Also Germany is very decentralized with the different Lander having a lot of independence
you say The EU is based on the USSR. The governmental structures are USSR-based, that's not true - it is based on American structures
Posted on 04/23/2018 9:49:58 PM PDT by Olog-hai
If the EU is done correctly, as a federation with a far smaller bureaucracy, then Scots, Catalans, Flemish, Bretons etc. would have a chance at statehood within a wider framework that allows them to punch above their weight.
I do not credit the EU in any form with that. That was more of the US involvement, especially when the Cold War was on. When the USSR broke up, things changed a lot.
The EU is based on the USSR. The governmental structures are USSR-based, just like the UN is (whose charter every EU treaty has declared “respect for the principles” thereof, and that charter is based on the 1936 USSR constitution just as Alger Hiss intended); the Commission acts as the Politburo as it both writes and passes laws, while the “Parliament” (which can’t write a single law) is its rubber stamp. It is not a good thing.
There is no baby in the bathwater. I’ve heard that aphorism from pro-EU anti-freedom types.
The EU would have to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up for such a form to exist. It’d have to be based on the US Constitution, not the USSR’s one—but I suspect Germany (whose Basic Law needs quite a bit of revamping itself) would have none of that.
Not to mention, the EU gives tacit encouragement to these “independence” movements; it falls right into their “Europe of the regions” plan to divide the continent (and adjacent islands) along ethnic lines. The EU is just fine with these movements, so that they can tear down the sovereignty of the original member states further, thus eroding the power of the original state’s capital and centralizing governance further.
As far as “internal trade”, the EU actually does not facilitate that. It instead facilitates Germany’s manufacturing at the expense of the other member states. There would have been other ways to institute tariff-free trade, e.g. bilateral agreements. The EU also regulates things out of existence and encourages nationalization.
Adoption of the common currency did facilitate Germany's manufacturing at the expense of other member states, however membership of the EU's common market has enabled and HAD enabled many EU states to compete with Germany
Bilateral agreements are fine when these are huge state like the US and canada, but the itnernal EU free trade, free movement is akin to the US free trade between states and that works
As to the “the EU regulates things out of existence” - You would be surprised. I believed the same, but it’s not quite true. There are regulations, but comparing them to Britain pre-1993 or to the USA today shows that the regulation numbers are about the same.
These independence movements at least in Catalonia and Scotland make sense -- let's take Scotland.
Scotland is and was linguistically, religiously, racially/ethnically and historically and politically quite distinct from England. Clubbing Scotland, Wales and England together was like putting Germany, Belgium and Denmark into one union, albeit with the legislative, executive and judicial capital in Berlin, the currency as the DeutschMark, the governing language as German and external affairs run from Berlin
Separating out Scotland from England, or Brittany from France or Corsica from France or Catalonia from Spain gives these nations a chance to survive.
This doesn't centralize governance - it does mean that more partners have a say.
For a long time Scotland had no say in what decisions were made for it from westminster
you are correct.
The lowering of restrictions and artificial barriers to internal trade is one of the primary reasons for the union. The Euro further enhances the ability for trade between the European states.
But to make all of it work, there is standardization of various national regulations and standards into the EU standards. British and German and other national standards were scrapped and then amalgamated into the body of EU standards similar to our ASTM standards.
Also Germany is very decentralized with the different Lander having a lot of independence
you say The EU is based on the USSR. The governmental structures are USSR-based, that's not true - it is based on American structures
That is demonstrably false
UN charter versus 1936 constitution of the USSR
After WWII, the five strongest Allied powers - the United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, China, and France - jointly formed the United Nations and became the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The US has always been a powerful member, especially since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Also the UN has consistently voted against the USSR's aims - look at the interventions in Korea, Vietnam etc. - throttling the USSR's strategic objectives.
Exactly. The EU has incredibly facilitated trade between the different nations of the EU. If I want to manufacture something in the UK and export to france, I don't have to worry about waiting and getting standards approval. I don't have to spend time filling up trade forms.
it's like the US between Texas and Tennessee - no trade barriers.
Now, the Eurozone, that's a different question.
And then there is Saudi Arabia....... ASTM Meets Eu standards on massive design projects.
Which will prevail?
ASTM of course : )
That’s bureaucratic gobbledegook, and an utterly false comparison to ASTM, which is not a governmental organization. Everything with the EU is top-down dictation from a governmental body.
The EU was always intended to be a political union, and even a military one. Ireland would not have had to word its Third Amendment to make “European” law superior to Irish law if it were not, for one outstanding case.
OK; now you just have to demonstrate it.
That is demonstrably false …
[T[hat [UN] charter is based on the 1936 USSR constitution …
Anyone familiar with the Communist Constitution of Russia will recognize in the United Nations Charter a similar format. It is characterized by a fervent declaration of democratic principles which are sound and desirable; this is then followed by a constitutional restriction or procedural limitation which completely nullifies the principles just announced. For example, the Russian Constitution provides for universal suffrage and voting by secret ballot. Then, in Article 126, it provides for a single political party (the Communist Party) which will furnish the voters with a single roster of candidates. This, of course renders completely meaningless all the high-flown phrases dealing with universal suffrage and secret ballots. Freedom of the press is likewise guaranteed, and then wiped out by the provision that all writings must be “in the interest of the workers.”The USSR’s power was not in pushing its own aims, but, as you put it, “throttling” the aims of the USA via its veto power.
In precisely this same way, the United Nations Charter provides for “the sovereign equality of all its members” (Article 1)—and then sets up a Security Council, which is dominated by five permanent members (Britain, Russia, China, France and the United States), any one of which can nullify the expressed desires of all other member nations by the simple device of exercising the veto power.
