Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "EU institution overreach puts bloc's future at risk, says Polish PM" video.

The eu super state project inexorably and insidiously creeps onwards. It is possible to compare the eu organisation to that of the Mafia, or to a giant amoeba like parasite. But its behaviour is also like that of the star trek Borg, the eu should adopt a modified form of their mantra, something like: " We are the EU, resistance is futile. You will be assimilated, We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us.". When Poland joined the eu it should have read the small print, that echo's the notice over the entrance, it says " Abandon all hope, ye who enter here".
6
In the old soviet union they shot dissidence, in the eu they just ignore them. The latter is far more efficient, less paper work, but the super state grinds on regardlessly.
4
@mattthorn4789 successful peace project????. is that why it now needs its own military? The eu did not maintain peace, that is down to NATO and the constant threat of russian invasion during the latter part of the twentieth century. It was the cold war that kept the peace in europe, The threat of mutually assured destruction, and the preference of the US to fight a limited nuclear war on European soil. Too busy worrying about the intentions if the USSR to fight among your selves.
2
@mattthorn4789 the longer a sovereign state is a member of the eu the less it is truly sovereign. The eu uses unnecessary codependency between states to bind them together and make it ever more difficult for them to leave. It effectively digests them, like some massive parasite. For the eu to function, it must suppress cultural and political differences between member states, to make them homogeneous. The loyalty of the citizens to their country (state) of origin, must be transfered to the eu. I am surprised that school children are not required to pledge allegiance to the eu flag, just as american children are required to p!edge allegiance to The Stars and Stripes. It s a form of indoctrination. France, like all the other member states, lived under the "protection" of NATO, which effectively meet the us nuclear umbrella for 50 plus years. It was the US policy of mutually assured destruction that kept the peace in europe, and the uncertainty in the minds of the soviets as to Americas willingness to push the nuclear button. I doubt if the french nuclear weapons caused the russians a moment of concern. It was the unpredictable Americans that worried them.
2
@mattthorn4789 the side note gives a lie to the claim that NATO is for Europe's external defence. The history of the eu is based on a military blackmail. It was formed by a cooperative trade organisation in steel and coal, This was intended to stop germany rearming after WWIi with a resurgence in Nazism. When it came to agreeing later common market and then EU treaties, germany and other federalists were quick to say if you refuse to sign, europe will descend into war. It is ironic that Hitler's ambition for a united europe should be continuing to this day by the eu ambition for a federalist fascist super state.
2
@mattthorn4789 you are being revisionist if you claim the eu is 71 years old, it has evolved from a coal and steel trade body through being the EEC, the common market to recently becoming the EU. At each stage the creeping federalist agenda has claimed more political power from the member states. It is a ponzi scheme, that must expand or die. As it grows, it uses its trade muscle to force other to join. Its bully nature can be seen by its relationship with Switzerland. It is an amoeba like parasite, reminiscent of The BLOB, of the 1950s scifi film, that subsumes all around it.
2
@mattthorn4789 it seems you do not understand eu history. I suggest you go and look it up. The Mafia would deny they blackmail anyone,they just make them an offer they cannot refuse. The eu is fascist by definition. Fascism:authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. I had answer the questions about NATO in an earlier post, there seemed no point in repeating for you. It is a fallacy that the eu kept the peace in europe, a fallacy that the EU likes to claim to justify its existence. It is true that Churchill suggested a united states if europe, but that does not make it right, he was not infallible, as is evident by some of his other policy ideas. It is doubtful if he would have wanted to see a United States of europe dominated by germany, given he had just spent five years engineering its destruction.
2
@mattthorn4789 the EU is very good at pretending to listen, while continuing to do what it intended to do anyway. Like many members,the poles joined primarily a trade organisation, not a super state with a federal government. The member states have yet to give permission for the eu to become a federal government. In many states such a decision would require a referendum. Yet the EU acts as if it already is a federal super state. The EU should know that majority voting is not yet agreed, and the member states still have a veto. How long that situtation will remain true is questionable, given the duplicity of the euro crates and their imperial ambitions, I would not be surprised if they seize the federal powers, in what will amount to be a coup d'etat in every member state.
2
@andrewskorzewski845 as I said the views of dissidence are ignored, so the idea that the eu is sufficiently big to accommodate more than one voice is wrong. Only one voice is allowed to prevail, and that is the federalist one.
2
@miguelmelchior986 As I said they should have read the small print. The EU is constantly moving the goal posts, the EU is not the same organisation that many of the member states joined. Like the Mafia, it makes offers that other find difficult to refuse. Its a form of economic blsckmail, a protection racket. It's funny how international organisations that set industrial and trade standards have slowly become European standards organisations, only allowing contributions from EU members. It was not long ago that Macron was forced to admit, that given the choice, the french people would most likely vote to leave the EU.
1
@mattthorn4789 oh yes, the Mafia is renowned for having its own laws, break them and be punished. The poles and Hungarians can always bring the operation of the eu to a standstill using their veto. Should the eu attempt to withdrawal their voting rights, then the veto will be no more, and the eu will be guilt of a coup d'etat in every member state. The insidious way this trade organisation is using trade as an excuse to extended it influence into every aspect of life is despicable.
