This is the take I've been looking for . As a nationalist myself , the idea of multiple countries of similar political persuasion controlling the EU fills me with a hope I'd almost relinquished. This is the correct path . Excellent work Keith
The priority of nationalists should be to experiment with ways to help their families, neighbours and local communities organise to survive the coming liberal collapse clusterfuck.
Nationalists must stop pretending that we can push or pull the liberal capitalist elite or the populist capitalist alternative to fight and win the devastating civil war that would be needed to impose remigration.
Refusal to face facts is either folly or cowardice.
As several countries including Austria, Portugal, Poland, Germany, Denmark and the UK gain democratic mandates to enact deportations with support from the USA government, under what authority do you claim this defeatist nonsense?
Those are token concessions at best. It’s nowhere near the extent it needs to be at to significantly reverse demographic change, and these regimes still lets immigrants into their countries.
"Democratic mandates" is another childish superstition which ill--befits adult men.
Trump saying that Europe should take steps to survive doesn't make a joy of difference to the reality:
We are run by people whi hate us, for a bankster system that cannot accept or survive demographic shrinkage, and the only electoral alternatives which can possibly get elected are Meloni clones who will keep out a few criminal Africans and expel a few radical Muslims, and then let in Hindus and other Africans by the million.
That's why asking the elite - and parties permitted to be successful in theor election system - for remigration is taking a peashooter to a gun-fight.
Priority of nationalists should be coming together as Europeans so we can compete with the empires that threaten us, and to take over the EU and use it as a vehicle.
Local communities are tiny; our countries are small and irrelevant. How many people does Ireland have? Slovakia? Czechia?
The current elites are worth nothing and should be removed from power.
Elites, like socialist USSR ones, just as an example, often get removed and replaced.
They are never "stable".
Also they aren't many and all their power is from the obedience of their police.
You do have a good point about managing small communities though and people spending too much time online. But these are smaller goals, which are definitely still desirable I think, but also not enough. The aim must be for something more.
Small communities will be powerless against entities that are dedicated at competing with Europe. We have to worry about a belligerent Russia emboldened by its success in Ukraine and Western apathy - a Russia with modern military experience now and a war economy. A China that is smartly waiting to make its move. An US that seems to be willing to collude with Russia to split the continent in spheres of influence, like in the past, and is unlikely to offer any military assistance, even through NATO. An emerging Africa that is in a demographic boom and will provide more and more migrants.
And that's just external factors.
If we will remain polarized and easy to bully through separate deals, smaller countries will have no say in whatever is going to happen the next years.
Your small communities will probably do somewhat fine, especially since you're on a rather isolated island.
There are parties in Europe like the AfD which favour Remigration. They are polling at #1 in the opinion data ahead of the next election. It is plausible they could form a government and begin to implement these stated policies. How is that an inferior solution to whatever you're talking about?
Meloni promised the same in Italy, but since getting elected on that platform has flooded Italy with more migrants than ever. Like Farage, these populists are all FAKE. They're there as safety valves and to protect the (pro-immigration) interests of capitalism and Zionism. The problem with remigration is not the principle (although it would involve civil war) but the fact it won't be delivered.
Populist figures like Meloni are a disappointment, but the AfD is clearly more rooted in a radical nationalist tradition. Even before the election in Italy, Meloni was aligned with the centre-right, her party was in the ECR, she identified her heroes as figures like Margaret Thatcher. There is no comparison between someone like that and the AfD, particularly in its radical wing (figures like Bjorn Hocke).
If the AfD comes to power in Germany I am sure it'll face immense challenges in implementing its programme. Deportation of the worst foreigners (criminals, scroungers, etc), a cessation of mass-immigration, and making life for immigrants difficult such as by heavily regulating and taxing remittances would go a long way to solving the problems facing Germany. That is all realistic and doable in a scenario where the AfD came to power. What is your alternative?
