EU Thread

>It was created to subvert the US. They wanted to create a third superstate, like the USSR or the US.

Uh what. The US helped create the EU.

You realize EU is literally just an enforced market for German exports, right? The entire thing is set up to benefit Germans first and foremost.
>Germany is by far Europe's largest producer/exporter
>free trade zone between European nations
>tough as fuck tariffs for all goods coming from China, USA, Canada (unless CETA passes), etc

Also creates massive racial and cultural tensions as a result of foreigners being placed in direct competition with the natives for jobs, gibs, mates, and other opportunities.

Uk is still in.

You realize that the EU is a massive proponent of Free Trade when it benefits the EU though, right? Just because they place tariffs against the US and China to promote European interests doesn't mean they arent also trying to flood the labor market with cheap labor so they can reduce real wages in Europe , or at least do what the US does and just stagnate real wages while decreasing the CPI through various trade deals. In fact, Canada and Europe just made CETA a thing, and while they are trying to remove the stigma of "free trade" as a term as they promote it as "progressive trade" , it still does the same shit a lightweight free trade agreements does.

Also this, neo-liberal policies have lead to a sharp rise in right wing identarianism in Europe and the US. All the right wing groups like the AFD in Germany, SD in Sweden, and the National Front in France, which currently had some turmoil in it because of right wingers saying that it's not right wing enough and that softening the euro-skeptic position of the NF cost Le Pen the election.

Meaning, when elections begin in 5 years again, the NF is going to he even more right wing than it is now, and will probably be even more popular as the overton window shifts continues to shift right as the immigration policies continue

If turkey gets into the EU, then shit will hit the fan FAST

loled at that pic

This. The Anglo did the right thing for once in leaving. Shame they've caught on to their perfidy

FPBP

We just wanted to trade strategic goods and have some coordination on a continental level and now we have to deal with a 4th reich.

>Just because (the EU) place tariffs against the US and China

Source?

Doing everything bilaterally comes with extreme inefficiencies. The EU being inefficient is a really silly meme if you think about the alternative of 28 states all having to do bilateral agreements with 27 other states.
If anything, it's much more efficient to get those standards via something like the EU.

>stigma of "free trade"
Free trade being an overall benefit in the long term is the one thing that most economists can agree on.

Neoliberalism had already been the dominant policy in Europe before the EU (if you take Lissabon as the starting point, not if you start with the ECASU), but it would have come about with or without the EU, because by the time it rose, the world had already been starting to revert back to the degree of high globalization before the World Wars.
The EU, or any country in the world for that matter, isn't going to stop globalism, but the EU gives its members the chance to shape the impact in the way that they want. That can be neoliberalism, or not.

1 to make trade easier
2 free flowing of goods, free flowing of workforce harmonized laws to make business happy free movement of ppl within its borders
3 28 countries, all with different interests, soon 27, competition is not real competition
4 britain doesnt matter, the benefits outweigh the problems

the usual 4chin neckbeard arguement parrotted by 14y olds about MUH SOVEREIGNITY is laughable, every country has a say, you delegate representetives, dont blame the incompetence of your own on others

>It's either an authoritarian superstate with no accountability or bilateral agreement
It's not like we just had two free trade agreements between a dozen nations, you know.
The EU only produced two free trade agreements: one with all the countries in the Schengen area, and one with Mozambique. The whole thing costed billions.

>European
>Efficiency

Ho, and if free trade is so great, then why is our commercial balance so fucked?

>what is unsubmissive France?

...

Europe benefits the most form that neo-liberal trade lol.

>working class
Lol most states have great education so no excuse getting a trade bare minimum.

No-one would be complaining about the EU if the ethnic homogeneity of the member nations was actively protected.

>Not being a part of the EU will ruin Britain!
>Meanwhile, France and the rest of the EU is butthurt because London is still the financial hub of Europe and they can't attract any banks into the EU
Topkek

>The EU being inefficient is a really silly meme if you think about the alternative of 28 states all having to do bilateral agreements with 27 other states.
Yeah, it's meant to so that Europe doesn't globalize itself and lead to it's own destruction just to keep their GDP high. I'd have no problem if the Visegrad group broke off right now.

