Skip to content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Add
About | Wiki | Legacy

The End Of The Nation States Of Europe

While this is not directly technology related it is quite alarming for our freedoms. I wouldn't say I believe every word in this article, but it is still quite intriguing and I do believe that the EU can hardly lead to good. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we soon find that the EU is de facto becoming a single state, as United States of Europe.

I don't quite care about the conspiracy implications. There needs to be no conspiracy. It just takes enough people believing in a particular idea and if the consequences of their actions in their pursuit of that idea lead to something that is ultimately anti-freedom then we certainly have something to worry about.

EU seems to be such a case. If this new "treaty" is given to vote on June 12 in Island I urge everyone who may be in Ireland to vote against it!

Thank you

Tags:

Comments

Yes, while I may not favour

 

Yes, while I may not favour going as far along the continuum from dictat to anarchy as yourself, we both see the EU as being too close to dictat and would pull it in the same direction, but the destination I have in mind is just a step in the right direction in your vision.

Since citizen exclusion is/has been deployed for 26 out of 27 member states, we are left with a bizarre situation. The Irish rejection was by a majority of just under 110,000 - if 55,000 people had voted yes instead of no it would have passed. Of the EU ~490 million citizenry that's just over 1,000th. Yet more bizarre is that many people seem angry that little Ireland can block the rest, but these people seem to have no issue with the scenario that just a handful of politicians can dictate to everyone.

We keep hearing pompous references to "elected representatives" of other countries. I don't recognise their electoral mandate as being concordant with their peoples wishes, in a general election people vote on a whole raft of issues, EU is rarely top of the list. Recent tests of citizen positions on the direction of the EU have shown it is against the peoples wishes, clearly the Lisbon treaty stands accused of being without democratic legitimacy.

A more sensible approach is to revive national sovereignty. It is not for nationalism that I say this, but for peace. A recent referendum in the Republic of Ireland that was passed, saw us relinquish our constitutional claim on the six counties of Northern Ireland. This was a big ask given our history of 800 years of foreign dominion and the civil rights abuses suffered by the Catholic minority in the north. The majority view in the Republic is that a united Ireland would be the right end to the story. But it was clear that peace was more important than nationalism.

The EU claims political union is necessary to secure peace, but I believe this is the opposite of the truth. I favour more international co-operation, but the EU no longer offers that, it abandons consent in adopting QMV. When things are imposed on a nation against the wishes of the people, their fellow Europeans are blamed. Already the seeds of division have sprouted as a result of impositions, Lisbon promises more impositions, and the scene is set for the rise of nationalism and hostilities. I think EU politicians are fundamentally underestimating the problem they have created and seek to escalate in their lust for power.

Wearing my Machiavelli hat however, sowing the seeds of division may be exactly what the ruling elite want. When hostilities inevitably break out, it will provide a pretext for replacing civil liberties with EU/state control, it all points to an Orwellian conspiracy like the wars on terror and drugs.

As for the right of a politician to coerce, I actually do not believe in it, and favour the introduction of a citizen petition that can invoke a referendum on any issue. I take your point that this merely replaces the tyranny of a minority with the tyranny of the majority, and coercion remains a problem. All I can offer is that it improves the statistics, and by more people having a say it gets us to a situation where your vision of no coercion becomes more possible than it is when a tiny elite have all the power.

democrates wrote: Yes,

democrates wrote:

Yes, while I may not favour going as far along the continuum from dictat to anarchy as yourself, we both see the EU as being too close to dictat and would pull it in the same direction, but the destination I have in mind is just a step in the right direction in your vision.

Indeed, well said.

democrates wrote:

A more sensible approach is to revive national sovereignty. It is not for nationalism that I say this, but for peace.

I have to agree. Although my ideal would be for people to cease validating the authority of "government" and "nation" over their lives, I realize this is quite unlikely to happen so soon and so deep into this problem. So if we can restore individual nations first on a way towards restoring individual sovereignty, then I'll accept that lesser evil for now. That's perhaps about the only thing that could get me out to vote, if a referendum for or against Croatia joining EU is given and respected.

