Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 4      1   2   3   4   Next
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #1 
Most members of this forum hating the EU frankly makes no sense. The EU remains a union of sovereign states, and the EU hasn't forced any member state to abolish its monarchy. The Single Market and the EU Customs Union work well. The EU is unlikely to become a federation, because most Europeans want their country to remain a sovereign state, but the EU being dissolved is also unlikely to happen, because most Europeans support European integration. They like being able to move to another European country without having to apply for a residence permit. British-style Euroscepticism is insignificant among the Germans, but many Germans want the Mark back.
I support the current level of European integration, except the Euro, but I'm opposed to the EU to become a federation, unless the European federation allows the member states of the European federation to remain monarchies.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,851
Reply with quote  #2 
Is there any need to go through points that have been refuted several times over? Why start a new thread repeating this stuff?

The EU by its very nature is about making the nation-state obsolete or at least insatiable integration with no end in sight. This has been the goal of most of the Eurocrats and many of the European leaders who have guided the EU from the days of Monnet and Adenauer to Juncker and Macron. The EU has already gone a long way to taking over huge swathes of power and influence from the nation-states of Europe. To say it is a union of nation-states therefore obscures the truth. It was specifically set up not to be an intergovernmental organisation, where the nations alone had the power - this was the bogeyman of Monnet, Spaak, et al. - but a supragovernmental organisation with an organisation that was in some ill-defined, but real, sense above the nation-states.

The idea the single market has worked is highly questionable. Like almost everything the EU touches, it is a bureaucratic monstrosity that largely undermined its own goal. Here the goal of liberalising trade was largely undermined through the excessive red tape and regulations the EU itself promulgated as part of the internal market rules. For example, it got rid of much of the paperwork associated with shipping goods across EU borders, but replaced this with the infamous Eurostat, which forced companies to keep meticulous records of what they export in Europe (and in some cases what they just sell locally). Booker and North have two works, The Mad Officials and the Castle of Lies, that chart some of the insanity associated largely with the single market way back in the nineties. On a slightly different score Michael Burrage's Where's the Insider Advantage that uses the relatively easily available data to show that it is very hard to pinpoint any benefits for Britain in increasing trade with the EU (the common market does seem to have brought small benefits in this regard, though trends were moving that way prior to our entry, so it's hard to tell. There is a marked relative decline with the introduction of the single market) or getting better trade deals with countries outside the EU.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Is there any need to go through points that have been refuted several times over? Why start a new thread repeating this stuff?

The EU by its very nature is about making the nation-state obsolete or at least insatiable integration with no end in sight. This has been the goal of most of the Eurocrats and many of the European leaders who have guided the EU from the days of Monnet and Adenauer to Juncker and Macron. The EU has already gone a long way to taking over huge swathes of power and influence from the nation-states of Europe. To say it is a union of nation-states therefore obscures the truth. It was specifically set up not to be an intergovernmental organisation, where the nations alone had the power - this was the bogeyman of Monnet, Spaak, et al. - but a supragovernmental organisation with an organisation that was in some ill-defined, but real, sense above the nation-states.

The idea the single market has worked is highly questionable. Like almost everything the EU touches, it is a bureaucratic monstrosity that largely undermined its own goal. Here the goal of liberalising trade was largely undermined through the excessive red tape and regulations the EU itself promulgated as part of the internal market rules. For example, it got rid of much of the paperwork associated with shipping goods across EU borders, but replaced this with the infamous Eurostat, which forced companies to keep meticulous records of what they export in Europe (and in some cases what they just sell locally). Booker and North have two works, The Mad Officials and the Castle of Lies, that chart some of the insanity associated largely with the single market way back in the nineties. On a slightly different score Michael Burrage's Where's the Insider Advantage that uses the relatively easily available data to show that it is very hard to pinpoint any benefits for Britain in increasing trade with the EU (the common market does seem to have brought small benefits in this regard, though trends were moving that way prior to our entry, so it's hard to tell. There is a marked relative decline with the introduction of the single market) or getting better trade deals with countries outside the EU.