It was created to make the war not only unthinkable but materially impossible, given coal and steel. Then it was a way for Europe to not turn communist. Nowadays it's an experiment on the supranational

>>It's either an authoritarian superstate
How exactly is the EU "authoritarian"?

>with no accountability
The Commission, Parliament and Council are all accountable.

>or bilateral agreement
What else is "_individual_ countries doing that on their own" supposed to mean? A multilateral agreement by definition doesn't apply here.

>It's not like we just had two free trade agreements between a dozen nations, you know.
What do you mean?

>The EU only produced two free trade agreements: one with all the countries in the Schengen area, and one with Mozambique.
That's just flat out wrong (see: image), the one for the Schengen area is a huge feat in itself.

>The whole thing costed billions.
Do you have any idea how much trade agreements of such a degree cost usually and how insignificant that is when compared to the overall income of those states combined?

>if the ethnic homogeneity of the member nations was actively protected.

Why is this point always sperged about lol?

>Every country has a say in the European Union, which is why the European Union is slowly replacing the governments of it's member states, has an anthem, unveiled plans for an EU army , etc.
>There is no way they are trying to create a super national state

I see, so user, you must be what's called a simpleton

Probably because unlike sheltered neck beard perma virgins who live in bourgie neighborhoods , people who have to work for a living don't like to have to compete with new ethnic and religious groups and deal with the added "diversity" just so rich assholes can sit on their ass all day LARP'ing about living in a cosmopolitan city.

>European interests
*German interests

Because european nations becoming majority non-european within a mere century is a demonstrably bad thing for europe.

>You can't actually stop globalism , it's inevitability
How about no? All you have to do to stop globalism is to stop globalism? Prevent multi national corporations from subverting other nations and exploiting the labor of the 3rd world in the name of """""""developing""""""" them.

It's not hard. The only reason why we've avoided a Malthusian Catastrophe thus far is because of eugenics program like birth control and abortion, otherwise we would have a huge problem here.

>German interests
*European interests

France is their too.

>German interests
>French interests
*Israeli and Saudi interests

German wasn't supposed to be reunited so soon and neither the French nor the English wanted it when it happened, it just had to be

Turkey can't get on the EU for many reasons, the most primary one being the conflict with Greece on Cyprus. Also, it isn't neoliberal but ordoliberal

Thank god for the EU, before 1993 we had massive wars ravaging the continent. It absolutely has nothing to do with NATO, MAD or the two super powers.

>Economic prosperity
Yes, because Europe was pretty much part of the 3rd world beforehand

>Muh human rights
We have our own constitution that ensures human rights. But thankfully we have the EU so that we're told how many human rights we're trampling on because gypsies are not given free shit.

>No border controls
Yes, love it, especially when there are internal border controls because Merkel decided that anyone brown enough can just walk across Europe.

>Support for your region if there is trouble
"Support" like Greece.

>Live and work in every country of the club
Yes, because working abroad only became a thing with the EU. Especially love the part where my tax dollars are used to educate cadres that then go on to leave the country and work abroad for higher wages and never repay or contribute to those who paid for them. But hey, at least Germany gets cheap labor.

Belarus? What the fuck?

Multinational corporations didn't even exist when globalism restarted in the 17th century. Globalsm is the steady state of the parts of humanity that are communicating. You can try to fight it by crashing societies with huge wars, but you can never win against it in the long term.

It's authoritarian in the sense referendum results are disrespected by subsequent treaties.
There's lack of accountability because only the Parliament (who arguably still is less important than the court on policies! See: zambrano) is elected by the people and even then the parties you voted for get agregged on super-parties.

>Thank god for the EU, before 1993 we had massive wars ravaging the continent. It absolutely has nothing to do with NATO, MAD or the two super powers.
I disagree that the EU is the sole reason we have no big wars in Europe (but I don't think that was the intended claim anyways), but I do think that the EU with all its interdependencies, most apparent in the idea of the Coal and Steel Union, and the simple fact that people regularly meet to talk and negotiate with each other, is an additional layer of protection against war.

