i heard on the news today about can/us/mexico attempted trade policies called similar to the EU…
I was just curious…do our european one wheeled comrades like the EU deal, or are there problems with it?
I never gave it any thought, and have done no research on the matter.
just curious
Loss of freedom.
Another step towards the new world order (a single world government).
are you always so glass-half-full? God, you make me sound like an optimist.
Since the glass is filling up, the glass is half full. There is a lot of momentum moving towards a single world empire. Hopefully, a revolution will occur to empty that glass so that people can be sovereign again.
Here’s one opinion and some insight: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm
Somehow, I had the idea that a single goverment wouldn’t be all that bad. Like, it wouldn’t declare a war on itself and nuke itself and stuff. Also, no need for armies. I guess this view must be pretty naive.
Could you please explain why a single goverment means loss of freedom and what other problems can be associated with it?
There is no place to go for exile if you do not like the restrictions imposed on you by your government.
When you have a central government, they will impose rules, and you and your local community have little say in what they do. You can take the US as an example. The USA was set up to be a union of states. These states are each sovereign nations, but only connected to provide for the common defense and to impose restrictions on what the States can do. For example, the States need to be a rebuplican form of government. The States can not make any but gold and silver coin legal tender. The State can not infringe on your inalienable rights. The federal government has only a limited number of things it can do. It’s very limited, however, they have gone way past that today and they now control much of the things today, and they have no athority to do so. If it were a world government, they would legislate away many of our rights and restrict many of our freedoms, but they would do it to everyone in the world. The world is very diverse, and limiting people’s culture and personal lives are not going to be good for the people. It’ll only be good for the few who rule the world.
The smaller the government, the more freedom the people have because they can control their local community much better. They know the problems in their community, and they can actually address them instead of waiting for a big government to take any notice. They can also better address them since they know more about the actual problems.
I understand about the single goverment overlord now, but the many small goverments picture doesn’t look that appealing either. Like if they had a problem, they wouldn’t always be able to solve it themselves. They’d also have people trying to overtake the goverment and become the honourable rulers themselves. Plus, other goverments wanting to expand. Somewhat like Africa.
What if the single world goverment was divided into independent states, like USA, but they’d have more personal freedom, except they wouldn’t be allowed to have wars with each other? Don’t know how that would work, though.
There is NO WAY that the entire planet can move towards and single govenment. Sure, the G7 and others may be able to do it and the Euro is an example of some of the G7 trying to do it but Canada has been in Afganastan and the States has been in Iraq for quite some time and stuff is still friggin messed in both those countries. Some countries are just better left alone. I don’t think that we would be able to get all the countries to line up politically. The political, economic, and religious policies are just to vast and varied for there to be one government.
It didn’t work in the USA. They found some loopholes in the system to expand and take control over all aspects. Based on my research so far, the loophole seems to be section 8, paragraph 17, of the Constitution, which basically gives congress unlimited powers over it’s federal district and federal property.
I could see a world system in place for dispute resolution between countries, but not a system that can legislate our rights away. There should not be a world government that can make any laws though.
For dispute resolution, I would envision a system like a court, where each side picks part of a jury, equally or mutually picked, from other nations, and this jury then breaks the tie if the issue doesn’t get resolved. This would only be for conflicts on issues where one country directly affects another, not about the laws within the country that are imposed on the people.
You have to remember who owns these governments. If you get a loan on your house, or on your car, the creditors actually own that property and can confiscate it at any time for failure to follow the contract. So, who owns these countries? The creditors.
I think it has been a benefit when it comes to free trade etc., which is probably the part that our North American friends are copying. It would be rather un-Bush-administration-ish to delegate power to something outside the US.
The subsidized agriculture bothers me, and it annoys me when some people act like it’s a given that EU can or should be behave like a new USA internationally.
The US is a nation. EU is not.
The countries in EU are too different and there isn’t enough of a European identity to make it stick together. Maybe it’ll evolve into a federation, but it has to take its time. It’s not a process that should be pushed or forced from above the way it has been here.
EU has added another layer of bureaucracy to some things but it has also done away with some of the paperwork in each of the member states.
The loss of freedom isn’t that noticeable in your daily lives. It is more a case of decisions being taken for you in Bruxelles rather than in the national parliament. It does move power further away from each citizen and that’s why it’s important to keep the discussion going about what is best done at EU level and what is best left to the members.
The US Constitution formed a federal government, not a national government. Though, I would not disagree with the current situation being that the US is a national government, but it was never authorized by the people.
Central government are usually about power. If they can find a way to get more power, they eventually will.
Here’s an interesting opinion about the EU: The Real Aim of the EU - LewRockwell
That was interesting.
The risk of civil war and the ability of politicians to stop quarrelling and coordinate a conspiracy of that scale is probably overestimated. Apart from that Per Bylund points out some of the downsides, and inavertedly also one the good things about EU.
Import taxes and and subsidies are used way more than they should, and EU has to take its, not insignificant, part of the blame. The story of Siemens and the lightbulbs is just one of several. However EU has also made steps in the right direction when it comes to creating a free market. “Siemens and the Lightbulbs” could have taken place without EU but with e.g. Germany taxing lightbulbs imported from Italy. Now, at least, this has been more or less eliminated within EU.
well i think the EU is a great thing, people complain about loss of power but lets be honest, all most countries let u do is vote for a president/prime minister and then he does wotever he wants (pretty much)
I mean look people voted for bush doesnt mean they wanted the war in irak but they got it anyways.
brussels is the same, they are about doing what they think is right for the whole of europe.
And if europe was that bad not so many countries would be queing up wanting to join.
Also EU gives u actually MORE freedom, i am able to go to every single EU nation, work there for as long as i want, and live there for as long as i wish, and go on holiday whereever i want in EU without a visa… isnt that freedom?
As for taxes, isnt it great that things arent taxed 400 times by different countries?
as for downsides… well some people would agree u ont choose people in brussels… but its abit like the prime minister in france, the french dont choose him, the president does, but the french vote him in, hoping he will do whats best for them.
you are totally right there, the EU is more like an alliance between alot of countries.
And the agricultural subsidies annoy me too, but there are always a few little bothers, hopefully the agricultural stuff will die soon.
It’s harder for countries outside the EU to trade with a country in the EU, even if both countries want to.
I can get joint citizenship in 1 EU country, and then travel everywhere in the EU. It’s a great concept.
good to see positive advice on E.U from a brit ! 
a bit surprised by your opinion Gilby …:o
though I am fiercely french (southern fried sub-category + traces of Morocco) I feel also like an european and like any other building of great things am ready to change things that are not working but certainly not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water! I can vote for a German or Spanish, or Latvian president if I feel he/she is a decent person.
for all the whinning about E.U I witnessed the changes in Spain or Ireland! Boy had you seen the changes you will have voted for E.U membership with both hands and feet!
wobblin bear: you changed your location to south west E.U. !!!
unfotunately wobbling bear i am dual national french and british 
but ehehe i’m happy to see i have a fellow EU supporter. I feel very european… actually i feel very breton too 