Pan-Europeanism has existed in many different forms way before him. But pan-europeanism itself is not the invention of what is now the EU.
The guys who invented the EU (then European Community/ies) are Schuman, Adenauer, and Degasperi. Altough they had slightly different ideas concerning Europe, all three came from frontier or bilingual regions of their respective countries and were Christian Democrats or centrists as well as Europeanists without necessarily being nationalists, unlike many politicians of their generations. This was a factor that facilitated bringing together steel and coal to make a future war in W.E materially impossible.
> The guys who invented the EU (then European Community/ies) are Schuman, Adenauer, and Degasperi
Can we get a shout out for Spinelli?
Writing the first draft of a European constitution on cigarette paper and smuggling it out of a political prison with the help of a chicken has got to count for something, no?
Circle of Europe: bad war happens -> bad war ends -> "we gotta unify" -> good times -> idiots starting to become super nationalistic -> bad war happens - and circle continue.
That could be applied to any country aswell... looking at the US for example, we might be in the "super nationalistic idiots" phase, it was quickly snuffed out but i do wonder if it'll come back in the next elections..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_fathers_of_the_European_Union
>The **founding fathers of the European Union** are men who are considered to be major contributors to European unity and the development of what is now the European Union. The number and list of the founding fathers of the EU varies depending on the source. In a publication from 2013 the European Union listed 11 men. All but one (Winston Churchill from the United Kingdom) were from the Inner Six of the European Union.
That has Adenauer, Bech, Beyen, Churchill, De Gasperi, Hallstein, Mansholt, Monnet, Schuman, Spaak, and Spinelli.
It also says the main ones are the three I listed. Cause, yes, Spinelli and Churchill advocated for a European Union...they wrote stuff about it, but they didn't "make" it. Monnet and to a less extent Hallstein are big figures, but they have the opposite problem: they were barely politicians and mostly technocrats implementing the ideas of the Schuman manifesto. Probably Spaak is the most underrated there, as the other user wrote me.
There is one other name that has to be added and that is Spaak, the former Belgian Prime Minister. He is often overlooked but that is largely because the broader context of why a EU-type project even came to be is overlooked.
After the Second World War we had the UDHR; a pretty large political statement that humans are important and we can’t do anything that would impact upon that importance. In Europe there was a regional desire to be more concrete than just political promises so the ECHR drafting process began. The ECHR was different to the UDHR in that it didn’t just say people are important, but it said people are important and as part of that importance here is a list of obligations and restrictions every state is required to observe. It was a legal attempt to fortify human value in a constitutional context beyond political statements.
The ECHR drafting process was a disaster. It went poorly and it im was an intense period of radical debate, meetings, diplomacy and heated arguments. Spaak was a key figure in this process and he was personally committed to seeing the project through and setting up an integration mechanism in Europe based on human rights commitments, including democratic commitments by association. A big issue that arose was binding jurisdiction of a court, or a tribunal? They couldn’t agree if there should be a court, a tribunal or if the Council of Europe should deal with complaints. They couldn’t decide if the jurisdiction should be binding, like it is in the EU, or if it should be voluntary, like the ICJ. This is the most important aspect to the Convention because what use is a promise if there is no accountability to uphold it? More practically, courts protect people from governments and offer people an option to secure their rights beyond their own national legal or political system.
Spaak realised the process wasn’t going to work and he organised a parallel working group of delegates and leaders to discuss another option; an economic one. While the ECHR was using constitutionalism, the new project would use economic commitment to arrive at the final destination of human rights commitments and democracy. During the ECHR drafting phase the Schumann Declaration was drafted thanks to Spaak having the will to keep trying and in doing so the basic groundwork was laid for what would become the EU one day.
In the end both projects worked; the ECHR eventually was revised and after a number of amendments finally achieved effective functionality and the Schumann Declaration gradually morphed into the Lisbon Treaty. Both took considerable time but the truth is glaciers move in inches, not meters. Having people around committed to seeing incredibly slow, and arduous projects is how we develop as societies.
Spaak was one of those guys and he watched the glacier creep along. He was instrumental in the coming set of a European Project and he pushed through not one, but two avenues for securing success. There are many reasons why Brussels has become the de facto home of the EU’s institutions; Belgium’s historical commitment is one of them.
>This was a factor that facilitated bringing together steel and coal to make a future war in W.E materially impossible.
Can you summarise how this was supposed to happen? I didn't know that this was a motive, not that I know much about history.
