>I will always love EU
>I love to not have a say in my country's future.
>I hate the middle class who has seen their salaries decrease the last 20 years.
>I want a huge desparity between people with power and the working class.
>I hate want to kill my race
>I want an invasion from goatfucking countries.
>Real quote: If Britain leaves EU I'll move to Norway
We're not in EU you dumb bitch, and we don't want you.
Other urls found in this thread:
The EU is the greatest accomplishment of the west in recent decades.
All the things that you have mentioned have nothing to do with the EU whatsoever. They are a direct result of the decline of government quality in the respective countries.
People are voting retards into power in their respective countries. The EU as a protectionist trading block has nothing to do with it.
But I guess that blaming the EU is the easy way out. Thats how populism works. Just point your finger at whatever you do not understand and get votes. If you want a prime example for what I pointed out, just take a look at the UK.
Brexit exposed the British government as absolutely incompetent.
EU sucks. Now the real work begins, making a European single state. Article 13 is just the beginning. 1 army, economy, 1 government. No offense but it is the german dream bureaucracy edition, non military this time. Merkel have fucked us bigtime. Some of the things eurocrats are saying are scary as fuck. So no thanks.
20 trillion years in ms paint
>Some of the things eurocrats are saying are scary as fuck. So no thanks.
Name some examples please.
I am genuinely interested in what could possibly worry you about their plans.
To early to dig up all the quotes now, but it goes along the lines of states giving up soverignity, immigration is worth its weight in gold, more federalization and such. The plan is a united states of europe.
How is a European army on Russia’s doorstep remotely a good idea? What language will they speak? Where’s the funding going to come from? Are they going to be sent into countries like France and Italy to quell unrest?
Also: can you answer me something, Fritz, are German’s allowed to go into combat? I read somewhere that you’re allowed a standing army but can’t arm them but I never found out if it was true.
I honestly just don't like it because germans vehemently support it.
b-but user, don't you know that the EU has given us peace on the European continent? Don't you realize that we would be slave to the US and China if it weren't for the EU?
I would rather do what my ancestors did and die as terrorist/freedom fighter than serve the germans
A United States of Europe sounds like a good idea to me.
>Fritz, are German’s allowed to go into combat?
Sure. We are just not allowed to attack other countries. Bundeswehr only has a mandate to defend. And they get their orders from the parliament.
>The EU is the greatest accomplishment of the west in recent decades.
HAHAHA!!!
Ok, so in a European Army situation brought in, Germans would have to lead or administrate rather than fight?
Krauts are the most servile, brainwashed, self hating and demoralized people on the planet. If Germans think anything is a good idea, then it's the opposite.
So would I but fucking normies are buying whatever BS the Eurocrats come up with. I've stopped trying to convince them a long time ago.
I would imagine that all the countries would send soldiers and all the countries to do their part in administrative duties as well.
In an ideal case there would be one big decentralized army with united soldiers from all the states. Imagine the French Foreign Legion. On steroids.
Because White women are idiots.
Who is the African woman on the board?
>Just point your finger at whatever you do not understand and get votes.
This is one of the problems, democracy should be easy to understand. A whole bunch of people start thinking they want to end freedom of movement for their country, but they can’t even find a politician who will stand on that platform because EU rules don’t allow people to have any input into the underlying principles. No on understands why they are denied a say on such a crucial issue which directly impacts their communities. You’re being taken for a ride mate
They can fight, they see combat in Afghanistan
if your bitch ass country would finally join, you might have a say.
EU Parliament isn't fucking difficult to get into.
We have Die Partei ran by a satirist and he still gets votes.
Salary may have gone down, but quality of life has gone up. Riddle me that.
The rest of your points are unprovable paranoia.
EU is the greatest accomplishment of the west.
It's the first non-imperial empire.
This is “ideal”? A mishmash of cultures and demographics, many of whom hate each other, under a common language (maybe), all armed?
sssh. they don't know that the eu is the only thing that keeps china from the takeover right now. let them destroy it.
