# FRANCEXIT! Wonderful Marine Le Pen: "If I'm elected, we'll hold vote on leaving EU"



## basquebromance

i can't wait!

France's Le Pen: If I'm elected, we'll hold vote on leaving EU


----------



## beagle9

The break up of the EU sounds inevitable, as the following it into Hell is being decided against it seems. Good for those who still have the ability to think for themselves.


----------



## StLucieBengal

Great news.  

Every politician should welcome a vote on the EU.    Unless they are scared that the people would opt out because it's a bad deal.


----------



## Vikrant

There are some very good reasons for France to leave the EU. Xenophobia is not one of them. France will do much better once it leaves EU because EU is a drag on French economy.


----------



## StLucieBengal

Vikrant said:


> There are some very good reasons for France to leave the EU. Xenophobia is not one of them. France will do much better once it leaves EU because EU is a drag on French economy.



They all need to go back to their currency


----------



## beagle9

StLucieBengal said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are some very good reasons for France to leave the EU. Xenophobia is not one of them. France will do much better once it leaves EU because EU is a drag on French economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all need to go back to their currency
Click to expand...

. Go back to the light.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

But, but, but, but just look what the E.U. has done for Britain before those nasty xenophobic poopheads voted it down.

  Just look at the squalor and depressed existence of Londoners in 1964 before The E.U. saved them from this disaster.




\
 and now look at London today, thanks to the foresight of the wise people behind the E.U.






Why anybody can't see the improvement is beyond me.


 Long live the E.U. and if we wait long enough, the history books will tell us that the scene in the first pic never existed.


----------



## ESay

Dogmaphobe said:


> But, but, but, but just look what the E.U. has done for Britain before those nasty xenophobic poopheads voted it down.
> 
> Just look at the squalor and depressed existence of Londoners in 1964 before The E.U. saved them from this disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> \
> and now look at London today, thanks to the foresight of the wise people behind the E.U.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why anybody can't see the improvement is beyond me.
> 
> 
> Long live the E.U. and if we wait long enough, the history books will tell us that the scene in the first pic never existed.





Right. It is the EU forced Britain to take in all those Muslims, especially from Pakistan and Bangladesh.


----------



## ESay

Vikrant said:


> There are some very good reasons for France to leave the EU. Xenophobia is not one of them. France will do much better once it leaves EU because EU is a drag on French economy.



I have read somewhere that almost half of the EU budget goes to farmer subsidies and the main recipient is France. (if someone has information which can confirm or refute this – welcome).


If so, the French farmers will be happy, obviously.


----------



## anotherlife

Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.


----------



## StLucieBengal

anotherlife said:


> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.



What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.    

That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.


----------



## anotherlife

StLucieBengal said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
Click to expand...

Yes the Muslims are bad.  They shouldn't be there to begin with.  But apart from the Muslim problem, how do you imagine Europe without the free movement of people?  It would be like demanding a visa every time one goes from New Jersey to New York and back.  Can you elaborate?


----------



## StLucieBengal

anotherlife said:


> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the Muslims are bad.  They shouldn't be there to begin with.  But apart from the Muslim problem, how do you imagine Europe without the free movement of people?  It would be like demanding a visa every time one goes from New Jersey to New York and back.  Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...


Globalists try and use the USA/EU comp but it's simply not so....   

The states were never sovereign nations with their own currency, and language.  

How do we travel to Canada or Mexico?   There is no long visa process.   And they have the option to get a multiple entry visa.    

The EU has a long list of problems even if we left the Muslims aside.    The point of my post was to illustrate that most people would overlook those issues of they tightened up on the borders.     

Personally I am glad the EU isn't giving in because I want it to crumble


----------



## LuckyDuck

Sadly, the damage to the EU nations is done.  The enemy is in many of them in extremely large numbers.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the Muslims are bad.  They shouldn't be there to begin with.  But apart from the Muslim problem, how do you imagine Europe without the free movement of people?  It would be like demanding a visa every time one goes from New Jersey to New York and back.  Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...






 Not the same thing at all as Europe is 28 individual nations with 28 individual languages and cultures. It would be more like America opening its borders to Africa and the M.E


----------



## ESay

StLucieBengal said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
Click to expand...


Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.


----------



## StLucieBengal

ESay said:


> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
Click to expand...


The EU won't be happy until everyone is centered in Brussels. 

They dream of their own Soviet Union. They somehow think their version will actually work.

There is nothing wrong with streamlining work visa's but there should be limits to all visas.


----------



## Phoenall

ESay said:


> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
Click to expand...







