Why did people allow the EU to happen? Were they just stupid or brainwashed?

Why did people allow the EU to happen? Were they just stupid or brainwashed?

>people
>stupid
>brainwashed
Pic three.

It's a good idea that's been corrupted for horrible purposes at the behest of neoliberal banksters

Basically, it was greed. Countries wanted the economic and political status that comes with EU membership. However, like children, they didn't bother to read the fine print and signed away their sovereignty.

EU states must do the bidding of the EU Council, and that includes taking refugees. Once again, like children, European states threw a hissy fit when they should have known that this is what happens when you join the EU. If you don't want to take in refugees and have your country's sovereignty overlooked, then by all means don't join the EU.

European countries like to play the victim, but it's their stupidity and ignorance that got them in this mess.

>EU states must do the bidding of the EU Council, and that includes taking refugees.

Not true at all.

They do or they face sanctions, ostracism etc.

Technically they're using Article 78 of Lisbon as a legal justification for this shit but countries were literally coerced into adopting Lisbon and it wasn't one of the criteria when they joined the EU, seeing it was only put into effect in 2008.

Also not true. The EU only cares about immigration between member countries. They are free to determine their own policies about outside immigration, which is why those policies vary greatly.

I dunno, it seems pretty clever to me.

>Germany forms a supranational union
>Ruins the economies of other countries so as to drag the value of the Euro down so German manufacturing can compete while also sucking up as much brainpower and money as it can from member states and shipping machinery to China
>Uh oh, Degermanization worked and the Germans are going extinct
>Oh well, might as well go along with Kalergi's plan now
>Entices new members with promises of riches to keep the con going
>New members just take the riches then kick the mudpeople out and tell the unelected goons to get fucked when they whine

Unless you weren't referring to Italy and Hungary and their lot and were actually talking about France/Spain/England, in which case yeah, they should have seen this coming from a mile away. I mean come on, even the ITALIANS did.

It's more than mere stupidity. Politicians knew that joining would bring short-term material benefit and failure to join could result in career suicide. Young people were attracted to the idea of free movement and the sheer novelty of it. The stigmas of backwardness, wrong side of history, paroquialism, etc., mere propaganda buzzwords and empty slogans to the trained mind, nonetheless have a powerful psychological effect on the mass-individual.

It happened because Germany and France needed a power-sharing arrangement to prevent the boches from being boches yet again.

25 year rule user
or

>Certain criteria must be met for admission. These criteria (known as the Copenhagen criteria) were established by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 and strengthened by the Madrid European Council in 1995.

>They are:

>stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
>a functioning market economy and the ability to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the EU;
>ability to take on the obligations of membership, including the capacity to effectively implement the rules, standards and policies that make up the body of EU law (the 'acquis'), and adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

Read the third one multiple times. It's heavily implying that when in the union, you follow the union's rules. Following Article 78 is part of this obligation. European states freely chose to join the EU knowing full well that their sovereignty would be overlooked in many situations, so that doesn't count as coercion.

The problem with Lisbon is the way they ratified it, see Ireland.

>You reject it in a popular vote? Okay, we'll just keep voting and voting until you say "yes".

It shouldn't even be in effect to begin with.

Read "And The Weak Suffer What They Must?"

The EU's more than 40 years old m8

Europe had just gone through two world wars and some guy decided we maybe would war less if we shared similar economic interests.
Then some guy would make up a false quotes by one of the guys behind him talking about a mongrel race or something.

>colonize the world
>bitch when the world comes to you

So you subscribe to inherited guilt and collective guilt of nations? How lovely. Arabs invaded France in 732 and Mongols destroyed the Eastern European civilization and your argument is that French have the right to go and genocide Arabs and Poles and Russians have the right to genocide Mongols?

t. Murican

Depends on if you consider the EEC to retroactively comprise the EU.

>that picture
>countries like Poland, Hungary and Romania should eternally suffer for the acts of Anglo and Spanish colonialism

>implying spaniards did anything bad
they bought down the opressive aztec empire and civilized the natives, didn't actually genocide them but instead interbred with them. unlike angloshits who did the exact opposte

I was hinting at the leftist idiocy that assumes Europe is a monolithic entity and that buttfuck Hungary somehow benefitted off of Spain having colonies in Mexico and South America.

If such things were happening, states should have seceded.

They shouldn't have to suffer for the acts of other countries. They will suffer because they freely signed away their sovereignty for economic and political status.

>"b-but how were they supposed to know there would be a refugee crisis?"
They should have foreseen the freezing of their sovereignty when they joined a union which demands that states be prepared to have their sovereignty overlooked by the EU council.

It was created to make the Europeans economically dependent on each other, ending the possibility of another European war. America has supported it because another war in Europe would be bad for business

>they bought down the opressive aztec empire and civilized the natives
Seriously, this is always conveniently forgotten in the liberal narrative. There were only like 500 Spaniards in the entire conquest of the Aztec empire, all other troops present were from tribes that were subjugated by the Aztecs and forced into vassalage.

