4 ms·

I have become very anti-EU in recent years. I am very much pro open borders with neighboring nations, but the EU has become a vehicle for creating a fundamenta

I have become very anti-EU in recent years. I am very much pro open borders with neighboring nations, but the EU has become a vehicle for creating a fundamentally undemocratic centralized federal state. And I especially detest the way the EU tries to shift the balance of power by allowing impoverished, corrupt nations into the EU without any kind of democratic process. In the Netherlands, there is a clear majority against the expansion of the EU, and we are being railroaded. We voted against the EU "constitution" in the only meaningful referendum in the history of our nation, and they simply changed the fucking name. The fact that an originally very strongly pro-European nation like the Netherlands said "no further" should have been a clear signal to reform the EU, but instead things have just become worse. I'm still pro-European, but consider the EU the enemy of our freedom, democracy and sovereignty.

netcan 13y ago
That's unfortunate and possibly the downfall of many good things. Much of the objection to the EU has come form nationalists around Europe. We have many. The worst case scenario is when/if European politics gets dichotomized into Eurocrat vs Nationalist. Instead i would like to see the EU go back to basics. I don't think it's too late. A reaffirmation of basic principles. Free movement. Free trade. The core tenants of a united Europe. I don't give much of a damn about sovereignty, but I do care about local lawmaking.
- walshemj 13y ago
  unfortunetly some EU countrys "no names no pack drill" take the farm subsidy but when it comes to establishing basic common rights basically stick two fingers up to the EU.
smutticus 13y ago
Hear, hear.
malka 13y ago
ah ah, in France, we kinda had the same problem with the eu 'constitution'. the referendum result was 'no'. So, the name was changed, and it was voted by the parliament. Democracy at its finest. never bothered to vote since.
- patrickk 13y ago
  The Irish people rejected the EU Constitution(Lisbon Treaty) in a referendum as well[1]. The Irish government laughed at the people, deployed a bunch of scare-mongering tactics in the media, and held another vote to get the "right" result. Democracy in action. I get the feeling that a lot of EU treaties would be rejected by many countries if put to popular referendums. After seeing the way in which Germany bullied Ireland into keeping the insane bank bailout which has crippled Ireland's sovereign balance sheet, I've become doubtful about some elements of EU membership. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon#Ireland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_L...
- pstuart 13y ago
  It's important to vote if only to make a statement that you care about the issue. Your silence is a vote of approval for the politicians to do whatever they want (of course they pretty much do already, but one should never implicitly vote for that).
  - Crito 13y ago
    Any vote is a vote signaling confidence and continued support of the democratic system. If you no longer believe that your system is democratic, then you should not legitimize it by playing along with it.
    - rsanders 13y ago
      Who do you think is listening to your quiet signal? Who is supposed to care?
deathhand 13y ago
The roots of the EU come from the steel industry. Capitalism runs the world thus rules the people. To think that any government actually subscribes to any idea of universal betterment of humanity that doesn't fulfill the coffers is naive.
bane 13y ago
You know, as an American, it's interesting to see how the EU experiment plays out. Many of these issues have parallels to the American federal vs. state's rights debates. Early on, the U.S. was much more individual state-centric. Outside of slavery, the American civil war was largely about individual Southern states keeping their local rights vs. a more federal North. Over time the major political parties have largely separated on this issue with the American Left more federal and the Right more interested in state rights. Lots of the befuddlement non-Americans feel towards sometimes arcane, mixed "American" policy (e.g. taxes, guns, gay rights, etc.) is a result of this. Regardless, the US model has quickly moved towards a more national policy even though it's still a very active debate here. The EU is a grand experiment, but long histories and complex cultural differences and interactions will make it very interesting to watch how it plays out.
- Zenst 13y ago
  A very interesting and valid comparision between the EU and the American states. What seperates them is that America is a defined country with the states already there and the EU model seems to be about borging anybody nearby who wants to sign up, least these days. Almost akin to office politics empire building. Then the whole cultural aspect as you rightly put it is maybe more varied than what the States have to accomodate. Could even look at language barriers on that one as a definition of cultural divides. Fact esperanto has not taken off would also indicate the types of issues any one rule fits all approach takes as being flawed. It is also worth noting that the States has/does have a bit of a North/South divide and that is true of many countries and with that I see the whole EU evolving into a formal two-tier system in some form as the current expansion/change rate is not sustainable without many negative side effects. Bit like developing on a green feild or upgrading existing buildings the end result and ideals are often two seperate results even if sold as being the same in the budgeting/planning.
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  > Over time the major political parties have largely separated on this issue with the American Left more federal and the Right more interested in state rights. My perception has been that they're both extremely federal about some things, and extremely anti-federal about others. To take an example of Republicans taking the federal side and Democrats taking the more subsidiary side of an issue, about 10 years back there was an interesting point in Wisconsin state politics where municipalities were starting to enact bans on smoking in taverns, and some folks in the state legislature responded by attempting to enact a statewide ban on smoking bans. Of course, smoking in bars still became illegal statewide about 3 years ago. . . which I think illustrates the real guiding principle in American politics, which is political pragmatism: Election season politicking (read: dishonesty) aside, neither party truly takes a principled stance on the big government issue. In practice, they freely flip-flop between pushing big-government policies and stumping for smaller governments' right to be free from meddling depending on which approach better suits their goals in a particular situation. To take another example, the two main parties' relative opinions on the desirability of using great heaping piles of taxpayer money to fund government programs in order to create jobs does this sudden, dramatic and complete inversion when the topic of military contractors gets raised.

