Brullnux said:
We are protected by NATO anyway, so why pay that much for a mostly useless weapon?
This is one of the reasons why I've parted ways with the Left. Cutting military spendings not merely because they might be unnecessary (I am of course all for rationalizing military spendings but not for the reason mentioned above) but because an imperialistic US-based organization is "protecting" us. Thereby you'd legitimize all they harm done by the said imperialistic organization (namely NATO) throughout the world whether it be in Lybia or in Kossovo.
As a sovereigntist I believe it is vital for each nation to defend themselves, on their own, and provide themselves with the necessary resources to do so. Therefore it's vitally important at least for my country (the rest I don't care) to exit NATO, according to art. 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty. NATO has no purpose anymore. The Warsaw Pact no longer exists (if ever it was a threat, which is doubtful), so there's no reason NATO should.
Amsterhammer said:
I see nothing mutually exclusive about being in favor of an EU in principle, while rejecting the current policy of austerity.
The policy of austerity is a consequence of the European Fiscal Compact that 25 member states signed up, incl. to its shame, my country. Only the UK and the Czech Republic did not (thanks the Eurosceptics/UKIP for that) and Croatia which was not in the EU then.
The EU commission is strictly following the rules of the treaty. And in order to modify European treaties, you need the unanimity of ALL 28 member states of the EU. Which means that if 27 member states agree to modify at the exception of the Maltese government, the treaty remains the same.
It's all a bit like a Rubik's Cube. Let's assume that a party like the Portuguese Left Bloc gets to power in Portugal, than an equivalent party has to get to power in ALL other member states incl. Finland or Britain which has no tradition in far left politics. Let's assume that such parties have 15% to get to power in one given country (which is already very much favourable). The chance of their getting to power
at the same time in all 28 countries is :
~0,000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 time in a billion year
It means that it's impossible for any of these treaties to ever get modified. The European Union cannot be any different than what it is. The only way out is to exit it via article 50 of the TFEU.
Already by 1963 General De Gaulle discovered the ploy:
Can we imagine France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg being prepared on a matter of importance to them in the national or international sphere, to do something that appeared wrong to them, merely because others had ordered them to do so? Would the peoples of France, of Germany, of Italy, of the Netherlands, of Belgium or of Luxembourg ever dream of submitting to laws passed by foreign parliamentarians if such laws ran counter to their deepest convictions? Clearly not. It is impossible nowadays for a foreign majority to impose their will on reluctant nations. It is true, perhaps, that in this 'integrated' Europe as it is called there might be no policy at all. This would simplify a great many things. Indeed, once there was no France, no Europe; once there was no policy - since one could not be imposed on each of the six states, attempts to formulate a policy would cease. But then, perhaps, these peoples would follow in the wake of some outsider who had a policy. There would, perhaps, be a federator, but he would not be European. And Europe would not be an integrated Europe but something vaster by far and, I repeat, with a federator.
Who would be that federator from outside do you think?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram