Is Germany suffering from extreme Nazi guilt?

[strategist.com]

Because the whole "Nazi" thing is mostly propaganda from mainstream media, aimed to distract the population form the real threat - current EU governments and long-term negative consequences of their actions.

Just what exactly is the EU doing wrong? It upheld human rights and exponentially raised the standard of living of the Europeans.

[fkizz]

Just what exactly is the EU doing wrong? It upheld human rights and exponentially raised the standard of living of the Europeans.

Brexit has happened and Le Pen winning is a real possibility in France, a tad out of touch not to admit something has been going wrong with EU.

[The spartan]

Brexit has happened and Le Pen winning is a real possibility in France, a tad out of touch not to admit something has been going wrong with EU.

"People are mad" isn't really a critique. If people are upset with the EU for illegitimate reasons, such as the commonly touted line "We send the EU £50 million every day" which isn't true, then the EU isn't actually responsible for that. Those people are just being ignorant and/or dishonest.

[Heathen Hammer]

Just what exactly is the EU doing wrong? It upheld human rights and exponentially raised the standard of living of the Europeans.

It is a corrupt organization, whose actions do not benefit Western European nations. It does uphold high standard of living for trillionaires and politicians that work as their pawns (Macron, Merkel, etc), but that doesn't help an average Joe.

[Chlodwig I.]

Just what exactly is the EU doing wrong? It upheld human rights and exponentially raised the standard of living of the Europeans.

But the rais of standard of living is build on debt which lead to 25% unemployment rate of young people in Greece, Spain, and high unemployment in France, Italy, and Germany,
Germany had to lower wages, and welfare for poor people to reduce unemployment rates which lead to a reduction of standard of living for the majority of the people.

The People who gained most from EU are the EU Bureaucrats
And every Bureaucracy is similar to cancer. it is trying to aquire more and more tasks and fields of activity to prevent itself from becoming redundant.

The EU has become unable to care for the big and important things for the Member-Countries instead the EU is lost in
governing into our daily lifes by regulating the amount of the water useage of a shower, or the power of a vaccum cleaner, which lightbulbs we are allowed to use, how big the size of cancer warning on cigarettes have to be.
Next task is prohibiting alcohol, sugar and if they find out that people could die because of loughing they will try to prohibit fun too.



The last 15 years showed that the good Idea EU suffers from its bad implementation and the ignorence of politicans and EU bureaucrats to change whats going wrong.

[antaeus]

"The EU has become unable to care for the big and important things for the Member-Countries instead the EU is lost in
governing into our daily lifes by regulating the amount of the water useage of a shower, or the power of a vaccum cleaner, which lightbulbs we are allowed to use, how big the size of cancer warning on cigarettes have to be."

This statement is contradictory... Those are the big things the member countries want managed, if they weren't, they wouldn't become policy.

[Kyriakos]

Yes, the problem with Germany is that it still isn't being nazi enough.

(ie, not seeing how you can frame the question in this way; it makes no sense imo, given Germany is not passive, pacifist or non-interventionist or non forceful, so do you just mean more general theoretical nazi sentiment or do you just mean having people dressed in funny red/white/black appropriated insignia, or? ).

[strategist.com]

But the rais of standard of living is build on debt which lead to 25% unemployment rate of young people in Greece, Spain, and high unemployment in France, Italy, and Germany, Germany had to lower wages, and welfare for poor people to reduce unemployment rates which lead to a reduction of standard of living for the majority of the people.

Could you elaborate on what EU policies contributed to this?

The People who gained most from EU are the EU Bureaucrats
And every Bureaucracy is similar to cancer. it is trying to aquire more and more tasks and fields of activity to prevent itself from becoming redundant.

The EU has become unable to care for the big and important things for the Member-Countries instead the EU is lost in
governing into our daily lifes by regulating the amount of the water useage of a shower, or the power of a vaccum cleaner, which lightbulbs we are allowed to use, how big the size of cancer warning on cigarettes have to be.
Next task is prohibiting alcohol, sugar and if they find out that people could die because of loughing they will try to prohibit fun too.

The last 15 years showed that the good Idea EU suffers from its bad implementation and the ignorence of politicans and EU bureaucrats to change whats going wrong.

Well as antaeus said, this is contradictory because they are unanimously passed. Also, I don't see anything wrong with examples you have stated as the point is to reduce waste and for the benefit of people. Besides, these things are non-issues compared to other myriads of more pressing issues.