1
@mattthorn4789 the eu is gradually taking on the trappings of a super state. China and russia have parliaments, it does not make them democracies. In your list of member states that joined a trade body, you missed the uk, which joined the common market. The clue is in the name.
1
@mattthorn4789 don't judge the eu by its words, only by its actions. He political spectrum is not linear from the far left to the far right, it is a circle with communism and fascism meeting fro opposite directions, at a point of an indistinguishable dictatorship. They are on the opposite side to true democracy, but take on it trappings. That is why china and russia have a parliament, it dies not make them a pillar of democracy.
1
@mattthorn4789 FYI, legally the EU did not exist until 2009, when the EC ,or common market, became the EU. There are many ways of drawing the political spectrum, but the circle explains why, for all practical purposes, far right dictatorships are indistinguishable from far left dictatorships. The all involve an oppression, autocratic, and violent government that rules through fear. The governments are invariable a corrupt kleptocracy of oligarchs, with one rule for them and another for everyone else. The central character, is invariable the beloved leader, who is a megalomaniac, obsessed with power and the acquisition of personal wealth. I do not accept your analysis that liberal and conservative are at right angles to the circle, I would place them at the 90 degree positions in opposition to each other. The liberals identify with the left, degenerating from socialism through to communism. The conservatives move towards fascism via a route that takes them through an extreme for of capitalism. I would reserve the circle at right angles to the political spectrum for religious politics, dividing Christianity from islamism. The reasons for selecting these two religions, rather than any others, is simply because of their political dimension through history. This is nothing more than a model, but it is a useful one. You are correct when you suggest it could be expanded into a sphere, to encompass other social extremes. If up and down is assigned to the sphere, then I would place true democracy at the top, and the convergence of dictatorships at the bottom. This places true democracy in the unstable top position, where any deviation to left or right places the society on the slippy slopes to the bottom. Democracy is inherently unstable, because it can be given away by a cross on a ballot paper, where as to escape from any of the perversions of dictatorship usually requires a civil war, with lots of blood and suffering. It is interesting that sime of the most oppressive regimes, like to label themselves as democratic, and have people in their title. As in the peoples democratic republic of .... Returning to the subject in hand, the eu is not there yet, but it is a long way down the slippy slope, and is willfully trudging in a downward direction.
1
@mattthorn4789 in answer to your question, because legal incorporation of the three components did not happen until 2009. Please reread my post, I did not put conservatism and liberalism at 90 degrees to the circle, I put them at the 90 degree position on the circle, but their exact position is rather subjective, it depends on how intolerant the ideology. The point about a political spectrum is that it is a graduated scale, from one extreme to the other. My contention is that at the most extreme of left and right, they are practically indistinguishable in terms of policy. To answer your question, I consider Brazil to be both fascist and capitalist, I think I could have applied this to Chile, or any if the many military governments around the world, where the generals rule as a result of a coup d'etat. It is interesting that at the extreme, governments can oscillate between being on the extreme left and right, alternating between the two as a result of successive revolutions, as an example consider Cuba. You are being obtuse in the misunderstanding of the reference to a sphere. I put Islam and Christianity on a circle at right angles to the political spectrum. You cannot argue that Islam and Christianity have not been at war. In american they talk about the religious far right, and Islam has a political dimension in the formation of governments based on a theocracy. It would be a mistake to confuse the religious ideological differences, I am only concerned with the political aspects of religion, where state and church coincide. Looking back into history, the Catholic church had its periods of extremism, where the church used the state to impose its views. Today there many examples of Islamic theocracies which fall close to the bottom of my defined circles, being authoritarian dictatorships. In confusing communism and capitalism, you are again being deliberately obtuse. Communism and capitalism are clearly opposits, but taken to extreme they converge from opposite directions, resulting in authoritarian dictatorships. The purpose of both is to serve a rich elite and maintain them in power. The USA is lurching in this direction,with a super rich elite that makes the laws to preserve their wealth and power. Had Trump remained in office, this would have become increasingly obvious. It certainly meet the criteria of being a kleptocracy, putting it close to the bottom of the political spectrum. If you want an example of the other extreme, look at China. The EU likes its acronyms, so confusion will ensue when the same letters are used for different meanings. With regard to EC, here is a clip from Wikipedia: (The European Economic Community (EEC) was a regional organization that aimed to bring about economic integration among its member states. It was created by the Treaty of Rome of 1957. Upon the formation of the European Union in 1993, the EEC was incorporated into the EU and renamed the European Community (EC). In 2009, the EC formally ceased to exist and its institutions were directly absorbed by the EU. This made the Union the formal successor institution of the Community.)
1
@Håkan Bråkan Kråkan its that but again, the little bit of blsckmail that holds the eu together. The eu is a trade body that has federal ambitions, and imperial intentions. The member states were the masters, now they are the servants of this fledging super state. At every opportunity the eu uses trade as a weapon to justify its political ambitions. How are the member states soverign, if the eu is allowed to over rule their constitution's?
1