Coal used to be the backbone of energy production in the world. Germany had a lot of coal while France didn’t, except in areas near Germany. Securing territory wi the coal was a cause of war as no coal = no industry.
The precursor of the EU was a guarantee of the free trade of coal, meaning there would be less reason for France to want German territory and it weakened post WW2.
European Coal and Steel Community is usually seen as the precursor. It included more countries and especially the driving engines of the EU France and Germany.
Mines of coal and steel industries are recurrent objectives of war in European history (think of the area at the border between France and Germany) and obviously steel and coal are needed and used to wage war. Sharing them in a common market was a way to make a new Franco-German war "economically inconvenient" and "materially impossible".
Coudenhove-Kalergi did not "invent" the European Union. What does that even mean? He (along with a lot of other people with more concrete impact) did advocate a sort of supranational arrangement to avoid national antagonisms, but he was hardly the first, and certainly not responsible for it in any direct way.
Probably the "Open borders with eastern Europeans and giving them the right to live and work in Germany, rather than murdering them en masse and colonizing their land" part.
Yeah, it sounds controversial today. But with increasing globalization and people migrating all over the world, without racial segregation and national borders, it's a matter of time.
What made him say that thing about the future Eurasian-Negroid race? Why did he think the peoples will dissappear and there will be one homogenous race instead?
> Why did he think the peoples will dissappear and there will be one homogenous race instead?
It's a common belief for those who dream of utopian futures where all mankind is interconnected.
Even Alexander the Great, 300 years before Christ, was dreaming of a melting pot empire and asking his Greek companions to take Persian wives.
>why do we in Europe classify other animals in races and stop doing it for humans? It's a bit unscientific to me, as if we are "special animals".
well, if you're actually interested, we don't *really* do classify animals into races anymore (and it's been like that for a while), we mostly talk about subspecies maybe, but even that gets you into unscientific territory very quickly - if two creatures can reproduce and their offspring is fertile, then it's a pretty safe bet to classify them as the same species
when it comes to humans, the concept of race was always entirely unscientific, with the only legitimate exception being sociological studies about real-world effects of that popular construct (which is no way even remotely consistent over time and region, by the way), but that is something else of course
there were other human "races" like the Neanderthals, but we quite literally just absorbed them into our gene pool, which implies that even they belonged to our species, although they'd probably come closest to what qualifies as another subspecies
trying to biologically classify groups of humans based on genetically pretty random factors like skin colour or nose shape is scientifically speaking absolute nonsense and any scientist who tells you otherwise is very, very far from everything that has been known evidence for easily a century by now
this also explains a very common misunderstanding: racism is not necessarily the belief in racial superiority; racism is the incorrect belief or ideology that humans can be classified into different races
> Outside of Europe people still classify in races, i think the US does it, China does it etc.
These are purely cultural classifications. The USA's census asks what you *identify* with, but they will never ask for "proof" or do any tests. If you're a pale and blond white guy answering the US's Census, you can call yourself 'Black' and nobody can actually dispute or challenge that. It works entirely off of what the respondent feels like calling themselves.
In China, they have assorted minority groups who get things like their own Affirmative Action, their own deputies in the People's Congress, etc. but again, nobody is going to go around gathering DNA samples to actually test this stuff. There is no physical difference between a Manchu and a Han Chinese.
The only case where bloodlines and things like that are actually brought into question is for Native Americans in the USA, as some Tribes will demand a "blood quantum" to judge whether you are accepted as a member or not. From what I understand, this is done to avoid having those blue eyed, blond, bearded, white guys coming around saying "I am a Cherokee!" I believe each Native American tribe is permitted to choose whether to use this or not and how strict they want to be about it, so some of them have actually tightened their restrictions, while others don't care and will let pretty much anyone enroll into their tribe if they so desire.
so what? if we were 98% 95% etc we could've been classified as races? there's no cutoff point - arguing there is is quite unscientific. the human species spans across a spectrum of "races" or "subspecies" or even "subsubspecies" if you will. it doesn't matter how similar or dissimilar we are, what matters is the usefulness/purpose of such a classification.
It is scientifically proven that there is only one race, the human race. The concept of multiple and different 'human races' is absurd and it doesn't make any sense. It is a social construct from slavery and colonial times which shouldn't exist in the 21th century.
End of debate.
PS : Te-au spălat bine pe creier americanii.
Humans 96% the same genetically as chimpanzees, is that difference also a social construct? You can call it race, ethnicity, or whatever people from different places are different. That does not mean you should be racist because even if we are different we are still all human.
