Redpill me on EU

Redpill me on EU

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=a-AjVAuqGms
youtube.com/watch?v=K0hD7IffTJs
youtube.com/watch?v=Wc2IN4C2Z5k
telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/10/joining-nafta-could-one-biggest-brexit-trade-deals-do/
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4966170/UK-join-trade-deal-Canada-Mexico.html
youtube.com/watch?v=3CNeDtZmpjU
youtube.com/watch?v=bB3tqoUPuhk
youtube.com/watch?v=A4eiBvdS_HI).
theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/10/joseph-stiglitz-the-problem-with-europe-is-the-euro).
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Rules faggot

A small step for man.
A huge step for Global Governance.
COMPED

Fuck me shit up senpai

communism and shitskins

It started of as a financial union between Germany an France to stop war, then other countries joined in to get a piece of that economic collaboration. This economic collaboration was embedded in a narrative of European peace and security.
To ensure better transfer of good and people, things became standardized throughout Europe, taking away the cost of conversion of goods for different markets (e.g. having to produce a special plug for every country you export in). This helped strong countries, who exported a lot like Germany. It also helped countries which imported a lot, since imported goods became cheaper.
At the same time, the EU also came as a union of certain values. Greece for instance was let in, not because they were fiscally sound but because of the idea of European integration and to keep them from becoming a dictatorship again.
This was one of the problems. While being a mainly economical union, it disguised itself as a moral union and therefore did things that hurt the actual economic root of the union.
The big kicker started with the Euro being introduced. It was a great ideological thing and of big symbolism but implemented way too early as the economic systems within the EU were still way too different (import and export etc.) so a crash was very difficult to fiscally handle for all nations. This was a big problem.
The other problem was that of legitimization, as for the early stages, having the ministers of countries decide certain things seemed sufficient, but it was too late in implementing a parliament, which would have had enough power to convincingly represent the people within the Union, making it easier for politicians to evade actual reprecussions of their decision, since the ministers could decide on legislation in Brussels but when it came to the actual implementation, they could shift the blame to Brussels instead of having to say, that it was actually them.
Basically it grew to fast and in the wrong directions.

...

...

It's the Fourth Reich.

All you need to know right here

USSR 2.0

merkel conquered europe without an army

And she started in the early 50s?

...

no swastika though

Tripartism. A cruel bastardization of the (((4th Reich))), technocracy and regulation that serves multinational corporations and kikes rather than the nations or the Volk. It's a mockery of what could've been that they're just rubbing it in our faces.

youtube.com/watch?v=a-AjVAuqGms

Yes. Really zests my lemons.

Lol. The EU is simultaneously a communist dictatorship and a neoliberal capitalist pro-big business cabal according to most critics. The idea that the EU is some dictatorship is an insult to people who have actually lived under the horrors of communism.

I feel that calling anything communist these days is just a mindless insult. Name any of the EU institutions or any Treaty articles/Directives that are communist. It's worth noting that most British communist organisations (CPB, CPGB-ML, NCP) backed a leave vote. The EU is incompatible with communism.

The narrative of "We only voted for a trade body" is a post-75'-referendum loss creation. There was a lot of mentioning of sovereignty, amongst other things, during the pre-73, then 75 debates. You're peddling a mis-truth. n many ways successive UK governments have mislead the UK on the EU, what its for, what are its benefits and its costs, and have done so for their own political expedience.

It was always conceived, primarily, as a social project with trade being the central part of its architecture. Even when the basis of thing was describe in the 50's it was thought of as a primarily social endeavour. At the same time, I don't understand how you can separate a social project from a common market. Trading is at the heat of society, they are inseparable.

And just because Juncker and other countries want to integrate further, there's nothing that says the UK has to do it as well. We would have opted-out like we did with the Euro and Schengen. Cameron had secured a commitment to exempt Britain from "ever closer union" to be written into the treaties.

God bless.

Literally made up of yellow stars. People still don't get it's just one more form of jew poison.

Stay remoaning.

...

