What do you think of the European Union?

Do you support the EU?

  • Yes, I strongly support it, it should become more federalised.

    Votes: 13 16.5%
  • Yes, I think its good for Europe overall.

    Votes: 25 31.6%
  • I am neutral, do not support/oppose it.

    Votes: 20 25.3%
  • No, I think it's detrimental to Europe.

    Votes: 8 10.1%
  • No, I think its destroying national sovreignty and must be disbanded

    Votes: 13 16.5%

  • Total voters
    79

Users who are viewing this thread

Jadow

Sergeant at Arms
From what I've seen on the news, about 60-80%(varies with different surveys) of the EU populace supports the EU but I am just wondering what non-Europeans and people on this forum think about it. Also, I don't want any NWO conspiracy theories, please.

As for me, I think you can guess my disposition to the EU from my signature. I consider myself a European, support it fully and want it to become more federalistic and centralised. Ultimately maybe becoming a "United States of Europe" type of entity. Although I don't think that can happen any time soon, considering the failure of the European Constitution in 2005. Although, in the future, it probably will be inevatible.
 
Being from the UK I'd much rather see the UK getting heavily involved in Europe rather than being lapdog to the US and it's absurd foreign policies.
 
Yoshiboy said:
Being from the UK I'd much rather see the UK getting heavily involved in Europe rather than being lapdog to the US and it's absurd foreign policies.

I agree 110% all we have gained from being close allies with the USA is Enemies.
 
I don't have a problem with Europe, but I don't like the idea of a 'United States of Europe'. I'm all for close cooperation and closer ties with Europe, but not some huge Federation.

Also, i'd really hate for Tony Blair to become European President.
 
Hell, entering the EU has been all the talk in my country for the last decade. Every country in it gets substantial help where needed, so I consider it to be for the good of all Europe. Also, **** you, USA.
 
The last thing you want to do is hand over your sovereignty.

Unless of course you want to watch your wealth flow out of your former country, in order to float growth and developement elsewhere in some former eastern bloc country, but not before that wealth goes through the hands of overgrowth beauracrats and they get their percentage.

I guess on the brightside you always have effective "bailout" bills to look forward to ah-ha!

Just imagine, work policies being absorbed into the EU, which are not beneficial for Germany for example. Yet the result being that cancerous, inefficient money grabbing work unions pop up, and force Mercedes to go under because all their agenda really is, is to max membership and membership dues, forcing Mercedes to become less competitive.

Then you'll get the chance to spend your wealth on bailing them out twice, only to have them go under in the end.

****ing globalists. I tell you our country is undersiege by them, and it's going to be an uphill battle to smoke those rats out.


Whatever problems you think your country has now, it will be nothing compared to the detremental effects of handing over your sovereignty, and watching wealth and jobs fly out of your former country.
 
Why change the name... just leave it as the European Union. Also, I don't mean a european super-state, but a federation thats formed not by conquest but by political agreements.

Mage246 said:
Yeah, be the lapdog of France and Germany for a change!

Britain wouldn't be a lapdog of France and Germany, seeing as britain has the same say in European affairs as those two. And a European federation wouldn't be ruled by a single or two large nations, seeing that even the Lisbon Treaty has laws preventing that. In one article it states that any change in European law has to be agreed by more than 4 countries which represent more than a certain percentage of the populace(I can't remember what percentage.)

Also, the whole idea of a federation is for states to make decisions jointly, not to be ruled by a single state.

ealabor said:
The last thing you want to do is hand over your sovereignty.

Unless of course you want to watch your wealth flow out of your former country, in order to float growth and developement elsewhere in some former eastern bloc country, but not before that wealth goes through the hands of overgrowth beauracrats and they get their percentage.

I guess on the brightside you always have effective "bailout" bills to look forward to ah-ha!

Just imagine, work policies being absorbed into the EU, which are not beneficial for Germany for example. Yet the result being that cancerous, inefficient money grabbing work unions pop up, and force Mercedes to go under because all their agenda really is, is to max membership and membership dues, forcing Mercedes to become less competitive.

Then you'll get the chance to spend your wealth on bailing them out twice, only to have them go under in the end.

****ing globalists. I tell you our country is undersiege by them, and it's going to be an uphill battle to smoke those rats out.


Whatever problems you think your country has now, it will be nothing compared to the detremental effects of handing over your sovereignty, and watching wealth and jobs fly out of your former country.

A federation would mean ONE nation. Thus, rich states would have to give to the poor ones so as to benefit the federation overrall. Also, you do realise how much the UK has benefitted from being in the EU? People being able to work and travel anywhere in the Union, businesses being given money from the EU, farming subsidies, freedom of movement of goods and services, the list goes on and on.

As for so called "greedy beauracrats" MEP's earn less money than British MP's. That is a fact. Considering the recent MP's expenses crisis, the UK cannot say that Brussels beauracrats steal money from the UK.

Also, as for bail outs, the EU is overrall OPPOSED to such measures. They are opposed to the US method of government bailouts, which the UK seems to favour. They prefer government regulation to prevent such a disaster in the first place.                                                         
 
I am not in favor of the EU, but rather of its predecessor, the EEC (European Economic Community). I think it is a good thing that European countries work together on economic level, but I don't think this organization should be involved in law-making or in national policies.
ealabor said:
The last thing you want to do is hand over your sovereignty.
I agree. European governments have over the years handed a lot of their authority to the EU, without their population's consent. Whenever citizens vote to oppose these changes, like with the European Constitution in France, the Netherlands and later Ireland, the only thing that is done is invent ways to circumvent or ignore the voice of the people. When I vote for the government of my country, I place my trust in a national party and not in the European Union. Politicians can be 'unelected', but powers given to an international organization cannot be regained (at least not through the vote of the people). I don't want to be ruled by the French and the German (no offense though). In short I think the EU is undemocratic and dangerous to the souvereignity of its members.
 
Mage246 said:
Yeah, be the lapdog of France and Germany for a change!

we never have been nor will we ever be lapdogs of the french or german nation. neither could crush us in week like America could, America rules with Hidden fear with its fake "Land of the free" bollocks!

anyway, rant over ....so this weathers nice huh?  :roll:
 
Yup. If, say, NATO decided to not honor their word by increasing the amount of troops in Afghanistan by the agreed-upon ratio, we would totally annihilate every country in NATO that refused to help.

Just like if, say, most of our allies in Iraq were to pull out like they have, we would totally nuke them until nothing was left.

Right. I totally see your altogether valid and well-thought out statements.

As for the EU, I don't like it, it intrudes upon country's sovereignties.
 
The Mercenary said:
Yup. If, say, NATO decided to not honor their word by increasing the amount of troops in Afghanistan by the agreed-upon ratio, we would totally annihilate every country in NATO that refused to help.

Just like if, say, most of our allies in Iraq were to pull out like they have, we would totally nuke them until nothing was left.

Right. I totally see your altogether valid and well-thought out statements.

As for the EU, I don't like it, it intrudes upon country's sovereignties.

I dunno. Illegally going to war with a country seems pretty out-of-order foreign policy for one of the most powerful countries in the world.

We also have breaching UN charter and going against the decision that there were no WMDs in said country (which is looking pretty correct right now).

Not signing the Geneva convention and having a constitution which supports no human rights for non-US citizens, allowing torture and other inhuman treatment for POWs or in fact - anyone foreign.
 
"Brussels is a shambles. You know what they say about the average Common Market official: he has the organizing ability of the Italians, the flexibility of the Germans, and the modesty of the French. And that's topped up by the imagination of the Belgians, the generosity of the Dutch and the intelligence of the Irish."
 
Back
Top Bottom