All of what you say would be the same thing post-brexit.
Lack of democracy in representative democracy have nothing to do with Europe. The Elites that are leading them in UK are the very same that lead us in Europe. And we have the right to """vote""" for both.
EU is vital for the future of Europeans, but our current democratic system need to die.
>I don't know about Euro countries politics, the post
Even Macron want freedom of movement reworked and he was the only pro-eu candidate in our elections.
nobody loves EU here
oh yeah fuck germany and belgium
Funny Thread Here:
>EU is vital for the future of Europeans
Sure thing, the poor Swiss are fucked without it
They are all brainwashed (((globalist))) shills.
Point out to faggot leftists that defending the EU makes them pro-capitalism neolibs which is about as far away from traditional left you can get. They have no idea how played they got.
>France stronk
See you in 20 years when even if France still a 1st world country it will have a smaller economy than India, Indonesia, Brazil or fucking Nigeria.
I'm sure our interest will be well defended and we wont be a vassal state (pro tip we already are a US vassal state)
why is it always fucking krauts pushing for the eu
disgusting demoralized people. you ruined europe.
Name any EU country that is not a capitalist society.
>you ruined europe.
Please explain how. I am genuinely curious about your reasoning behind that statement.
>We are just not allowed to attack other countries. Bundeswehr only has a mandate to defend.
Yeah, we defended Germany directly in Afghanistan. Attacking is the best defense :^)
That O fell off I almost thought its leave.
We also flipped of Bush when he attacked Iraq.
Based weigie. Norway is sovereign independent clay.
>fall of roman empire, loss of knowledge and order in europe, enter the dark ages
>religious wars from 1500s onwards killing millions upon millions of europeans
>enlightenment philosophers leading to liberalist ideas
>pulling europe into first world war, killing another 10 million+ europeans and setting the stage for the destruction of monarchies
>shitler
>another world war, another 40 million dead europeans as well as making nationalism taboo and setting the stage for "diversity and tolerance" ideas
>now forcing eu countries that dont want shitskins to accept them or be fined
seriously, fuck germans. worst people in existence. absolute trash.
Norway is literally an EU member states without the right to say anything. They are in schengen and must submit to EU to be part of the EU market.
>But we are free ! We are not in the EU !
If Great Britain follow the norwegian system, they'll be worse than when they were a member states.
She would be hot if she wasn't the dry weight of my motorbike
>muh economy
We are where we are because of people like you. A sane economy is a byproduct of a sane society, not the other way around. And we are far from having a sane economy, with or without the EU. But you can't have a sane society without at least aiming at sovereignty.
Except that Norway would never agree to that. They would immidiately demand that the EU gives them a better deal. And rightfully so.
Also the Brits ruled that option out.
Here have a chart from the EU that shows the different stages of agreements that are in place with the EU.
To hell with the EUSSR! We don't want an undemocratic, leftist and open-borders United States of Europe. There are too many differences in language and culture for it to ever succeed. The Yanks made it successful as everyone HAD to adopt their Anglo-based culture and fit in (though they have become cucked in that regard in recent decades). If anything, we should be celebrating the diverse WHITE cultures of out great European continent and keep non-White invaders OUT.
I am all for a loose alliance of White nations and no more brothers wars, but NOT what it is now; the slow death of the European peoples through mass-immigration. The EC serviced it's purpose at the end of the Cold War. Sadly, (((globalism and mass-immigration))) has accelerated quickly since then, trying to replace all of us with cheap muds. Expanding the EU eastwards was always going to end in tears, as was expecting a German work-ethic and industry to be anywhere close to a southern Europe work ethic and industry. It doesn't fucking work!
To send all jobs to Red Chinese slaves and be able to undercut any European's wages/job is reprehensible. 2008 proved that interdependent globalist economies drag each other down. Every country should have a strong economy for their own sake, then the market figures itself out.
The left want open borders and the right want cheap workers. Globalism is a race to the bottom.
yeah, thats right dont respond to me. you know im right. fuck you kraut. destroyers of europe.