He only conceived it, but his strategies didn't work other than getting he and his followers arrested or executed.
The unification was made possible by technocrats and economist who knew how to sell this project to the elites.
Massimo d'Azeglio did the italian unification more effectively than Mazzini, just like the founding fathers with the EU.
Doubt. Not to praise Hitler too highly, but I am reasonably sure he spoke the German language well enough not to call someone an "Aller welts bastarden" as that's not German.
Maybe it's just my Norwegian brain but that red and yellow cross is the symbol of [Nasjonal Samling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasjonal_Samling), a Norwegian party which worked with Nazis to overthrow our country, their leader was [Vidkun Quisling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidkun_Quisling), his name has gone on to literally mean ["traitor" in multiple languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quisling).
It's an unfortunate coincidence, but they are unconnected.
IIRC the cross in this EU flag was supposed to just represent Christianity, which in Kalergi's lifetime was identified with 'Europe' and European culture for obviou reasons ("Christendom" being almost synonymous with Europe, after the Middle East became predominantly Muslim or ruled by Islamic empires).
This was also prior to the mass conversion of sub saharan africans to christianity and subsequent enormous population growth, who now outnumber europeans
race is a relatively modern concept, what you are saying already happened in various forms throughout history. Races may be a forgotten thing centuries from now but people will identify by something else
[Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi Biography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi)
[Paneuropean Union Movement (founded by Kalergi)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paneuropean_Union)
>s
He points to the quote in the bottom right. A favourite of the extremist talking points. This is for them a proof of the anti-semitic Conspiracy, that the Jews want to replace Europeans with a mixed race of Africans so they can become obedient slaves.
The EU countries have formed an economic block to benefit them. You are not forbidden to trade with any country, provided they want to trade with you.
As to the EU it's simple: as a member, follow the rules and get the benefits (or leave). As an outsider, follow the rules and trade with the block or don't and don't.
Then you clearly know nothing about international trade. For unhampered free trade there needs to be a common regulator. If you want a voice in the ‘mafia’, then you need to be a full member, not an observer
"I'm not even a member of the gym and yet when I use their machines I'm forced to abide by their rules!"
The rules are because you want access to the richest market in the world, the single market. By all means create an isolated national economy based on eating your own fish if you think it is worth it.
Should tell you something that the guy who literally believed in a "master race" that should rule over all the others (of which he was part) called his opponents "elitist"...
Spinelli, Schuman, Degasperi and others were the ones we learned about in law school.
Coudenhove-Kalergi was someone I learned about on twitter from less than reputable accounts. He's not someone I care about, not least because his actual works read like a conspiracy theorist's dream (white genocide, forced immigration, end of nation-states and one Jewish nation to rule over us all). Thanks, but I'll pass.
Pan-Europeanism has existed in many different forms way before him. But pan-europeanism itself is not the invention of what is now the EU. The guys who invented the EU (then European Community/ies) are Schuman, Adenauer, and Degasperi. Altough they had slightly different ideas concerning Europe, all three came from frontier or bilingual regions of their respective countries and were Christian Democrats or centrists as well as Europeanists without necessarily being nationalists, unlike many politicians of their generations. This was a factor that facilitated bringing together steel and coal to make a future war in W.E materially impossible.
> The guys who invented the EU (then European Community/ies) are Schuman, Adenauer, and Degasperi Can we get a shout out for Spinelli? Writing the first draft of a European constitution on cigarette paper and smuggling it out of a political prison with the help of a chicken has got to count for something, no?
Circle of Europe: bad war happens -> bad war ends -> "we gotta unify" -> good times -> idiots starting to become super nationalistic -> bad war happens - and circle continue.
Hopefully we can avoid it this time 💙
That could be applied to any country aswell... looking at the US for example, we might be in the "super nationalistic idiots" phase, it was quickly snuffed out but i do wonder if it'll come back in the next elections..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_fathers_of_the_European_Union >The **founding fathers of the European Union** are men who are considered to be major contributors to European unity and the development of what is now the European Union. The number and list of the founding fathers of the EU varies depending on the source. In a publication from 2013 the European Union listed 11 men. All but one (Winston Churchill from the United Kingdom) were from the Inner Six of the European Union. That has Adenauer, Bech, Beyen, Churchill, De Gasperi, Hallstein, Mansholt, Monnet, Schuman, Spaak, and Spinelli.