I started the essay wanting to abolish the EU and finished it wanting us to not risk alienating people we will need to win over. Once we have done and are in a strong position we can then set about reforming rather than abolishing the damn thing. Basically I was completely persuaded on all counts, which either means it was a wonderfully convincing piece of writing or I've thought so little of this through that I'm very easily swayed.
Keith, like most Irishmen, you are sure Brexit has led to the collapse of the British economy. This is not the case - although the British government is anxious to claim that problems stemming from the pandemic and Britain's mad Net Zero are actually a result of Brexit. World Bank figures in constant 2015 dollars, show the UK economy was 121.1% of the French economy in 2016 (the year of the referendum), then 121.8% in 2017, 121.5% in 2018, 121% in 2019, 117.3% in 2020 (the actual year of Brexit and also the pandemic, which hit a services-oriented economy harder), 119.2% in 2021, 121.8% in 2022, 121.2% in 2023 and 121.1% in 2024. Brexit has literally made no difference overall. The UK economy has, down to the percentage point, grown at the same rate as France. The Irish government and RTÉ may pump out a very different sort of propaganda on this. Our economic travails are down to the huge overspending during the pandemic, mass immigration and our electricity prices that are four times America's - none of which were caused by Brexit.
OK, you didn't say it led to the collapse of Britain, just potential economic ruin, which didn't happen. I have sent an email to your protonmail giving an XLS of World Bank figures showing the UK and French economic performance - and the UK economy has grown at exactly the same rate as France. Thanks for the clarification that you are not saying Brexit has led to the collapse of the UK economy.
This is the correct take. The problem is specifically that the EU has fallen under the control of a criminal, corrupt elite who are beholden to unseen masters, not us. It needs to be completely gutted, root and branch reform across the board, then measures and rules implemented to ensure this can never happen again.
There are a couple problems with this analysis and the comparison to the Swiss canton system presents very different realities.
On the Swiss comparison:
1. One of the major first criticisms of the EU is the fact that it is inevitably favouring some countries in comparison to others.
Examples like:
Big population vs Small population
High end economy vs low end economy
Fiscally conservative vs Fiscally loose
The only way this could function is if the EU became a military and free trade union. Anything more, aka anything that would require geopolitical action at any scale, would inevitably put European countries interests against one another (as we saw happen in the 2010s).
This would undoubtedly either favour the populous and rich countries against the least populous and less wealthy (as we saw with Germany vs Greece) or the opposite (which hasn't happened yet but could).
The fact of the matter is that for the EU to have any impact as a geopolitical entity, it would require the support of both France and Germany at minimum. This would make France and Germany the de facto leaders. Meanwhile it can easily ignore the smaller members.
Meanwhile the Swiss cantons all are of similar size, geography and relatively closer economies (in comparison to European countries).
2. European countries also have very different peoples with relatively different societal values. This inevitably leads to ethnic and macro ethnic coalitions forming and this unfavours the isolates. The Scandinavians pretty much all agree with each other and they broadly agree with the broader germanic world. They naturally would vote with each other on most issues. Meanwhile other parts of Europe are in much stronger disagreement or share less values. Romance countries are de facto all separate in actions, the slavs even more so than the romance. It is inevitable that the EU will always have a germanic flair to it as a consequence.
The Swiss work because despite their different languages in a couple cantons, the Swiss cantons are broadly populated by the same homogenous culture and even the non alemmanic populations are very "germanised or swissed". This broadly disallows for ethnic coalitions from forming.
So the difference is the classic homogenous democracy vs diverse autocracy that you see throughout history. In the end, for a political union of any kind, if the populations and nations are diverse, a central system will develop as a necessity.
and 3.
Switzerland is geopolitically irrelevant. This means that as a country it has very little to actually do. Perhaps when Europe has declined further and is a plaything for larger countries like the US, Russia and China it might become like Switzerland (aka to weak to do anything, to annoying to remove). But as of now, Europe is far too large to be completely isolationist and far too weak to consider common foreign policy as unnecessary.
