EU 'should expand beyond Europe' ...

[Happy Times]

Discussed allready here. Thanks for your concern.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=125219

[elite_hunter_sh3]

oops my apologies

Since the other thread has become a debate concerning the forum software I'll post here.

This is the most disturbing aspect of the arcticle.

But his Conservative counterpart William Hague said Mr Miliband and his colleagues were "ramming that constitution through under a new name and refusing to give voters a say at an election or a referendum" - a reference to the EU Reform treaty.

The man wants to spread democracy without actually allowing it. Soft imperialism. A second thought is how does the man expect to pay for it. Germany's integration after the fall of the Soviet Union and the re-unification was hellish for Germany and most of Europe.

I question David Miliband's motivation. What is he up to?

[elite_hunter_sh3]

turning the EU into the modern Soviet Union style "democratic organization", EU should have never been created, ita brought bad things and bound to bring more..

[STEED]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

turning the EU into the modern Soviet Union style "democratic organization", EU should have never been created, ita brought bad things and bound to bring more..

Created by you know who.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by STEED

Created by you know who.

By France and Germany?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

By France and Germany?

Originally, yes, it was the europe of the six nations (F, D, GB, I, E - who was the sixth? Belgium-Netherlands, I think) that way it was able to be run, you could plan for a goal, set a course, and make the community following that course. the bigger the EU became, the less it was like that. Also, Schmidt and Giscard d'Estaing wanted it to be an economical alliance in the first, plus mutual consulatation and finetuning of policies in the foreign policy field, according to de Gaulles motto of a "Europe of cooperating fatherlands". Nothing more was wanted and planned for. Both Schmidt and d'Estaing in recent years have expressed seripous concern and even disgust about the "pervertion" (Schmidt) the EU has turned nto sinc eth eearly to mid 90s. Too big, too much, too uncontrollable, too you-name-it. the EU is not the logical consequences of the earlier 6-member EU, and then the 15 (?) member EEC, but a very serious deviation from the earlier vision of what a cooperating europe should be like. The old ideas were relaistic, and did not try to move beyond what could be acchieved, realistically, the new ideas are surreal, at best, and foster a formation of maximum power in few and fewer hands which even are not democratically countercontrolled, are operating putside the legitimation of european public, and are not bound to governing terms, since the bureaucracy were the decisions get planned remains, even when giovernment and members in the EU parliament and memebers in the EU commission change.

It is the dictatorship of the bureaucrats, plain and simple, which is aiming at making the national constitutions and the sovereignity of states and governments obsolete, that way making the votings during national election in nations meaningless: of the laws and new rules the german Bundestag had passed during the first 5 years of the current decade, over 80% were demands by the EU that had not been checked and debated in the Bundestag, had not been planned by the government, and were not counterchecked for their compliance with German constitution - they just were waved through, mindless and spineless as well.

Spit.