4 ms·

> it's a brutalized self-sabotaging entity that has disillusioned the general public to veer rightwards It hasn’t, it only disillusioned those people (like the

by xk_id 2y ago

> it's a brutalized self-sabotaging entity that has disillusioned the general public to veer rightwards It hasn’t, it only disillusioned those people (like the brits) who didn’t understand the purpose of the EU to begin with. The economic benefits were always considered secondary objectives, subordinated to the main principle of cooperation. This is public knowledge, it was made very clear in the foundational documents of the EU. And therefore the EU has indeed been very successful and its effect is unprecedented: since its inception, we are seeing the longest period ever recorded without a war between European countries.

mytailorisrich 2y ago
The Brits perfectly understood one of the aims of the EU and always disagreed with it. One of the aim is political integration and weakening of each member's sovereignty. The UK does not want this but was OK with the common market.
- xk_id 2y ago
  When the question of whether to join the EU, the brits were actually manipulated by their politicians, who presented the EU as an “economic” project. This perception never went away, so when the EU proceeded as it had intended from the beginning, the brits started to resist and realised they had been mislead. The EU stipulates very clearly that the common market and its potential economic benefits are simply a means to an end; that end is to get European countries to see each other as equals.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    No, the end is to destroy national identities and cultures and we are seeing an increasing pushback against that. I feel that if British concerns, including about immigration and free movement had been addressed Brexit and the current turmoil within the EU would have all been averted. This disconnect with the people's concerns is a key issue the EU has to face or be torn apart. Germany suddenly deciding to reintroduce border controls is especially telling and highly ironic.
    - xk_id 2y ago
      > No, the end is to destroy national identities and cultures I was referring to the official position of the EU, which is verifiable in their public documents; I don’t care about far-right propaganda. People of course are free to care more about “cultural identity” (whatever it means in the 21st century), than about war. But it doesn’t change the fact that the EU has been successful in creating the longest period of continuous peace in the history of the continent. And this is what it intended from the beginning.
      - jokethrowaway 2y ago
        I think the formation of EU was irrelevant for peace. It's all NATO. And even then, it's arguable whether they did a good job or put too much unneeded pressure to Russia.
        anon_e-moose 2y ago
        Nobody will declare war on their neighbour when they depend on them for food and other essential resources. The EU addresses resource and cultural motivations. NATO intimidates countries that already want to take resources from their neighbours. NATO has its merit as well, but the EU is unarguably one of the main reasons why EU countries have not even begun to think about creating military conflict within member states since the 1950s.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        I think the formation of EU was irrelevant for peace. Disagree. Going from a bombed-out, stone-age hellscape to conflict-free and essentially borderless in just 47 years was a very impressive achievement. Unfortunately for the past several years we've been headed in the reverse direction.
      - mytailorisrich 2y ago
        I think throwing abuse like calling my previous comment "far right propaganda" is a case in point of how rotten the debate has become in Europe on any actual, serious issues, and especially on the possibility to express concerns. To deny the very existence of cultural identities is also quite bizarre. Of course countries have their own cultural identies and this is in fact something absolutely key in the current political dynamics in Europe.

by xk_id 2y ago

mytailorisrich 2y ago

The Brits perfectly understood one of the aims of the EU and always disagreed with it. One of the aim is political integration and weakening of each member's sovereignty. The UK does not want this but was OK with the common market.

xk_id 2y ago
When the question of whether to join the EU, the brits were actually manipulated by their politicians, who presented the EU as an “economic” project. This perception never went away, so when the EU proceeded as it had intended from the beginning, the brits started to resist and realised they had been mislead. The EU stipulates very clearly that the common market and its potential economic benefits are simply a means to an end; that end is to get European countries to see each other as equals.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  No, the end is to destroy national identities and cultures and we are seeing an increasing pushback against that. I feel that if British concerns, including about immigration and free movement had been addressed Brexit and the current turmoil within the EU would have all been averted. This disconnect with the people's concerns is a key issue the EU has to face or be torn apart. Germany suddenly deciding to reintroduce border controls is especially telling and highly ironic.
  - xk_id 2y ago
    > No, the end is to destroy national identities and cultures I was referring to the official position of the EU, which is verifiable in their public documents; I don’t care about far-right propaganda. People of course are free to care more about “cultural identity” (whatever it means in the 21st century), than about war. But it doesn’t change the fact that the EU has been successful in creating the longest period of continuous peace in the history of the continent. And this is what it intended from the beginning.
    - jokethrowaway 2y ago
      I think the formation of EU was irrelevant for peace. It's all NATO. And even then, it's arguable whether they did a good job or put too much unneeded pressure to Russia.
      - anon_e-moose 2y ago
        Nobody will declare war on their neighbour when they depend on them for food and other essential resources. The EU addresses resource and cultural motivations. NATO intimidates countries that already want to take resources from their neighbours. NATO has its merit as well, but the EU is unarguably one of the main reasons why EU countries have not even begun to think about creating military conflict within member states since the 1950s.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        I think the formation of EU was irrelevant for peace. Disagree. Going from a bombed-out, stone-age hellscape to conflict-free and essentially borderless in just 47 years was a very impressive achievement. Unfortunately for the past several years we've been headed in the reverse direction.
    - mytailorisrich 2y ago
      I think throwing abuse like calling my previous comment "far right propaganda" is a case in point of how rotten the debate has become in Europe on any actual, serious issues, and especially on the possibility to express concerns. To deny the very existence of cultural identities is also quite bizarre. Of course countries have their own cultural identies and this is in fact something absolutely key in the current political dynamics in Europe.