 Take away the incentive to migrate and you end up with only those with work to go to migrating. Then make it universal, and enforce asylum laws and you have fewer islamonazi terrorists migrating using work as an excuse. Then get rid of the loony left who allowed this all to happen in the first place and the world will be a better place


----------



## anotherlife

StLucieBengal said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the Muslims are bad.  They shouldn't be there to begin with.  But apart from the Muslim problem, how do you imagine Europe without the free movement of people?  It would be like demanding a visa every time one goes from New Jersey to New York and back.  Can you elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Globalists try and use the USA/EU comp but it's simply not so....
> 
> The states were never sovereign nations with their own currency, and language.
> 
> How do we travel to Canada or Mexico?   There is no long visa process.   And they have the option to get a multiple entry visa.
> 
> The EU has a long list of problems even if we left the Muslims aside.    The point of my post was to illustrate that most people would overlook those issues of they tightened up on the borders.
> 
> Personally I am glad the EU isn't giving in because I want it to crumble
Click to expand...


I must disagree, because the European nation states are set up to steal a piece of their neighbors land.  So putting back the borders is like reseeding ww1-2.  Even with the current open borders the administrative languages alone are a problem at many places.  For example the French in the German Strassburg region demand French schools, but deny the same to the German of the French side.  If the EU crumbles, then there will be another European war, bigger than the current Ukraine game.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the Muslims are bad.  They shouldn't be there to begin with.  But apart from the Muslim problem, how do you imagine Europe without the free movement of people?  It would be like demanding a visa every time one goes from New Jersey to New York and back.  Can you elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same thing at all as Europe is 28 individual nations with 28 individual languages and cultures. It would be more like America opening its borders to Africa and the M.E
Click to expand...

The number of European languages is not 28 you communist.


----------



## anotherlife

StLucieBengal said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU won't be happy until everyone is centered in Brussels.
> 
> They dream of their own Soviet Union. They somehow think their version will actually work.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with streamlining work visa's but there should be limits to all visas.
Click to expand...

This is interesting.  If the European Union is turning into a Soviet Union 2.0, then it must fully establish, exploit and encourage ethnic conflicts, like the Soviet Union did in Central Europe.  Not impossible because the EU has already been doing this a few times.  Maybe by weakness only though, but hard to know.


----------



## anotherlife

ESay said:


> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
Click to expand...

The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?


----------



## StLucieBengal

anotherlife said:


> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the Muslims are bad.  They shouldn't be there to begin with.  But apart from the Muslim problem, how do you imagine Europe without the free movement of people?  It would be like demanding a visa every time one goes from New Jersey to New York and back.  Can you elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Globalists try and use the USA/EU comp but it's simply not so....
> 
> The states were never sovereign nations with their own currency, and language.
> 
> How do we travel to Canada or Mexico?   There is no long visa process.   And they have the option to get a multiple entry visa.
> 
> The EU has a long list of problems even if we left the Muslims aside.    The point of my post was to illustrate that most people would overlook those issues of they tightened up on the borders.
> 
> Personally I am glad the EU isn't giving in because I want it to crumble
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must disagree, because the European nation states are set up to steal a piece of their neighbors land.  So putting back the borders is like reseeding ww1-2.  Even with the current open borders the administrative languages alone are a problem at many places.  For example the French in the German Strassburg region demand French schools, but deny the same to the German of the French side.  If the EU crumbles, then there will be another European war, bigger than the current Ukraine game.
Click to expand...



You can't give in to tyranny because you are afraid of war.     Because eventually you will get a civil war.    

I realize that breaking the EU and going back to everyone controls their own area will make it easier for war.  However  I doubt that will happen any time soon.


----------



## StLucieBengal

anotherlife said:


> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU won't be happy until everyone is centered in Brussels.
> 
> They dream of their own Soviet Union. They somehow think their version will actually work.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with streamlining work visa's but there should be limits to all visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is interesting.  If the European Union is turning into a Soviet Union 2.0, then it must fully establish, exploit and encourage ethnic conflicts, like the Soviet Union did in Central Europe.  Not impossible because the EU has already been doing this a few times.  Maybe by weakness only though, but hard to know.
Click to expand...


Leftists loved the Soviet setup.   They just now feel like if it's done "their" way it will actually work and be their utopia.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the Muslims are bad.  They shouldn't be there to begin with.  But apart from the Muslim problem, how do you imagine Europe without the free movement of people?  It would be like demanding a visa every time one goes from New Jersey to New York and back.  Can you elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same thing at all as Europe is 28 individual nations with 28 individual languages and cultures. It would be more like America opening its borders to Africa and the M.E
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The number of European languages is not 28 you communist.
Click to expand...








No communist's here, far from it. There are 28 separate nations each with its own language the last time I looked


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
Click to expand...






 Very few places like that, and the inhabitants would not want to change nationality unless it was of benefit to them


----------



## Spare_change

basquebromance said:


> i can't wait!
> 
> France's Le Pen: If I'm elected, we'll hold vote on leaving EU



This is what happens when you ask one targeted group to carry everybody else ... the same as is happening in the US. The targeted group finally says Fuck it! and leaves.

