Poland, Spain and Italy Have Growing EU Exit Movements

A recent poll in Italy had 40% distrust of the EU.

Spain’s third-largest political party is considering adopting a Spanish exit platform. They are under pressure from a right-way grassroots movement.

Poland’s Laws and Politics Are Conflicting With the EU

Poland’s parliament defied Brussels by voting in favor of the controversial bill even after European Commission Vice President Vera Jourova asked authorities to hold off the vote and consult with external legal experts beforehand.

Poland’s Supreme Court warned this week that Poland could be forced to leave the EU bloc if the proposals were voted through.

Poland has become more of a distant EU member since it joined the bloc in 2004. It was the only country not to sign up to the European Commission’s Green Deal and it is not a Eurozone member.

137 thoughts on “Poland, Spain and Italy Have Growing EU Exit Movements”

  1. Perhaps the third time is the charm? No, the UK was characterized by an unusually *evenhanded* coverage of Brexit. 42% of articles one month prior to the vote for Brexit and 27% percent against.

    This is far better than the usual skew of newspapers and newsorganisations, which is more like 90% for the EU.

    Reply
  2. dude chill, luckily it’s all written and we’ll leave it to the readers to judge, regardless of what you meant in your head.

    Reply
  3. Dear Vittorio, work on your reading comprehension, please…!

    I have claimed that prior to filing for Brexit, there was no written commitment from the UK to pay all the way to 2022 in the case of leaving the EU.

    During negotiations, the EU threatened to block the UK from the common market after Brexit unless UK payed the full fiscal period (until 2022). The UK caved…

    Nothing of what you have presented contradicts this. Is this so difficult to understand?

    Reply
  4. You very confidently stated above that “the UK doesn’t owe the EU money”, which is plainly false. I’d suggest more caution for the future when talking about topics you’re not that familiar with…

    Reply
  5. So you have found a document where UK tells its own citizens that they have bungled the negotiations in such a way to pay the EU all the way to 2022. And this is what you wanted to show me? That the UK didn’t negotiate well?

    I just fail to see the relevance to our discussion so far? You could speed things along a *little* bit by being a bit more explicit, you know…

    Reply
  6. You are pointing me to a 300 page document without even the smallest clue as to what I should read or how this document contradict anything I have said.

    I am guessing – with the emphasis on guessing because I don’t have time to read it all – that you think that this document proves that the UK had a written obligation prior to 2016 about a fiscal commitment for the future..? Well, since the document is from 2019, it would be hard to interpret it that way… you know, the year 2019 coming after the year 2016 and all that…

    Reply
  7. Hm, the comment system ate my comment. Here it is again. Perhaps certain names cannot be mentioned?

    It seems the press was 42% for and 27% percent for/against brexit in UK [1]. Admittedly, the ideal would be 50% for and 50% against, but this slightly loop sided distribution is far, far better than the normal extremely loop sided distribution of journalist *for* supranational institutions (…careful wording not to activate comment system…)

    To give you an example of a more common loopsided distribution, here is how the coverage of a certain president has been [2]. For this president, the PEW institute found 62% negative versus 5% positive articles. Now that’s the “normal” distribution of coverage in this day and age.

    I would say that UK had an exceptionally balanced coverage of the issue, much better than most, if not all countries, would you not agree?

    (1)
    http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-05-23-uk-newspapers-positions-brexit

    (2)
    https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555092743/study-news-coverage-of-trump-more-negative-than-for-other-presidents?t=1577904300059

    Reply
  8. The UK is only different from the rest of the EU (the world?) in that the media was actually divided.. It was not, as is the usual case, 90%+ for globalism.

    In the UK, 45% of articles were for brexit and 27% were against [1]. Although this is not the ideal 50/50 distribution, it far more balanced than the usual deafening pro globalism.

    Let us compare this with the media situation and Trump in the USA. He has received 92%/8% negative/positive coverage [2]. Now, isn’t 45%/27% a more balanced than 92%/8%?

    (1)
    http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-05-23-uk-newspapers-positions-brexit#.

    (2)
    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-trump-hatred-coverage/

    Reply
  9. “Whatever happens is always a chance to set an example, not just in this case.”

    How about this instead? Don’t use the divorce settlement as a way to deter further defections, because the EU is so attractive by itself that you don’t have to?