netcan 13y ago

That's unfortunate and possibly the downfall of many good things. Much of the objection to the EU has come form nationalists around Europe. We have many. The worst case scenario is when/if European politics gets dichotomized into Eurocrat vs Nationalist. Instead i would like to see the EU go back to basics. I don't think it's too late. A reaffirmation of basic principles. Free movement. Free trade. The core tenants of a united Europe. I don't give much of a damn about sovereignty, but I do care about local lawmaking.

walshemj 13y ago
unfortunetly some EU countrys "no names no pack drill" take the farm subsidy but when it comes to establishing basic common rights basically stick two fingers up to the EU.

smutticus 13y ago

Hear, hear.

malka 13y ago

ah ah, in France, we kinda had the same problem with the eu 'constitution'. the referendum result was 'no'. So, the name was changed, and it was voted by the parliament. Democracy at its finest. never bothered to vote since.

patrickk 13y ago
The Irish people rejected the EU Constitution(Lisbon Treaty) in a referendum as well[1]. The Irish government laughed at the people, deployed a bunch of scare-mongering tactics in the media, and held another vote to get the "right" result. Democracy in action. I get the feeling that a lot of EU treaties would be rejected by many countries if put to popular referendums. After seeing the way in which Germany bullied Ireland into keeping the insane bank bailout which has crippled Ireland's sovereign balance sheet, I've become doubtful about some elements of EU membership. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon#Ireland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_L...
pstuart 13y ago
It's important to vote if only to make a statement that you care about the issue. Your silence is a vote of approval for the politicians to do whatever they want (of course they pretty much do already, but one should never implicitly vote for that).
- Crito 13y ago
  Any vote is a vote signaling confidence and continued support of the democratic system. If you no longer believe that your system is democratic, then you should not legitimize it by playing along with it.
  - rsanders 13y ago
    Who do you think is listening to your quiet signal? Who is supposed to care?

deathhand 13y ago

The roots of the EU come from the steel industry. Capitalism runs the world thus rules the people. To think that any government actually subscribes to any idea of universal betterment of humanity that doesn't fulfill the coffers is naive.

bane 13y ago

You know, as an American, it's interesting to see how the EU experiment plays out. Many of these issues have parallels to the American federal vs. state's rights debates. Early on, the U.S. was much more individual state-centric. Outside of slavery, the American civil war was largely about individual Southern states keeping their local rights vs. a more federal North. Over time the major political parties have largely separated on this issue with the American Left more federal and the Right more interested in state rights. Lots of the befuddlement non-Americans feel towards sometimes arcane, mixed "American" policy (e.g. taxes, guns, gay rights, etc.) is a result of this. Regardless, the US model has quickly moved towards a more national policy even though it's still a very active debate here. The EU is a grand experiment, but long histories and complex cultural differences and interactions will make it very interesting to watch how it plays out.

Zenst 13y ago
A very interesting and valid comparision between the EU and the American states. What seperates them is that America is a defined country with the states already there and the EU model seems to be about borging anybody nearby who wants to sign up, least these days. Almost akin to office politics empire building. Then the whole cultural aspect as you rightly put it is maybe more varied than what the States have to accomodate. Could even look at language barriers on that one as a definition of cultural divides. Fact esperanto has not taken off would also indicate the types of issues any one rule fits all approach takes as being flawed. It is also worth noting that the States has/does have a bit of a North/South divide and that is true of many countries and with that I see the whole EU evolving into a formal two-tier system in some form as the current expansion/change rate is not sustainable without many negative side effects. Bit like developing on a green feild or upgrading existing buildings the end result and ideals are often two seperate results even if sold as being the same in the budgeting/planning.
bunderbunder 13y ago
> Over time the major political parties have largely separated on this issue with the American Left more federal and the Right more interested in state rights. My perception has been that they're both extremely federal about some things, and extremely anti-federal about others. To take an example of Republicans taking the federal side and Democrats taking the more subsidiary side of an issue, about 10 years back there was an interesting point in Wisconsin state politics where municipalities were starting to enact bans on smoking in taverns, and some folks in the state legislature responded by attempting to enact a statewide ban on smoking bans. Of course, smoking in bars still became illegal statewide about 3 years ago. . . which I think illustrates the real guiding principle in American politics, which is political pragmatism: Election season politicking (read: dishonesty) aside, neither party truly takes a principled stance on the big government issue. In practice, they freely flip-flop between pushing big-government policies and stumping for smaller governments' right to be free from meddling depending on which approach better suits their goals in a particular situation. To take another example, the two main parties' relative opinions on the desirability of using great heaping piles of taxpayer money to fund government programs in order to create jobs does this sudden, dramatic and complete inversion when the topic of military contractors gets raised.