Why do Euros still pretend the EU is a good thing?
Why do Euros still pretend the EU is a good thing?
this is now dumb quotes thread
What is there to pretend about?
Goods can travel freely without any authorization necessary, not even identification between member states, do you realize how impossible that is without common regulation? Without common courts? Without a common democratic institutions to decide those regulations? Without ensuring trade wars can't break out between members?
Where is the pretense in securing impossibly favorable trade deals with third countries, deals impossible without the allure of the united 27 markets?
The fact that EU can change global standards in a way impossible for single states? EU forced steam to create refunds, not united corpcucks of america, if you need an example.
And more is to come, I expect to see the long due crackdown on corporate tax evasion, Ireland wasn't the first hit, but it was the first where the money demanded was in these amounts.
Why do brazilians pretend they know the EU better than the citizens itself?
...
One of the largest EU countries voted to leave it some months ago, I think you heard about that.
also, the micro USB plug
MSM propaganda
lel
...
...
The thing is that it's also lead to bad deals too like CETA and soon TTIP.
...
...
why is Russia trying to really make me think?
And?
TTIP is dead and CETA is a pretty good deal
...
...
>CETA is a pretty good deal
CETA is TTIP lite with the same internet regulation bullshit and '''free''' trade that only benefits fortune 500 companies.
...
Any union that accepts Spain is shit desu
and if i kill my enemies they win
It's not. It's an entirely different contract with another country. How is it supposed to be the same? You can read the treaty online.
>Euro
>German economic colony
How beautiful this German 4th Reich is!
TTIP is dead, but even ignoring that.
Those deals have to pass every single parliament in the Union. There was no way to get anything close to fair with the USA without EU.
I think how 'bad' the deal was is severely misrepresented by viral media. I mean for fucks sake, it was under negotiations it could have changed into something mutaly beneficial by the end but leaks and "leaks" were the death of it.
Come on and slam.
It has its problems sure, but voting to leave was a huge mistake and simply the result of a protest vote at the wrong time.
Our industry investment and operation with other European nations are so intertwined that leaving is an administratively hellish and an economic disaster. I don't even see our official withdrawal completing within the next two years, let alone the immediate rush the media are pushing for.
Come on and islam.
The premise is exactly the same. Lessen regulations, trade barriers, and allow giant multinational companies to be able to easily do business across the Atlantic. Keep in mind that over 80% of the companies operating in Canada also do so in America.
Hinga dinga durgen
It's Canada, it has less population than even Poland. What giant corporations should come out of this country? Also, they have much better consumer rights over there than in the US and this was the main reason this treaty was picked.
No.
Euro hasnt freedom.
but Germans gets freedom, its the only exception.
i know that is ugly bloc economy alliance for reject America and Asians.
and no intrest for islam refugees.
what
>lessen regulation
lmao, EU is so anal about regulation it killed TTIP over it, too much regulation is on every brexiter peeve list
nothing wrong with easy trade with canada, it means cheaper better goods
>they have much better consumer rights over there than in the US
Tell me about them.
>What giant corporations should come out of this country?
Lets think, there's the Canadian branch of Pepsico, Pfizer, Monsanto, AIG...
>Also, they have much better consumer rights over there than in the US
Lol no, they're essentially the same otherwise NAFTA couldn't operate the way it does.
Its what Scandinavian languages sound like
shut up
TTIP was killed on both ends because it was a bad deal for both parties. It didn't benefit anyone but companies that were already rich enough to do trans-Atlantic business.
The EU would be good if parliament was in charge instead of the commission. and Bulgaria, Romania and Greece were not in it
It is. Only shills for big businesses hate it because they can't bully individual countries into removing regulations
More like they only need to spend money to lobby one country insteda of several
Stupid netouyo
More like they need to lobby now instead of no lobbying at all
>Pepsico
Do you think we have no Pepsi in our supermarkets and that this would break the EU? These products are available here to certain extend already. And Monsanto got bought by BASF already, so there is no big point. It's also about resources which Canada has to offer, and not just your daily food products.