>We're not in EU you dumb bitch
Aren't you guys basically in a vassal-state position to the EU tho? Like putting up with a whole bunch of shit but not having any influence on them?
Not arguing for the EU, I just was under the impression you'd gotten a rough deal in your treaties with them.
Show flag, or your opinion is irrelevant
Do you really expect me to respond to you typing out a stale meme image in greentext?
>leave
I honestly read it like that
Do you see how at each of those levels, it's a case of the EU saying "take it or leave it" - and Britain, not having th option to negotiate the details of any option, is forced to leave it?
Like - why can't it say have say
- lesser restricted movement
- Consent based ECJ jurisdiction
- Collaboration on some specific trade policies
- Joint funding on some projects
The reason is they're not allowed to, it's "you'll take all of this option as we describe it, or none of it"
Land-whale pseudo-marxists hate themselves. This is the only way they can get attention.
>ignores stated facts because muh pixelated flag isnt what i want it to be >:(
try again
you asked for an explanation, i gave it. then you ignored it. pretty obvious you got caught with your fucking pants down and are now trying to save yourself the embarrassment.
point out where im wrong in faggot.
>wants me to show flag so he can just use typical Jow Forums insults on my country instead of confronting my argument
lol
Bait. Wheres the fing skyking thread?
They're as often idiots as they are thots/hoes too, so it's what can be described as "trashy in behavior and in values alike"
They're so malleable by making them think it's their own idea to do such, and to some extent it's not necessarily stupidity (but that is surely something that helps spread it), but it's deception, exclusion of context, twisting narratives to appeal to what they know and not what they're missing from the whole picture.
They give them the bike-lock but not the bike, they give them the hammer but not the nail, so they go looking for it until they encounter someone telling them what they are looking for is X thing. It's how basic social-engineering works.
You mean "why can't they cherrypick"?
Because that is how it goes.
Any single thing that you mentioned can not work with "negotiated details".
>- lesser restricted movement
requires border controls
Take it or leave it.
>- Consent based ECJ jurisdiction
Yeah right. Cherrypick the laws that you can break lol
>- Collaboration on some specific trade policies
The EU is a protectionist trading block. Cherrypicking options here would undermind that.
>- Joint funding on some projects
This is still possible. The EU does have projects with states that are not even part of the EU. This point makes no sense.
Your explanation is bullshit. You are arguing that modern Germans are the same people as two thousand years ago. It's a strawman and you know it. You just keep perpetuating your crap to get (You)s. And thats all the Yous that I will give you.
>You are arguing that modern Germans are the same people as two thousand years ago.
no but they act the fucking ssme, ruining europe as usual
>It's a strawman and you know it.
no, its just a fact that you refuse to accept. stop crying like a little bitch.
>And thats all the Yous that I will give you.
thanks for admitting defeat.
and theres my flag, now lets hear the typical dog blowjob ad hominems instead of trying to actually argue.
she must be really stressed. i pull my hair out too when im anxious
ayyyyyyyyy
It's a negotiation between parties.
Every other bilateral treaty negotiation has things bargained betwen parties. Why does the EU think it's so special it never has to concede anything? That's a great way to end up isolated, globally.
> Requires border controls, take it or leave it
There are ways of having reduced border controls, you know.
For instance, many countries have border controls with visa-free transit for certain nationalities. For example, a kiwi can enter Australia - they go through passport control, but they're automatically admitted into the country for as long as they like (same thing the other way around).
That's not "free movement" but it's a special arrangement between parties.
For the EU to say "do it the way we want or fuck off" is incredibly arrogant and dictatorial. It's also part of why the EU gets such a bad reputation with euroskeptics and the world.
> Cherrypick the laws you can break
That's actually a relatively common arrangement for some international tribunals, having a nation party have to consent to jurisdiction over a given matter on a case by case basis.
