemagicien
You say that as though its a bad thing...

The main problem today with the EU is that the countries are so different, these proposals will help reduce that


How do they propose to rationalise the colossal difference in wealth between the countries?

It's taken 20+ years for East Germany to catch up with West Germany and even then it's not finished. How can nations as different as Greece, Portugal, Slovakia, Germany, etc be expected to be equal?
Reply 5
History of EU lies:

1) There's no EU you silly conspiracy theorist.
2) There is an EU but it's only to help the single market work better. Of course it won't decide national laws, you silly conspiracy theorist.
3) There is an EU and it does decide national laws, but of course it doesn't have precedence over them, you silly conspiracy theorist.
4) The EU does have precedence over national laws, but that doesn't mean you can't veto them, you silly conspiracy theorist.
5) Yes, you're right, your veto is meaningless and the EU commission decides what is implemented or not, but that doesn't mean the democratically elected MEPs can't overrule them, you silly conspiracy theorist.
6) Yes, the commission can ignore the MEPs whenever it wants and it says so 5 times in the Lisbon treaty, but **** you you stupid conspiracy theorist! Racist!
7) You can leave whenever you want. No, we won't make you vote again and again until you vote to stay in, you Nazi kook.
8) You can't leave! We'll take away your army and abolish your country! L'EU est de nous!
Original post by Mathemagicien
You say that as though its a bad thing...

The main problem today with the EU is that the countries are so different, these proposals will help reduce that


Where is so positive in destroying people's sense of identity to create a United States of Europe?
Original post by Mathemagicien
Do you wonder why the USA is much more powerful than Europe, despite Europe's greater population and GDP?



Obviously it'll take a long time (and I agree the euro project has been very rushed, it should have happened much slower), but it is obviously possible for them to catch up; many Eastern European states, e.g. Poland, have been consistently outgrowing Western ones, even with huge emigration, huge demographic problems, and still a lot of corruption


They'd have done a lot better at it if they hadn't inflicted a currency designed for Germany on them. Without that, it would have been a simple matter of progressively improving their economies with smart regional policies and introducing better government and anti-corruption measures.
Original post by Gora The Xplorer
Where is so positive in destroying people's sense of identity to create a United States of Europe?


They would have to agree to it first, via the EU Parliament and their own.

Today we hear that the US are extraditing another British schoolboy hacker with personality disorders to the ghastly gulags of the US inJustice system, something which raises not a murmur from the Europhobic Right. It would seem that US imperialism is OK, but not EU imperialism, even though the latter is actually a damn sight more democratic.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
They would have to agree to it first, via the EU Parliament and their own.

Today we hear that the US are extraditing another British schoolboy hacker with personality disorders to the ghastly gulags of the US inJustice system, something which raises not a murmur from the Europhobic Right. It would seem that US imperialism is OK, but not EU imperialism, even though the latter is actually a damn sight more democratic.


Schoolboy? He's like 31. Why would there be a murmur? We've extradited loads of people from the USA as well. In fact the USA has never refused a request, while we've refused a dozen. Where's the imperialism? Is this just you being sensationalist and melodramatic again?
Original post by Fullofsurprises
They would have to agree to it first, via the EU Parliament and their own.

Today we hear that the US are extraditing another British schoolboy hacker with personality disorders to the ghastly gulags of the US inJustice system, something which raises not a murmur from the Europhobic Right. It would seem that US imperialism is OK, but not EU imperialism, even though the latter is actually a damn sight more democratic.


Many people in Europe don't feel represented by the EU Parliament or their own Parliaments, I'm not talking Britain, I'm talking the central heartlands of the EU such as Germany and the Netherlands. Many of the long-term goals of the European Union seem ideological rather than economic. I in fact did believe in the EU project economically, my hope being that in the long-term the less developed countries would grow into prosperous nation states under the guidance of the Western and Northern European economies which would in turn ease strain on the UK. Weather the storm while we help our friends out and bask in the sunlight at the end of it all.

I'm not very happy about that sort of thing, people with learning difficulties and developmental disorders should generally receive treatment rather than cruel punitive measures in a comparatively quite backward country, but I haven't looked at this case personally.
Reply 11
Original post by Fullofsurprises
They would have to agree to it first, via the EU Parliament and their own.