EUSSR*

came here to say this

EU wants to Open the Gates.
youtube.com/watch?v=K0hD7IffTJs

Every single country in the world is a dictatorship you brainwashed pleb

>Even when the basis of thing was describe in the 50's it was thought of as a primarily social endeavour
While further integration, into the social systems was strived for, the economics of it is still the most powerful of them all. The European court of Justice has the highest imperatvie of securing the free trade of goods and people across the EU, that is it's main imparative.

It is an supranational empire like the USSR.
Supranationalism – from Latin supra, ”above” – is where Nation States surrender their authority to a superior entity which rules them and has legal primacy over them, at least in the policy areas surrendered.Like the imperial arrangements of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, once known as a “prison-house of nations”, where different countries are ruled by a centralized bureaucracy in a far-away imperial capital. Supranationalism, in contrast to internationalism, implies a hierarchy, with the supranational level on top.

Lust for world power is the mainspring of EU supranationalism. National democracy is to be sacrificed to that end, while economic laissez-faire is made a constitutional imperative everywhere in the interest of powerful national economic elites, particularly those of the big countries. Supranationalism and internationalism offer quite opposite visions of different ideal “Europes”.
The historical and moral guilt of those pushing the European “project” is great. They work to subvert the democracy and national independence of their own peoples and to transfer control of their societies to supranational elites with whom they identify and who reward them generously. Their own peoples meanwhile become disillusioned and depoliticized, while the economic prosperity they have been promised if they shift to supranationalism proves a mirage for many.
The European Union is the ghost of the real Europe. When it calls itself “Europe” and believes it is Europe it is acting out a fiction which future historians will surely compare to the fiction of the Holy Roman Empire, the ghost of imperial Rome, which the French philosopher Voltaire once said was neither holy, Roman nor an empire, and which for centuries spoke German and was ruled from Vienna.

...

Otto Von Bismarck once remarked: “I have always found the word ‘Europe’ on the lips of those powers which wanted something from others that they dared not demand in their own names.”

The rhetoric of Euro-federalism, talk of “the European ideal”, the requirements of “the EU project”, the supposed “necessity” of Europe’s unification and the like, is at bottom political cover for the national interests of the States concerned, as mediated by their political, economic and media elites.

Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung succinctly described the political thrust behind EU integration:

“One formula for understanding European integration is this: Take five broken empires – Germany, France, Italy, Holland and Belgium – add a sixth one later, Great Britain, and try to make one grand neo-colonial empire out of it all.”

The founding members of the original European Economic Community (EEC) (which didn't include the UK), apart from Luxembourg, had been imperial powers, in some cases for centuries, possessing colonies on several continents. They were all defeated, ravaged and occupied during World War 2.

After 1945 they found themselves in a world dominated by the two military superpowers, the USA and USSR. Their governmental elites, which were used to thinking in imperial terms, said to themselves in effect: if we cannot be Big Powers in the world on our own any longer, let us try to be a Big Power collectively.

Jean Monnet put the Euro-federalist perspective in his Memoirs: “Our countries have become too small for the present-day world, for the scale of modern technology and of America and Russia today, or China and India tomorrow. The union of Europe’s peoples in the United States of Europe is the way to raise their standard of living and preserve peace.”

Jews everywhere.

youtube.com/watch?v=Wc2IN4C2Z5k

For Germany in particular EU integration offered a way back to political respectability following the frenzy of the Hitler period. German reunification in 1990 opened a path for that country to become a world power again, but under an EU flag, with France seeking desperately to keep up with her in the process.

Germany’s reunification, its economic dynamism and the fact that its population is 82 million compared to France’s 64 million, tilted the Franco-German power-balance in Germany’s direction.

Following German reunification France wanted the EU to expand around the Mediterranean, with herself as hegemon over her former African colonies. Germany blocked France in this and pushed the EU instead to expand into Eastern Europe - the historical lebensraum.

Britain’s leaving the EU will be a shattering blow to the integration project, for other EU countries will almost certainly follow once the precedent is set.

By insisting on such a step Britain’s democrats would have restored their self-government and rejected a Europe dominated by Germany. As in 1940, Britain will once again save herself by her exertions and save Europe by her example.