    Make a deal for after the divorce that is financially profitable for both sides and leave all other aspect out of it. Let the UK have their borders, make their own laws, regulate their environment, make their own trade deals and set their own taxes? How about that, Vittorio?

    Reply
  10. “Your last comment reveals a certain degree of malicious intent: the sabotage is (clearly) not the divorce papers”

    Well Vittorio, it was not “clear” from your comment that this is what you meant. If you want to avoid misunderstandings, how about writing clearer? I’m pretty sure that if we would take a poll of a hundred random native english speakers, a majority of them would read you comment as I did…

    Reply
  11. The UK does not own EU money since there is no law or formal treaty that the UK has agreed to that explicitly states this. Same as for a person: if you leave a club, you don’t have to pay the monthly fees unless you have signed a contract specifying a cancellation time. Beyond the cancellation time, you don’t owe them a dime.

    If things were fair, the EU should just adapt to it’s new size and make cuts in the budget. The EU has had 2 years to modify their budget. May I suggest reducing the farming subsidies? It will have to be done sooner or later anyway… But then again, the EU is not really rational…

    Reply
  12. The elite are not the actors who appear on TV. The elite are the small group of people who own TV channels and newspapers and get to choose the ‘news’.

    Murdoch, the Barclay brothers, and Lord Rothermere between them own nearly all UK news outlets, and they were printing and broadcasting pro-Brexit messages pretty much non-stop.

    And no, they aren’t the champions of the common man and democracy, they are the champions of tax evasion, nepotism and corruption.

    Reply
  13. Whatever happens is always a chance to set an example, not just in this case. The negotiations have been impervious because the UK didn’t want to pay for the liabilities cumulated until then (“have their cake and eat it too”). Wanna leave easy? Just pay up what’s due.

    Your last comment reveals a certain degree of malicious intent: the sabotage is (clearly) not the divorce papers, but rather the punctual stick in the wheels of EU integration that the UK has put for decades before “filling the papers”. The video above really says it all – to no one’s surprise though. I hope you’re not surprised either, because you do seem a little emotional over this issue.

    Reply
  14. Nope, I understand Jevon’s Paradox just fine, and my comment stands – it does not necessarily apply to the electricity market, which IS highly regulated, and also far too complex for something as simplistic as Jevon’s to be able to accurately project anything.

    And while it might not be due to energy saving devices (complexity again), US per-capita electricity consumption HAS leveled off and even dropped a bit since 2000.

    Reply
  15. In summation, it was upper class against working class, politicians against non politicians and famous people against ordinary people…

    Reply
  16. And a majority of elected representatives in parliament was against Brexit. We know this since they refused to back Boris deal (which was a *lot* better than Theresa Mays deal).

    Reply
  17. All GB has to do now is to get it over with. After the Brexit, GB should make a trade deal with the USA as soon as possible. And I’ve read all the doom and gloom, but I am willing to bet that GB can grow faster than the crippled Europe, anyway. EU is anemic…

    The only threat is that EU is demanding that GB not lower their financial taxes as to become too successful. If GB does, then the EU threatens to cut of access to the financial markets of EU after Brexit. And this typical of EU.

    Instead of meeting or exceeding the rival by improving – for example by lowering taxes, deregulating markets, streamlining processes – , the EU seeks to force the competitors to be equally stymied.

    Reply
  18. The voting system is the way it is. If it were a majority system only, then the campaigns would be different. I’m guessing you are not so sorry that they have a “winner takes it all” system in France, since a simple proportional system would have allotted a lot more seats to Resemblement National…

    Anyway, the polls are moot. The people have already voted once and the result was clear. If our positions were exchanged, you would not have wished for a reversal of the staying in the EU. The difference, of course, is that the Brexit side would not have had the support of BBC, actors, “the elite” to bash staying in the EU for three long years. Furthermore, the remain side would not have been sabotaged by brexiteers like the leave negotiations have been torpedoed by the remainers in the government.

    Reply
  19. Yes. And its not “two people”. Its a huge class of landowners, oligarchs, hedge-funders and disaster capitalists, most of them privately educated in elite schools. The Tory party is stuffed with them.

