What is your reaction on relatively good results of eurosceptic parties across Europe?

I'm just starting a debating YouTube channel. I have a pro-europe person lined up but I am looking for a eurosceptic to take part in a 20 minute video debate (specific topic to be decided between us). If anyone is interested then I would love to hear from you!

I am in favor of further integration of the EU and am curious about your perspective as a Eurosceptic. What concerns you about my vision for the EU?

My vision for the EU is essentially a European Federation similar to the USA. Member states would have the autonomy to determine their own taxation levels, manage most budgeting decisions, legislate on many issues, maintain judicial autonomy, and more. I envision a Europe with increased global influence, greater cohesion, and enhanced efficiency.

Regarding the fear of loss of cultural identity, I believe this concern is unfounded. What if the EU established a cultural body tasked with documenting and safeguarding the identity, culture, and history of each member state? Would that not alleviate your concerns?

Similarly, the fear of exploitation of smaller states seems unwarranted. Just as the poorest states in America are not exploited by New York, how would a European Federation exploit smaller member states?

Concerns about representation also appear misplaced. If the EU operated like states in the USA, the only individuals who might feel unrepresented are those with views contrary to prevailing EU policies. Moreover, most laws would still be decided by the member states.

Regarding immigration, I empathize with your concerns, having witnessed firsthand the negative effects of improper immigration policies in Sweden. I'm open to hearing your thoughts on how this issue can be addressed.

What other reasons do you have for opposing a European federation? Can you convince me that it would be detrimental to all European countries?

Greetings from Sweden, I'm just curious to hear your perspective :)

I am referring to the assorted claims in the following article:

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/combating-anti-muslim-hatred_en

Recent changes to the European Union's immigration policy can be accessed in the following article:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/20/european-union-reaches-agreement-on-reforming-migration-rules

Jacques Lucien Jean Delors was a French politician who served as the eighth president of the European Commission from 1985 to 1995. Delors played a key role in the creation of the single market, the euro and the modern European Union.

Wikipedia entry

The Commission’s proposals were initially met with fierce resistance from a number of governments. But by the late Eighties, Delors had succeeded in radically changing Europe’s approach to capital controls — and in getting EU member countries to introduce full capital mobility by 1992, effectively making the free movement of capital a central tenet of the emerging European single market. This was a binding obligation not only among EU members but also between members and third countries.

In effect, Delors had succeeded in pushing Europe to fully embrace the “Paris consensus”, the European equivalent of the Washington consensus. The consequence of this was a European financial system that was, in principle, the most liberal the world had ever known. In this sense, the Europeans, far from being passive recipients of the free-market policies being concocted in Washington, actually preceded the Americans in embracing neoliberal globalisation, and promoting the spread of global capital.

This also profoundly influenced the construction of the monetary union. In short, Delors succeeded in convincing European governments that, by joining the [European Monetary System*] and liberalising capital flows, they had effectively already lost much of their economic sovereignty; they therefore had little choice but to embrace monetary integration as a way to regain some sovereignty at the supranational level, by “having a say” in Europe’s collective monetary policy. It was a shrewd argument, but a fallacious one: as history would show, by ceding their monetary policy to a supranational central bank, European governments simply ended up losing what little sovereignty they had left.

However, Delors was aided by the fact that, by the early Nineties, even the German establishment had come round to the idea of a monetary union — and indeed, national elites in most European countries had come round to the notion of a supranational central bank, fully immune to democratic pressures, as a useful way to insulate economic policy from popular contestation. By 1989, the Delors Committee had published its hugely influential Delors Report, which essentially acted as a blueprint for the construction of monetary union in the coming years.

The final act of this democratic tragedy came three years later with the Maastricht Treaty. This didn’t only establish a timeline for the establishment of monetary union (in line with the Delors Report), but also created a de facto economic constitution that embedded neoliberalism into the very fabric of the European Union. By the time the Delors Commission came to an end, in 1995, much of the groundwork for the techno-authoritarian and anti-democratic juggernaut that the EU would later become was laid — and, to a large degree, we have Delors, a French Socialist, to thank for that.

Excerpt from this article.

*

The European Monetary System (EMS) was a multilateral adjustable exchange rate agreement in which most of the nations of the European Economic Community (EEC) linked their currencies to prevent large fluctuations in relative value.

Source

Left is crying about winning of Wilders instead of thinking what they did wrong in topics like migration, dealing with islamic fundamentalism, safety in the streets etc.

Which group are you

View Poll