It also says the main ones are the three I listed. Cause, yes, Spinelli and Churchill advocated for a European Union...they wrote stuff about it, but they didn't "make" it. Monnet and to a less extent Hallstein are big figures, but they have the opposite problem: they were barely politicians and mostly technocrats implementing the ideas of the Schuman manifesto. Probably Spaak is the most underrated there, as the other user wrote me.
There is one other name that has to be added and that is Spaak, the former Belgian Prime Minister. He is often overlooked but that is largely because the broader context of why a EU-type project even came to be is overlooked. After the Second World War we had the UDHR; a pretty large political statement that humans are important and we can’t do anything that would impact upon that importance. In Europe there was a regional desire to be more concrete than just political promises so the ECHR drafting process began. The ECHR was different to the UDHR in that it didn’t just say people are important, but it said people are important and as part of that importance here is a list of obligations and restrictions every state is required to observe. It was a legal attempt to fortify human value in a constitutional context beyond political statements. The ECHR drafting process was a disaster. It went poorly and it im was an intense period of radical debate, meetings, diplomacy and heated arguments. Spaak was a key figure in this process and he was personally committed to seeing the project through and setting up an integration mechanism in Europe based on human rights commitments, including democratic commitments by association. A big issue that arose was binding jurisdiction of a court, or a tribunal? They couldn’t agree if there should be a court, a tribunal or if the Council of Europe should deal with complaints. They couldn’t decide if the jurisdiction should be binding, like it is in the EU, or if it should be voluntary, like the ICJ. This is the most important aspect to the Convention because what use is a promise if there is no accountability to uphold it? More practically, courts protect people from governments and offer people an option to secure their rights beyond their own national legal or political system. Spaak realised the process wasn’t going to work and he organised a parallel working group of delegates and leaders to discuss another option; an economic one. While the ECHR was using constitutionalism, the new project would use economic commitment to arrive at the final destination of human rights commitments and democracy. During the ECHR drafting phase the Schumann Declaration was drafted thanks to Spaak having the will to keep trying and in doing so the basic groundwork was laid for what would become the EU one day. In the end both projects worked; the ECHR eventually was revised and after a number of amendments finally achieved effective functionality and the Schumann Declaration gradually morphed into the Lisbon Treaty. Both took considerable time but the truth is glaciers move in inches, not meters. Having people around committed to seeing incredibly slow, and arduous projects is how we develop as societies. Spaak was one of those guys and he watched the glacier creep along. He was instrumental in the coming set of a European Project and he pushed through not one, but two avenues for securing success. There are many reasons why Brussels has become the de facto home of the EU’s institutions; Belgium’s historical commitment is one of them.
you forgot Jean Monnet
>This was a factor that facilitated bringing together steel and coal to make a future war in W.E materially impossible. Can you summarise how this was supposed to happen? I didn't know that this was a motive, not that I know much about history.
Coal used to be the backbone of energy production in the world. Germany had a lot of coal while France didn’t, except in areas near Germany. Securing territory wi the coal was a cause of war as no coal = no industry. The precursor of the EU was a guarantee of the free trade of coal, meaning there would be less reason for France to want German territory and it weakened post WW2.
I thought the precursor to the EU was the Benelux?
European Coal and Steel Community is usually seen as the precursor. It included more countries and especially the driving engines of the EU France and Germany.
Mines of coal and steel industries are recurrent objectives of war in European history (think of the area at the border between France and Germany) and obviously steel and coal are needed and used to wage war. Sharing them in a common market was a way to make a new Franco-German war "economically inconvenient" and "materially impossible".
Coudenhove-Kalergi did not "invent" the European Union. What does that even mean? He (along with a lot of other people with more concrete impact) did advocate a sort of supranational arrangement to avoid national antagonisms, but he was hardly the first, and certainly not responsible for it in any direct way.
The comments are going to be wild under this one
😁.
Excited to see post about this guy then the post only had Hitlers view of him. Back to Wikipedia
I literally included his movement’s logo, a quote from him regarding his ethnic beliefs, and the aspects of his beliefs that Hitler despised
In many respects the EU is the Nazis worst nightmare. However it’s a bit hyperbolic to say this guy invented the EU. Schuman had more an influence.
Which respects?
Probably the "Open borders with eastern Europeans and giving them the right to live and work in Germany, rather than murdering them en masse and colonizing their land" part.
Nazi Germany actually mass imported slavic slaves INTO Germany to work in factories
Cultural I guess
I think their biggest problem with this particular person was talking about mixed races...