And also Switzerland also failed in its autonomy. It often faced civil wars were only the relative parity of the cantons allowed them to have balanced alliances in order to not reduce their respective autonomies. And then the last civil war greatly centralised Switzerland, curtailing its autonomy. And given time, it will inevitably centralise, I am sure.
The main issue is that I very seriously doubt the EU can be reformed. It was built with a specific purpose in mind and to change it to your benefit is likely impossible. Even with the examples of Poland and Hungary, they show the EU cannot be assuaged. Both countries are experiencing sanctions and pressures from the EU in one form or another. Again, until Germany or France are BOTH taken, it is pointless. If you are more of an upper tier, you can have relative independence (Italy), but if not good luck.
You cannot tame the dragon, only slay it. And then you can replace it. The reformist wing of any ideology or faction never manages to get what it wants. They might get a concession here or there, but fundamentally they serve the system they oppose.
Also the reason the EU is seen as necessary is because of aging population hating risks and that its only seen aspects are stuff like Erasmus or subsidies. None of the negatives are ever really seen in everyday life.
The EU is a Socialist organization, it was created as a Socialist organization, by Socialists and Marxists, and therefore, at its base, at its foundation, it is bound to fail. The idea that it is better to fix something than to destroy it is fine, if it's actually worth fixing. However, if a house is built on a poor foundation, it will have to be torn down and rebuilt, and that's what I see here. And my opinion has very little to do with Elon Musk's situation or what he thinks. I'm basing my opinion on historical facts. Socialism (aka the road to Communism) never works. It is a path that is paved with illogical and immoral ideals, inhumanity and subjugation, so it can only lead ever downwards.
Boomer take. It was founded by neoliberals and thusly a neoliberal organisation. The EU supports private property and a free liberal market, things that Marxism is fundamentally opposed to. There’s a reason for why actual communist parties almost universally opposes the EU.
You sound like leftists who call anything they don’t like fascist.
Definitely not a leftist. Definitely not calling anyone fascist. The beginnings of Socialism are always like this; they gradually and steadily remove the freedoms that we all take for granted, one bit at a time. Today you cannot say what you want; tomorrow you cannot read what you want. Next week you cannot pray if you want. It ends up like the CCP run China. Wicked.
“The first problem with this proposal is its unpopularity.”
I agree that abolition has become unpopular, but it was not as unpopular until quite recently. Remigration was also once unpopular until we made the case for why it is necessary. That is what politics is. You speak of politics as the art of the possible, but abolishing the EU is possible if the will can be ignited among the populace. For that to happen we must first explain why the EU is so horrible.
The reason it once was popular and now is not is because our politicians and media lied to us about the supposed benefits of the EU project. Once we were so integrated that dissolving the EU became as good as impossible, people accepted this reality. They only believe in the EU in that it benefits us economically
But you know what else hurt us economically? Fighting two world wars. No one in the Netherlands argues that, because fighting the Germans would be bad for the economy, we should have just given over our country. Our sovereignty matters more than a possible economic recession for a few years from leaving the (political) union. Which brings us nicely to your second point.
“The EU is not the chief obstacle to sensible immigration policies.”
The EU is definitely the chief obstacle to sensible immigration policy. You mention Denmark’s migration policy, but Denmark entered the union with an opt-out on immigration policy, so they are not beholden to EU migration law. And that is also why your examples of Poland and Hungary are unconvincing. Poland and Hungary manage to keep existing as an ethnostate by ignoring EU law (they have been fined as a consequence) and by being to poor for any migrant to want to migrate to. The EU would collapse if every state in the union started ignoring its laws for obvious reasons. To have faith in the EU is to have faith in the process of the EU and its laws. The politicians will not just ignore migration to please the right wing of Europe. They will just ignore them like they have for its entire existence. This is why the union is the obstacle to sensible migration, because through Article 6 of the TEU we are bound to Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which binds us to the UN resolution. This has already been interpreted by the courts to basically mean that everyone can come here.