Today we hear that the US are extraditing another British schoolboy hacker with personality disorders to the ghastly gulags of the US inJustice system, something which raises not a murmur from the Europhobic Right. It would seem that US imperialism is OK, but not EU imperialism, even though the latter is actually a damn sight more democratic.


You do realise this is a coup d'etat?
Okay but don't you people get we need a form of EU regardless of what its called in order to cooperate and indeed reduce individual sovereignty of nations and establish a form of checks and balances upon ourselves in order to prevent conflict in Europe - political or otherwise (yes, war).

Edit: So if this EU collapses, there will still be 'a' form of union, Plus, you cannot reverse globalisation.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 13
Original post by Mathemagicien
You can reverse globalisation, and there will not be a war in Europe even without the EU (or any form of political union)

We don't need an EU to cooperate, at a minimal level, with our trade partners; simple self-interest suffices


As automation progresses and most countries achieve energy independence (nuclear, thorium, electric cars and so on), the only trade that would need to happen between countries is that of resources. There would be no need for the global supply chain to exist as it does today, because there would be no labour manufacturing advantage in poor countries.

Therefore, the only reason that globalisation would continue in its current form would be political - to keep countries dependent on unaccountable global megacorporations, that would in secret set global policy.

This is what the TTIP and TPP is.
Original post by 41b
As automation progresses and most countries achieve energy independence (nuclear, thorium, electric cars and so on), the only trade that would need to happen between countries is that of resources. There would be no need for the global supply chain to exist as it does today, because there would be no labour manufacturing advantage in poor countries.

Therefore, the only reason that globalisation would continue in its current form would be political - to keep countries dependent on unaccountable global megacorporations, that would in secret set global policy.

This is what the TTIP and TPP is.


The Pope runs the show. Hence another Catholic Reich.
Original post by Mathemagicien
You say that as though its a bad thing...

The main problem today with the EU is that the countries are so different, these proposals will help reduce that


It's the attempt to force countries into compliance in the first place that has really made a problem.

There's a great example from history of this. For the communist leadership in the USSR religion was of course seen as a problem for basically, it wasn't rational and it was also linked to the establishment and institutes of old that had been seen as manipulating the people and misleading them with lies. On the right side of the political argument there you had more support for a softer approach, to let education solve the problem and so on. On the left side you had a very brutal and harsh approach.

The latter is what happens when you have too much fanaticism and when you believe in moral and ideological superiority. The left won out mostly and the results were horrific in terms of the cost not only of human life but to quality of life for many. The irony is that it didn't work that well and that in Europe the soft approach worked extremely well with religion declining naturally. The result on the Soviet side may have been some reduction through sheer force and effects that were already happening from modernisation but it also caused many people to be more defensive and hold dear of what they had rather than abandon it leading to a more strongly embedded and fervent religious element in places. Many speculate that today Russia might be more religious overall than it would have been because of it.

In these days it's unlikely to see anyone under the flag of fanaticism go quite as far as the soviets did but they can still go too far. The EU has some fanaticism in its goals and ideals which can lead it to go too far too fast. The free movement of people is an instrument of the EU towards achieving the goal of greater union across Europe.

I voted leave. I'm not entirely objectionable to the goals of the EU but when it is forced upon us that is not acceptable. We cannot control the freedom of movement of people from the EU, even when we are entering crisis partly linked to this. If we were in the EEA and we would be able to invoke section 3 of article 112 legitimately without too much fuss to control the flow of people. This would not be unreasonable. It would slow things down a bit and later when we're ready we would be back into the slow creep towards European unification at a comfortable pace where no one feels pressured or coerced. In fact by imposing limits we would not be abandoning the principle of a greater union but preserving it in the long run. A greater union first doctrine is as extreme as a military first doctrine and sometimes when you immediately put on thing first all the time you undermine it because sometimes it depends on the success of something else.