>which the French philosopher Voltaire once said was neither holy, Roman nor an empire, and which for centuries spoke German and was ruled from Vienna.
Which I still think is extremely stupid to argue against.
>Holy
The emperor was crowned by the pope, therefore was sanctified.
>Roman
The emperor was of roman catholic faith and was therefore deeply intertwined with Rome and the Roman catholic faith. It also saw itself therefore in the footsteps of the late Roman empire, the same way the Byzantine empire did, which was also called the eastern Roman empire, although speaking byzantine and having its capital in constantinople
>empire
Empire in general is a hugely vague term. It means a group of nations being ruled by a single leader. No oversees colonies needed. So, it was therefore an empire.

it was unholy in its deeds, it was patently German and it was a very loose confederation of independent states

and after the 1500s half the states were protestant, not catholic.

...

Kalergi Plan

/thread

Each successive EU Treaty was sold to the different peoples across Europe as a modest incremental step towards obtaining more jobs, growth and higher living standards. Yet each took powers away from national parliaments and governments and the citizens who elect these. The Treaties gradually reduced these national institutions to shadows of their former selves, especially in the EU’s smaller States. Europe’s Nation States were thus effectively turned into EU provinces or regions, with their traditional national democracy eroded and their citizens subjected to the rule of a supranational political and economic elite that runs an EU system whose complex workings most people poorly understand. At the same time the prosperity which the EU, and particularly the euro-currency, promised has proved an illusion. Nearly one-third of young people in the EU today cannot find employment.

>It was unholy in it's deeds
So the holy see can't be called holy either
>It was patently German
>half the states were protestant, not catholic
Doesn't negate the fact, that it was sanctified by the Roman catholic pope, by a roman catholic emperor, saw itself as the heir of the roman empire and therefore could be called "Roman".
>loose confederation of independent states
Ruled centralized by an emperor.

USSR mk2

>As in 1940, Britain will once again save herself by her exertions and save Europe by her example.
Have you heard, that some tory ministers are considering joining NAFTA after Brexit?

Source? Can we tax the yank tea again?

The exclusive power of proposing new laws rests with the EU’s UNELECTED Executive, the Commission. Commissioners are appointed, NOT elected, for five years. On appointment they swear an oath not to seek or take instructions from any Member Government. They are not delegates or representatives. Their allegiance is to the EU, not to their own countries.

The Commission is a legislative machine, continually churning out new draft directives and regulations, which are passed to the Council of Ministers and European Parliament for final decision. Each individual Commissioner seeks to make his or her mark during their five-year period in office by proposing new laws for the portfolio area they cover. Thus a condition for supranational legislation in the EU is that draft laws cannot be proposed by elected representatives.

French President Charles De Gaulle described the Commission as “a conclave of technocrats without a country, responsible to nobody”.

In addition to administering the existing EU rules and having the monopoly of proposing new ones, the Commission has quasi-judicial powers. It can adjudicate on competition cases in the single market and impose fines on EU members. Even though parties can appeal to the Court of Justice, the Commission acts as if it were a lower court. It draws up and administers its own budget, with minimal democratic control.

It is supported by some 3000 “secret” working groups, whose members are not publicly known. It is at this level that most Commission decisions are actually made and corporate lobbyists wield their influence. There are estimated to be some 15,000 such lobbyists in Brussels. They interact continually with the Commissioners, their Cabinets, their Directors-General and their civil servants. Only some 2% of all Commission decisions actually come up at meetings of the full Commission. The vast majority are decided behind the scenes or lower down, where corporate lobbyists mainly operate.

telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/10/joining-nafta-could-one-biggest-brexit-trade-deals-do/
and
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4966170/UK-join-trade-deal-Canada-Mexico.html
>Britain could join trade alliance with the US, Canada and Mexico if Brussels refuses to agree a Brexit deal, under plans being considered by ministers

Good boy. An extra (((euro))) deposited in your account, anonbong.

It's how you get rich in Lithuania - become a politician and suck EU and NATO dick and you're set for life, unlimited zepelinis

the emperor was NOT corwned by the opo, more often than not, they rarely made the trip to Rome.

It was German, mate. Deal with it, You're arguing black is white. VOltaire was making the point that the way the HRE operaetd in fact was contrary to how it should work in theory.