>We have our own constitution that ensures human rights. But thankfully we have the EU so that we're told how many human rights we're trampling on because gypsies are not given free shit.
So, your country has a constitution. Fine. What are you going to do when you go for business trip to the country next over and that country decides to imprison you for no reason because it doesn't give a fuck about your constitution? You can only hope that its own constitution covers the same thing that would protect you in your own country in the same way.

>there are internal border controls because Merkel
The border controls are less intense even with that, and it's only temporary anyways.

>"Support" like Greece.
Greece's rampant corruption and failure to modernize (see: textile market) is fully on them.

>Yes, because working abroad only became a thing with the EU.
To this extent and with that ease, yes.

and you must be a retarded english piece of shit chav, die in fucking cancer with your fucking retarded divide and conquer tactics DIE ENGLISH DOG FUCKING DIE DIE DIE

it is USSR 2.0 it must be destroyed

>What are you going to do when you go for business trip to the country next over and that country decides to imprison you for no reason because it doesn't give a fuck about your constitution?

Americans don't seem to have this problem, despite Mexico being considerably more of a shithole than Belgium.

>It's authoritarian in the sense referendum results are disrespected by subsequent treaties.
Like what?

Ireland regarding the EU constitution? They agreed to the revision. Their problem if their constitution says that parliament>referenda.
Greece's OXI? Same thing.

>There's lack of accountability because only the Parliament is elected by the people
Whoopdiedoo, like in literally any parliamentary democracy.

The Commission is still accountable to the Parliament because it is appointed by it and can be replaced by the Parliament through a vote of mistrust at any time.
The Council is still accountable through the national elections.

>(who arguably still is less important than the court on policies! See: zambrano)
They have a veto power in all matters but foreign policy. Doesn't matter if they're less important, their agreement is always needed.

>and even then the parties you voted for get agregged on super-parties.
I think that depends on the country. I directly get to vote the super-parties.
But I don't see how that is relevant anyways.

How does EU affects your personal freedom? What policies are they implementing in your country to subdue it?

Ever heard of the tragedy of the commons or coordination costs?

>You get economic prosperity

*pushes Portugal, Spain, Greece and Italy under the rug*

It's not the EU's fault if Spanish citizens en masse decide to buy into a housing bubble, or that Greece has a culture of rampant corruption from the bottom to the top.

>(but I don't think that was the intended claim anyways)
What was the intended claim when the claim was made that joining this club named the EU will "get you" "no war"?

>but I do think that the EU with all its interdependencies, most apparent in the idea of the Coal and Steel Union, and the simple fact that people regularly meet to talk and negotiate with each other, is an additional layer of protection against war.
Yugoslavia was a union, severely interdependent economically and that didn't seem to prevent war. Its almost as if something else plays a major role (and the EU, especially Germany, played a major role in the dissolution of Yugoslavia, just as it did in Ukraine and Libya, but apparently that doesn't count as war because there was little direct involvement aside from Libya).

>So, your country has a constitution. Fine. What are you going to do when you go for business trip to the country next over and that country decides to imprison you for no reason because it doesn't give a fuck about your constitution?
They have their own constitution, and if they don't, you should probably leave Somalia. This is a complete non-argument making an issue out of thin air where there is none. And even if it was, there is no necessity for the EU, especially in the federal sense, in order to come to a common agreement on "human rights" just like we didn't need the EU to get the Geneva convention not to mention there's a thing called the UN and international law that exists, both without the EU (SHOCKER).

>The border controls are less intense even with that, and it's only temporary anyways.
The Berlin wall was only temporary.

>To this extent and with that ease, yes.
wtf I love the EU now

I'm not being subdued. I'm the guy who's going to have to come in and deal with your mess in 20 years, as always.
But, calling for a pan European army is pretty weird for a trade union, isn't it?