This contract could also be signed from single to single country, which has nothing to do with the EU and why I favour the EU. The decisionmaking within the parliament was reasonably.
He's probably the proxy pole
>Stage 1: Monetary Union
>Germans tell small European nations with weaker economies that they can join the same currency
>Smaller nations accept because it means that their country can borrow at a much lower rate of credit with the German economy acting as a form of collateral
>Smaller nations politicians lavish their countries with massive pension benefits, short retirement ages, short work weeks, etc. as a form of bribery to win votes
>Smaller nations keep borrowing and running huge deficits until 2008 housing market crash hits, and the lenders money dries up
>Countries like Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain can't keep up their current spending without borrowing and reach the brink of default
>Germans impose austerity measures on other countries to massive resistance, sparking conflict within the EU
>Germans now suggest that the monetary union needs to become an economic union so a centralized bureacracy can mandate fiscal policy across the continent to avoid running massive deficits
>Stage 2: Fiscal Union
>In order to control fiscal policy, this bureacracy has to have control over almost all economic and policy law
>In order to fairly enforce this law, the union also have to have control over the judicial processes
>Stage 3: Political Union
>EU sets up its own judicial system in attempt to veto sovereign judicial systems which might cut their own countries too much favour
>EU sets up its parliament
>EU gets its own army to prevent dissidence from other member nations and further cementing their place
>Stage 4: End Game
>End result is that almost all political power is vested in the EU and its kafkaesque-sounding bureacracies headquartered in non-countries like Belgium, with unaccountable young socialist bureaucrats and guilt-riddled germans happily playing their role in this grandiose world-uniting race-mixing sovereignty-destroying anti-democratic political project because they get to drive a BMW 5 series and expense their gas
Did I get anything wrong?
Germany as a political entity and German interests are far more powerful and far reaching than tiny insignificant little Portugal, if that latter got more out of the union than it give it would have already either been kicked out or the terms and conditions of said union would have been changed. It's obvious the large and influential countries are the ones benefiting from the EU otherwise they would have left or kicked the smaller ones out.
And large and small are used here as referring to the size of the economy, not the population or land area.
have you heard of non-zero sum games/politics?
The immediate game here is economic convergence so as not to be bullied by our neighbors, not growth per se. It's easy to dismiss this as important and nationalistic instead of pragmatic until you realize cooperation invariably breaks down once one side is much more powerful than the other. In theory Switzerland is still "free" and in a bilateral relationship with the EU except they have to comply with everything it says or else.
I don't see anything about bulk importation of migrant labor from the third world to keep wages low, but that might just be a coincidence.
Is the second sentence supposed to back up the first? Because it doesn't.
how is this dumb
>Did I get anything wrong?
Yes. Pretty much everything.
Common currency is not attractive because of "lower rate of credit" but in removing yet another barrier to trade - without it companies are exposed to currency risks.
Abuse of implicit guarantees and moral hazard was an aberration of poorly implemented currency, not a master plan.
(risks and stakes would be too high for anyone intelligent enough to plan this)
>EU sets up its own judicial system
This already exists for over fifty years and national governments are periodically compelled to change their law, even constitution, to keep the treaty obligations fulfilled.
>kafkaesque bureaucracies
blah blah blah memes and buzzwords.
Main body that sets direction of EU is the council where each member nation is represented. That aside, recent development was toward MORE democratic accountability, not less - see parliament gaining power and even determining head of commission in recent elections. That's much more than it used to be, a mere consultation platform, and that was in time where european court of justice (which is by the way separate entity to the human rights court) was already overruling national law.
That's because they are not being "imported" to "keep the wages low". They come all by themselves because they heard EU is a rich place where you can get rich easily, don't have to work and can go to africa as big bad massa. Employers don't even want to fucking employ them.
What you actually mean is "I don't see anything about nobody guarding the bloody borders" which has pretty simple and non-conspiratory answer: border countries pass them through because the migrants don't want to stay there. There's no incentive to stop them, and cost of doing so without violating human rights charters is too high to bother.
good one
Good posts