The member states of the EU remain sovereign states according to international law. The member states of the EU have their own armies and their own embassies. The treaties of the EU can't be amended without the unanimous consent of the member states of the EU. The EU will not become a federation, if the governments of the member states of the EU don't want the EU to become a federation, even if the EU bureaucrats want the EU to become a federation. The German government is able to prevent the EU from becoming a federation, because Germany is the largest member state of the EU by population.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
The treaties of the EU can't be amended without the unanimous consent of the member states of the EU.

Doesn't seem to have stopped the ECJ blithely inserting a whole new term into the Treaty of Lisbon.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
Most members of this forum hating the EU frankly makes no sense.


What if one hates socialism, globalism, democracy, bureaucracy, modernism, and/or disagrees with a large number of what the EU officially considers "human rights"? Then does it make sense to hate the EU?

If the EU were just a free trade agreement and nothing more, there would be far less objection. But even that isn't necessarily a slam dunk in my eyes. I'm a distributist with heavy protectionist leanings. I think individual countries should have the ability to protect their own workers in whatever way they deem necessary. I also love the unique things about places. What makes a place most unique is its people, and if a nation is unable to protect its culture by means that include immigration restrictions, that is a bad thing. 

Yes, we all know you're a socialist, because you keep repeating it as if we haven't read it in 200 other posts by you, but I'd guess most members here aren't. I also know you disagree with me on every point above. But saying that it "makes no sense" (read: "there is no rational basis" under a strict definition of the word rational [i.e., internally consistent and non-circular preferences]) is absurd and insulting to the intelligence of the other members here. 

And there are a wide range of opinions here. Peter and I, for instance, agree on scarcely few fundamentals, but we're both rational within said fundamentals.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas


What if one hates socialism, globalism, democracy, bureaucracy, modernism, and/or disagrees with a large number of what the EU officially considers "human rights"? Then does it make sense to hate the EU?

If the EU were just a free trade agreement and nothing more, there would be far less objection. But even that isn't necessarily a slam dunk in my eyes. I'm a distributist with heavy protectionist leanings. I think individual countries should have the ability to protect their own workers in whatever way they deem necessary. I also love the unique things about places. What makes a place most unique is its people, and if a nation is unable to protect its culture by means that include immigration restrictions, that is a bad thing. 

Yes, we all know you're a socialist, because you keep repeating it as if we haven't read it in 200 other posts by you, but I'd guess most members here aren't. I also know you disagree with me on every point above. But saying that it "makes no sense" (read: "there is no rational basis" under a strict definition of the word rational [i.e., internally consistent and non-circular preferences]) is absurd and insulting to the intelligence of the other members here. 

And there are a wide range of opinions here. Peter and I, for instance, agree on scarcely few fundamentals, but we're both rational within said fundamentals.

I have never claimed, that being opposed to the existence of the EU makes no sense. But claiming that the current member states of the EU aren't sovereign states is wrong, because the member states of the EU remain sovereign states according to international law.
I'm a socialist and a democrat, but I'm not a leftist and a globalist. I support banning non-European immigration to the EU and I'm opposed to gay marriage.
The EU allows its member states to remain monarchies, as long as the monarch is a figurehead. Otto von Habsburg was a staunch supporter of the EU, and King Felipe of Spain supports the EU. Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, is a German noblewoman. I'm descended from German nobility. http://www.fundacionyuste.org/en/king-felipe-vi-commits-to-a-strong-and-united-europe-to-tackle-global-challenges/


AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
I have never claimed, that being opposed to the existence of the EU makes no sense.


Starting your screed with "Most members of this forum hating the EU frankly makes no sense." would seem to contradict the above point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
But claiming that the current member states of the EU aren't sovereign states is wrong, because the member states of the EU remain sovereign states according to international law.


I made no such claim above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
The EU allows its member states to remain monarchies, as long as the monarch is a figurehead. Otto von Habsburg was a staunch supporter of the EU, and King Felipe of Spain supports the EU. Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, is a German noblewoman.


Just because I'm a monarchist doesn't mean I have to agree with everything any royalty or nobility said, even if I like them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
I'm descended from German nobility.