We are not going to be able to change the TEU in the foreseeable future, and even if we did somehow get a majority to vote for revising the treaty, the process would take years. A more realistic scenario is that individual countries within the union manage to elect (far-)right governments. They won't have control of the union and won't be able to change the TEU. Free movement of persons will allow migrants to migrate to the EU and then migrate to a EU country with stricter laws. So the only realistic option remaining is to leave the EU. Only through that threath can anything change. The establishment must know that that option is on the table so there is actual pressure to change the union from within. If they don't, we will actually leave.
The EU is a joke and cannot be controlled the way you want. It is designed not to be controlled in this way. It was always a project to get the rest of Europe into the hands of France and Germany and this is exactly how it is used and will be used. Full stop.
I've felt the same way for a while, regarding both the EU and subsidiarity. The fundamental problem with the European Union is that it is anti-European, not that it is a union. On the contrary, the EU, corrupt and malignant as it now is, will be a necessary stepping-stone to the future World-Empire that Europe, united with her diaspora descendents in the rest of the West, must become if she is to survive. In this new United West the differences between Frenchman and Englishman, Ukrainian and Pole (there is of course now no one who can any longer retain the hope that semi-Asiatic Russia could be part of a united Europe; on the contrary she would remain its worst enemy, its nearest and deadliest foe, even more so than the Turks) would not disappear, but would matter no more and no less than the differences between Texan and Californian, Cornishman or Liverpudlian. Imperium is our inalienable birthright and inevitable destiny. This time, not even the world is enough. We are meant to rule the stars.
This is the take I've been looking for . As a nationalist myself , the idea of multiple countries of similar political persuasion controlling the EU fills me with a hope I'd almost relinquished. This is the correct path . Excellent work Keith
The priority of nationalists should be to experiment with ways to help their families, neighbours and local communities organise to survive the coming liberal collapse clusterfuck.
Nationalists must stop pretending that we can push or pull the liberal capitalist elite or the populist capitalist alternative to fight and win the devastating civil war that would be needed to impose remigration.
Refusal to face facts is either folly or cowardice.
As several countries including Austria, Portugal, Poland, Germany, Denmark and the UK gain democratic mandates to enact deportations with support from the USA government, under what authority do you claim this defeatist nonsense?
Those are token concessions at best. It’s nowhere near the extent it needs to be at to significantly reverse demographic change, and these regimes still lets immigrants into their countries.
"Democratic mandates" is another childish superstition which ill--befits adult men.
Trump saying that Europe should take steps to survive doesn't make a joy of difference to the reality:
We are run by people whi hate us, for a bankster system that cannot accept or survive demographic shrinkage, and the only electoral alternatives which can possibly get elected are Meloni clones who will keep out a few criminal Africans and expel a few radical Muslims, and then let in Hindus and other Africans by the million.
That's why asking the elite - and parties permitted to be successful in theor election system - for remigration is taking a peashooter to a gun-fight.
Blackpilling nonsense.
Priority of nationalists should be coming together as Europeans so we can compete with the empires that threaten us, and to take over the EU and use it as a vehicle.
Local communities are tiny; our countries are small and irrelevant. How many people does Ireland have? Slovakia? Czechia?
The current elites are worth nothing and should be removed from power.
"...should be removed". But since that would require achieving state power or mass murder,.it's not going to happen.
Seems to me that spending too much time online is interfering with people's ability to distinguish between what is desirable and what is possible.
If you can't control and protect even a small community, how can.you have any impact.on the future of a nation, let alone a continent?
Current elites also had to achieve state power.
Elites, like socialist USSR ones, just as an example, often get removed and replaced.
They are never "stable".
Also they aren't many and all their power is from the obedience of their police.
You do have a good point about managing small communities though and people spending too much time online. But these are smaller goals, which are definitely still desirable I think, but also not enough. The aim must be for something more.
Small communities will be powerless against entities that are dedicated at competing with Europe. We have to worry about a belligerent Russia emboldened by its success in Ukraine and Western apathy - a Russia with modern military experience now and a war economy. A China that is smartly waiting to make its move. An US that seems to be willing to collude with Russia to split the continent in spheres of influence, like in the past, and is unlikely to offer any military assistance, even through NATO. An emerging Africa that is in a demographic boom and will provide more and more migrants.