For the sake of a productive discourse, I would like you to make your case and point out instances and examples of what are some of the things the EU have done badly or forcefully imposed on nation members.

Honestly as a pro-EU, I am seeing many accusations against the EU which are empty and hollow and many anti-EU could not state or elaborate what and how the EU laws and policies fundamentally infringe on the rights of EU citizens and member states. I see "take back rights and sovereignty" very often which sounds tuneful to nationalists but never have I seen any follow-up examples to back up the rhetoric. Granted monetary policies (although individual country's own policies are to be blamed as well) and mass immigration could have been handled better etc, but nevertheless I don't see anything detrimental that the EU has imposed on the people. For example, while the US have killed net neutrality, the EU passed a law to uphold it. And this is my favourite to point out, Brexiters always constantly complain of "taking away rights and sovereignties" but they never acknowledge that the EU Court struck down the UK government's right to retain internet user data. Where is the Brexiter's outrage over the UK's surveillance and taking away the citizens' right to their privacy? IIRC, Theresa May want to withdraw from ECHR.

[fkizz]

@strategist.com,
EU is rising in unpopularity by the day. Got so unpopular a Marine Le Pen victory became a serious risk, and UK is already packing bags to leave. Brexit had aproval from Referendum, Parliament and the Queen.

Burden of proof on "EU having done things well" is up you.

[War lord]

@strategist.com,
EU is rising in unpopularity by the day. Got so unpopular a Marine Le Pen victory became a serious risk, and UK is already packing bags to leave. Brexit had aproval from Referendum, Parliament and the Queen.

Burden of proof on "EU having done things well" is up you.

The final result for that election was was 66.1% to 33.9%. Macron was openly Progressive, openly pro-Europe, openly Globalist and won. Le Pen was openly Alt-right, openly anti-Europe, openly Nationalist and lost. As far as I'm concerned that's a pretty clear referendum on the popularity of the two diametrically opposed ideologies in France. Yes, a Le Pen victory was a serious risk. But so was a Trump victory in the US elections and a Brexit result in that referendum. The difference is that Le Pen was actually taken seriously, and thus the opposition was able to wage an effective campaign, learning from the mistakes made in the United States and Great Britain. Le Pen made the mistake of trying to run an American style campaign in a country with an entirely different political ethos, throwing away years of normalization work. It remains to be seen whether right wing populist movements in the rest of Europe learn from that.

The Le Pen loss is a rather large refutation of the idea that the EU is uniformly becoming more "unpopular".

[strategist.com]

@strategist.com,
EU is rising in unpopularity by the day. Got so unpopular a Marine Le Pen victory became a serious risk,

Perhaps the EU is being used as a scapegoat in economic uncertainties that member countries themselves have created for themselves.

Before the elections polls have already shown that Le Pen never had a chance of winning. 61% for Macron over 39% for Le Pen on the run-offs. Then the run-offs came and the gap widened siginifcantly for Macron who won 65% while Le Pen lost 4 points from original prediction.

and UK is already packing bags to leave. Brexit had aproval from Referendum, Parliament and the Queen.

Britain has always been a reluctant European anyhow, which De Gaulle correctly assessed.

Burden of proof on "EU having done things well" is up you.

I have stated examples and as I requested I am asking for examples from anti-EU to make their case.

[fkizz]

Before the elections polls have already shown that Le Pen never had a chance of winning. 61% for Macron over 39% for Le Pen on the run-offs. Then the run-offs came and the gap widened siginifcantly for Macron who won 65% while Le Pen lost 4 points from original prediction.

Le Pen reaching second round and getting close to 40% is already a sign of institutional colapse. After ten years, and all the EU strategists come up with is more denial for more decades, then the Sentence of the outcome is already written.

EU is rising in unpopularity by the day. Got so unpopular a Marine Le Pen victory became a serious risk, and UK is already packing bags to leave. Brexit had aproval from Referendum, Parliament and the Queen.

Funny no one quoted me on this one.
So the Queen aproved of an Anti EU and "Alt Right" referendum. Is the Queen a symbol of the "Alt Right" in your sense, @Warlord?

The final result for that election was was 66.1% to 33.9%.
[...]Le Pen was openly Alt-right[...]
The Le Pen loss is a rather large refutation of the idea that the EU is uniformly becoming more "unpopular".

What a denialistic position.
Le Pen winning first round is not even close to normalcy. Plus Le Pen is of fascist ideology (maybe now watered down to win more votes), not "alt right", whatever you mean by "alt right". You're doing her great great flattery in the way you describe this political player.