The driven element of a Yagi-Uda antenna is a half-wave dipole. Also, an AR-15 barrel with a 7:1 twist better stabilizes modern 77 grain and above projectiles than a 9:1, which is optimized more for 55-grain projectiles. Finally, John Petrucci is the lead guitarist and a founding member of Dream Theater. 
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas


Starting your screed with "Most members of this forum hating the EU frankly makes no sense." would seem to contradict the above point.



I made no such claim above.



Just because I'm a monarchist doesn't mean I have to agree with everything any royalty or nobility said, even if I like them.



The driven element of a Yagi-Uda antenna is a half-wave dipole. Also, an AR-15 barrel with a 7:1 twist better stabilizes modern 77 grain and above projectiles than a 9:1, which is optimized more for 55-grain projectiles. Finally, John Petrucci is the lead guitarist and a founding member of Dream Theater. 

Wessexman claims, that the member states of the EU aren't true sovereign states, and DavidV has compared the EU to the Soviet Union. Comparing the EU to the Soviet Union is nonsense, because the Soviet Union was a totalitarian Communist regime, while the EU is a union of sovereign democratic states.
I mentioned the facts that King Felipe of Spain supports the EU and that Otto von Habsburg supported the EU, because some members of this forum claims that the EU is a threat to the European monarchies.
I mentioned the fact that I'm descended from German nobility, because it's amusing that you, who are 100 % peasant, dislike democracy and socialism, while I support democracy and socialism. 
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

Wessexman claims, that the member states of the EU aren't true sovereign states, and DavidV has compared the EU to the Soviet Union. Comparing the EU to the Soviet Union is nonsense, because the Soviet Union was a totalitarian Communist regime, while the EU is a union of sovereign democratic states.


Then why bring it up in a post that was wholly quoting my last post? If you want to answer their arguments, answer their arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
I mentioned the facts that King Felipe of Spain supports the EU and that Otto von Habsburg supported the EU, because some members of this forum claims that the EU is a threat to the European monarchies.


That's irrelevant. Just because of their lineage doesn't make them right. Being a monarchist doesn't mean that we have to agree with everything every monarch says. Only we should support their reign and/or return to power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
I mentioned the fact that I'm descended from German nobility, because it's amusing that you, who are 100 % peasant, dislike democracy and socialism, while I support democracy and socialism. 


What does one have to do with another? The vast majority of people in the west, regardless of lineage, like democracy. I'm also American. We tend not to like authoritarian regimes, which socialism tends to be. The reason socialism is on the rise in popularity here is because people don't remember the necessary coercive force that must be applied to maintain socialism. It's similar to the modern lack of understanding that monarch != dictator among most of the world these days.

Frankly, that which lead me to monarchism is realizing that democracy is stupid, particularly if there are no limits on who can vote. Democracy at scale is a popularity contest that ensures only those willing to buy votes with favors and compromise on every principal that is an obstacle to winning can win. I honestly think selecting our leaders by lottery would result in better rule, because it would allow for, by sheer chance, the occasional non-evil person to rule. Democracy has only one function: to fool ordinary people into thinking they have a modicum of control over the government thus placating them enough to decrease the chance of violent revolution. It has no other value.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,851
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

The member states of the EU remain sovereign states according to international law. The member states of the EU have their own armies and their own embassies. The treaties of the EU can't be amended without the unanimous consent of the member states of the EU.

Yes, so what? In no sense is that a refutation of anything I wrote. I never denied that, de jure, the member states of the EU are sovereign states. The whole point of Monnet Method, which has guided the European project for sixty years, is to create a supragovernmental authority and take piecemeal more and more authority and influence to it. The goal is something like a quasi-superstate. This is clear if you read the words and actions of those have guided the project over the decades, like Monnet and his pivotal Action Committee for a United States of Europe. But this doesn't abolish the sovereignty of the member states over night. In fact, part of the point is to avoid, after the European Defence Community debacle, having to be too upfront or precipitous about the goals of the project. The whole point is to be incrementalist and get to the point where the EU is so powerful and does so much that the next stage, of de jure removing sovereignty, can occur without too much protest. I'm sceptical this will ever succeed. I doubt the peoples of Europe will ever get to the point where they will happily acquiesce in the end of their nations. But that doesn't mean it isn't the point of the project and the reason for its insatiable integrationism. Nor does it mean that the EU hasn't gone a long way in de facto pooling sovereignty. Therefore, anyone who believes in the nation-state as the best way for their nation to be organised, and is a part of a member nation or prospective member nation is quite justified in disliking the EU.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas


Then why bring it up in a post that was wholly quoting my last post? If you want to answer their arguments, answer their arguments.