However, that of course doesn't mean I'll stop attempting to convince people to just do the whole thing right away and take the freedom they deserve, start living as free individuals and withdraw their support for the state as much as they can.

democrates wrote:

Wearing my Machiavelli hat however, sowing the seeds of division may be exactly what the ruling elite want. When hostilities inevitably break out, it will provide a pretext for replacing civil liberties with EU/state control, it all points to an Orwellian conspiracy like the wars on terror and drugs.

It always somehow ends up gravitating to that doesn't it? Sad I am of opinion that an evolution towards less liberties and more centralized control of people's lives is a natural consequence of a belief in the validity of coercive monopolies / governments. However, while it usually seems too much like a conspiracy I've come to realize that it's often not even so much of a conspiracy as much as genuine activism of a sort. Many of the politicians which are leading us into this mega state probably genuinely believe that they are doing something good and many people who still continue supporting the EU idea also operate on genuine belief.

What I am getting at is that it is often a belief into an idea, usually proven as the wrong idea when the damage is already done, that leads us into these troubles. All it takes is for people to stop believing and start questioning and thinking for themselves, all people, whether they call themselves government officials or just citizens. Even the most seemingly most corrupt, power hungry and "evil" politician is just a single individual with needs and desires, beliefs and ideals. What if you could get to talk to him man to man, as one individual to another, no ranks, no artificialities? What if you could convince him that the job he is doing right now is wrong? What if he turned from a staunch statist socialist to a voluntaryist? What if all politicians had friends who could help them become that? Smiling The states would silently wither away and you wouldn't know what the fuss was all about over the centuries and how crazy did we have to be to believe in something that's purely a figment of our imagination.

I know this seems quite impossible. These politicians are rarely surrounded by people who can truly and independently think. Instead they are surrounded by like-minded people who brainwash each other every day into conformance to "the agenda". But by portraying even these politicians as merely humans like us, who COULD if given time and chance to open their minds, actually start thinking like you or me I am trying to emphasize the individuality of all of us. If it is even remotely possible to convince a politician, why would it be impossible to convince a friend who could convince his friends.. until we have a grass roots movement on our hands... (and we do, in fact, it's just still fairly small, but may within a decade result in a separation of at least one US state from the USA. Eye ).

democrates wrote:

I take your point that this merely replaces the tyranny of a minority with the tyranny of the majority, and coercion remains a problem. All I can offer is that it improves the statistics, and by more people having a say it gets us to a situation where your vision of no coercion becomes more possible than it is when a tiny elite have all the power.

Agreed. More people having a say means more people being able to vote for "none of the above, I'll take of my own business from now on, thank you very much". Smiling At the very least it would find the "representatives" caught up in their own soup. They offered a vote, agreed to the rules and got beaten by their own game: got fired. All they can do is go home.

But, when I think about it... while it may be easier to convey such a "message" to a government which asks people's opinion a lot more, the above scenario is possible even in a stinky "democracy" we have right now. Sticking out tongue You just have to say to yourself. No more. I own myself and everything I do, nobody else and start living like a free guy. When the dude asking for money comes in, you just have to know how to "deal with him" without ending up fighting him (he is just an individual so you can actually make an agreement with him too). When the dude with a gun comes in, you might even be able to deal with him too. He has a gun, but he is also an individual who you might be able to make an agreement with. And if you do end up in jail... well... the keepers are individuals too. Smiling

But I'd rather end up in jail in a place where others like me will make a big fuss out of it therefore making my temporary relocation worth it and making me feel like I'm not alone, than get in jail and be forgotten. So... that's why I'll move to NH once they secede. Sticking out tongue

There, if you can get in jail and still have the "I'm free from you" message get even louder instead of being diminished, then you know no matter what government and what kind of democracy you have, freedom message is always conveyable. And if it is, then freedom is within grasp too.

But I think I went a little too far from you on that continuum you mentioned earlier now. Laughing out loud

Cheers

 

I voted No to the Lisbon Treaty because I believe the EU is on the wrong track. I did not vote No to my fellow EU citizens, but to the politicians who refuse to give the people they supposedly represent a voice in the future of the EU.

