It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why does the European Union scare some people?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 05:19 PM
At least in the US the people and the politicians all speak the same language. We wouldn't even have THAT luxury!

posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
A better idea for the EU would have been a normal NATO arrangement minus the US, a loose conglomerate for mutual defense. And maybe some sort of Nafta treaty for commerce. We have NAFTA, yet we havent had to convert to a single currency, yet.

I'd probably not even go that far. The current arrangements for trade, employment, no barriers etc are generally a good thing, but defense issues work best if they are totally independent to the nation state. If ever Europe was seriously threatened, our common interest would be more than enough unite us militarily. Formal agreements wouldn't be needed and, if the WWI is anything to go by, an unnecessary risk.
(of course this is basically what Blair negotiated, much to the chagrin of our chino's and loafer wearing friends across the channel..

[edit on 21-6-2004 by muppet]

posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 05:11 AM
I would just point out, in the defense of federalism, that the US is the only remaining superpower. It dominates global economics, politics and culture. It's federal government and constitution are aspirational for many countries around the world. It has become, over the course of two hundred years, the most important nation on Earth.

Doesn't sound too bad, does it? Of course federalism has risks - what course of action doesn't? - but it also offers incredible opporunities. If the US is an example of what rampant federalism will do, then I want to be part of it!

We're talking about unsubstantiated fear of the unknown, when we should be talking about the potential the EU can offer.

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 08:36 AM
Why do people fear the EU?
I'll tell you, because it is a evil power hungry organisation thats want's total control of europe. It is not a American style organisation as some people think, America is run by Americans, the EU is run by people who care not for other people only themselves. I will never show any loyalty to the EU as it has no right to exist. The EU's long term goal is to unite Europe into 'one' superstate where countries no longer have an identity.
The EU is wrong don't believe their lies

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 09:06 AM
Thanks for the valuable input, Wizard. Thanks to your post, I've changed my mind entirely. I now realise the EU isn't good for the UK's manufacturing, agricultural and export industries, our politics, economy and culture as I've previously argued. The EU is, in fact, evil.

Do you have any evidence of your claims?

Any at all?

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 01:54 PM
I'm not a crazed ignorant nationlists (yes thats what your thinking)
and i do have evdience to back my self up with

(sometimes it is taken off the internet for updating)

the truth is out there if you look and refuse to believe propaganda before you find the facts

the EU is run mainly by people elected in OTHER countries, i have nothing against the other eurpean countries its just that i don't want them to decide how things run in our country.
if we became more intergrated into the UN then that would work because there are too many countries so a few could not over rule the others due to the equal voting system and the lack of support for the minor factions.

[edit on 23-6-2004 by UK Wizard]

[edit on 23-6-2004 by UK Wizard]

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 03:37 PM
America became a superpower at a great moral cost, Strange Lands. Having alot of money and power does not equal a happy nation. Within the borders, wealth and opportunity to be wealthy isnt distributed evenly. Im sure you enjoy free national health care coverage? We dont. When youre a superstate with millions of people spread out over a very large area, such national institutions and such are unfeasable. Believe me, a smaller, more homogenous country is alot easdier and smoothly run than an extremely diverse,m widespread, near chatoic superstate.

I now know why the peole in Britian most opposed to the EU are English, as reading another post in this thread. They stand to lose thier supposedly "non existant" country.

You aught to take a trip to the US and see for yourself. Being powerful abroad isnt all its cracked up to be, especially when your domestic affairs are so pathetic, our public education systems are turning out record numbers of intelectual vegtables, 1/3 of the kids in this country live below the poverty line, we have hundreds of thousands of maimed veterans living in boxes, and such a total lack of accountability for public money and funds and govornment activities that I fear the entire federal system is irreversably corrupted. Thats the price of being a superpower.

By the way, to all who think we at least speak the same language, visit California, Texas, Florida, Arizona. Youll have one hell of a time if you dont speak Spanish.

Since there are so many languages in this country, many of our govornment and public adviseries or publications are written in English, Chinese, Vietnamese, Spanish, and now Russian. (here in seattle, you can get drivers manuals in Chinese, Spanish, and Russian, and welfare application are in a multitude of different languages.

Power isnt everything. id much rather live in a free, independant country that takes good care of its onw affairs and doesnt get involved abroad and bows to no foreign power, than a superstate lacking any internal identity.

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 03:41 PM

Originally posted by UK Wizard
I'm not a crazed ignorant nationlists (yes thats what your thinking)

*Gulp* Wow, that is what I'm thinking! You really are a wizard, aren't you?