And that's just external factors.
If we will remain polarized and easy to bully through separate deals, smaller countries will have no say in whatever is going to happen the next years.
Your small communities will probably do somewhat fine, especially since you're on a rather isolated island.
But in the end, history will catch up with you.
Just my 2c.
There are parties in Europe like the AfD which favour Remigration. They are polling at #1 in the opinion data ahead of the next election. It is plausible they could form a government and begin to implement these stated policies. How is that an inferior solution to whatever you're talking about?
Meloni promised the same in Italy, but since getting elected on that platform has flooded Italy with more migrants than ever. Like Farage, these populists are all FAKE. They're there as safety valves and to protect the (pro-immigration) interests of capitalism and Zionism. The problem with remigration is not the principle (although it would involve civil war) but the fact it won't be delivered.
Populist figures like Meloni are a disappointment, but the AfD is clearly more rooted in a radical nationalist tradition. Even before the election in Italy, Meloni was aligned with the centre-right, her party was in the ECR, she identified her heroes as figures like Margaret Thatcher. There is no comparison between someone like that and the AfD, particularly in its radical wing (figures like Bjorn Hocke).
If the AfD comes to power in Germany I am sure it'll face immense challenges in implementing its programme. Deportation of the worst foreigners (criminals, scroungers, etc), a cessation of mass-immigration, and making life for immigrants difficult such as by heavily regulating and taxing remittances would go a long way to solving the problems facing Germany. That is all realistic and doable in a scenario where the AfD came to power. What is your alternative?
I started the essay wanting to abolish the EU and finished it wanting us to not risk alienating people we will need to win over. Once we have done and are in a strong position we can then set about reforming rather than abolishing the damn thing. Basically I was completely persuaded on all counts, which either means it was a wonderfully convincing piece of writing or I've thought so little of this through that I'm very easily swayed.
Keith, like most Irishmen, you are sure Brexit has led to the collapse of the British economy. This is not the case - although the British government is anxious to claim that problems stemming from the pandemic and Britain's mad Net Zero are actually a result of Brexit. World Bank figures in constant 2015 dollars, show the UK economy was 121.1% of the French economy in 2016 (the year of the referendum), then 121.8% in 2017, 121.5% in 2018, 121% in 2019, 117.3% in 2020 (the actual year of Brexit and also the pandemic, which hit a services-oriented economy harder), 119.2% in 2021, 121.8% in 2022, 121.2% in 2023 and 121.1% in 2024. Brexit has literally made no difference overall. The UK economy has, down to the percentage point, grown at the same rate as France. The Irish government and RTÉ may pump out a very different sort of propaganda on this. Our economic travails are down to the huge overspending during the pandemic, mass immigration and our electricity prices that are four times America's - none of which were caused by Brexit.
What are you talking about? Where have I said it led it the collapse of the British economy or even economic downturn?
OK, you didn't say it led to the collapse of Britain, just potential economic ruin, which didn't happen. I have sent an email to your protonmail giving an XLS of World Bank figures showing the UK and French economic performance - and the UK economy has grown at exactly the same rate as France. Thanks for the clarification that you are not saying Brexit has led to the collapse of the UK economy.
This is the correct take. The problem is specifically that the EU has fallen under the control of a criminal, corrupt elite who are beholden to unseen masters, not us. It needs to be completely gutted, root and branch reform across the board, then measures and rules implemented to ensure this can never happen again.
The EU needs reform, it must be controlled by European patriots to represent the interests of Europeans, not globalist freaks
There are a couple problems with this analysis and the comparison to the Swiss canton system presents very different realities.
On the Swiss comparison:
1. One of the major first criticisms of the EU is the fact that it is inevitably favouring some countries in comparison to others.