    I don’t class “actors” or “famous people” as the elite. I class people who have inherited huge wealth and wield huge political influence for no other reason than an accident of their birth the elite. Because that is what they are.

    Reply
  20. Wow, so the several hundred polls conducted in the past two years, by multiple companies, using different methods, all of which show a majority against Brexit, are all wrong, because the referendum had a different result in 2016 which you preferred. The Tories won a landslide with 42% of the vote because the UK uses an outdated voting system. They did not win a majority.

    Reply
  21. The only question regarding integration in your new source is the question if integration could proceed at different paces in different countries. That is a *completely* different question from more or less integration in general.

    So, Vittorio, which was it? Did you not read your own source or did you not think that it was important to relate it’s content truthfully?

    Reply
  22. It’s not relevant if the undecided would vote this or that way. The fact is that in 2014 (at least), there was no strong opinion *for* a federation.

    Reply
  23. It’s interesting that you openly admit that Brexit is a “chance to make an example”. This is exactly what brexiteers have claimed all along: the negotiations have been so difficult not because there are insurmountable technical difficulties, but because the EU wants to make sure that GB fails afterwards as to warn off others to try the same.

    And your characterization of Brexit as a “sabotage of the EU” is also very telling. Do you also want to punish a wife for filing for a divorce since she is “sabotaging” the marriage?

    Reply
  24. One or two elite indiviuals do not constitute the elite class. Are you seriously denying that an overwhelming majority of actors, politicians, “famous people”, politicians and even upper class people in general was against Brexit?

    Reply
  25. These are polls and we know that polls can deviate from election results if there is a stigma attached to an opinion. Furthermore, there will always be fluctuations in the opinions of people.

    Fortunately, we have something better. There was a referendum where the leave side won. This is extraordinary, because people usually favors “status quo” but here people actually voted for a change.

    Also, the tories won a land slide victory on the promise to deliver Brexit. Sure, it was not all about the Brexit, but who can deny that it was *the* main issue of this snap election.

    Reply
  26. What is a human right? The right to live wherever I want? So if I want to move into the villa of Brad Pitt, that’s my human right and Brad Pitt has no say about it? Please explain what is the “human right” at stake here…

    Reply
  27. And how do we know that “saving” electricity has not resulted in less electricity production? Well, the *mechanism* for saving electricity would go as follows: Reduced demand results in lower prices of electricity. Reduced prices for electricity makes some power plants lose their profitability and must close down. Ergo reduced emissions.

    But, we don’t see this reduction in electricity prices, so we can safely assume that “saving” electricity does not result in less pollution and less energy consumption over all.

    Reply
  28. You have misunderstood the paradox. Of course the people that reduce their consumption of electricity do not themselves buy more electricity for other uses. Other consumers, such as industry, buys the electricity instead.

    And sure, you can kill the market by forcing it to pay for renewables, but this is an independent mechanism that has nothing to do with Jevons paradox. The question you have to ask yourself is if there is actually less production of electricity as a result of “saving” electricity from light bulbs or not. And the answer is most likely no.

    Reply
  29. Didn’t they have border stops between the different states in the USA until well within living memory?

    Or did I misinterpret the plot of Smokey and the Bandit?

    Reply
  30. In the US if you don’t like the government you just vote for somebody committed to destroy it. That seems to be what the conservatives are all about.

    Reply
  31. Instead of fracturing the EU, there should just be two Euro currencies (Northern and Southern) that float independently from each other and are control by to separate central banks. This would solve many of the economic problems of the EU.

    Reply
  32. Ah yes, that strange reverse world where Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg somehow aren’t members of a hereditary elite.

    The snap election was won by the Conservatives with 42% of the vote. Thats still a minority.

    Reply
  33. Brian, “Poland in conflict with EU” is a usual leftist B.S. The issue with Polish injustice system starts in 1944 when Soviet Russia occupied Poland and appointet judges from top to bottom of the system. Untill 1989 judges served communist party, after communism fell they suit themselves. And till today they are sellf appoited caste within society. First democratically elected governement that dares to tackle that and put judges under controll of the people is current one. Judges defend themselfes using European Union as a excuse: you can not curb us because our mandate comes from above. This will not work and ordinary Poles afe fed up.