What about that time they tried to ratify a Pan-European constitution that would put itself over national laws that may conflict with it? That's sounds pretty similar to what we have here in the States.
Maybe it's my inner Jeffersonian, but they seem pretty keen to subvert State Rights.

>Oh, you can keep all your freedoms, as long as they conform with our standards
Shouldn't the French decide what standards the French abide by?

it was explicitly designed as a way to prevent further endless conflict throughout Europe, and has tried to do so through ever increasing integration.

really did accomplish its goal, and has encouraged integration n some aspects

its currently working stuck in the worst purgatory, its got the skeletal trappings of a united states of europe, but doesnt have the full powers that make that work. realistically they need to either go full United States of Europe or revert back to a more loose confederation

provided the economy keeps recovering and migration tapers off it should be fine, the incompetence of the British establishment has been a never ending gift for Brussels. a year on and its still open civil war among the tories over the basic principles for negotiating
the FN is never going to get close to where it was, because its going to shed its economically populist voters who will switch to Melanchon, which it seems to be set on doing.
honestly Id say the far right has peaked in the West

>But, calling for a pan European army is pretty weird for a trade union, isn't it?
The last "federal army" we had ended up sending its tanks on the streets to subdue dissidents and prevent our independence. I'd sooner shot at anything EU than serve in it.

>What was the intended claim when the claim was made that joining this club named the EU will "get you" "no war"?
The intended claim was that the EU helps in preventing war. Doesn't mean that there'll never be war again, just like "live and work in every country of the club" doesn't literally mean that you are simultaneously existing in a quantum state in all 28 countries and have a job in all of them at the same time.

>Yugoslavia was a union, severely interdependent economically and that didn't seem to prevent war.
See above. Positive influences, not 100% prevention.

>And even if it was, there is no necessity for the EU,
You're right in that it wouldn't be necessary, but it'd be sufficient, and much more efficiently so, IMHO.

>The Berlin wall was only temporary.
People tend to forget that in the 90s, Germany took in the same amount of refugees and they're gone now.
Such crises are easier to be handled with common institutions, and they will be easier to be handled the more the instruments are refined, although they will intensify in the near future, with the Middle East further going down the drain. But the Middle East and large parts of Africa going down the drain would be the case even without the EU.

>Directly comparing the EU with the USSR.
srsly nigga?

That picture isn't even up to date. The treaty with Japan has been ratified.

>The intended claim was that
So what was intended and what was actually presented are two different things! Tell me again how the EU played a larger role in keeping the peace than NATO and MAD. What you're essentially arguing now is that the EU is, to some extent, conducive to peace in Europe. What I'm saying is that's it pretty much irrelevant compared to NATO and MAD. Funnily enough you had more wars after forming the EU in Europe than before it. Not that this is related with the EU but more so with the dissolution of the USSR however claiming that its the fault of the EU is about as right as claiming that peace in Europe was due to the EU.

>People tend to forget that in the 90s, Germany took in the same amount of refugees and they're gone now.
They took in mostly Europeans, a lot of them educated workers, not Afghanis with 13 kids and 4.0 fertility rates that soak up massive amounts of money from social programs and are literally +90% unemployable. They're not gone either, most large Germany cities are chock-full of foreigners, especially western Germany and the % of Germans is creeping downwards for decades now. That's not really the issue we're discussing.

>Such crises are easier to be handled with common institutions, and they will be easier to be handled the more the instruments are refined
That's just blatantly false, back in the "good old days" we'd have literal border guards that had the authority to shoot you if you'd attempt to illegally cross borders. Now we have entitled middle easterners breaking border barriers and migrating in the hundreds of thousands while the EU is trying to impose immigrant quotas on countries which the immigrants are actively avoiding because they don't have as many (or as large) social benefits. All this because its apparently really hard to present a passport when crossing borders. Even more fun is when you realize this has everything to do with Schengen and not the EU neither is the EU a prerequisit for Schengen nor does it mean that being part of the EU makes you part of Schengen..