[RangerGxi]

@strategist.com,
EU is rising in unpopularity by the day. Got so unpopular a Marine Le Pen victory became a serious risk, and UK is already packing bags to leave. Brexit had approval from Referendum, Parliament and the Queen.

Burden of proof on "EU having done things well" is up you.

France failed to elect a euroskeptic but it seems like most French still want to reform the EU to be more open and democratic.

Honestly, the fact that its not democratic is ridiculous.

[fkizz]

France failed to elect a euroskeptic but it seems like most French still want to reform the EU to be more open and democratic.
Honestly, the fact that its not democratic is ridiculous.

It's a veeery indirect democracy.

Normally you vote for a person that was chosen by a political party (or vote in the political party), and that person and said party will choose a huge amount of ministers and so on. Well, this is normal indirect democracy.

For EU, the then indirectly people in power will choose/elect other indirect people in power after negociating with other indirect people in power and those doubly indirect people are the ones realistically in power.

Confusing as it sounds it's this what goes. In such system, the room to make a scam and be protected by law after, is Huge.

[strategist.com]

It's a veeery indirect democracy.

Normally you vote for a person that was chosen by a political party (or vote in the political party), and that person and said party will choose a huge amount of ministers and so on. Well, this is normal indirect democracy.

Yeah and strangely no one calls out their country's own political system of being "undemocratic" despite literally the EU electoral system being copy and pasted from parliamentary system, albeit that it's a proportional representation unlike UK's first-past-the-post.

Confusing as it sounds it's this what goes. In such system, the room to make a scam and be protected by law after, is Huge.

Well I would like to know more instances of EU corruption. As far as I am aware the EU isn't afraid of taking on corporations and calling out countries who violate human rights, but the only instance that reeks of corruption was Jose Manuel Barroso's associations and accepting a job with Goldman Sachs.

[fkizz]

Yeah and strangely no one calls out their country's own political system of being "undemocratic" despite literally the EU electoral system being copy and pasted from parliamentary system, albeit that it's a proportional representation unlike UK's first-past-the-post.

Voting in governments is not un-democratic, it's simply indirect democracy.

Having the government in charge decided by indirect people in power who talk with several other indirect people in power world wide so they themselves elect a new class of unlected people in power is by no means normal indirect democracy.

Can't see the difference between the two cases?

But it's perfect to scam people. And every scam will have its PR defender.
The problem with well working scam systems is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Well I would like to know more instances of EU corruption. As far as I am aware the EU isn't afraid of taking on corporations and calling out countries who violate human rights, but the only instance that reeks of corruption was Jose Manuel Barroso's associations and accepting a job with Goldman Sachs.

That's the only one the mass media reported. By the way, mass media aren't the police in case you didn't know.

[strategist.com]

Voting in governments is not un-democratic, it's simply indirect democracy.

Like how appointing who the prime minister will be. The people don't even vote who lead the country.

Having the government in charge decided by indirect people in power who talk with several other indirect people in power world wide so they themselves elect a new class of unlected people in power is by no means normal indirect democracy.

Can't see the difference between the two cases?

But it's perfect to scam people. And every scam will have its PR defender.
The problem with well working scam systems is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

My point is, people whine without even trying to fix their own flaws and that the EU system is just as the same as other parliamentary form of government.I mentioned about the PR system and that is at least implemented by the EU than the FPTP that games the system.

Nevertheless, I'm still waiting for anti-EU side to give tangible examples on how the EU is fundamentally a bad thing and how the organization has done damage to countries. Much of the talking point by the anti-EU are appeal to emotion and stoking nationalism regardless of logic and evidence.

That's the only one the mass media reported. By the way, mass media aren't the police in case you didn't know.

But surely if the EU is so corrupt then enough reports would have already permeated through despite "censorship" and media noises. Bombers will always get through as I would say. Hell even the "liberal media" couldn't keep a lid on sexual assault incidents by migrants in Germany.

[fkizz]

Like how appointing who the prime minister will be. The people don't even vote who lead the country.

Can't speak for every country but we have elections for prime minister and president in separate. Add to that parliamentary regions and autonomous regions of madeira and azores and there's plenty of elections.
But yes many people end up in government without being directly elected. Hence not being direct democracy, but indirect democracy.