    Reply
  34. Yes, one point in favour of the gold standard is that is becomes more obvious when you deviate from your stated monetary policy. You’ve either stuck to the conversion rate you had before, or you haven’t.
    So that serves as a line in the sand which would make most governments hesitate for a rethink or two before charging across it with horns blaring and a press release about not nailing the population to a cross of gold or some such rubbish.

    Reply
  35. The EU was very forthcomming. It’s the brits that couldn’t agree with themselves. The EU even allowed renogotiations. Who else would say: “fine, we already had a deal. But what the heck. Let’s waste time negotiating a new one”?

    Reply
  36. But if you have a gold standard, maybe you’re more likely to have disciplined management, because of the pain you know will be created if you don’t?

    Of course, maybe you’re also more likely to get managers (politicians) who will end the gold standard to make it easier to go in debt with no short-term hardship; which would imply that a gold standard is unstable in that sense?

    Reply
  37. WRONG a strong Mark makes German goods too expensive. Merkle is a Russian asset IMO. Everything that woman has done has been a deficit to the EU and Germany. Look at her East German background in the East German government and you see a pattern. Let millions of illiterate men from a primitive social into the country and claim a miracle will happen. Look at the knife murders in London that are greater than murders in NY. Look at the numerious gang rapes all over Germany and Europe. Germany has driven many countries into default with their one currency policy. It was just a matter of time and Russian is happy with their puppets success.

    Reply
  38. Jevon’s paradox doesn’t necessarily apply.

    Those saving electricity due to increased efficiencies will often choose to spend their saved money (if any) on things other than more electricity, and that alternative spending may not increase their overall energy consumption.

    And other people may not see electricity prices fall, due to regulated pricing and fixed costs of distribution and increased use of renewable energy, so they would not be motivated to increase their electricity consumption.

    Reply
  39. It did originally https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum
    And logically the EU should have formally had a vote on an EU constitution. They actually did, and France rejected it. So it was dead.
    So yes I agree nations should automatically fall out of the EU based on its new policies of constitution level changes without an actual constitution. A 67%+vote in favor of staying, or else it is undemocratic.

    Reply
  40. Initially the EU wanted them collaborative; the UK is a potentially positive addition, a decently run country. However, being this collaboration manifestedly impossible, there was no incentive to try to keep them in further. Actually, it was a great opportunity to make this case an example, should any other country in the future be tempted to sabotage the union like the UK did. However, even without breakup grief, when there’s a huge amount of trade and shared regulations, splitting apart without trauma is not easy even if both parties are 100% focused on a clean transition.
    By the way, the UK-EU peculiar relationship has been apparent to all participants since the very beginning. Here, listen to this piece of 70s BBC comedy explain it in an unmistakeable, crystal-clear manner: https://youtu.be/ZVYqB0uTKlE

    Reply
  41. Working age but with low education and no knowledge of the labor market that they are to enter. No relevant language skills. Calculations from Norway show that every migrant generate a net fiscal minus over their life in their new country ranging from -200 kEuro to -500 kEuro depending on their nationality.

    In Sweden, a report just showed that only 37% of migrants have a full time work (40 hours per week) that is not subsidized by the government 15 years after arriving in Sweden. And then they retire after another 10 year.. You do the math.

    Reply
  42. Come on Marcus… Democracies don’t take up arms against each other. That is the mechanism, not some bureaucracy in Brussels. Let’s not pretend this is a real argument, shall we?

    Reply
  43. There are several problems with the carbon reduction program of Europe. First, the program is so irrational.

    Normal light bulbs are banned although we *know* that this will only steer the electricity to other consumers. Same goes for all power limitations on vacuum cleaners, water boilers and so on. All to the detriment of the citizens, with no benefit in the end [1].

    And only intermittent energy sources such as solar and wind are pushed. We know that there is a limit to the possible penetration of intermittent energy sources since they have to be backed up by fossil fuel power plants.

    So why are Europe not forwarding fracking and nuclear? These are the technologies that could actually lower the carbon emissions in a meaningful way. Pure stupidity forced from above.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

    Reply
  44. “…. not cause backlash. given the benefits of a single currency and movement” and I should also add reduced chance of conflict (which I consider a major advantage).