>But the Middle East and large parts of Africa going down the drain would be the case even without the EU.
And what did the EU do to curtail it? Nothing. They passed laws allowing NGO's to "rescue" immigrants off the coast of Libya and ferry them to Europe after being complicit in the bombing of Libya and ousting of Ghadaffi opening the route.

Yugoslavia, nigga.

Besides, sending ethnically unrelated troops to areas of dissent is a tried and tested method of clamping on dissent.

>Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi
genocide and tyranny

>So what was intended and what was actually presented are two different things!
Only if one is too autistic to understand common language. No offense.

>Tell me again how the EU played a larger role in keeping the peace than NATO and MAD.
I actually do think that the NATO played a larger role than the EU. I just also think that the EU is nevertheless an important contributor to peace.

Besides, if Greece and Turkey are indicative of anything, being in the NATO alone is not enough to normalize relations. Also, not every country has the capability for a MAD.

>more wars after forming the EU in Europe than before it
You're again bringing up a strawman based on your autistic interpretation of "no more wars". This refers to _within_ the EU.

>They took in mostly Europeans,
True.

>a lot of them educated workers, not Afghanis with 13 kids and 4.0 fertility rates that soak up massive amounts of money from social programs and are literally +90% unemployable.
I disagree, but you're right that this isn't the issue we're discussing.

> They're not gone either, most large Germany cities are chock-full of foreigners,
You're confusing normal immigration with asylum-related migration. I was talking about the latter. Of those that applied for asylum during the 90s, most are gone.

>bla bla, border guards
You can have your armed border guards with a shooting command for all I care, but on the outer borders. The whole issue had only been on Merkel because countries like Hungary let people through anyways. Doesn't matter if they don't want to stay, countries like Hungary were supposed to stop them for further processing. And because they don't, there now needs to be a quota.

>All this because its apparently really hard to present a passport when crossing borders.
Even 10 minute stops come with huge economic inefficiencies.

1/2

2/2

>Schengen and not the EU neither is the EU a prerequisit for Schengen nor does it mean that being part of the EU makes you part of Schengen..
Schengen- but not EU-members are de facto EU members sine suffragio. They have to pay in and accept the standards.

>And what did the EU do to curtail it? Nothing.
The only thing the EU can do to stop the ME and Africa from going down the drain is helping in development, and it does that.

>They passed laws allowing NGO's to "rescue" immigrants off the coast of Libya and ferry them to Europe
The EU is already negotiating for reception centers outside of EU territories and there are both FrontEx and European Border Guard Teams, the latter who are allowed to use weapons you crave for so much, by the way, already. The former does stuff like monitoring, analyzing routes and helping the latter, the latter does normal border guard stuff, if the team is from the country whose territory it is.

If you want them to do more, you'll have to give FrontEx and EBGT more competences. The EU can only do what the member states allow it to do.

>Berling we got a problem here, these sand ppl want to go to Germany
>haha Dublin III agreement you have to take them
>well, we gona build a fence and decide their asylum on the border
>thats very Nazi of you, refugees welcome

>HUNGARY WHY DID YOU LET THEM IN WTF!!!
>????

you are not gona smear your shit on us Hans

>Only if one is too autistic to understand common language. No offense.
It doesn't have much to do with autism when falsehoods on propaganda posters are pointed out.

>Besides, if Greece and Turkey are indicative of anything, being in the NATO alone is not enough to normalize relations.
Ah, yes, I guess this is where you make the case for Turkey joining the EU because then relations would magically normalize.

>You're confusing normal immigration with asylum-related migration.
Am I? You can't cross 10 safe European countriesm ask for asylum in Germany and claim its asylum-related migration. Even worse when statistically the vast majority are not eligible for asylum in the first place. Secondly, the Dublin Convention stipulates that asylum seekers are returned to this country where their entry into the union was first recorded and where they were first fingerprinted.

They are illegal immigrants and you have to be mentally retarded to think otherwise because you made up a new label for them.

