Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "Brussels begins legal action against Germany over controversial ECB ruling" video.

I wonder if the eu has heard the expression that you should not bite the hand that feeds you.
5
So now the EU can change a member state's constitution.
4
@herlescraft and what is the eu going to do if Germany decides to ignore the eu. It always has the option to leave.
3
@herlescraft that is the federal europe step that many states will not allow. The eurocratic slaves have become the masters.
3
@kukulroukul4698 the Germans thought they were going to control europe, via the eu, then they learned that they are expected to pay for it. Now they learn the the eu is going to control them.
2
@kukulroukul4698 my point is the Eurocrates have taken control from state governments. Again there is a push for majority voting. This bureaucratic edifice is not improving, it is becoming more dictatorial, attempting to concentrate decision making in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The smaller states will be bribed and blackmailed into accepting and voting for majority voting, but it is a path they should not take. My original point is that the German taxpayer is the most dominant contributor to eu funds, at some point the cost benefit analysis will shift and the Germans will decide they are better off outside the eu, this applies equally to other founder members. The eu is supposed to respect the sovereignty of the member states, at least that is what it maintains, but this cannot be the case if the constitution of a member state can be overridden by eu law, worse still if the eu law post dates the constitution.
1
@kukulroukul4698 your argument seems to be centred on the idea that the eurocrates know best, and have the right to decide what is in the best interest of the people they are supposed to serve. The failure of the eu system is that it does not recognise that cooperation can be based on a coalition of the willing. The smaller states have every right to veto the decisions of the majority, because that is how the system was established, and for very good reason, it was the only way to protect the sovereignty of the member states. Do you think France or Germany would have joined in the first place, if they did not have the option to veto any decision they did not like. Macrons enthusiasm for majority voting will not survive the first time an EU decision goes against a significant interest of France. As was observed by Orwell, everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others.
1
@kukulroukul4698 what you are defending is the slow and inexorable drift towards a federal dictatorship, where central control dominates, not dissimilar to the organisation of the old soviet union. In order to control so many people,they will be expected to switch allegiance from their home country to the government of the super state. In order to provide the free movement of labour, it will be necessary to level down to the lowest common denominator, and for the identity if individusl states to be diluted to the point where they disappear. The influx of migrants will produce populations that are effectively an indistinguishable mixture. The winners will be the super rich elite few who control the multinationals and the privilege eurocrates who are employed in the inevitable burgeoning bureaucracy. Centralised decision making will reduce diversity of solutions and therefore its resilience. The problem with building a homogeneous edifice is that it becomes vulnerable to total failure, collapsing as one. So be careful what you wish for and what you are willing to defend, you may find that they are undesirable unintended consequences.
1
@herlescraft you do not need a federal europe to achieve the goal you want. All that is required is a europe of independent sovereign states cooperating for their mutual good. That does not require a federal government to work. Resilience depends on preserving their differences and independence. Any attempt to force federalisation will lead to the EU's destruction.
1
@herlescraft that is because it requires anonymity, there are two other options, majority voting that over rides the will of the minority, or you allow states to make their own decisions regarding cooperation. The latter allows those who do not agree to simply opt out.
1