The Hapsburgs exerted no control over the northern German states - indeed they were at war with each other most of the time. Particularly Prussia.

Appreciated, lad.

Hush, you barbarian. We will deal with you eventually. The camps are being prepared for you and Farage.

the videos of Farage in the European Parliament, with orating skills which would make Hitler look like a mumbling buffoon, declaiming the EU to their very faces while they have to listen, or try to shout him down, are joyous to behold.

Started as a good idea.
Then the germans ruined everything.

>It was German, mate.
Not arguing against it, m8. It can be German and Roman, why are you thinking in black and white?
>The word Roman was a reflection of the principle of translatio imperii (or in this case restauratio imperii) that regarded the (Germanic) Holy Roman Emperors as the inheritors of the title of Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, despite the continued existence of the Eastern Roman Empire. In German-language historiography, the term Römisch-deutscher Kaiser ("Roman-German emperor") is used to distinguish the title from that of Roman Emperor on one hand, and that of German Emperor (Deutscher Kaiser) on the other. The English term "Holy Roman Emperor" is a modern shorthand for "emperor of the Holy Roman Empire" not corresponding to the historical style or title.

>Germany a failed state.
It's true.

An economic project designed to drive down western European wages towards eastern European levels by way of austerity, to make Germany's supply chain more competitive. The Euro also insulates Germany's export behemoth from currency appreciation, since basket cases like Italy and Greece are members. A "Central Bank" which acts more like a currency board due to rules which prioritises fighting an inflation that died in the 1920's. The next German head of the ECB will probably cause a crisis due to his intransigence.

A massive trading bloc that can tell U.S companies to fuck off with themselves if they don't follow the rules. This part I don't mind to be honest. At least I can expect my food/etc not to be absolute shite. But to have this power it kinda necessitates the machine and associated problems that describes, and they're basically the most powerful civil service in the world as a result, with very little oversight. Went over to Brussels for a workshop (visited the commission and CER), the young workers there describing the work really put me off. Made Brussel's feel like what I imagined the Beltway to be like. First question asked at parties is, "Who do you work for?", when all you want is to drink and chat with a qt French/Italian gril.

I'd be ok with an EU where the Commission was waaay more transparent and the Bundesbank has less of an influence over the ECB. I don't feel one can get away from the focus on austerity, but Schauble's getting the boot so maybe there's hope.

the TL:DR is
necessary evil

It's Socialism For Nations™. Confiscation of wealth from the citizens of one country, given to another country's citizens in exchange for votes/support/legitimacy. It's a fucking racket and well past time this cancerous pustule of government was cut out.

basically german pyramid scheme scam

>this mindset
Sweden is the canary in the coal mine, friend. Best of luck.

Why can't Sup Forums actually have a proper debate just fucking once?

Too many retarded Americans and Swedish/Finnish shitposters.

>An economic project designed to drive down western European wages towards eastern European levels by way of austerity, to make Germany's supply chain more competitive.

Not really a valid point when every single study has already debunked this myth that EU immigration reduces wages to anything remotely negliable. For every 10% rise in EU migrants we could see a 0.37% drop in the real wages for unskilled workers. In the EEA only Greece has seen a higher wage drop of 10.4% and all 30 other countries that adhere to FoM have seen a real wages increase of 5%-14% so claiming immigration has a significant effect on wages compared to other factors has little to no economics basis.

Regarding Greece, they got themselves into the problem and the EU has been propping them up. The problem could have been managed better by the EU, and the EU has a ton of faults, but Greece hid their debt when trying to join.

Because you're clearly a fucking retard and it would be frivolous to waste our precious time carefully explaining to you just how fucking pathetic you are for wanting to remain a vassal state of the (((German Empire)))™ - a subsidiary of (((USA Inc.)))

>therefore, i'll let Peter do it for me
youtube.com/watch?v=3CNeDtZmpjU
(3:16 - 29:05)

This.

That's bollocks, wages are stagnant across the EU

(cont.)
>that feel when Germany will either be broke or half-brown (and probably still broke tbqh) in a decade

youtube.com/watch?v=bB3tqoUPuhk

>increasing supply of labour has no effect on the value of that labour
Jesus Christ. Can you hear yourself?