>Of those that applied for asylum during the 90s, most are gone.
Why are you making up stuff?

>You can have your armed border guards with a shooting command for all I care, but on the outer borders.
Excuse me? Afaik we're still a sovereign state and can have armed border guard wherever we god damn want them to be as long as its on our soil.

>whole issue had only been on Merkel because countries like Hungary let people through anyways.
You're a fucking idiot, honestly. Hungary was attacked repeatedly for preventing illegal migration and building a border fence to prevent them. The entire issue was started by Merkel because she claimed EVERYONE will be taken in and spurring literally millions of people to come to Europe(read Germany).

>Even 10 minute stops come with huge economic inefficiencies.
>HUGE
meanwhile you disagree with economic inefficiencies caused by mass migration from the third world not to mention the costs associated

It's still on Hungary in that case.

It doesn't matter where they want to go, and while people complained about how you did it, they didn't complain about doing it in principle.

>Excuse me? Afaik we're still a sovereign state and can have armed border guard wherever we god damn want them to be as long as its on our soil.

you sign a treaty (BY YOUR GOVERNMENT YOU ELECTED) that you are not going to stop ppl within schengen borders, then you can withdraw from it if you dont like it but you cant randomly ignore such a treaty, unless your word worth nothing

you obviously wont withdraw since you like the money flowing and just a little bitch because you are too much of a jew to help guarding the borders

the only countries who made an effort solve the situation is greece, poland, slovakia, slovenia, czechnia, italy, bulgaria, hungary

maybe in your disgusting two faced german nazi mind who thinks they are better than other ppl but the case is you refused to help and escalated a situation for the worst for good liberal points and now you are backing down from there too, piece of shit turncoat

>Schengen- but not EU-members are de facto EU members sine suffragio. They have to pay in and accept the standards.
False, or will you show me immigration quotas the EU made for Switzerland?

>The only thing the EU can do to stop the ME and Africa from going down the drain is helping in development, and it does that.
Great, more bullshit. Here's the thing, its not our job to do jack shit about it, regardless of opinions on what should be done, what is our job is securing our borders, which we are actively not doing.

>The EU is already negotiating for reception centers outside of EU territories and there are both FrontEx and European Border Guard Teams
Great, the EU is, reluctantly and with great cost, solving problems it created. Love how you name drop FrontEx and the non-existent European border guards though that are doing jack all.

>If you want them to do more, you'll have to give FrontEx and EBGT more competences. The EU can only do what the member states allow it to do.

>>Create problem
>>offer solution that involves more loss of sovereignty
>>claim its the countries problems for not giving up their sovereignty
And this is why we're back to internal "temporary" controls. Because the problem is easily solvable, but the EU doesn't want to solve it in any way aside from "more power to us".

How did the EU cause the problem exactly?

>you sign a treaty (BY YOUR GOVERNMENT YOU ELECTED) that you are not going to stop ppl within schengen borders
Actually, we have the right to stop anyone anywhere and have them present their ID which every EU citizen has to carry with himself.

>but you cant randomly ignore such a treaty, unless your word worth nothing
But the EU does much the same constantly, see the Dublin agreement.

>you obviously wont withdraw since you like the money flowing and just a little bitch because you are too much of a jew to help guarding the borders
>SLOVENIA
pick one, faglord

>It doesn't have much to do with autism when falsehoods on propaganda posters are pointed out.
Other people aren't lying to you just because you interpreted something that was said in the most autistic and literal way that nobody rational would do normally.

>Ah, yes, I guess this is where you make the case for Turkey joining the EU because then relations would magically normalize.
I am against Turkey joining the EU until they bring their economy up to par with the rest, they hold up the state of law and all member states are fine with it. Stop claiming I think this or that based on some stereotype you hold.

>Am I? You can't cross 10 safe European countriesm ask for asylum in Germany and claim its asylum-related migration. Even worse when statistically the vast majority are not eligible for asylum in the first place. >Secondly, the Dublin Convention stipulates that asylum seekers are returned to this country where [...]
>They are illegal immigrants and you have to be mentally retarded to think otherwise because you made up a new label for them.
Dublin didn't exist in the 90s, which I was talking about.