I'm not going to bother doing a point-by-point critique of the site you linked to, Wizard, except to say that it is the lamest, most pompous, worst-informed pile of crap I've ever seen in all my life. There isn't a shred of evidence to be seen, just the same tired cliches, xenophobia and rants.

C'mon, muppet, Leveller, it's time to stand up for the rational eurosceptics!

Just for those who don't want to sully their mice by clicking the link, I'll quote from this month's "news" page. It's quite entertaining.

And remember, this is "news"... the italics, needless to say, are mine!

Germany and France are tganging (sic) up to try to prevent British officials from getting top jobs in the EU. A partnership of nations? Some partnership!
(Some insightful analysis!)

The EU-enforced ending of the 192 directory enquiries service has been a great success - calls to find out numbers have dropped by three million a week.
(The fault of the EU, or the fault of greedy businesses trying to exploit the public's poor memory for phone numbers?)

So the EU has a new constitution. God help us all.
(WHY? For crying out loud, one single legitimate reason will do!)

The full European Parliament results are in, and everywhere the Eurosceptics are on the march.
(Sixteen percent, sixteen percent - join in, you know the words! - sixteen percent...)

Embarrassment for the EU, as the Dutch not only published their election results early, but also elected Paul van Buitenen, the whistleblower sacked by the EU for telling the truth about corruption and fraud.
(That would be the Paul can Buitenen who has been completely vindicated, and who's concerns are being addressed by reforms as we speak.)

Businesses have described new EU technology directives as a great success. For lawyers.
(Did they? Did they really?)

On D-day, the EU has 'graciously' published a report on how it plans to turn itself into a superstate. In an obscure part of its website. In French.
(Damn those EU snobs for printing material in a language you can't be arsed to learn! How dare they?)

The planned constitution will give the EU new powers in cases of 'medical emergency'. presumably this means they can take us over sooner if someone coughs.
(Yes, of course it does. They can also take us over if someone who has undergone a lobotomy feels compelled to spout crap on the internet. Watch out, buddy!)

A spokesperson for the European Commission (you remember, expense-fiddlers, refuse to clean up their own corruption, etc.) has said that UK butchers can supply bones to customers for their dogs 'if the bones have not already been sold'. Yes.
(Your point? You do have a point, don't you?)

In all seriousness, Wizard, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that site.

And now that nonsense has been seen off, we return to our scheduled programming.

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 04:39 AM
ok ok maybe the site is not the best of sources to defend my self with, and just to clear any thoughts you might have, i'm not a racist, nor am i a xenophobic i'm just worried at the direction that europe is taking.
I think uniting europe is a bad idea due to the amount of countries (limited), France and Germany will be able to change most laws to their advantage due to their voting powers.
Here's a thought why not go a step further and become more super-internationaly united. The UN is the building block for global unity but nobody can be bothered to do anything. The UN is difficult to corrupt as there are so many countries, and this would help stop countries such as America (sorry American readers-it's aimed at G.W Bush) gaining so much independent international power.
The EU is turning out to be a rival to both the UN and Nato, it has too many conflicting ideas and social ideals.

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 04:38 PM
The argument regarding the EUs impact on the operations of NATO and the UN is an interesting one, UK Wizard. I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that the way in which both organisations function would have to be reappraised following the establishment of a federal Europe.

Remember, though - until the EU is federalised, if it ever happens, each country maintains it's own sovereignty. Questions of military operations and alliances really aren't my field, but I see nothing in the EU Constitution, as it stands, that would compromise Britain's relationship with the UN, NATO or our "special relationship" with the US.

Ultimately, I think we will become more integrated with other countries - not just Europe, but the rest of the world too. Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania are on their way in, and we're thinking about Croatia and Macedonia. Would it be unthinkable for the EU to expand to encompass Iceland? Canada? More of the fragmented ex-Soviet states? How about Australia and New Zealand?

How about the United States?

I believe global government is inevitable, but it probably won't happen in our lifetimes. That's one of the reasons I support the EU - we now have the opportunity to influence the future political, economic and cultural landscape of the whole world.

Or we can leave it to others to decide our future.

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 05:37 PM
Evening.. (I'd say good evening, but right now it's not a very good evening for the English.
... still, as they say, forty years of hurt, never stopped me dreaming....... We were still robbed though

I'd agree that in the long term (almost certainly after we're pushing daisies) some sort of one world government is inevitable, though I really can't imagine what form it would take, or how it could work in practice...