> cherrypicking trade options would undermine the protectionist trade block
There are intersecting trade deals all over the world. The US has NAFTA but also has free trade arrangements with Australia and other countries. It has partial free trade agreements with other countries. That's pretty much normal for international trade. The EU is saying it's not going to do that... for no good reason. It's obviously perfectly doable and even beneficial.
>There are ways of having reduced border controls, you know.
For instance, many countries have border controls with visa-free transit for certain nationalities. For example, a kiwi can enter Australia - they go through passport control, but they're automatically admitted into the country for as long as they like (same thing the other way around)
The EU practices that. But as a block. There is no nations in the EU who are allowed to negotiate these kinds of deals on their own.
This is how it works. Otherwise countries could unilaterally allow for example Pakis or Iraqis to enter the EU and then abuse the freedom of movement inside of the Schengen Area.
There are no borders inside of Europe. This is a good thing. And having the EU members unilaterally form such agreements would undermine that.
Remember that every country that is part of the Schengen area has agreed to this. IT is not like the EU surprised them suddenly by taking control over the EU borders overnight. It was part of the deals.
>That's actually a relatively common arrangement for some international tribunals, having a nation party have to consent to jurisdiction over a given matter on a case by case basis.
Yes. But the EU is one block. It is not different nations. As one block every member has to follow the rules of the block. Otherwise it would be pointless to have the EU as a protectionist block in the first place.
This also has strong advantages. A state like Hungary for example has the weight of the whole EU behind them in international disputes. Therefore gaining an advantageous negotiating position.
> cherrypicking trade options would undermine the protectionist trade block
Pic related. The EU forms trade deals on behalf of all the members. Thanks to its size those trade deals are very favourable to the EU member states.
Remember that the EU as a block is one of the top three economies in the world. EU trade deals always favour the EU.
And the EU has a lot of trade agreements.
I've been arguing from the perspective that the EU is essentially a federalized state at this point (it's not entirely yet but it's getting there). For the sake of the negotiations it is. Everything I said was in that light.
On immigration, why is the EU refusing to negotiate the details of immigration between the EU and Britain? It's said full border control, or no border control. Britain WONT BE IN THE EU!
On the ECJ, The EU could absolutely say that the ECJ has consent driven jurisdiction over Britain when EU/Britain joint matters arise. I can't see a reason why that wouldn't be possible. Or, create a new equivalent body which both Britain and the EU would be responsible to (essentially the same outcome but different technical process). Perfectly possible, except the EU doesn't want to bind itself to anything Britain wants.
On trade, why can't the EU negotiate the same kind of trade deal ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE EU that any other country would negotiate with Britain? Pride, as far as I can tell. It's giving britain an all-or-nothing option.
Yes, the EU has other trade agreements, but it's essentially shut Britain out of negotiating them. There are petty punitive politics at play here, and it will hurt the EU in the long run.
If they want to be a part of the european market, they need to follow its rules. If they just want an economic agreement, they can line up like any non eu states like Canada and Japan and negotiate something.
On immigration they can have the same kind of agreement as NZ one.
They can't cherrypick what arrange them in ECJ or they could get unfair advantages over competitor.
As you said, if EU is a country, its normal to put its own interest over UK's one.
They can't eat one's cake and have it too.
>Yes, the EU has other trade agreements, but it's essentially shut Britain out of negotiating them.
You do realize that Britain did in fact have a part in those negotiations, right?
In fact the British representatives have voted for 99% in favour of all suggested EU policies. And literally not against a single one.
>why is the EU refusing to negotiate the details of immigration between the EU and Britain?
Because the UK parliament is struggling with themselves. There is no point in negotiations if the Brits do not even know what they actually want. Of course there will be future negotiations in that matter. As soon as the UK decides to negotiate.
>On immigration, why is the EU refusing to negotiate the details of immigration between the EU and Britain? It's said full border control, or no border control.
Of course the EU will protect its borders. After leaving the UK is just another state to the EU.
