This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Nigel Farage's UKIP On The Increasing European And Soviet Union Similarities
From Margaret Thatcher's original (now extremely prescient) warning of the European Union's structure creating "insecurity, unemployment, national resentment, and ethnic conflict" to Nigel Farage's recent clarifications on the agonizing direction in which the unelected leadership of the Union are pulling Europe, this brief 3 minute clip draws some significantly eery similarities between the former Soviet Union and the current European Union. Every now and again, a step back to look for context in history is important - as while the Soviet Union was created by armed force, the European Union is being forced by political coercion and economic bullying. Perhaps Churchill summed up best how it should be, "We are with Europe, but not of it; we are linked but not combined; we are interested and associated but not absorbed."
»
- 29163 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The EU "Parliament" cannot remove the Commission nor block its budget. It is elected on a List System which is undemocratic. Voters do not elect Candidates but Parties
ok, perhaps I have to explain it to both on a complete different tack to make me understandable
Let's take Austria as example. It's a member of this "club" of countries called the EU
now what I wanted and got is a confederative setup of this EU, if necessary with a constitution, preferrably by treaty
why? because I want Austria and the others to keep their sovereign powers. I believe in Austria. Austria has no business in "becoming part of a superstate". And does not really want to
And yet Austria wants increased cooperation, increased shared services, etc. etc. Austria wants access the EU club, to share facilities, etc.
And so the EU has to be something like a shared cost center and a shared facility
But NOT a federal institution. A confederate one. And how do you achieve a balance in this: by keeping the most central institution of democracy IN AUSTRIA the true customer and shareholder of the EU (not alone, with the others)
and that is the directly elected Parliament of the Second Republic of Austria
and this parliament expresses itselfs in all the other branches, as per continental tradition, as the expression of the people of the republic
which include it's executive expression, the government (Americans: administration) - who is the ideal medium of representation in EU matters, and so gets a seat in the EU council
and so it follows that in order to keep the confederative setup the council has to be the "boss" of the EU
if you were children, I'd explain it like this: if the EU is doing something wrong, it's your national delegate that you have to call, and he calls the Bundeskanzler, and the Bundeskanzler sits in council and tells it to our Austrian Commissioners, and they fix it (I know, sounds naive). because you elect Dr. Schicklgruber, and the Bundeskanzler is a trusted person that works for us through Dr. Schicklgruber, and our Austrian commissioner is a trusted person that works for us through Dr. Schicklgruber and the Bundeskanzler
yes, there is the EU parliament, but IT HAS TO HAVE LIMITED AUTHORITY. It can't become more important than the Austrian Parliament and it's peers, the other national parliaments
because the peoples rule - trough their national parliaments - all the rest is derived from there
and so you are all giving an extreme amount of credit for two idiots that work for the council
meanwhile the propaganda set to warp the whole shebang is focused on the "unelected" meme. they are commissioners, for heaven's sake
do you really think we did only realize later that "commissioners" are not elected, but are commissioned?
a confederation based on the democracy of national parliaments first, all the rest second
----------------
You, smacker, I'm sure you have not even one tangible complaint about the EU - all I read from you is "Ask any sane UK political elite. Ask Dan Hannan. Ask Nigel Farage. Ask MSM." - followed by British domestic complaints like "Brown signed it for Britain in a private room to avoid cameras and without any UK referendum"
Really? Without the British Parliament being behind it? Ask Cameron what he intends to do with the referendum. Hint: he wants to be reelected, first
Trust me, I have plenty of complaints about the EU. Top of the list is that it is an undemocratic and unaccountable socialist political construct that serve no useful purpose for the citizens of Europe. Democracy was designed out of its structure. It has proven itself to be an economic disaster, as all socialism is.
Get this: the EU is not necessary for Britain to be friends with the French, Germans or any other European nation. The EU is not necessary for Britain to have free trade relations with other European countries. The only winners in the EU are the unelected political elites, like the communist Barroso.
My references to Dan Hannan and Nigel Farage were simply because these guys work inside the EU halls of power and have first hand knowledge of its aims and objectives.
I have already knocked down most of your previous claims. You can continue to be an apologist for the growing EU fascist state if you wish, but please don't waste your time trying to sell the nonsense to me using obscure arguments. I'm not buying.