Then again the internet has totally altered the playing field, since we all get to be little ambassadors and diplomats representing our country in the wider world. For the first time it's possible for us all to find out what others think without and government or media filtering. What if future government somehow grows out of the internet? We might not have presidents or prime ministers in the future.. just moderators!!
.. scary..

anywayt...I was thinking.. It might be a good thing for us to start thinking about some of the separate issues to be debated as the referendum approaches. It might help to clarify the debate. ( I must admit I can be guilty presenting and juxtaposing points for added emotional or subconscious impact.. but that's the media-type in me coming out...)

Im thinking of things like
a/economic issues
b/welfare/social issues
c/representation and political/democratic issues
d/historic issues
e/visions for future
f/foreign policy issues


Not to get too stuck into now, but at least to give us a possible structure and something to be mulling over. Any thoughts?

[edit on 24-6-2004 by muppet]

[edit on 24-6-2004 by muppet]

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 02:34 AM

Originally posted by muppet
Then again the internet has totally altered the playing field, since we all get to be little ambassadors and diplomats representing our country in the wider world.

That could well be the most disturbing thing I've ever read... I feel I should be wearing a dinner jacket and typing BBC English in a cut glahss accent.

I think your categories for discussion are spot on, muppet. Perhaps, when the Constitution is announced, we could approach Kano regarding a series of formal debates on each of those topics? I'm sure it would be informative, and might motivate a few people to look more closely at the issues involved.

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:38 PM
I for one don't like the idea of the EU. This only means people like Bush have an easier time getting support for an invasion or something. Plus I would hate to see a guy from France telling English troops to go to war while the everyone else defends the liquer store. I hope the people get to vote on it.

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 03:06 PM

Originally posted by StrangeLands
That could well be the most disturbing thing I've ever read... I feel I should be wearing a dinner jacket and typing BBC English in a cut glahss accent.

You mean you haven't been properly attired for the debate so far? I'm shocked and saddened..

I realise the cut glass accent might be a little tricky for you, but if you have a soft Edinburgh accent you'll be please to know that is acceptable.

(actually that's not just a joke... for many years any hint of regional brogue was deemed unsuitable for serious national broadcasts, although a soft Irish or Edinburgh accent was considered OK. Still to this day you'll notice most Scottish presenters are from Edinburgh).

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 11:47 AM
(i'm not going to be anit-EU in this message for a change)

people fear change no matter what it is whether it be the new speed camera on their road or the creation of a new international alliance.
people fear the EU because of it's international strength and it's potential effect on their lives whether it be for good or evil.

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 01:35 PM
I agree absolutely, Wizard - although I must admit that some arguments against the EU aren't based in fear. There are, as I've said before, legitimate, coherent points of view on both sides which are well worth investigating. I hope this thread has helped some people look at the issues in a new way, and perhaps even helped our overseas cousins understand a bit about the issues. I'm curious to know what ThunderCloud made of the way his thread turned out... are you out there, TC?

And don't get me started on speed cameras!

I don't want to disillusion you, muppet, but my natural accent isn't a million miles away from BBC English anyway
Blame a multicultural upbringing amongst RAF servicemen here in the north-east...

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 01:45 PM
The European Union scares some people because the USA is the superpower, but if countries from europe and beyond joined a pact, that superpower might be crushed.

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
In short, I like the EU. It's a great idea!
I forsee the EU eventually containing all of continental Europe except Russia, but including Turkey. Does anyone think that Iceland or Israel may one day join as well?

To answer these points..

A future EU would probably include Turkey, and quite possibly Russia as well one day. As for Israel? I very much doubt it. They're not exactly the most "community" minded of nations (to put it mildly). Anyway aren't they already part of the US?

EDIT : personally Iceland would be more than welcome. Hell I'd even have them as part of the UK if they could be persuaded to join. Iceland's ace.

[edit on 26-6-2004 by muppet]

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 02:40 PM
I think it's pretty unfair that the UK hasn't had a vote on EU membership, yes we finally get the constitution vote (1-3 years time) but why can't we have a vote on our membership as well, it's proberly because the current UK government knows that we would vote against membership.

nobody can convince me membership of the EU is a good long term investment

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 02:53 PM

Wizard, Britain joined the EU in 1973. Now, I'm no fan of Blair, but I really don't think he can be held responsible for this...

Not only that, but many of the arguments people make against the EU - the fact that European legislation can supersede domestic law, that it's federalist, that the UK is "at the mercy" of the French and the Germans - all of that has been "true" for the last 21 years.

And yet here we are, stronger than ever. Don't you think that's ample evidence of the EUs beneficial effect on life in Britain?

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in