They hated the Aztecs so fucking much that they'd rather side with bunch of people that came from for all they knew another planet, who wore weird clothing and spoke in unknown language over the Aztecs. That's how much they hated the Aztecs.

>Why did people allow the EU to happen?

>Were they just stupid or brainwashed?

Most of shit that media report about the EU is either vastly exaggerated or totally made up. Especially the various reports about what the EU had just made mandatory or banned.

The truth is, the EU is a perfect target for politicians and tabloids to pour shit on. Most people doesn't have the slightest idea what the EU is about, so they will believe just whatever it is given to them. Politicians find it perfect for blaming for their own mismanagement. Everyone just love to kick it, because it won't bite back.

The EU is terrible at PR in large part because it's actually largely powerless. There's no one recognizable in it because national politicians make sure no one interferes in their own local playgrounds.

>Why did people allow the EU to happen?

It's actually post-WW2 trauma. The European integration stems from fear of another continental war. The idea was to integrate European economy so heavily that any political disunity is impossible.

Before anyone shouts that
>the Maastricht treaty which established the EU is from 1992
please remember that early 1990s are still the time when war generations still led European politics.

You're historically illiterate yet act like you know anything basic about what you're talking about. So, in short, you're a pseudo-intellectual, like most leftists. That "guy" was Richard Coudenhove Kalergi, a mixed-race nobleman. And he started promoting a united Europe before, not after, World War 2. And the quote ("The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.") has been misused, but it is legitimate - he wrote it in one of his own books.

>America has supported it because another war in Europe would be bad for business
Not really, America built its lead during and because of ww1 and America conquered half of Europe during and because of ww2.

And you will notice even today the ones that are loudest and pushing towards confrontation with Russia are Americans and they are the ones that accuse anyone of not being insane in regards to Russia as Putin's spy. Why? Because Americans know they won't be even scratched if there is another war in Europe and any damage to Europe is good for business and good on geopolitical plan because it, again, eliminates potentially biggest rival in the world (if EU politicians had the balls and the brains to use EU's true power EU could be between China and the US on power rankings).But instead they're just bunch of corrupt, incompetent feel good retards that are in the pockets of big business that have vested interest in destroying Europe's culture and current demographics.

it's hard to make sensible political decisions in the age of memes

>Richard Coudenhove Kalergi

was not the first person to promote Pan-Europeanism.

This is largely true, the main point of the EU is to establish free trade so that various guilds can get richer more easily, which was done, and most of the EU whining is just stupid people being stupid.

I did not say he was. The only person to imply that was the person to whom I was responding.

This guy said what I was going to say.

EU is a useful scapegoat for politicians. What baffled me the most about the recent referendum in the UK was that the ones who wanted to leave banged on about EU law superseding British law when in fact the UK has been on the winning side of 92% of European Parliament votes - the UK clearly for the laws it wanted. The entire debate is saturated by propaganda from Eurosceptics and it pisses me off no end.

I don't mind the EU (because no matter what we need to have some sort of unified Europe to be able to exert proper influence on the global arenas) but I still liked the referendum because it was a victory for the little people against the globalists. Shit felt good.

It's less about member states "throwing a hissy fit" and more along the lines of them expecting the Union to work in favour of the Union states, and now beginning to see that the Union actually wants to destroy every state in it.

>I like being warm so I am going to burn my house.

Quite literally.

>the Union actually wants to destroy every state in it.

h-how?

It was a gigantic act of national self-harm and the UK is going to break up, its financial centre evaporate in order to keep its overseas business, and Muslims will still fill up over there anyway.

>people win against globalists so globalists throw a hissy fit and start sabotaging the economy and that somehow proves something

Say what you want about the supposed stupidity and xenophobia of the leave camp the sheer retarded economic illiteracy out of remain camp in the weeks after the vote was astounding. I'm pretty sure not a single one of those people panicking on twitter knows a single thing about finances or financial markets or stock exchange or anything.

The good guys lost WWII

>It was a gigantic act of national self-harm
It was a first truly and proudly nationalistic thing the UK had done since 1982 or in 34 years Last 8 or so years in the EU especially have just been fucking depressing, financial crisis, Euro crisis, Greek crisis, migrant crisis and through all that austerity and millions of unintegrated immigrants hostile to Europe. Problem with Europe's policies is that they make people feel like shit at least nationalism gives people something to look up to and be proud of.

>and the UK is going to break up
UK currently isn't breaking up and there is nothing but speculation that it will break up. Also note that English, Scottish and Welsh economies are ridiculously interconnected so the UK can't break up anymore than UK can leave Europe or France and Germany can disentangle their economies.

>its financial centre evaporate in order to keep its overseas business
People said the same thing when Britain refused to adopt the Europe in 2002. "Oh all the business and banking and money will go to Frankfurt and Britain will collapse" and yet London is still the biggest financial centre in Europe. Even the few reports of major banks leaving the UK were outright false and retracted by the banks.

>and Muslims will still fill up over there anyway.
Brits are still 87% of the country and waking up. Mass immigration requires the country to be docile and self hating but rising nationalism will mean the government will have to curb immigration and the immigrants will have to assimilate or there will be mass protests and even fall of the government.