Examples like:
Big population vs Small population
High end economy vs low end economy
Fiscally conservative vs Fiscally loose
The only way this could function is if the EU became a military and free trade union. Anything more, aka anything that would require geopolitical action at any scale, would inevitably put European countries interests against one another (as we saw happen in the 2010s).
This would undoubtedly either favour the populous and rich countries against the least populous and less wealthy (as we saw with Germany vs Greece) or the opposite (which hasn't happened yet but could).
The fact of the matter is that for the EU to have any impact as a geopolitical entity, it would require the support of both France and Germany at minimum. This would make France and Germany the de facto leaders. Meanwhile it can easily ignore the smaller members.
Meanwhile the Swiss cantons all are of similar size, geography and relatively closer economies (in comparison to European countries).
2. European countries also have very different peoples with relatively different societal values. This inevitably leads to ethnic and macro ethnic coalitions forming and this unfavours the isolates. The Scandinavians pretty much all agree with each other and they broadly agree with the broader germanic world. They naturally would vote with each other on most issues. Meanwhile other parts of Europe are in much stronger disagreement or share less values. Romance countries are de facto all separate in actions, the slavs even more so than the romance. It is inevitable that the EU will always have a germanic flair to it as a consequence.
The Swiss work because despite their different languages in a couple cantons, the Swiss cantons are broadly populated by the same homogenous culture and even the non alemmanic populations are very "germanised or swissed". This broadly disallows for ethnic coalitions from forming.
So the difference is the classic homogenous democracy vs diverse autocracy that you see throughout history. In the end, for a political union of any kind, if the populations and nations are diverse, a central system will develop as a necessity.
and 3.
Switzerland is geopolitically irrelevant. This means that as a country it has very little to actually do. Perhaps when Europe has declined further and is a plaything for larger countries like the US, Russia and China it might become like Switzerland (aka to weak to do anything, to annoying to remove). But as of now, Europe is far too large to be completely isolationist and far too weak to consider common foreign policy as unnecessary.
And also Switzerland also failed in its autonomy. It often faced civil wars were only the relative parity of the cantons allowed them to have balanced alliances in order to not reduce their respective autonomies. And then the last civil war greatly centralised Switzerland, curtailing its autonomy. And given time, it will inevitably centralise, I am sure.
The main issue is that I very seriously doubt the EU can be reformed. It was built with a specific purpose in mind and to change it to your benefit is likely impossible. Even with the examples of Poland and Hungary, they show the EU cannot be assuaged. Both countries are experiencing sanctions and pressures from the EU in one form or another. Again, until Germany or France are BOTH taken, it is pointless. If you are more of an upper tier, you can have relative independence (Italy), but if not good luck.
You cannot tame the dragon, only slay it. And then you can replace it. The reformist wing of any ideology or faction never manages to get what it wants. They might get a concession here or there, but fundamentally they serve the system they oppose.
Also the reason the EU is seen as necessary is because of aging population hating risks and that its only seen aspects are stuff like Erasmus or subsidies. None of the negatives are ever really seen in everyday life.
The EU is a Socialist organization, it was created as a Socialist organization, by Socialists and Marxists, and therefore, at its base, at its foundation, it is bound to fail. The idea that it is better to fix something than to destroy it is fine, if it's actually worth fixing. However, if a house is built on a poor foundation, it will have to be torn down and rebuilt, and that's what I see here. And my opinion has very little to do with Elon Musk's situation or what he thinks. I'm basing my opinion on historical facts. Socialism (aka the road to Communism) never works. It is a path that is paved with illogical and immoral ideals, inhumanity and subjugation, so it can only lead ever downwards.
Boomer take. It was founded by neoliberals and thusly a neoliberal organisation. The EU supports private property and a free liberal market, things that Marxism is fundamentally opposed to. There’s a reason for why actual communist parties almost universally opposes the EU.
You sound like leftists who call anything they don’t like fascist.