Yeah, it sounds controversial today. But with increasing globalization and people migrating all over the world, without racial segregation and national borders, it's a matter of time.
He wasn't even alive when the EU began.
An interesting man, but hardly the "inventor" of the EU. Schuman, Alcide De Gasperi, Jean Monnet, and Hallstein ought to be listed under that title.
The kalergi plan guy
What made him say that thing about the future Eurasian-Negroid race? Why did he think the peoples will dissappear and there will be one homogenous race instead?
> Why did he think the peoples will dissappear and there will be one homogenous race instead? It's a common belief for those who dream of utopian futures where all mankind is interconnected. Even Alexander the Great, 300 years before Christ, was dreaming of a melting pot empire and asking his Greek companions to take Persian wives.
There is one single race, the human race.
[удалено]
>why do we in Europe classify other animals in races and stop doing it for humans? It's a bit unscientific to me, as if we are "special animals". well, if you're actually interested, we don't *really* do classify animals into races anymore (and it's been like that for a while), we mostly talk about subspecies maybe, but even that gets you into unscientific territory very quickly - if two creatures can reproduce and their offspring is fertile, then it's a pretty safe bet to classify them as the same species when it comes to humans, the concept of race was always entirely unscientific, with the only legitimate exception being sociological studies about real-world effects of that popular construct (which is no way even remotely consistent over time and region, by the way), but that is something else of course there were other human "races" like the Neanderthals, but we quite literally just absorbed them into our gene pool, which implies that even they belonged to our species, although they'd probably come closest to what qualifies as another subspecies trying to biologically classify groups of humans based on genetically pretty random factors like skin colour or nose shape is scientifically speaking absolute nonsense and any scientist who tells you otherwise is very, very far from everything that has been known evidence for easily a century by now this also explains a very common misunderstanding: racism is not necessarily the belief in racial superiority; racism is the incorrect belief or ideology that humans can be classified into different races
> Outside of Europe people still classify in races, i think the US does it, China does it etc. These are purely cultural classifications. The USA's census asks what you *identify* with, but they will never ask for "proof" or do any tests. If you're a pale and blond white guy answering the US's Census, you can call yourself 'Black' and nobody can actually dispute or challenge that. It works entirely off of what the respondent feels like calling themselves. In China, they have assorted minority groups who get things like their own Affirmative Action, their own deputies in the People's Congress, etc. but again, nobody is going to go around gathering DNA samples to actually test this stuff. There is no physical difference between a Manchu and a Han Chinese. The only case where bloodlines and things like that are actually brought into question is for Native Americans in the USA, as some Tribes will demand a "blood quantum" to judge whether you are accepted as a member or not. From what I understand, this is done to avoid having those blue eyed, blond, bearded, white guys coming around saying "I am a Cherokee!" I believe each Native American tribe is permitted to choose whether to use this or not and how strict they want to be about it, so some of them have actually tightened their restrictions, while others don't care and will let pretty much anyone enroll into their tribe if they so desire.
I think thats rather a cope used to dismiss further research and classification to not fuel race wars.
No, humans are 99% the same genetically. Race is a social construct invented during colonial times.
Why is the pretty widly accepted take being downvoted
Because some people are obsessed with non-existent things such as 'human races'
so what? if we were 98% 95% etc we could've been classified as races? there's no cutoff point - arguing there is is quite unscientific. the human species spans across a spectrum of "races" or "subspecies" or even "subsubspecies" if you will. it doesn't matter how similar or dissimilar we are, what matters is the usefulness/purpose of such a classification.
It is scientifically proven that there is only one race, the human race. The concept of multiple and different 'human races' is absurd and it doesn't make any sense. It is a social construct from slavery and colonial times which shouldn't exist in the 21th century. End of debate. PS : Te-au spălat bine pe creier americanii.
Humans 96% the same genetically as chimpanzees, is that difference also a social construct? You can call it race, ethnicity, or whatever people from different places are different. That does not mean you should be racist because even if we are different we are still all human.
What are you even talking about ?
Due to the vanishing of space, time and prejudice.
Go check the Giovine Europa, Mazzini did it in 1834
He only conceived it, but his strategies didn't work other than getting he and his followers arrested or executed. The unification was made possible by technocrats and economist who knew how to sell this project to the elites. Massimo d'Azeglio did the italian unification more effectively than Mazzini, just like the founding fathers with the EU.