My point is, people whine without even trying to fix their own flaws and that the EU system is just as the same as other parliamentary form of government

Factually false.
In EU you don't elect the "prime minister of europe" so it's even less democratic than what you already considered undemocratic (a system where you vote for the PM). Do you remember voting for Vam Rompuy or Barroso for their respective places?
It's basically assumed the enlightened people of the ruling class will paternalistically choose your political leaders for you. The ratio of "Indirectness" in "Democracy" is much higher here.

Nevertheless, I'm still waiting for anti-EU side to give tangible examples

While you wait anti-EU sentiment grows. Fine deal you got there lad.

But surely if the EU is so corrupt then enough reports would have already permeated through despite "censorship" and media noises. Bombers will always get through as I would say. Hell even the "liberal media" couldn't keep a lid on sexual assault incidents by migrants in Germany.

Your post seems to assume that lobbyists and oligarchs have no power in journalism or don't that powerful institutions don't try to lobby their prefered journalist narrative. That's a tad naive.

[strategist.com]

Can't speak for every country but we have elections for prime minister and president in separate. Add to that parliamentary regions and autonomous regions of madeira and azores and there's plenty of elections.
But yes many people end up in government without being directly elected. Hence not being direct democracy, but indirect democracy.

Fair enough.

Factually false.
In EU you don't elect the "prime minister of europe" so it's even less democratic than what you already considered undemocratic (a system where you vote for the PM). Do you remember voting for Vam Rompuy or Barroso for their respective places?
It's basically assumed the enlightened people of the ruling class will paternalistically choose your political leaders for you. The ratio of "Indirectness" in "Democracy" is much higher here.

Countries with Westminster-style appointment of leaders through elites complain how undemocratic the EU is, yet those who complain do not proactively first call out their own country for having the same system.

While you wait anti-EU sentiment grows. Fine deal you got there lad.

That's a non-sequitur answer. Let me reiterate my question, what has the EU done definitively that warrants anti-EU sentiment?

I live in Ireland but while we don't like the austerity, we admit it was our own fault for heading into the miserable situation. Ireland more or less recovered now economically thankfully.

Your post seems to assume that lobbyists and oligarchs have no power in journalism or don't that powerful institutions don't try to lobby their prefered journalist narrative. That's a tad naive.

Nice mental gymnastics. Do you have proof? I am not saying there isn't any corruption going on, there could be low level individual corruption, but as I mentioned already if there is enough corruption, then surely many would have still permeated through from both sides of the political spectrum. Even totalitarian regimes could not even suppress all information.

Now what I am asking for is tangible proof that the EU is holistically corrupt and infringes on citizen rights. Yet none are presented and you are dancing around this basic inquiry from the beginning.

[fkizz]

That's a non-sequitur answer. Let me reiterate my question, what has the EU done definitively that warrants anti-EU sentiment?

Well EU boasts big. Not that such thing is a crime or a non human thing (in almost every cultures there was culture of boasting in young males) but eventually it has to be backed up by what follows.

EU boasts it can protect and solve the countries of almost a whole continent. Wew, fair enough, I'm not denying help, one thinks.

But then there's financial crisis (which is cyclical, so another discount here), is added to a banking crisis, currency crisis (countries have their monetary policy taken away), political crisis (countries no longer can do the budget their own rules), immigrant crisis, list goes on.

Well "but why do you blame EU for economical problems?"

Because considering the things since trade agreements of coal and steel, the currency, central bank, production quotas, etc, responsability is on those who enforced such a thing. Which if you de-active denial mode, it's EU.

Alright fair I can give it points EU helped in past europeans to not go runnning amock at each other while a big communist state expanding nearby, but by such standards what goes today can't be denied to be happening either.

Nice mental gymnastics. Do you have proof? I am not saying there isn't any corruption going on, there could be low level individual corruption, but as I mentioned already if there is enough corruption, then surely many would have still permeated through from both sides of the political spectrum. Even totalitarian regimes could not even suppress all information.

Powerful lobby groups are very real. They will maximize their profits if possibility of getting away with it is low enough and profits high enough.
And groups with possibility lobby power aren't even necessarily corrupt. It becomes a very grey area where it's difficult to distinguish the line of an industry defending its interests in a professional chain of command or if it really is a corrupt thing.

Now what I am asking for is tangible proof that the EU is holistically corrupt and infringes on citizen rights. Yet none are presented and you are dancing around this basic inquiry from the beginning.

I'm not saying it's necessarily holistically corrupt, that's a strong acusation, what can however be clearly realized is EU doing the decisions in the place of its Vassal countries, while having plenty of Crisis it can't solve. It's like trying to be an authority on helping other people when you can't help yourself by now.