We need the EU. to be able to levy its own taxes, in the same way that the whole of Germany paid, and is still paying, a solidarity tax for the former East Germany. We also need a change of government in Germany which brings in more Keynesian economics on the domestic front. Unfortunately both of these are a long way off. Many of the so called problems with the rise of the right in Europe come down to the fact that we have developed an underclass - 25% of workers here earning less than the minimum wage in other countries, pensioners without liveable pensions (and this will be more of a problem in the future here) - sort these problems out and the right will disappear. We also need to cut through all the propaganda - The Dutch are the biggest payers in (per head), the Belgians take slightly more out - so are the Belgians lazier than the Dutch - I don't think so, and the Greeks are no lazier than the Germans.
The UK public was quite happy to be part of a European common market, they did not sign up for the slide towards a superstate. The UK has acted as a brake on this ambition for many years, after Brexit the momentum will no doubt increase for those countries interested. Those opposed to the forthcoming German dominated superstate will have no option but to follow the UK out of the EU.
The largest reason for the increase of support for right wing parties is the immigration policies encouraged by Merkel and her cohorts.
The rejection of the EU's ever increasing controlling manner is gaining momentum. Polish reject ‘EU OCCUPATION’: Voices rise for Polexit as Brussels ‘REGRESSING’ nation
Merkel stepped in to prevent a human catastrophe in the Balkans, and although I do not support her economic policies, I support her on this one. You can produce one soundbite after another but you have never answered the main question - 'What was the alternative' ? How would history have judged a country which had refused to take refugees from the second World War ? At the end of it there were around 30 million displaced persons - what if other countries had, then, shaken their heads and said 'not our problem'. Germany has not been stretched by taking in around a million from Syria - they had allotted accomodation for double that sum. It would have been better if other countries had concentrated more of their efforts towards solutions rather than criticism. Eliminate poverty, eliminate unemployment, homelessness, give hope to the young and security to the old, and the 'problem' of the right will wither away - it is there that we should focus out attention and not on the immigrants themselves.
The Germans took a selfish attitude of welcoming immigrants because it had a shortage of labour. Merkel did not consult or take into account the affect of such a surge in numbers. For her to encourage others to make the hazardous crossing was completely irresponsible. The UK took a lead by concentrating resources on the African continent in preparation for an improvement in the area. Many immigrants were from areas unaffected by conflict, they were just looking to improve their lives.
You fail to understand the basics of the plan. It was not just about trade, but getting countries who had been at war to co-operate with each other rather than fight. In part it was designed to assist the poorer countries even out the wealth that renewed production would create. I am not sure why you believe that one country has more power than the sum of the rest, as it clearly cannot be true. The way that the EU has developed ensures that no one country can always have its own way.
You do not need a superstate to avoid countries starting a war with each other. Germany has had much more influence on the EU than its component size should have afforded. It continues to dominate the ECB, just ask the suffering Greeks. As the project moves to further fiscal integration there will be more EU members following the UK's rightful rejection. For the EU to work successfully it makes perfect sense but politically it will prove unacceptable to many member nations.
It was also about securing a balance of power in Europe Frenchie. According to the original plan, military strength, economic power and political power should never again be concentrated in the one country (at least not in Europe - somehow the Americans never applied this principle to themselves). The Marshall plan always envisaged that West Germany would once again be an economic powerhouse, but that France and Britain would be the foremost military powers in Europe, and that continues to this day.
Tell me - if you see people dying do you refuse to help them because others could also ask ? Do you refuse to save 100 people because one may be a criminal ? You are talking bollocks SH. Are you ready for all the environmental refugees of the future ? Their number will dwarf those who come from war zones. Will you refuse them from Eritrea and Somalia - when our ships carrying our luxury goods have been poisoning their fishing grounds for years ? Will you continue to talk about 'concentrating resources' in problem areas whilst, at the same time, exporting weapons without remorse to anyone that has the money to pay for them - thus helping to cause these wars in the first place. Remember where the World's weapons are mostly produced - not in Africa, not in Syria. You have also not answered an important question - 'What would history have said about countries which had refused to take refugees from World War 2' ? You are also talking bollocks when talking about Germany solving it's labour crisis in this way, and implying it to be the 'only' reason. The refugees are not even allowed to work, for Christ's sake.
There was quite a lot to it, intended or not, that did a huge favour to Europe. We can see an imbalance in both economic and military power, but that should be worked out between countries within the same organization. Britain is now secondary to France in military power, and as the economy continues to plummet even more defence cuts are likely. It would appear to me that the UK has never quite worked out how to live along side others since the days of Empire, but as we have seen former colonies are more interested in striking their own relationships these days.
At some stage France will have to address its ballooning debt mountain, second only to Italy in Europe's debt league. • National debt in EU countries 2017 | Statistic
'You're talking bollocks' is not an insult, rather a factual description of 'text' as opposed to 'person'. It is also in present continuous which implies that it is not always the case. If I had used present simple ie. 'You talk bollocks', then it would have been an insult.
There has been numerous times I could have accused you of talking bollocks, I'm just too damn polite.
Feel free to do it I've got a hard skin - also I would take it as a compliment from you. Also - there 'have' been times.
I put your reliance on insults down to your inability to form a reasoned argument. There were many EU member countries really annoyed with Merkel's action over the vast number of migrants. Obviously so used to forming EU policy she decided to form a policy which suited Germany, for the whole of Europe, without any consultation.
She responded to an emergency situation in the only way possible. Her response did not 'suit' Germany in the way that you imply - how could it ? It was simply a humanitarian gesture and there was genuine disappointment that some other countries did not fulfill their obligations. Why should she 'consult' anyone before saving lives ?
You are merely defensively looking at the situation from a German angle. I can assure you there was anger from other EU member countries about her arrogance. She also annoyed many Germans which is why she was hammered in the recent election. must pack for early flight tomorrow, try to understand others may have a different view to yours, no need for the insults.