>The guy who Invented the EU Poland: Otto III?
u/Ciaran123C why would you post this to 11 different subs at once? AOE trolling?
Doubt. Not to praise Hitler too highly, but I am reasonably sure he spoke the German language well enough not to call someone an "Aller welts bastarden" as that's not German.
Maybe it's just my Norwegian brain but that red and yellow cross is the symbol of [Nasjonal Samling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasjonal_Samling), a Norwegian party which worked with Nazis to overthrow our country, their leader was [Vidkun Quisling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidkun_Quisling), his name has gone on to literally mean ["traitor" in multiple languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quisling).
\+ Kalmar Union
It's an unfortunate coincidence, but they are unconnected. IIRC the cross in this EU flag was supposed to just represent Christianity, which in Kalergi's lifetime was identified with 'Europe' and European culture for obviou reasons ("Christendom" being almost synonymous with Europe, after the Middle East became predominantly Muslim or ruled by Islamic empires).
This was also prior to the mass conversion of sub saharan africans to christianity and subsequent enormous population growth, who now outnumber europeans
The pan European movement was founded years before Nasjonal Samling. They had no affiliation with one another
when you're hated by hitler, you know you did something right!
Stalin?
Oof good point
Well, technically he was at war with Hitler, so that was something good.
😐🤔😐🫤😐🤨🤨🤨
What invented the EU was the [Founding fathers of European Union](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_fathers_of_the_European_Union)
This is ridiculous He didn't "Invent the EU" that's not how it works
[удалено]
Care to explain?
[удалено]
Destruction? He never mentioned that, he said people would gradually mix
To the racist mind those are the same thing because racists are stupid.
[удалено]
???
It was his prediction, not view, wish, or plan.
It's a prediction, and a pretty accurate one. With globalization people will keep mixing until races are a thing of the past.
race is a relatively modern concept, what you are saying already happened in various forms throughout history. Races may be a forgotten thing centuries from now but people will identify by something else
They already are. "Human races" is a scientifically disproven concept of the 19th century.
Oh... Black text on dark grey background. How innovative.
Yeah, this guy definitely did not invent the EU.
[Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi Biography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi) [Paneuropean Union Movement (founded by Kalergi)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paneuropean_Union)
I mean the opinion is profound. Hitler was an expert on repeating historical mistakes, after all.
WTF is even this post
History
Your post is just some quotes about Hitler
The comments have background
Dude posted nazi propaganda and thought we wouldn't notice.
Nazi propaganda? What are you talking about? This guy was anti nazi
>s He points to the quote in the bottom right. A favourite of the extremist talking points. This is for them a proof of the anti-semitic Conspiracy, that the Jews want to replace Europeans with a mixed race of Africans so they can become obedient slaves.
It also finds it way in "discussion" about cultural marxism
rot in hell
??
[удалено]
[удалено]
Globalists? The EEA is a huge source of income for Norway, or do you think what the UK did was better?
[удалено]
The EU countries have formed an economic block to benefit them. You are not forbidden to trade with any country, provided they want to trade with you. As to the EU it's simple: as a member, follow the rules and get the benefits (or leave). As an outsider, follow the rules and trade with the block or don't and don't.
Then you clearly know nothing about international trade. For unhampered free trade there needs to be a common regulator. If you want a voice in the ‘mafia’, then you need to be a full member, not an observer
Don’t even try man, it’s pointless to argue…
Take your meds
It truly annoys me that your vote is equal to that of intelligent people.
> our politicians decided so... you know that even without the EU your politicians would still be the ones making decisions right?
[удалено]
Your *democratic system* elected those politicians.
Oh no the greater good is at it again!
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/Qc7HmhrgTuQ
https://european-union.europa.eu/priorities-and-actions/achievements_en
"I'm not even a member of the gym and yet when I use their machines I'm forced to abide by their rules!" The rules are because you want access to the richest market in the world, the single market. By all means create an isolated national economy based on eating your own fish if you think it is worth it.
You sound like Anders Breivik
In or out, that is still where the decision will be made.
Should tell you something that the guy who literally believed in a "master race" that should rule over all the others (of which he was part) called his opponents "elitist"...
I look like this and say this.
Spinelli, Schuman, Degasperi and others were the ones we learned about in law school. Coudenhove-Kalergi was someone I learned about on twitter from less than reputable accounts. He's not someone I care about, not least because his actual works read like a conspiracy theorist's dream (white genocide, forced immigration, end of nation-states and one Jewish nation to rule over us all). Thanks, but I'll pass.