    Reply
  45. Ok. So I agree that in general the EU should act minimally on member states so as to preserve the union and not cause backlash. given the benefits of a single currency and movement. I guess I don’t have a strong view on the other aspects of policy, except to say that globally we are in dire need of reining in our carbon emissions and if the EU is pushing that hard I have nothing but praise for it.

    Reply
  46. I’m live in the American west, so we haven’t seen it as much here, but I know UK and Canada are under assault from crap like you mention. In Canada you can get in trouble for quoting the Bible on the street. Not that I run around preaching in the street, but, really?

    Reply
  47. A change rising to the level of a constitutional one should require 67% or 75% of the vote.
    So arguably the remain vote should have had that threshold required. It didn’t even break 50%.

    Reply
  48. Each American State serves ITS people. From what I have seen and heard Each European state now serves the whims of those in Brussels.

    Reply
  49. the germans are really good at screwing europe up about every 40-50 years

    This isn’t a particularly German thing. For many centuries this task fell to the French.

    Reply
  50. No, you are using racist and colonialist mathematics, where a large number is larger than a small number.

    If you were properly educated you would know that a small number of people with correct thinking outnumbers a large number of people with wrong thinking, and that any voting system that doesn’t reflect this is fascist.

    Reply
  51. Some day you will get your reeducation camps for adults…

    I wish I lived in your world. That’s already a thing that the People’s Republic of Englandistan has implemented.

    This website is also patrolled by the Thought police to stop people posting links (FIX THIS BRIAN) but you can just google the headline

    UK requires hero who was stabbed on London Bridge in 2017 to undergo ‘deradicalization’ to avoid Islamophobia

    Reply
  52. A lot of readers make this mistake.
    This is not a site about tech, it is a site about the future.
    Yes, tech developments are a huge, probably the major, determinant of what the future will be like.
    But major political and military developments are going to determine the future too.

    Reply
  53. Eh? What planet are you living on? It was precisely the other way around. The elites mobilized for EU, and the people wanted to leave. There is the referendum and the snap election to prove it, you know…

    Reply
  54. As for the UK: good riddance. No one had an interest in having a non-collaborative member. As for all the others: things are working out, in spite of what certain media outlets like to tell to their grumpy audiences. If Greece or Italy had to splinter out, they should have done it by 2012. Now the incentives are a lot smaller and the disincentive a lot bigger. No issue with Spain: they have a low public debt to GDP ratio and even the separatists are pro-EU.

    But keep being that grumpy if you please, that’ll surely lead you far…

    Reply
  55. Really? These are arguably really stupid laws. Why do you, for instance, like the tax on links?

    With the advent of internet, you don’t really need that many reporters any more. It’s a natural consolidation process that is for the benefit of customers. The link tax will provide a forced subsidy of reporters and news organizations that are not really needed. Why is this good?

    Mind you, the papers still have the option to fill their online articles with advertising, or lock the content behind a pay wall, just as they do in the USA. Alternatively, the papers could provide just the tailored new compilations that online users want to attract traffic to their advertisement.

    But no, we customers in Europe are forced to subsidize a work force that is not needed to deliver products that we don’t really want.

    What is your rational for *liking* the link tax?

    Reply
  56. Please define what you mean by “the EC serves the EUCO”. And I don’t think that the people of europe generally agrees with you that the national parlaments have too much power in relation to the EU governing bodies.

    And that’s just it. You think that as long as you get it your way, it doesn’t matter if the people is consulted, whereas I think that it is the most important part.

    Reply
  57. But doesn’t stop there.

    Only the commission can proposals for new laws and then the parliament can either approve or reject them. So its the same unelected president that doesn’t have to appeal to the voters that decide what’s in the new laws.

    This is one of the reasons why the EU has come up with so many laws that is only wanted by some lobbyist groups. I mean really, if the people of Europe would have been consulted, do you think that a majority of them would have been *for* a tax on internet *links*?

    Or what about the law that stipulates that you cannot publish a photo of anyone if there is a theoretical possibility that this person be identified? How about the demand that platform providers, such as Facebook, has to provide filters so that it is *impossible* to upload anything that *might* be copyrighted? Illegal to publish photographs of public art without copyright permission? And what about banning ordinary light bulbs? Max 800 W for a vacuum cleaner?

    I could go on and on….