The Charter allows each member nation to have one vote in the General Assembly. This sounds like democracy, but then it provides that the General Assembly can do nothing more than make recommendations, and must refer all of its suggestions to the Security Council for action! (Articles 11-14). This makes the Security Council the only legally binding legislative body in the UN. To make this absolutely crystal clear the Charter provides in Article 24 that any nation which joins the UN must “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.” This means that in spite of the bold declaration that the UN is “based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”, the cold fact is that the members are all committed to obey the will of a handful of nations in the Security Council. As the next ten years dramatically demonstrated, all members of the UN—particularly the little nations—could be subjected to the chokehold which the USSR had provided for herself by holding membership in the Security Council and dominating that body through the frequent use of the veto power.
The Charter further provides that membership in the UN shall be restricted to “peace-loving” states (Article 4). This was thoroughly discussed at San Francisco, and Secretary John Foster Dulles has emphasized that the UN was designed to be a collective organization of friendly nations to preserve peace rather than an assemblage of all the nations in the world. In other words, the United Nations was built on the premise that its members would only include those nations which had had a demonstrated history of being “peace-loving.” Eight years after the adoption of the UN Charter, Secretary Dulles explained to the American Bar Association why the United Nations had failed to preserve the peace:“Now we see the inadequacy of an organization whose effective functioning depends upon cooperation with a nation which is dominated by international party seeking world dominion.”As some authorities have since pointed out, the UN provided for a worldwide police commission and then made the top international gangster a member of that commission. It was like setting up a fire department to put out the conflagration of war and then putting the world community’s foremost firebug on the department. From the point of view of the little nations, it was like promising to provide a good shepherd to protect the small, weak countries, and then appointing the wolf and all her pups to protect the flock.
All this became apparent during the “decade of disillusionment” which immediately followed. In 1945, however, a war-weary, hopeful free world felt the United Nations was all it purported to be—an organization for collective security designed to stand like a bastion against aggressor nations. …
Let's break down what the Naked Communist says:
That's it? There are a lot of things to complain about the UN, namely its corruption, its slow-way of doing anything, its way of allowing tiny states to stand in the way of behemoths like the USA (or China) -- which, if you think in terms of the US senate has good points as well as bad, but not good if you are the behemoth stopped by Maldives for instance
the UN was inaugurated by the USA, based in the USA, and utterly dominated by the USA and still is. The US gets its way with the UN quite often (and correctly so), but not always as the organization is deliberately set up for slow-moving consensus rather than fast decision making
If you are going to call Edward Stettinius Jr. a leftist, come on..
The UN was deliberately set up to NOT be a one-world government. Rather it is a talking-shop. As you yourself point out, the majority just gives recommendations, while as I point out the security council is 15 members who can stall things indefinitely. This is not one-world government, this is a one-world chatting room.
Rail against its corruption and bureaucracy - those are the real bad things about the UN.
Removing restrictions and barriers for trade between the US states aids trad.
Giving them a common currency (dollar) enhances the ability for trade between US states
Standards enhance trade - all US states use the imperial system and X means X everywhere in the USA
Now replace US with EU
The EU was always intended to be a political union, and even a military one. - false, it was started as a trade union, even the adding of the Euro was meant to keep German industry tied down -- that was Mitterand's pound of flesh in order to allow German unification.
Dᴇᴛᴇʀᴍɪɴᴇᴅ to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,Yes; the political union was intended way back then. Even with the 1951 ECSC it was so, having the High Authority, Common Assembly, Special Council and Court of Justice—the three first bodies renamed the Commission, Parliament and Council of Ministers in 1957 upon the change of name to the EEC, which are the very same names they bear today. One does not set up a governmental body of that complexity for a mere trade union.
Dᴇᴄɪᴅᴇᴅ to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action in eliminating the barriers which divide Europe …
No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated by the obligations of membership of the Communities—or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the Communities or institutions thereof from having the force of law in the State.No mere trade union acts like a central government to legislate for its members, especially to push “social progress” on them. The EU was the EU way back in 1951, in 1957 and in 1972 when the UK and Ireland joined.
Checks and balances do not nullify statements within a constitution. Please don’t try and come up with nonsequiturs.
You seem hell-bent on defending left-wing institutions whose goal is restricting freedom. I do not know why.
The UN constitution is not based on the Soviet constitution - the checks and balances between the Security council (consisting of 5 permanent and 10 non-permanent members) does not nullify the workings of the assembly as a whole.
The UN is a talking shop where a minnow has the same right to speak as a whale. The ability to act is curtailed in favor of talk.
Evidently you haven't read the entire preamble versus excerpts. Let me fill you in
Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe,
Resolved to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,
Affirming as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples,
Recognising that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition
This then after the PRE-amble goes on to specify and repeat over and over again about the "Member states"
Nothing about a political union - a union among the European peoples is no more a political union than "Christendom" is a political union. and in "eliminating the barriers" - these are clearly outlined as trade barriers and barriers to Italians working in Germany or vice-versa.
The EU is flawed with the EU parliament and should be reduced bureaucracy, but it serves a purpose - it helps the different minnows of Europe stand up tot he giants and it helps the different states to form a united front against giants like Russia, China, etc.
Is it flawed? Yes, decidedly so
Does it need to change? Yes, decidedly so
Should it be scrapped and nothing replacing it? Definitely no
Does the trade union help improve lives and industry in the EU? Definitely yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.