For the EU we must have full freedom of movement to support their goal even if it is potentially becoming a severe detriment to us not to be able to temporarily control on occasion. If there are fears of it being perpetual they would not be warranted since the EU would expect us to improve the immigration from outside the EU in order to resume unrestricted movement of people and to only invoke it again if it were actually a problem or linked to solving a problem. If we failed to fix the non-EU immigration problem or adjust to cope then the EU would be in a strong position to take measures to ensure that we did fix it.

For the EU not to budge on this, to have people to come in order to indoctrinate us, make us more favourable to them and so on is a strange kind of indoctrination. It's like insisting we allow as many preachers to come to the UK. It's almost a kind of new age non-militarily enforced form of the requiremento (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Requirement_of_1513).

It would not destroy the EU to grant us this right. It might force it to give the same to other nations but that would not be a problem because conditions would have to be met. I am sure they would want us to deal with much of the difficulty of being able to implement it and putting in place a system but I don't see that as being a problem and it would also deter other nations from asking for the same frivolously.

I think this was crucial to the vote. Even if you don't care about making sure immigration is manageable and that we can cope but you care about sovereignty it's crucial to that. If we can't have control over our territory when it comes to something as fundamental as our borders when it might actually be needed and when it is warranted then we really do not have sovereign control over our territory. Many people would be happy if we gained that territorial right of control but never actually used it.

In that specific sense it would be like buying a house and then being told that you aren't allowed to have yellow wallpaper. You might never ever want yellow wallpaper but you would be pretty damned annoyed at not having the right to have it on principle. The this means in relation to territory if that if you own territory, you have the right to choose who visits or not with reasonable exceptions such as the postman needs to get in, if the police need to visit and so on. Collectively we all have shared ownership of our country (although on paper it might be different by the establishment, in principle you have the people of the country and the country of the people with the government supposedly supporting the interests of the people and enforcing their will where reasonable working for them for the common good, the people's common good first and foremost).

In the reforms, Cameron was not able to get this and I am not even sure if he tried because he went for this whole making Britain less attractive thing which for one was a workaround (like getting light green wallpaper) the was not dependable and for two giving the conservative promise of cutting it but instead seeing it rise to record levels while rubbing people the wrong way with token gestures that were considered often unfair no one had much faith in such a weak measure from the conservatives really achieving much.

So if you think the EU had eased off a little on that issue which was really central to the reforms (if the EU had been harder on others I don't think anyone would have cared as a lot of that was really what the conservatives wanted) the chances are you would have seen a good majority for remain on a vote about the EU. The freedom of movement is a crucial part of solving the problem of "we are all too different". It's there to expose us to one another and hopefully to lead to integration (although at present immigration to the UK is happening faster than integration and at a scale where full integration may become next to impossible). This is something the EU refused to negotiate on solely in pursuance of their dream.

The EU didn't because of fanaticism and it's drive towards enforcing and coercing the great EU dream as soon as possible. If it does not learn from that and East Europe in particular realises the power France and Germany wield in the EU as they give up more and more of their sovereignty then we might see some real problems for the EU there. But then again, I suppose there's always Russia fearmongering to ensure they continually cosy up with the EU as in effect protectorates.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by MrControversial
It's the attempt to force countries into compliance in the first place that has really made a p............torates.


I really wish people like you didn't fill up the page with *******s about the USSR.
Original post by DorianGrayism
I really wish people like you didn't fill up the page with *******s about the USSR.


History is an important tool for understanding human nature and mistakes which are doomed to be repeated if ignored. Fanaticism and the forced creation of a grand ideal is a big one.
Reply 18
Original post by MrControversial
History is an important tool for understanding human nature and mistakes which are doomed to be repeated if ignored. Fanaticism and the forced creation of a grand ideal is a big one.


History is too triggering for them. They prefer fantasies.
Original post by 41b
Their proposals include abolishing national armies and replacing them with an EU one, replacing national criminal law with law chosen by Eurocrats (did you know they're tax exempt?), setting taxes uniformly at a European level, and abolishing central banks.

Frankly I hope that they succeed in their fevered dream of creating the Fourth Reich. That way, the triggered-happy Remaniac virgins will finally have somewhere to emigrate to. 😋


Sources?

Quick Reply