    Reply
  58. The EC serves the EUCO, not the other way around. The problem with the EU’s governance is that has too much power for national governments, not too little.

    Reply
  59. There is a difference, dear Banana99. The executive power of Brussels is headed by the commission which in turn is appointed by the head of the commission. This head is elected by the European Parliament, who in turn is elected by the citizens of the european countries. The parliament has to approve the commissioners, but it’s mostly pro forma. So there are two layers between the electorate and the head of the executive power and three levels between the electorate and the powerful commissioners.

    Contrast this with the USA. The president is elected directly by the electorate.

    This is why a president of the USA would never push for policies that are routinely persued by the president of the commission. Just imagine any US-president pushing for relocation of vast number of refugees to states that were unwilling to take them. Political suicide.

    Reply
  60. Really? I was under the impression that migrants are far, far more likely to be of working age than the native population, and make a net contribution towards GDP growth.

    Reply
  61. Oh dear.

    The EU is governed by the European Parliament (MEPs voted for in each country) and the European Council (Prime Ministers and Presidents elected by each country.)

    Reply
  62. Exactly right. And Germany is deluded when they believe that this would solve anything. As long as Germany has generous terms for migrants, they will keep coming in the hopes of ending up in one of the “good” countries (Germany and Sweden). Some migrants would escape and re-apply in Germany if they got ported out to Bulgaria.

    There are several real solutions to this problem. The most obvious is to remove the pull factors. Make the social benefits accessible only after paying taxes for 10 years. Since only 37% of the migrants have a real job after 15 years, this would act as a real deterrent. Or, you could demand that anyone bringing in relatives really has to be able to support them economically. Or you could fortify the exterior borders and really apply the Dublin treaty. Or… The possibilities are endless. Any of these measures alone would reduce the flood of migrants by a factor of 10.

    Germany wants to be “humane”, but doesn’t want to suffer the consequences of this “humane” policy. But it’s a fools errand.

    Reply
  63. Of course Germany knows this. Their migrants will never leave Germany, they will never spread out to the former eastern countries and so on. The migrants will pool into the countries with most cash benefits and the most generous possibilities to bring in relatives.

    And this is precisely why Germany wants to forcibly relocate the migrants, even against the preferences of the migrants themselves.

    Reply
  64. Of course he/she should have the right to move like everybody else. And its absolutely not a problem, Marcus. That is why it is not relevant to the things I’m claiming.

    You see, a european citizen cannot stay longer than 3 months in another european country without work. You probably did not know that, right?

    So if a syrian migrant that came to Germany would – unlikely – want to migrate farther to Bulgaria, he would have to get work within 3 months. Otherwise Bulgaria would have every right to deport him back to Germany.

    And the Bulgarian companies in turn would have every right to ask for relevant qualifications, such as speaking Bulgarian. So the minute stream of migrants that would want to move on once established in a in a country with free cash would be effectively stopped by normal bureaucratic rules.

    Obvious, is it not?

    Reply
  65. That works for strong economies with good economic policies, like Germany. It crushes weaker economies and bad policies. If Germany were to get the Mark back, it is estimated it would inflate 70%+ from where the Euro is now. The weaker economies would see currency deflation. This helps Germany a ton and hurts the others.

    Reply
  66. The slow death of socialism and unelected rule in Europe started with the problems in Greece. When you bully people into unpopular, antidemocratic, freedom crushing regulations and dictates, they will eventually revolt. Revolt while you can! Revolt while you still have the liberty to do so, Europe. Take back your countries or suffer the fate of Hong Kong. Eventually, the EU will crush descent. The Nazis burned books and Mao had his book of thoughts. The EU started “burning” words and the thought police are out and about already. Some day you will get your reeducation camps for adults while your children are brainwashed with the PC narrative of the day.

    Reply
  67. It is more like a supranational state in the process of disintergrating. Queue Brexit. Next? Italy? Greece? Ireland? Spain?

    Reply
  68. Yeah, big deal. And the 60-something percent of the rest of the population warily looks at the rest exhibiting nationalist and retrograde tendencies and wonders how a minority (by numbers) could effect change on the will of the many. It did happen in the United States after all.

    Reply
  69. Not really. Schengen exists outside of the monetary union. There are EU member states which have not signed up, and there are non-EU states which have signed this agreement.
    Point Jan.