Because they are rejecting their deal. They will crash out and basically have the same status as the likes of Zimbabwe. Except that Zimbabwe has probably managed to make at least some trade deals with the EU by now.
Remember that the Brits chose to leave the EU. Not the other way around. Deals have to be negotiated between the EU and the UK as a sovereign state.
>Perfectly possible, except the EU doesn't want to bind itself to anything Britain wants.
And why would we?
Again: The Brits chose to leave. They spent time fighting internally instead of negotiating deals.
The UK took a bite bigger than they could chew.
Imagine this: At the current rate the Brits will not even be able to transcribe EU law into UK law. That means that a lot of UK laws in place will simply seize to exist once they leave.
Worst case scenario is that they will release prisoners because the laws that put them into prison are no longer in place.
There are no deals because the Brits are not negotiating any.
And as far as the EU is concerned, the Brits are on their own.
Flag, as usual, checks out
Flag, as usual, checks out
Just fucking leave already.
>If they want to be a part of the european market, they need to follow its rules
They don't want to be a part of the European market, they want to have trade deals with Europe. And Europe isn't negotiating those deals currently in good faith - it's saying "You will participate in the market under our conditions, or you won't get any trade deal" right now. That's the problem.
The EU's interests would be served by establishing a trade deal with Britain to come into effect with Brexit, but they're refusing to do so.
Are you dense mate?
The EU is currently REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE A TRADE DEAL WITH BRITAIN - except as to offer the all-or-nothing option of being subject to the common market regulations.
That's where they're being shut out. If they were sane, or fair, the Brexit negotiations would have included post-brexit trade deals between the EU and Britain, but the EU is REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE THEM.
The UK parliaiment is struggling because they keep asking the government to negotate a post-brexit travel treaty with the EU and the EU is mostly saying "no - full movement or no movement". The parliament is refusing to accept that ultimatum.
You really don't understand what I'mg etting at here. Britain is trying to negotiate those deals as a sovereign state with the EU right now. So they take effect immediately. It has been trying to do that for two years. The EU however is trying to negotiate how much control it will still have over Britain. That's why there's a stalemate.
> Why would the EU bind itself to anything Britain wants?
Because the EU is somewhat dependent on British trade, and it's in it's economic best interests to continue that trade? Just like any other trading deal? From all reports, the individual states want those trade deals in place too, but the eurocrats are deliberately pushing back in order to "punish" Britain for leaving - and hurt EU members in the process.
You are delusional though. This country is not the power it was. Even most of our infrastructure has been sold off to foreign companies by spiv politicians. Brexit has been brought about by those same spivs playing on misplaced patriotism and petty long held bias in people like yourself.
>Are you dense mate?
>The EU is currently REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE A TRADE DEAL WITH BRITAIN
Yes because the Brits insist on making unreasonable demands.
When they come back with a reasonable offer than the EU will gladly talk to them.
But as matters are right now the UK is negotiating as if they are the kings of the world.
The EU has negotiated a deal with May. The Parliament keeps shutting her down.
Where is the incentive to keep negotiating until the dust settles?
The EU has no one to currently negotiate with.
The Brits themselves are shutting down their own options because they want to cherrypick, when they are in the worst imaginable position to make demands right now.
>EU is mostly saying "no - full movement or no movement"
Any why wouldn't they?
Name one reason, why the EU in their own interest would support any hybrid solution to this.
>The EU however is trying to negotiate how much control it will still have over Britain.
This is where you are wrong.
The situation is in fact reversed.
The UK is trying to cling to EU privileges, when they offer nothing in return. The EU is a protectionist block. Now the UK is throwing a tamper tantrum because they have to face it on their own.
>Because the EU is somewhat dependent on British trade, and it's in it's economic best interests to continue that trade?
Trade between the EU and the UK will not stop.
It will continue on WTO rules. And those are brutal. The UK will of course form a trade deal as soon as possible to avoid trading with the EU under WTO rules. But they have close to no negotiating power so the UK politicians will be forces to make a deal that will utterly fuck the UK up their arses.