Lisbon would introduce a citizen petition, whereby >= 1 million signatures from several member states (full details tbd in the future) would result in a proposal. It is not sufficient as citizen involvement, and is accompanied by various measures which make decision-making even more remote from citizens. It replaces several national vetos with QMV - qualified majority voting. QMV has one purpose - to allow a qualified majority impose things on a minority of member states which the citizens of those nations would never opt for. The more centralised power presents an easy target for private interests to lobby and bribe so that the EU is steered to suit them at the expense of citizens.

The Lisbon Treaty only makes sense if your frame of reference assumes the purpose of the EU is to run its member states. My preference would be for an EU whose purpose is to streamline the process of member states forming and implementing agreements, but on an opt in basis only, with nothing enforced. Furthermore, I believe it makes sense for individual nations to introduce a citizen petition, whereby if enough signatures are gathered, a referendum will be held on any issue, and the law must then reflect the expressed will of the people.

The reactions of various EU member states' elected representatives and of Jose Manuel Barroso to the Irish referendum result have been predictable. The EU constitution was rejected by French and Dutch citizens several years ago. Those nations were not isolated, their citizens wishes were simply ignored. The bulk of that treaty was repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty, and this time French and Dutch citizens have been given no say. It seems the ratification of Lisbon by parliaments who have not yet done so is to go ahead without referenda, and mounting pressure is to be put on Ireland over the rest of this year. Already the accusations of self-interest and disrespect for our fellow Europeans have been expressed, and I expect this divisive propaganda to intensify over the coming months.

We know from the EU constitution what EU politicians want - a United States of Europe. The current arrangement allows them to perform a neat trick and Lisbon would expand this capacity - vote against measures which if they openly supported their own citizens would punish them for at the next election, yet being over-ruled via QMV they can blame the EU when such things are imposed, and pay no price at the ballot box. They cannot be accused of betrayal on any given measure, it was adopting the system which was the betrayal.

Some suggest the Irish may be asked to vote again, in that case I will vote no again, and I predict the bullying tactics will backfire and result in an even stronger rejection. I expect EU politicians will continue to grasp for this chalice of more elitist central power which is so tantalisingly close. They will try to subdue their own concerned citizens using anti-Irish propaganda and a pantomime of acting like headless chickens to convince them there is no alternative to Lisbon. If this transpires, Ireland may well end up having to step outside the core of the EU. This would be regrettable, an opportunity lost for EU citizens to demand the right to be heard, and cementing citizen exclusion as the EU modus operandi for the next 10-30 years.

I appeal to my fellow Europeans to stand up and insist that our voices be heard, that our nations repeal the treasonous surrender of sovereignty to the EU, and that we impel our politicians to forge a new Europe where national and citizen sovereignty are once again respected. I have no wish for my elected representatives to have a formal say in the affairs of other EU nations, I believe we can make better progress based on accords than by a sequence of enforcements. I realise my appeal is a tall order, and in 6 months looks an unlikely goal, but whatever transpires, the flame of camaraderie and warmth toward my European neighbours will not be extinguished.

I'm glad you voted no and

I'm glad you voted no and that the treaty was rejected.

That said, to be honest I'm not much of an optimist about the good outcome of any pursuit of european "unity". There are too many people involved, too many sovereign individuals, of which at least a whole quarter is probably against european union in the first place.

That alone makes the whole idea totally invalid for me because I don't believe in mob rule, in that the majorities can impose a state of things on the minority. The EU is a fundamentally bad idea, even worse than a small government over a smaller number of people. I'd rather take a Croatian government than an European pan government any day!

Somehow all of the troubles you are seeing yourself now seem to indicate the consequences of this idea.

IMHO, you and many like you can do your best to fight such an outcome, but as long as you believe a politician has the power to coerce you I assure you that you will fail. As long as you believe in coercion as an acceptable relationship, you will face a perpetual threat of being led away from your own sovereignty and the sovereignty of your "community".

Of course, that's just my Humble Opinion. Everyone is free to pursue whatever they believe is best and most reasonable. But reality is agnostic to what we think about it and the consequences of particular actions are unavoidable. Either I will be proven right or you will be proven right (which I obviously doubt). At least I made my position clear. Eye

No to European Union. No to coercive relationship instituted by government. By my every breath I declare my sovereignty and independence. Billions of people deluding themselves that some people have the right to initiate force upon them and control their lives - does not make it so for me.

And that's what makes me a free individual.

Thanks.