>Why are you making up stuff?
I am not. That's my latest state of knowledge. I could be wrong, of course, especially since I'm not citing anything. Feel free to disprove me, I don't care enough to look for a citation and will concede that point, if you want.

>Excuse me? Afaik we're still a sovereign state and can have armed border guard wherever we god damn want them to be as long as its on our soil.
I'm actually starting to believe that you really have autism.

>Hungary was attacked repeatedly [...]
"Attacked" how? Verbally? Who cares, your government knows to differentiate populism for the media from actual demands. If people had really given a shit, they'd have started infringement proceedings, but Hungary just let them through not because of pressure, but because it suited them.

By ignoring the Dublin agreement, by passing laws allowing NGO's partaking in "rescue" operation in the med in practice meaning picking up tens of thousands of people literally a kilometer of the Libyan coast and did nothing to prevent the collapse of Ghadaffi (quite the opposite) followed by actively attacking countries on the political stage which tried to prevent illegal entry of migrants.

Now the EU is refusing to help finance the border fence in Hungary and threatening financial sanctions to countries that refuse to accept the migrant quota.

Cba refuting your bullshit. Countries are free to leave if you hate it so much

Schuman, monnet and perroux devised the euro has a means to create a low cost highly qualified workforce from southern Europe for French and German industries.

>But the EU does much the same constantly, see the Dublin agreement.
How exactly did the EU break the Dublin agreement? And what do you mean by "constantly"?

Seems more to me like Hungary and then Germany unilaterally broke it.

>Why was it created?
To carry out Kalergi Plan.

thats standard police identification, unrelated to borders

the EU is not a state, the EU is an organisation between governments that represent states

yes slovenia, they put up some resistance

>Other people aren't lying to you just because you interpreted something
When words no longer have meaning you can come back and continue this empty argument.

>Dublin didn't exist in the 90s, which I was talking about.
Jesus christ you are as intellectually dishonest as you appear.

>I am not. That's my latest state of knowledge. I could be wrong, of course, especially since I'm not citing anything. Feel free to disprove me
Ah, yes, I have to disprove a claim you made. That's how it works, right? You say santa is real and then I have to dis prove it.

>"Attacked" how? Verbally?
Politically. Yeah, 'who cares', right? Irrelevant, they were just being a sovereign country protecting their borders.

> but Hungary just let them through not because of pressure, but because it suited them.
Lel, its the blame of Hungary now for "letting" them trough, right? After Merkel publicly stated that everyone will be taken in? Yes, its Hungaries fault for not stopping a couple of hundred thousand people on a dime. Fun fact, you dishonest piece of shit faggot, Hungary did not let them trough, that's why the flow switched from Serbia-Hungary-Austria to Serbia-Croatia-Slovenia-Austria, because Hungary built a fence for which it was then attacked.

Yeah, you can't be bothered, because you can't.

>Countries are free to leave if you hate it so much
Maybe the EU should change instead, you flaming faggot. The EU can disappear tomorrow and we'll just fine, if everyone else disappears there is no EU.

Yes, that why EU migration quotas are thing, right? According to the Dublin agreement they should all either be deported or returned to the first country they entered from where they ought to be deported back to their home country if they fail to attain asylum. Instead we get the EU threatening sanctions to certain countries that are now refusing the Quota.

>hungary then germany
Great, another dishonest fag.

>thats standard police identification, unrelated to borders
Its very much realted to borders because we can set up checkpoints on the border any time we please, like Austria recently did. Tough luck.

>the EU is not a state, the EU is an organisation between governments that represent states
The entire shitfling is because the EU doesn't want to be an organisation between governments that represents sovereign countries (not 'states'), it wants to become a united states of Europe with increased centralization.

That's why its claimed the border problems can only be saved by forming a centralized European border force, the only way to protect ourselves (God knows from what) is to form a federal Army, the only way to move "forward" is more integration which is essentially a code word for centralization.

