Comment by mytailorisrich

Comment by mytailorisrich a day ago

This has been the official line and "correct thought" for decades so it is unsurprising that it should yield results. It has gone into over-drive with, or thanks to, the war in Ulkraine, and renewed push for the EU to involved itself in military matters. Similarly, anyone who does not agree with further political integration, or objects that it is already too much, is depicted as wrong and, gasp, obviously "far right", as very well examplified in this article.

Manufacturing consent works.

> "No one is putting into question the existence of the EU anymore, but they fundamentally disagree [on] what they should do,*"

This is a little misleading because this has actually been the main contention, not the very existence of the EU/EC even since the days of Margaret Thatcher. The debate has always mostly been about political integration, and that's what is being suppressed more and more.

The far right may have been, in general, opposed to the EU but the fallacy, again, is the current use of the term "far right". Taking France as an example, the National Rally is now the largest party by votes and number of MPs, it is the main party of the right and not "far right", which is FUD. It has embraced the general euroscepticism of the traditional French right, including from the Gaullists (De Gaulle's political movement) but not the outright dismantling of the EU.

Edit: Really the HN crowd has become very obtuse and narrow-minded... What's the point of posting these articles if commenters are only allowed to agree, or disagree, depending on what is the expected correct reaction?

graemep a day ago

> This is a little misleading because this has actually been the main contention, not the very existence of the EU/EC even since the days of Margaret Thatcher.

Why is Thatcher significant here? She was strongly pro-EEC - she supported remain in the 1975 referendum but she had been long out of any significant political influence by the time integration became more political.

Looking at more recent British politics at the time of the 2016 referendum it was very common for remainers to claim that the EU was just a trade organisation and not going to evolve into a full political union or federal state.

I think part of the problem is that the EU's founding treaties both indicate it is a supranational organisation and promise ever closer union. I would argue that just reflects differences in what different groups of people want.

Reply View 2 replies

mytailorisrich a day ago

> Why is Thatcher significant here? She was strongly pro-EEC
Exactly, she was pro-EEC but "Eurosceptic" in that she didn't want this to morph into a political union. I mentioned her to illustrate that the debate on what the EU should be and how far political integration should go, if go anywhere at all, has been going on forever but is more and more "smothered" by accusations of being "far right" for often being not too different from Thatcher.
Remember a famous speech in Parliament in which she said that the single currency was political union by the backdoor. Exactly right.
> it was very common for remainers to claim that the EU was just a trade organisation and not going to evolve into a full political union or federal state.
That's not true. Of course it was a political union, and that was the point of the referendum. Remember the pro-Brexit's line that the people had been sold a trade organisation (in 1975) but got a political union, instead. Now there were claims that the EU would not evolve into a federal state, and this aligns with what I wrote about EU political integration being insiduous and often deceiptful

Reply View | 1 reply
- graemep a day ago
  
  > Remember a famous speech in Parliament in which she said that the single currency was political union by the backdoor. Exactly right.
  I do not think it was much of a backdoor. Anyone who looked at it could see where it should lead.
  1. Further political integration was expected at the time of currency union 2. A currency union requires some amount of fiscal union to be stable so its idiotic to have one without the other
  > Now there were claims that the EU would not evolve into a federal state, and this aligns with what I wrote about EU political integration being insiduous and often deceiptful
  I think part of the problem is that people do not understand how the EU works. A lot of people have a very poor understanding of how their national political system works.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

coldtea a day ago

Such notions were also shot down when people had a chance to vote again and again (against the expansion of EU powers), but the bureucrats kept pushing and advertising (with public money) for it, and blackmailing countries with withdrawal of funds if they don't consent to them.

Reply View 1 reply

throw-the-towel a day ago

The voting will continue until morale improves!

Reply View | 0 replies

saubeidl a day ago

I'm curious - how do you see Europe surviving if not through further integration?

How do you envision, say Lithuania standing up to Russia, China or the US?

What is your preferred model? All of us staying in little insignificant countries, kowtowing to larger powers?

Also, the National Rally is clearly far-right. It was founded by former Waffen SS-members, for chrissake.

Reply View 22 replies

graemep a day ago

What do you mean by "Europe"? Yes, Lithuania has a problem, but the UK, France and Germany do not.
> What is your preferred model?
There are lots of alternatives to turning the EU unto a federal state with its own armies. Alliances for one. It has been NATO that filled this role for over 70 years, and successfully so against a far more powerful threat than Russia.
> All of us staying in little insignificant countries, kowtowing to larger powers?
Lots of "insignificant little countries" seem to do rather well. Switzerland, Singapore, Norway,.....
I can see the nationalist appeal of belonging to a big powerful country, but it does not really do the people of a country much good.