Because thats what the EU does. Make deals that favour EU members. Third parties get shafted.
>The EU as a protectionist trading block has nothing to do with it.
No internal borders is their core belief, Fritz.
Death to the EU!
>Yes because the Brits insist on making unreasonable demands.
At this point, the EU seems to consider anything short of full capitulation unreasonable.
That says more about the EU than about Britain.
Everything I've been talking about is normal trade deal terms and things-on-the-table.
> Name one reason, why the EU in their own interest would support any hybrid solution to this.
There are EU citizens resident in Britain, and who have close ties to Britain.
Why wouldn't the EU want to do things in the interests of its citizens? Oh yeah, because the EU doesn't give a fuck about its citizens.
> UK is trying to cling to EU privileges
No, it's trying to negotiate a set of treaties to take effect post-brexit, to avoid having to hurt both parties after brexit and then waste time negotiating them later. All signs (of an admittedly mostly closed process) seem to indicate that's what's been going on. Britain initially approached this as it would a normal set of trade and migration deals, as it would with any other country, and that got shut down quickly by the EU.
> Trade between the EU and the UK will not stop
No, it will be severely restricted, hurting both parties, until new treaties can be organized.
And right now, the EU is refusing to negotiate those NOW instead of later.
And that will hurt the EU members and citizens, as well as Britain.
But the EU doesn't care.
Dont get to edgy, Pierre
There is one major sticking point with the whole irish thing I'll grant you - but the problem there boils down to the EU wanting to manage migration policy, but there also being migration treaties direct with EU members. If the EU wants its migration policy to override national policies, then it needs to just override national treaties.
>No internal borders is their core belief, Fritz.
Yes and rightfully so.
One of the reasons why you can now deal with the upcoming mess in northern ireland. :^)
>There are EU citizens resident in Britain, and who have close ties to Britain.
There are also tons of Brits living inside the EU.
But for some reason all those British pensioners in Spain majority voted to leave. Way to vote against their own interest.
Guess the Brits better work on their Visa process then. It's also not like the Brits will deport all of the EU citizens over night. Same for Brits living in the EU. An agreement will be found. As matters stand right now the situations of those people is up in the air. Nobody knows what will happen to these people yet.
>At this point, the EU seems to consider anything short of full capitulation unreasonable.
And how is this a bad thing in any way shape or form? The EU is a powerhouse. The UK has chosen irrelevance. There are clear rules for dealing with the EU. The UK parliament knows this. The citizens who voted leave did not. There is still people shrugging off facts as "project fear".
>Everything I've been talking about is normal trade deal terms and things-on-the-table.
A deal has been made. The UK parliament kept rejecting it.
You do not negotiate with the EU. They are bureaucrats. They tick boxes based on set rulebooks that apply the same for everyone.
UK parliament knows these rules. Yet they demand that the EU bends them.
Of course Brussels will say: No thanks. You know the rules. Take it or leave it.
There is no room for negotiations here. The Brits have nothing to negotiate with.
They keep making demands and the EU keeps denying them, based on their rules.
Nothing more nothing less. The UK basically expects to run head first into a gate, and expect it to open. When they do have the keys in their pockets and know how its operated.
>Britain initially approached this as it would a normal set of trade and migration deals, as it would with any other country, and that got shut down quickly by the EU.
Except that they did not.
See this is an EU slide from 2016. It points out how any of the potential relationship scenarios gets shut down by the UK. All the EU does is to not make exceptions for the UK.
And the reason for that is very logical.
Because if the UK gets special treatment then the other states will also demand special treatment. That exactly is why there will be no cherrypicking.
>No, it will be severely restricted, hurting both parties, until new treaties can be organized.
And right now, the EU is refusing to negotiate those NOW instead of later.
And that will hurt the EU members and citizens, as well as Britain.
But the EU doesn't care.
Of course it will hurt both parties. But again: Negotiations have been made. The UK parliament is currently in no state to make reasonable decisions. So the only option is to negotiate after Brexit has taken place.