    Reply
  70. Yes but the US if we dont like the government we can vote it out. In the EU you can’t vote. Everything is really just decided by brussels.

    In truth from what i have seen the EU really has become mostly a puppet of the German elites and to a lesser extent the french

    Reply
  71. if you weight it by the population of each state (and assume the “don’t know” people would abstain or vote about the same as the rest) it seems that most people in the block would go for that, even in 2014, when a “whopping” 5% more people answered “I don’t know”.
    Now, for your enjoyment, I found last year’s poll: it deals with “further integration”, but you get the point (page 18-25):
    https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/files/be-heard/eurobarometer/2018/delivering_on_europe_citizens_views_on_current_and_future_eu_action/report.pdf

    Reply
  72. I’m reminded of a comment about the gold standard that seems to sum up my understanding:

    If you have a disciplined financial management: you don’t need a gold standard.

    If you don’t have disciplined financial management: you can’t stay on a gold standard.

    Reply
  73. First of all most of the time migrants are economical BURDEN. Non-EU migrants make up a disproportionate number of welfare recipients. Imagine for example Italy letting everyone in and then expecting Germany to pay for it.

    And that’s exactly the problem! Germans want to let all the migrants in, however they’d like everyone else to pay for it. That is more or less forcibly distribute migrants among all of the EU countries.

    So if a migrant draws short straw, gets settled in Bulgaria and travels to Germany, he’ll be promptly deported back to Bulgaria. So much for free movement.

    Anyway – it’s a looooong way from getting refugee status to becoming citizen.

    Reply
  74. Now Marcus, if you read my posts carefully, you will discover that I have not actually stated anything about freedom of movement/common currency. Neither for nor against.

    Freedom of movement or a common currency does not mandate a joint migration policy, it does not mandate internet censure, a common social policy, a common environmental policy and so on. These are separate issues… Do you get it?

    Reply
  75. You don’t seem to understand the basic benefit of a single currency and freedom of movement. Having lived there for many years I can say it’s fantastic. People love simply being able to move around and send so easily. It’s not perfect but it’s a lot better than just a trading block.

    Reply
  76. For some reason, I could only see your links now and not earlier.

    No, your links prove the opposite of what you state. The second link is completely irrelevant and the first link shows that 41% of the EU population wanted a federation in 2014, shrinking from 45% in 2013. Also, it states that a whopping 65% of hungarians want a federation.

    I really doubt that 65% of hungarians want a federation today, so if anything, the percentage of europeans that want a federation is probably much lower today.

    Reply
  77. A second thought. Even if a country has tied their currency to the gold standard they still have the option to devalve their currency. One day a “dollar” is worth 1/100 of an ounce of gold and the next they declare that the “dollar” is worth 1/150 of an ounce of gold.

    So it would seem that the gold standard no gold standard is not relevant to the discussion.

    Reply
  78. I guess that would put you in limbo. That country cannot devalve their own currency when they need it, but it is also not (directly) subjected to the financial policies of some other central bank through the currency.

    Reply
  79. Wrong. When the bulk – if not all – member states entered it was presented as an economic union only. There was absolute no talk of expanding the union to entail migration, social policies, internet policies and so on.

    Reply
  80. The world is always changing, crazy to think that the European Union as we know it, could be at the beginning of the end. Even if that’s true, that’s a multi-decade process.
    I’m from the US, so I have no dog in the fight. I think a country should do whatever they think is best for their people.

    Reply
  81. The eu was “meant to be” whatever it chose to be every step of the way. More than a few would be happy to see the back of Poland, enough of special people.

    Reply
  82. Poland’s parliament defied Brussels by voting in favor of the controversial bill …

    What bill? The link doesn’t go to any story.

    A recent poll in Italy had 40% distrust of the EU.

    So? Don’t polls in the USA show a 87% distrust of Congress? A mere 40% distrust level is doing very well by those standards.

    Reply
  83. dont control your own currency, then you for all intents and purposes arent a real nation

    Does this mean that any country using a gold standard isn’t a real nation?

    Reply
  84. Ireland is still a member that is why Northern Ireland wants to remain despite Britain`s leaving. Norway is not a full member but is a ESA member as is Switzerland. Almost sure Sweden is a member

    Reply
  85. I think its longterm success would have been better served if it had just stayed a trading club. People in the street are mostly fed up with dictates from Brussel.