Reply View | 5 replies
- saubeidl 21 hours ago
  
  The threat isn't just military and it's not just coming from Russia.
  Think about economic extortion from the US and China, how would little Lithuania defend against that?
  Two of those three little countries have to follow EU law without having any say in it - my point exactly!
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  graemep 21 hours ago
  
  > Two of those three little countries have to follow EU law without having any say in it - my point exactly!
  The same is true for any treaty. The same is true for internal negotiations within the EU.
  > Think about economic extortion from the US and China, how would little Lithuania defend against that?
  Could the EU do much better than the larger countries can do by themselves? Especially in the long term its much lower growth rate means its going to be a relatively smaller and smaller economy compared to the US or China.
  Despite all the expansion, the EU at the time the UK left was a much smaller proportion of the global economy than the EU at the time the UK joined.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
jack_tripper a day ago

>I'm curious - how do you see Europe surviving if not through further integration?
I don't, with or without further integration. Not everyone or everything is meant to survive. Everything has a shelf life. The Roman empire also collapsed. Rearranging the deckchairs of the titanic doesn't change the outcome.
>What is your preferred model? All of us staying in little insignificant countries, kowtowing to larger powers?
A union is good, but the EU only worked at preventing another world war between members, not at helping us be united against foreign entities, because you can't force unity between different dethatched cultures just because we're neighbours, as proven by Yugoslavia, the USSR, etc.
Every EU member is still driven by self interest and own group preference, which will be the EU's doom. Like Spain doesn't really care as much about the Eastern war as Poland or Romania do because they're far away from the war and don't see why they should pay more taxpayer money for it. Germans care more about something happening in Austria than about what's happening in Bulgaria. And so on.

Reply View | 5 replies
- 0dayz a day ago
  
  >I don't, with or without further integration. Not everyone or everything is meant to survive. Everything has a shelf life. The Roman empire also collapsed. Rearranging the deckchairs of the titanic doesn't change the outcome.
  Why have strong opinions if you're really just a doomer?
  Yugoslavia broke up mainly due to ethnic not cultural differences, it wasn't Croatian Serbs against Bosnian Serbs.
  And the entire point of a healthy relationship is to compromise and try to understand the other side, which is the point of the EU.
  So Spain contributes to the east as a compromise for getting heavy subsidies themselves.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  jack_tripper a day ago
  
  >Why have strong opinions if you're really just a doomer?
  Are you the opinion police?
  >the entire point of a healthy relationship is to compromise and try to understand the other side, which is the point of the EU
  The problem with compromise is that everyone becomes equally unhappy. And when everyone is unhappy strange results come at elections.
  EU member states are so different, that you can't have regulations that benefits an economy like Denmark and also simultaneously one like Romania. Which is how places like Romania now have German energy and grocery prices but Romanian wages and pensions. Not exactly a great compromise for a lot of Romanians.
  >So Spain contributes to the east as a compromise for getting heavy subsidies themselves.
  It doesn't matter how it is in reality, what matters is how Spanish voters perceive it come election times. Elections are always won on vibes and feels rather than facts and arguments.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
mytailorisrich a day ago

The fallacy is obvious right there...
Why would "Europe's survival" be at stake without further integration? Why would Lithuania need to stand up to Russia, China, or the US? (In terms of defense there are military alliances. They have never required political union or giving up sovereignty)
Edit as you added things:
> Also, the National Rally is clearly far-right.
Making outrageous claims does not make them factual.
> It was founded by former Waffen SS-members, for chrissake.
That's the FN that preceded the RN, some other founders were involved in the Resistance, too. That's the typical FUD narrative I mentioned, which takes the situation in 1972 and uses it to describe 2025. Are you saying that the majority of French MPs are Nazis? That's obviously ridiculous. Most US founding fathers were slave owners, so obviously the US are pro-slavery, like the Democratic Party that used to support slavery... Equally ridiculous. Again, today the RN is the main party of the right, nothing more. Their positions today would have made them in Chirac's rightwing government in 1986, not in the FN of the time.
The situation today is more like this: "Why Serge Klarsfeld, the renowned Nazi hunter, says he's ready to vote RN" [1] clearly a little different from your claims...
[1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2024/06/23/why-se...

Reply View | 9 replies
- saubeidl a day ago
  
  Do you think Lithuania can in any way negotiate on anything approaching equal terms with any of those?
  What you're asking for is effectively to become a client state of one of the above.
  I notice you didn't address the elephant in the room regarding the National Rally, i.e. its founders being actual Nazis. (like, the Hitler kind, not just random right wing extremists).
  Changing their name does not make this any less true - hell, one of their founders was talking about putting a Jewish singer in the oven (!!!) only a few years ago.
  
  Reply View | 8 replies
  
  6510 a day ago
  
  > What you're asking for is effectively to become a client state of one of the above.
  You optimist! It seems more like one has to be a client state for all of the above simultaneously and be punished whenever contradicting orders are handed down.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  jack_tripper a day ago
  
  >Do you think Lithuania can in any way negotiate on anything approaching equal terms with any of those?
  Do you think Lithuania, or other such small countries like Serbia, Albania, Bosnia, Georgia, etc, can negotiate on equal terms with the EU?
  I got news for you, when you're small country bordering large empires, you're gonna get absorbed into one or the other, whether you want to or not, because you don't really have a choice.
  
  Reply View | 6 replies

hulitu a day ago

> What's the point of posting these articles if commenters are only allowed to agree, or disagree, depending on what is the expected correct reaction?

As we say in the EU: to avoid fake news. You either agree with us, or we cancel you. /s

Reply View 0 replies