Definitely not a leftist. Definitely not calling anyone fascist. The beginnings of Socialism are always like this; they gradually and steadily remove the freedoms that we all take for granted, one bit at a time. Today you cannot say what you want; tomorrow you cannot read what you want. Next week you cannot pray if you want. It ends up like the CCP run China. Wicked.
Great article. Convincing take.
I don't think I agree with this article.
“The first problem with this proposal is its unpopularity.”
I agree that abolition has become unpopular, but it was not as unpopular until quite recently. Remigration was also once unpopular until we made the case for why it is necessary. That is what politics is. You speak of politics as the art of the possible, but abolishing the EU is possible if the will can be ignited among the populace. For that to happen we must first explain why the EU is so horrible.
The reason it once was popular and now is not is because our politicians and media lied to us about the supposed benefits of the EU project. Once we were so integrated that dissolving the EU became as good as impossible, people accepted this reality. They only believe in the EU in that it benefits us economically
But you know what else hurt us economically? Fighting two world wars. No one in the Netherlands argues that, because fighting the Germans would be bad for the economy, we should have just given over our country. Our sovereignty matters more than a possible economic recession for a few years from leaving the (political) union. Which brings us nicely to your second point.
“The EU is not the chief obstacle to sensible immigration policies.”
The EU is definitely the chief obstacle to sensible immigration policy. You mention Denmark’s migration policy, but Denmark entered the union with an opt-out on immigration policy, so they are not beholden to EU migration law. And that is also why your examples of Poland and Hungary are unconvincing. Poland and Hungary manage to keep existing as an ethnostate by ignoring EU law (they have been fined as a consequence) and by being to poor for any migrant to want to migrate to. The EU would collapse if every state in the union started ignoring its laws for obvious reasons. To have faith in the EU is to have faith in the process of the EU and its laws. The politicians will not just ignore migration to please the right wing of Europe. They will just ignore them like they have for its entire existence. This is why the union is the obstacle to sensible migration, because through Article 6 of the TEU we are bound to Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which binds us to the UN resolution. This has already been interpreted by the courts to basically mean that everyone can come here.
We are not going to be able to change the TEU in the foreseeable future, and even if we did somehow get a majority to vote for revising the treaty, the process would take years. A more realistic scenario is that individual countries within the union manage to elect (far-)right governments. They won't have control of the union and won't be able to change the TEU. Free movement of persons will allow migrants to migrate to the EU and then migrate to a EU country with stricter laws. So the only realistic option remaining is to leave the EU. Only through that threath can anything change. The establishment must know that that option is on the table so there is actual pressure to change the union from within. If they don't, we will actually leave.
The EU is a joke and cannot be controlled the way you want. It is designed not to be controlled in this way. It was always a project to get the rest of Europe into the hands of France and Germany and this is exactly how it is used and will be used. Full stop.
The Krainer Hypothesis is hitting hyperdrive after new US National Security Strategy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC5TxCXh4Wc
Formative description of the Krainer Hypothesis. Note the body language between him and Tom Luongo, which adds veracity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNBtNM6_YK0&t=1948s
I've felt the same way for a while, regarding both the EU and subsidiarity. The fundamental problem with the European Union is that it is anti-European, not that it is a union. On the contrary, the EU, corrupt and malignant as it now is, will be a necessary stepping-stone to the future World-Empire that Europe, united with her diaspora descendents in the rest of the West, must become if she is to survive. In this new United West the differences between Frenchman and Englishman, Ukrainian and Pole (there is of course now no one who can any longer retain the hope that semi-Asiatic Russia could be part of a united Europe; on the contrary she would remain its worst enemy, its nearest and deadliest foe, even more so than the Turks) would not disappear, but would matter no more and no less than the differences between Texan and Californian, Cornishman or Liverpudlian. Imperium is our inalienable birthright and inevitable destiny. This time, not even the world is enough. We are meant to rule the stars.
What should be done about the Euro then? If it is responsible for the Eurozone Crisis
Confederation, not imperium, is the future
Started out in strong disagreement and wondering where tf you were going with this.
Ended up agreeing and giving a like.