HAND :-)
yeah, sure you have a long list - though at the end it's only this old list of "but it ain't democratic" - meanwhile Farage and Hannan are UKIP MEPs, not MPs
the only thing I agree with you is this: the EU is not necessary for the UK and the UK is not necessary for the EU
btw, I don't see myself as an apologist, just someone that does not like bullshit
"the growing EU fascist state": that's not the role of the EU, that of a state
if you had given my words any attention you would have understood that that's my point: the EU has not the role of a state or superstate, and freedom is something that has to be protected at national level (where the police and the army rightfully is)
I fear your's is again this extreme hierarchical thinking prevalent on the isles
I'll give a last try to explain. here http://www.euractiv.com/future-eu/press-review-strong-criticism-ba-news-...
in the old article from 2010: "In an opinion piece written for Dagens Nyheter , the Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson warns that Wednesday’s events may well be the first step towards building a European state if it means that the European Parliament gets the power to handpick single commissioners. "This kind of change in the principle of the Union is unheard of and I deeply disagree with that," he said. "I don't want, between the Commission and the Parliament, a relation that gives the Commission a status of a European government". "
and that is what nobody in the council wants - and me neither: a too strong EU parliament and a too strong commission that morphs into a government that is equal or above the national governments
the other side - the one that wants a superstate - is all in favour of building up the EU parliament's oversight and so status
Hello Ghordius, sorry to barge in with a non-sequitor but Farage doesnt even merit a mention as far as im concerned.
I just wanted to ask of you had seen that bit about Hollandes proposal to target a euro exchange rate?
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/hollande_wants_euro_nations_to_drive_exc...
I wanted to get your thoughts as it goes back to my point in our previous discussion,
Best
EU Constitution was reborn as the Lisbon Treaty
http://medrum.de/content/europaweite-durchsetzung-der-homo-ehe-0................
"Wir wollen keine Völker, die sich der gleichgeschlechtlichen 'Ehe' widersetzen. Falls dies nicht verstanden wird, müssen wir eben eine härtere Gangart einlegen." Viviane Reding
http://www.lgbt-ep.eu/press-releases/european-parliament-debates-recogni...
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eu-parliament-votes-to-force-same-sex-m...............
EU Parliament votes to force same-sex “marriage” on all member stateshttp://www.marketwatch.com/story/eus-reding-wants-united-states-of-europ...
http://defythematrix.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/further-integration-of-the...
sandmann, that debate is old (2010) and as far as I know they got nowhere with it
as far as I know this is the current status - neatly national arrangements:
Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe
which is not too different with the status of how divorce laws are currently structured in Europe
European Divorce Law Pact
unless you have more facts, that is
That is amazing how the EU interferes in Family Law. Cameron is implementing this gay marriage directive in a vote in the House of Commons tomorrow night and has split his party. They aim to change Divorce Law to abolish Adultery as legal structures cannot handle Adultery between same sex couples. Thus the Divorce Law procedure which gives fast-track divorce in 12 months will be abolished and that is a substantive interference. Secondly English Law has a different basis from Roman Law and the clash of legal systems is making England an Occupied State with its legal system being subjugated to a Continental Legal Framework.
Jurisprudential Theory suggests a Disruption is necessary to secure constitutional balance. Britain should simply reject all EU Law as incompatible with national sovereignty and withhold all payments to EU budgets. Force Majeure is necessary to prevent subsummation into a Foreign Legal Entity
WTF are you talking about? what is the EU involvement in this British matter?
I'll take it as an example of the lack of power of EU commissioners - particularly of cranky ones like Viviane Reding
And the f-ing socialists in the 0blahma regime are doing the same thing to US!
About time for the Brits to dust off that rusty Thatcher statue sitting in someone's basement and trot it out to Kensington.
The European Union has the same chance of long-term success as the united States of America would have had if they had attempted to grant "independant State" status to the myriad assortment of native tribes that were already out there - each of which spoke a unique language, and had unique local customs.
The USA was founded on a Declaration of Independence (followed by a Constitution) that were both written in English. Any treaty documented in the language of only ONE of the treaty parties, is only enforceable against that party.
Ergo- At the time of the US' founding, If you did not understand english, then your choices were:
1) Learn English so you could understand what the fuck these white geniuses were actually doing
or
2) Ignore them (to your own future peril when they got around to figuring out who the law applies to, and who it does not)
or
3) Fight like someone whose life, livelihood and traditions are being stripped from them for no apparent reason, other than the fact that non-white skinned people are seen as savages by the more "civilized" white skinned people.
And so, the white people first "conquered" the territory, and then implemented a system of government that allows those who look like the conquerers to be "free", while those who look more like the conquered are allowed to believe they are also free... just as long as they don't start acting like it...
Europe is FUCKED.
Better they should take a look at what "treaty" really means, and come to grips with the fact that the root of the term is "treat".... IE: Treat others as you would be treated, and stop trying to "treat" people to the pleasure of rape, pillage, and anguish.
Central Planners are complete fucking retards.