6 ms·

This has been the official line and "correct thought" for decades so it is unsurprising that it should yield results. It has gone into over-drive with, or thank

This has been the official line and "correct thought" for decades so it is unsurprising that it should yield results. It has gone into over-drive with, or thanks to, the war in Ulkraine, and renewed push for the EU to involved itself in military matters. Similarly, anyone who does not agree with further political integration, or objects that it is already too much, is depicted as wrong and, gasp, obviously "far right", as very well examplified in this article. Manufacturing consent works. > "No one is putting into question the existence of the EU anymore, but they fundamentally disagree [on] what they should do,*" This is a little misleading because this has actually been the main contention, not the very existence of the EU/EC even since the days of Margaret Thatcher. The debate has always mostly been about political integration, and that's what is being suppressed more and more. The far right may have been, in general, opposed to the EU but the fallacy, again, is the current use of the term "far right". Taking France as an example, the National Rally is now the largest party by votes and number of MPs, it is the main party of the right and not "far right", which is FUD. It has embraced the general euroscepticism of the traditional French right, including from the Gaullists (De Gaulle's political movement) but not the outright dismantling of the EU. Edit: Really the HN crowd has become very obtuse and narrow-minded... What's the point of posting these articles if commenters are only allowed to agree, or disagree, depending on what is the expected correct reaction?

coldtea 11mo ago
Such notions were also shot down when people had a chance to vote again and again (against the expansion of EU powers), but the bureucrats kept pushing and advertising (with public money) for it, and blackmailing countries with withdrawal of funds if they don't consent to them.
- throw-the-towel 11mo ago
  The voting will continue until morale improves!
saubeidl 11mo ago
I'm curious - how do you see Europe surviving if not through further integration? How do you envision, say Lithuania standing up to Russia, China or the US? What is your preferred model? All of us staying in little insignificant countries, kowtowing to larger powers? Also, the National Rally is clearly far-right. It was founded by former Waffen SS-members, for chrissake.
- mytailorisrich 11mo ago
  The fallacy is obvious right there... Why would "Europe's survival" be at stake without further integration? Why would Lithuania need to stand up to Russia, China, or the US? (In terms of defense there are military alliances. They have never required political union or giving up sovereignty) Edit as you added things: > Also, the National Rally is clearly far-right. Making outrageous claims does not make them factual. > It was founded by former Waffen SS-members, for chrissake. That's the FN that preceded the RN, some other founders were involved in the Resistance, too. That's the typical FUD narrative I mentioned, which takes the situation in 1972 and uses it to describe 2025. Are you saying that the majority of French MPs are Nazis? That's obviously ridiculous. Most US founding fathers were slave owners, so obviously the US are pro-slavery, like the Democratic Party that used to support slavery... Equally ridiculous. Again, today the RN is the main party of the right, nothing more. Their positions today would have made them in Chirac's rightwing government in 1986, not in the FN of the time. The situation today is more like this: "Why Serge Klarsfeld, the renowned Nazi hunter, says he's ready to vote RN" [1] clearly a little different from your claims... [1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2024/06/23/why-serge-klarsfeld-the-renowned-nazi-hunter-says-he-s-ready-to-vote-rn_6675540_5.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2024/06/23/why-se...
  - saubeidl 11mo ago
    Do you think Lithuania can in any way negotiate on anything approaching equal terms with any of those? What you're asking for is effectively to become a client state of one of the above. I notice you didn't address the elephant in the room regarding the National Rally, i.e. its founders being actual Nazis. (like, the Hitler kind, not just random right wing extremists). Changing their name does not make this any less true - hell, one of their founders was talking about putting a Jewish singer in the oven (!!!) only a few years ago.
hulitu 11mo ago
> What's the point of posting these articles if commenters are only allowed to agree, or disagree, depending on what is the expected correct reaction? As we say in the EU: to avoid fake news. You either agree with us, or we cancel you. /s
graemep 11mo ago
> This is a little misleading because this has actually been the main contention, not the very existence of the EU/EC even since the days of Margaret Thatcher. Why is Thatcher significant here? She was strongly pro-EEC - she supported remain in the 1975 referendum but she had been long out of any significant political influence by the time integration became more political. Looking at more recent British politics at the time of the 2016 referendum it was very common for remainers to claim that the EU was just a trade organisation and not going to evolve into a full political union or federal state. I think part of the problem is that the EU's founding treaties both indicate it is a supranational organisation and promise ever closer union. I would argue that just reflects differences in what different groups of people want.
- mytailorisrich 11mo ago
  > Why is Thatcher significant here? She was strongly pro-EEC Exactly, she was pro-EEC but "Eurosceptic" in that she didn't want this to morph into a political union. I mentioned her to illustrate that the debate on what the EU should be and how far political integration should go, if go anywhere at all, has been going on forever but is more and more "smothered" by accusations of being "far right" for often being not too different from Thatcher. Remember a famous speech in Parliament in which she said that the single currency was political union by the backdoor. Exactly right. > it was very common for remainers to claim that the EU was just a trade organisation and not going to evolve into a full political union or federal state. That's not true. Of course it was a political union, and that was the point of the referendum. Remember the pro-Brexit's line that the people had been sold a trade organisation (in 1975) but got a political union, instead. Now there were claims that the EU would not evolve into a federal state, and this aligns with what I wrote about EU political integration being insiduous and often deceiptful
  - graemep 11mo ago
    > Remember a famous speech in Parliament in which she said that the single currency was political union by the backdoor. Exactly right. I do not think it was much of a backdoor. Anyone who looked at it could see where it should lead. 1. Further political integration was expected at the time of currency union 2. A currency union requires some amount of fiscal union to be stable so its idiotic to have one without the other > Now there were claims that the EU would not evolve into a federal state, and this aligns with what I wrote about EU political integration being insiduous and often deceiptful I think part of the problem is that people do not understand how the EU works. A lot of people have a very poor understanding of how their national political system works.