    Reply
  86. it’s not a trading club, it’s a supranational state in the process of consolidating. The people want a federation and that’s what they’ll get.

    Reply
  87. the eu has definitely overstepped its boundaries, but i think eastern europe are the more likely countries to leave and perhaps create an eastern bloc type trading system in the guise of what the EU was originally intended to do.. regardless the eu always had two major flaws.. its longterm success required increasing control over elements of society not originally intended and that isnt democratic at all… so they want to enforce laws through bureacracy.. the other is currency.. anyone on the euro wont be leaving on their own free will thats for sure. UK brexit never would have happened if the Uk was on the euro… in other words your country really stopped being an independent nation the moment it adopted the euro… dont control your own currency, then you for all intents and purposes arent a real nation

    Reply
  88. Probably right… the germans are really good at screwing europe up about every 40-50 years but this time they were able to do it without firing a single bullet.. that said the future of western europe style freedom is ironically in eastern europe.. a place that still values its own cultures and histories..

    Reply
  89. The Petro-backed Euro came at an invasive price… Holand, Norway are also not gulf oil dependent and could successfully exit and maintain a stable currency just as Britain does.

    Reply
  90. Are you denying that EU is overstepping its original purpose as a trading club? Are you denying that EU is acquiring more and more power at the expense of the national parliaments? And, are you denying that the EU is set up to be opaque and undemocratic?

    Reply
  91. Yah right… Germans are too woke of their past failures (won’t even budge a finger to handle their own domestic enemies)… Same goes for France: Only reason they don’t speak German today is because of the Brits saving them twice.

    Reply
  92. Similarly, the left and the green movement (but I repeat myself) are all for the EU. They have figured out that they cannot convince the citizens of Europe to implement their green policies to the extent, at the rate and at the cost that they would like. Some countries would do this voluntarily (such as the nordic countries and Germany) whereas most would not.

    So the EU is a way to bypass the will of the people and they thus love the EU.

    Reply
  93. If the people of the EU would be asked directly, there is no way you could get a majority of countries for redistributing migrants among countries. Only the countries that are actively using pull factors such as Germany, Sweden, France and a few others thinks its a great idea to re-distribute refugees.

    Other countries rightly considers that this is a problem for Germany alone. If Germany wants to attract migrants, so let them deal with it. The EU as a trade union would work just fine without any redistribution of migrants, but as I stated earlier, it’s a question of amassing power under EU so that the european countries will cease to exist in the long run and leave all the power in the hands of the EU.

    Reply
  94. There are many fundamental problems with EU. It was meant to be an advanced trading union at the time when all countries joined, but the burocrats wanted more power so they are constantly inching onto the turf of national responsibilities. And having no real constitution in the EU that *limits* the powers of EU, there is no real stop. Its a one way street..

    There is also no real stop because the EU is set up deliberately not be be democratic, or equivalently, to have as little influence of popular opinion on the politics of EU as possible. That may have been merited when EU was a trading club, but now EU wants to dictate a great deal of politics as well. Migration policy, policy of human rights, environmental policy, social policy and so on….

    Reply
  95. Here’s a direct witness from someone who has lived between Italy and Spain fr a few decades now: these movements used to be noticeable in 2010-2012 when there was acute pain within the working class. Nowadays things are better and even the most euroskeptical parties have learned that in order not to lose votes they cannot push too hard against the EU or – as more frequently happens – the Euro currency because people are scared shitless of going back to hyper-volatile local currencies that would be necessary only to constantly devaluate, like any run-of-the-mill banana republic.
    Some extremist parties are exploiting the populist handbook used by humans since the last few millennia: blame everything on something external to scare the people in order to unify them and make them obedient. It works like that also in the US (Russian witch hunt for democrats, the rest of the world for republicans). In Europe the framed external threat are alternatively (although sometimes jointly) migrants or EU institutions with an HQ somewhere else within the union. Petty family quarrels, like in many other big blocks around the planet. In the future the threats used to compact a more and more heterogenous populace may as well be aliens or made-in-somewhere-else robots or anything else really, as long as the narrative is “they vs us”.

    Reply

Leave a Comment