>If the EU wants its migration policy to override national policies, then it needs to just override national treaties.
This is for the parliaments to decide.
The UK was one of the major benefactors of freedom of movement. Their farmers are already crapping their pants because they can't get access to an army of underpaid slavs now.
So yeah. They can have their pakis.
>There are also tons of Brits living inside the EU.
So? You were asking about reasons the EU would want a migration arrangement, and that's a reason. In that context, the Brit citizens in the EU are irrelevant to the EU.
> the situations of those people is up in the air
Yeah. Because the EU only gave two extreme options, neither of which were reasonable, and refused to negotiate any other treaty.
> The EU is a powerhouse
Without the UK, a much reduced one. Having to bear the brunt of several developing economies and several collapsing ones. Britain will suffer in the short term but internally is far more stable than the EU. It's in the EU's interest to be reasonable.
> A deal has been made
No, a deal has been discussed and proposed. May doesn't have the legal authority to fully agree to the deal, Parliament does. And Parliament has said the deal is unacceptable.
> See this is an EU slide from 2016. It points out how any of the potential relationship scenarios gets shut down by the UK
That's what I initially replied to.
As I said, they were shot down because they were only binary choices. The EU has not negotiated in good faith.
> Because if the UK gets special treatment then the other states will also demand special treatment
Maybe they should get it.
> Negotiations have been made
Actually they kinda haven't. That's my point. The EU set terms, and some minor details were tweaked, and that's the only "deal" the EU ever offered. A checklist of in-or-out options.
Britain wanted individual issues to be discussed. The EU refused. That's unreasonable on the part of the EU.
> The UK parliament is currently in no state to make reasonable decisions
When the EU is setting non-negotiable demands, it's the one being unreasonable.
For people who's government is shit the EU is a fucking great idea
>Your city is declining
>Need funds for projects to bring it back
>Bypass your shit government, get funds directly from EU, creating new dynamic of citizen to supranational government
>Guaranteed trade, favourable tariffs IF you're willing to streamline some legal stuff to everyone else
>UK didn't even have to go into Schengen zone or use the Euro
>The immigrants people complain about mostly come from common wealth
This is just an opinion from a place the British government planned a "managed decline" of some time ago, so the EU actually grants single people interesting prospects when their own government can't. You can tell hardly anyone here has actually studied the EU or knows anything past the slogans
I love the German cucks.
The only influence EU has over Norway is juridical trading.
>Deny that EU want to create an army to protect themselves from America (our ally) and Russia (our brother).
>Deny that mass immigration will kill of the white race.
>Deny increase of pedophiles and gun violence.
>Deny that small countries need different rule set than big countries, and that big countries decides everything in EU.
>But, muh goatfuckers don't rape and kill.
Sure dude, sure.
> This is for the parliaments to decide.
It's the intersection of Ireland's national foreign migration policy and the EU's migration policy. There is currently a conflict. The EU and Ireland have to decide whose requirements are paramount - their treaty with the UK or their treaty with the EU.
> The UK was one of the major benefactors of freedom of movement
This statement is not surprising coming from someone who's obviously deeply steeped in the EU founding philosophy of corporatocracy and trade before people
Some parts of the UK benefitted. Others were severely disadvantaged. Those "underpaid slavs" depressed wages.
Honestly, I'm hoping for a no-deal. The UK will likely come out of this faster and better than the EU, and it will help shake the already unstable foundations of the EU.
Maybe next time around a better structure than the current EU will arise to unify Europe.
Tell that to your fishing industry and all the men who have lost their jobs due to EU.
>But poor people get money.
Are you fucking commie? If you are poor, you need to work harder, not get "free" shit from daddy EU.
The EU has nothing to do with the hollowing of the middle class. It's technology.
i agree. i would much rather be in a eu superstate than this deluded shithole. people need to realise that this country has been hobbled by its own inept and greedy governors for the last 50 years and that the eu is its only real salvation.