>yes slovenia, they put up some resistance
I'm from Slovenia you dumb faggot and was referring your whining about "us" not doing anything but there was nothing we could do short of shooting them when they started crossing the border at random places in the thousands. Apparently it was also, just like Hungaries, our fault for "lettting" them in.

you drink too much anglo semen, you dont understand terms
there are no countries in internation laws, but states and their governments

yea if you dont like it, leave it, crying about MUH sovereignity especially an ex yu cunt, is laughable

Then you should be fucking specific and include 'SOVEREIGN' when talking about sovereign states you dumb fuckup.

>yea if you dont like it, leave it
That's not how it works, if we don't like it, we'll change it, you dumb sperging faggot, unfortunately, because of 'people' like you, that is increasingly difficult.

>crying about MUH sovereignity especially an ex yu cunt, is laughable
Yeah, its laughable when a country that had to win its sovereignty by force from a federation is worried about losing its sovereignty to a federation. Kill yourself you inbred retard.

>by force

lel, the serbs just left you be, you never fought for your freedom, just bitching, as usual, slavshit

>by my judgement the force used was not sufficient and with not enough resulting dead to be called force, furthermore the opposing force, despite being reinforced, was unable and unwilling to suffer further loses in a fight they could not win, so your argument doesn't count
You

>I lost the argument so I'll just talk shit instead
What people with a functioning brain read

>you never fought for your freedom
You shouldn't be completely historically illiterate, not that I expect anyone to know jack shit about our local history, and post on Veeky Forums

>ergo decetum

decedo*

Reminder that anybody that responds to a complaint with a paraphrase "if you don't like it, leave" or "if you don't like it why don't you change it/make it better" is an actual retard

>Why was it created?
Because Americans are too retarded to talk to multiple countries and wanted only one guy to 'speak for Europe'

>What are its benefits?
See above

>What are its downfalls?
Europe is too diverse. Even without sand niggers. It's not surprising that the only people got close were authoritarians/monarchs

>Will it remain intact, considering Britain isn't even part of the Continent?
Almost every existing country in Europe has a separatist movement. Once the EU army is formed it will crush any dissent to avoid awkward questions about treaties

youtube.com/watch?v=xl-DVgHVzgY
I wonder why London is so great

Not only Ireland but also the Netherlands and France. Also, sure you can argue it isn't authoritarian by the EU directly but it sure is authoritarian by the European idea and members. There was a scene in Portugal when the European citizenship was instituted: the PM was asked what it meant, he said he didn't know.

>the executive doesn't come from elections
>like in any parliamentary '''democracy'''

The council only signs papers. Doesn't do anything afaik.

Having the legislative being less important than the judicial on legislative matters seems pretty important. Zambrano was politics.

It's relevant because you add another layer of representation - which is problematic in itself of you care for democracy (word you used)

Meant for . Sorry I'm phoneposting

> no war
Except those wars which are fought outside the EU: Falklands, Iraq, Bosnia, etc, etc.

> economic prosperity
For Germany. The rest of Europe is skull-fucked.

> human rights
Not for the working classes of each country, nor the unemployed youth.

> no border control
Why is this good? Free movement of terrorists?

> currency exchange
Something the average person uses one a year, once every two years.

> support for my region
My region was utterly crushed economically and socially while a member of the EU. What did they do? Absolutely fuck all. They EU can't overrule national government on behalf of a region. (See Catalonia too.)

> like and work in other countries
An expensive privilege for about 0.1% of the population of each country.

lmao nigga all the banks are leaving to Ireland or Frankfurt, yall bout to get raped

>Lmao nigga
>Y'all
For some reason I don't believe you

Literal tinfoil hat tier conspiracy

>Germany built the Berlin Wall
Plz tell me that liberals on Facebook who post this meme don't actually believe this?

EU is the only chance for European nation to stay relevant in a world of superstates like USA, China or India (soon).
Without the European Union, the countries of Europe would eventually end up as vassal states of the new powers