And let's certainly not discuss issues created by increased demand for things like housing.
>hurr bob why are you complaining - you're still making a hundred quid a day
>durr but my rent went up 50%

>OH YEAH AND GREECE - THAT WAS THEIR FAULT
Sad!

The EU from beginning to inevitable end, can go fuck itself

>Lol. The EU is simultaneously a communist dictatorship and a neoliberal capitalist pro-big business cabal according to most critics. The idea that the EU is some dictatorship is an insult to people who have actually lived under the horrors of communism.
That explains why the Visegrad are standing up against them, they have witnessed communist dictatorship before, so they know what it looks like

Useless. Does nothing worthwhile. A supporter of weird religious beliefs and human trafficking at best.

masonic

jewish

bullshit,

mainly (((economic))) for now, heading to a Jew World Order

but (((you))) know it SHOLOMO

Everything you said is a lie.

First off, wages rose 2.3% within a month of the UK referendum. There are companies complaining that wages are rising specifically because less migrants are coming over; oh no, God forbid the working class get better wages! The migrants were brought into the EU to drop wages because most countries other than Germany refused to lower their wages. It's a direct effect of centralised Euro monetary policy - (youtube.com/watch?v=A4eiBvdS_HI).

The European Central Bank controls the interest and exchange rate centrally of all countries using the Euro currency; this means that if one country suffers low demand, it cannot use exchange rate to lower its currency value which would increase exports, as they would be relatively cheaper, and lower imports thus slowing money from flowing out of the country. Instead, they are at the mercy of the ECB, which strongly favours Germany which has it's own economic policy that differs significantly from the others. Greece was unable to lower its exchange rate because that was controlled by the ECB, so instead, the only way it can become competitive, is to lower product/service prices, or to lower wages. Lowering product/service prices, lower investment returns, which means people are less likely to invest in the country; so typically the burden falls on the working class to lower wages. They obviously do not want this, which is why they rioted in Greece when the minimum wage was lowered to meet EU bailout criteria. This was one of the reasons why AfD suggested a Northern and Southern Euro, which the EU rejected because they are stubborn and beleive you can 'only move forward, never back.'

Greece may have started their own debt crisis, but the EU made it so much worse it drove them ito a depression which is still ongoing. (theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/10/joseph-stiglitz-the-problem-with-europe-is-the-euro).

EU is ultimate blue pill just like the color of it's flag

kalergi plan. google that.

it's interesting how not even Molymeme knew about it initially but now he does since it came up like 2-3 times by certain callers.

Holy shit a remoaner in Sup Forums??

Open air consentration camp for whites.

funny that:
>A nation which strives to cut the strings of usury, to become truly financially independent, to *NOT* be born into debt, to live a life of indentured servitude and debt slavery, to become a nation unbeholden to a handful of people wielding Godlike powers... are evil incarnate.
>But a European Union which acts as nothing more than a financial bloc to further enrich the already insanely wealthy, moving more power and control into fewer hands, is a great idea which everyone should support
Note to commies and AntiFa; if you're such bad asses, stop acting like tools and take your battles to the oligarchs or STFU

It has fucked up some countries more than Soviet Russia.

So I guess they call it a success.

Look, the introduction of the euro exposed something very clear about the EU.

Either they knew that implementing monetary unity must inevitably lead to fiscal unity in order to prevent future economic crisis but at the same time drawing even more major power to the already centralised banks, which means they explicitely deceive the public to further their goals, which means the EU must be fought at all costs.

Or they are literally too stupid to realise what they and they're """experts""" are doing, which means they must be discarded at all costs.

Your points about the EU are ok, but the UK have nothing to do with the financial dependency of the EU, they were virtually independent and not even beholden to any of the contracts, they didn't have to obey about 90% of the rules and had opt-outs of everything.

The Euro was a colonization mechanism, it's not really a secret that it was drawn up together with the introduction of poorer countries in the bloc, which led to a currency that would force the poorer countries to completely fuck up their industry and production and replace it with the richer ones.

This is not really hidden in any way, the Euro is modern colonization and it has been made clear.