coldtea 11mo ago

Such notions were also shot down when people had a chance to vote again and again (against the expansion of EU powers), but the bureucrats kept pushing and advertising (with public money) for it, and blackmailing countries with withdrawal of funds if they don't consent to them.

throw-the-towel 11mo ago
The voting will continue until morale improves!

saubeidl 11mo ago

I'm curious - how do you see Europe surviving if not through further integration? How do you envision, say Lithuania standing up to Russia, China or the US? What is your preferred model? All of us staying in little insignificant countries, kowtowing to larger powers? Also, the National Rally is clearly far-right. It was founded by former Waffen SS-members, for chrissake.

mytailorisrich 11mo ago
The fallacy is obvious right there... Why would "Europe's survival" be at stake without further integration? Why would Lithuania need to stand up to Russia, China, or the US? (In terms of defense there are military alliances. They have never required political union or giving up sovereignty) Edit as you added things: > Also, the National Rally is clearly far-right. Making outrageous claims does not make them factual. > It was founded by former Waffen SS-members, for chrissake. That's the FN that preceded the RN, some other founders were involved in the Resistance, too. That's the typical FUD narrative I mentioned, which takes the situation in 1972 and uses it to describe 2025. Are you saying that the majority of French MPs are Nazis? That's obviously ridiculous. Most US founding fathers were slave owners, so obviously the US are pro-slavery, like the Democratic Party that used to support slavery... Equally ridiculous. Again, today the RN is the main party of the right, nothing more. Their positions today would have made them in Chirac's rightwing government in 1986, not in the FN of the time. The situation today is more like this: "Why Serge Klarsfeld, the renowned Nazi hunter, says he's ready to vote RN" [1] clearly a little different from your claims... [1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2024/06/23/why-serge-klarsfeld-the-renowned-nazi-hunter-says-he-s-ready-to-vote-rn_6675540_5.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2024/06/23/why-se...
- saubeidl 11mo ago
  Do you think Lithuania can in any way negotiate on anything approaching equal terms with any of those? What you're asking for is effectively to become a client state of one of the above. I notice you didn't address the elephant in the room regarding the National Rally, i.e. its founders being actual Nazis. (like, the Hitler kind, not just random right wing extremists). Changing their name does not make this any less true - hell, one of their founders was talking about putting a Jewish singer in the oven (!!!) only a few years ago.

hulitu 11mo ago

> What's the point of posting these articles if commenters are only allowed to agree, or disagree, depending on what is the expected correct reaction? As we say in the EU: to avoid fake news. You either agree with us, or we cancel you. /s

graemep 11mo ago

> This is a little misleading because this has actually been the main contention, not the very existence of the EU/EC even since the days of Margaret Thatcher. Why is Thatcher significant here? She was strongly pro-EEC - she supported remain in the 1975 referendum but she had been long out of any significant political influence by the time integration became more political. Looking at more recent British politics at the time of the 2016 referendum it was very common for remainers to claim that the EU was just a trade organisation and not going to evolve into a full political union or federal state. I think part of the problem is that the EU's founding treaties both indicate it is a supranational organisation and promise ever closer union. I would argue that just reflects differences in what different groups of people want.

mytailorisrich 11mo ago
> Why is Thatcher significant here? She was strongly pro-EEC Exactly, she was pro-EEC but "Eurosceptic" in that she didn't want this to morph into a political union. I mentioned her to illustrate that the debate on what the EU should be and how far political integration should go, if go anywhere at all, has been going on forever but is more and more "smothered" by accusations of being "far right" for often being not too different from Thatcher. Remember a famous speech in Parliament in which she said that the single currency was political union by the backdoor. Exactly right. > it was very common for remainers to claim that the EU was just a trade organisation and not going to evolve into a full political union or federal state. That's not true. Of course it was a political union, and that was the point of the referendum. Remember the pro-Brexit's line that the people had been sold a trade organisation (in 1975) but got a political union, instead. Now there were claims that the EU would not evolve into a federal state, and this aligns with what I wrote about EU political integration being insiduous and often deceiptful
- graemep 11mo ago
  > Remember a famous speech in Parliament in which she said that the single currency was political union by the backdoor. Exactly right. I do not think it was much of a backdoor. Anyone who looked at it could see where it should lead. 1. Further political integration was expected at the time of currency union 2. A currency union requires some amount of fiscal union to be stable so its idiotic to have one without the other > Now there were claims that the EU would not evolve into a federal state, and this aligns with what I wrote about EU political integration being insiduous and often deceiptful I think part of the problem is that people do not understand how the EU works. A lot of people have a very poor understanding of how their national political system works.