That's irrelevant. Just because of their lineage doesn't make them right. Being a monarchist doesn't mean that we have to agree with everything every monarch says. Only we should support their reign and/or return to power.



What does one have to do with another? The vast majority of people in the west, regardless of lineage, like democracy. I'm also American. We tend not to like authoritarian regimes, which socialism tends to be. The reason socialism is on the rise in popularity here is because people don't remember the necessary coercive force that must be applied to maintain socialism. It's similar to the modern lack of understanding that monarch != dictator among most of the world these days.

Frankly, that which lead me to monarchism is realizing that democracy is stupid, particularly if there are no limits on who can vote. Democracy at scale is a popularity contest that ensures only those willing to buy votes with favors and compromise on every principal that is an obstacle to winning can win. I honestly think selecting our leaders by lottery would result in better rule, because it would allow for, by sheer chance, the occasional non-evil person to rule. Democracy has only one function: to fool ordinary people into thinking they have a modicum of control over the government thus placating them enough to decrease the chance of violent revolution. It has no other value.

Socialism isn't authoritarian, unlike Communism. I want Bernie Sanders to be elected President of the USA.
I have never claimed that monarchists have to agree with everything a monarch says. I want Prince Charles to become King of Britain, despite disagreeing with him on Putin. But the EU has never tried to force a member state of the EU to abolish its monarchy.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

Socialism isn't authoritarian, unlike Communism. I want Bernie Sanders to be elected President of the USA.


Socialism *has* to be authoritarian. How do you enforce it against people who don't want to go along with the program? With the barrel of a gun. How do you nationalize corporations? How do you force doctors that want to have cash-only businesses to hire huge staff to deal with the paperwork that is necessitated by accepting Medicare/Medicade or whatever single-payer system replaces it? It would be too unpopular now, but what happens when the government decides to outlaw homeschooling in 10 years, because it needs to raise good socialist children? 

Sanders can suck it. He wants to take my guns away. He also calls people who disagree with him on social issues extremists. He, Buttigeig, and Bloomberg seem like they're really trying to start the Boogaloo, which I frankly don't want to live through.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas


Socialism *has* to be authoritarian. How do you enforce it against people who don't want to go along with the program? With the barrel of a gun. How do you nationalize corporations? How do you force doctors that want to have cash-only businesses to hire huge staff to deal with the paperwork that is necessitated by accepting Medicare/Medicade or whatever single-payer system replaces it? It would be too unpopular now, but what happens when the government decides to outlaw homeschooling in 10 years, because it needs to raise good socialist children? 

Sanders can suck it. He wants to take my guns away. He also calls people who disagree with him on social issues extremists. He, Buttigeig, and Bloomberg seem like they're really trying to start the Boogaloo, which I frankly don't want to live through.

Sanders isn't a Communist. He supports free college and Medicare for all, but he doesn't want to abolish private property and he doesn't support state atheism. He wants to emulate the Scandinavian countries. Denmark, Norway and Sweden are democratic constitutional monarchies with unicameral parliaments. The economic systems of Denmark, Norway and Sweden are a mix of socialism and capitalism.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,344
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
He wants to emulate the Scandinavian countries. Denmark, Norway and Sweden are democratic constitutional monarchies with unicameral parliaments.


I personally have not heard Senator Sanders say that he wants to emulate Scandinavian constitutional monarchy.  Which of the Bernadotte, or Glucksburg families would become King/Queen in America?  If that is his intention I might vote for him...

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #15 
Princess Madeleine of Sweden would be the obvious choice, considering her American husband and residence.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.