Britain, and now France, got tired of carrying the freeloading members, and decided to take their ball and go home.

American business got tired of carrying the unproductive, and decided to take their ball and go somewhere else.

Why does this come as a shock to anyone?


----------



## ESay

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
Click to expand...


First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.


----------



## montelatici

The EU, with the departure of England and Wales, will integrate further and become what was it was supposed to be, an analog of the U.S. with EU states having independent motor vehicle licensing and registration, local taxes, local welfare and unemployment compensation systems and local health care systems. People will be able to freely travel within the EU and take up residence anywhere in the EU as long as the person has EU citizenship.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The EU, with the departure of England and Wales, will integrate further and become what was it was supposed to be, an analog of the U.S. with EU states having independent motor vehicle licensing and registration, local taxes, local welfare and unemployment compensation systems and local health care systems. People will be able to freely travel within the EU and take up residence anywhere in the EU as long as the person has EU citizenship.









Scotland and Northern Ireland cant do a thing without Westminsters say so, and the SNP is relying on its M.P's in the British Parliament for screwing as much as they can from the governments coffers. Lets see how well it goes when England is booming and the Scots are ruled from Brussels without 3 of the big four money nations in the EU. The freedom to travel will still be available, but the mainland nations will have laws in place to expel or stop criminals from taking up residence.


----------



## anotherlife

StLucieBengal said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the Muslims are bad.  They shouldn't be there to begin with.  But apart from the Muslim problem, how do you imagine Europe without the free movement of people?  It would be like demanding a visa every time one goes from New Jersey to New York and back.  Can you elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Globalists try and use the USA/EU comp but it's simply not so....
> 
> The states were never sovereign nations with their own currency, and language.
> 
> How do we travel to Canada or Mexico?   There is no long visa process.   And they have the option to get a multiple entry visa.
> 
> The EU has a long list of problems even if we left the Muslims aside.    The point of my post was to illustrate that most people would overlook those issues of they tightened up on the borders.
> 
> Personally I am glad the EU isn't giving in because I want it to crumble
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must disagree, because the European nation states are set up to steal a piece of their neighbors land.  So putting back the borders is like reseeding ww1-2.  Even with the current open borders the administrative languages alone are a problem at many places.  For example the French in the German Strassburg region demand French schools, but deny the same to the German of the French side.  If the EU crumbles, then there will be another European war, bigger than the current Ukraine game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't give in to tyranny because you are afraid of war.     Because eventually you will get a civil war.
> 
> I realize that breaking the EU and going back to everyone controls their own area will make it easier for war.  However  I doubt that will happen any time soon.
Click to expand...


Actually a new European war would provide probably some justice to those nations that ww1-2 shafted.  This would include even Poland.  

I think what we would have reason to be afraid of would be external powers putting their fingers on the scales of the delicate European balances.  This has taken several countries off the map after ww1, and would be an even bigger disgrace today.


----------



## anotherlife

StLucieBengal said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU won't be happy until everyone is centered in Brussels.
> 
> They dream of their own Soviet Union. They somehow think their version will actually work.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with streamlining work visa's but there should be limits to all visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is interesting.  If the European Union is turning into a Soviet Union 2.0, then it must fully establish, exploit and encourage ethnic conflicts, like the Soviet Union did in Central Europe.  Not impossible because the EU has already been doing this a few times.  Maybe by weakness only though, but hard to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leftists loved the Soviet setup.   They just now feel like if it's done "their" way it will actually work and be their utopia.
Click to expand...


Indeed.  And this entire psychology could be subjected to clinical research.  Genocide as utopia.  Only a leftist could wish for that.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the Muslims are bad.  They shouldn't be there to begin with.  But apart from the Muslim problem, how do you imagine Europe without the free movement of people?  It would be like demanding a visa every time one goes from New Jersey to New York and back.  Can you elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same thing at all as Europe is 28 individual nations with 28 individual languages and cultures. It would be more like America opening its borders to Africa and the M.E
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The number of European languages is not 28 you communist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No communist's here, far from it. There are 28 separate nations each with its own language the last time I looked
Click to expand...

Tell this to the e.g. Ladins of Austria.  Or to the Sorbs of Germany.  Or to the Saxons of Transylvania.  Or ....  The national language is simply some collectivist majority administration, designed to rob people of assets.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very few places like that, and the inhabitants would not want to change nationality unless it was of benefit to them
Click to expand...


Most of Europe's borders were created in ww1.  So whilst not prior, but since ww1, most European borders are exactly like that.  

Forcing people to change nationality and/or move is a communist practice.


----------



## anotherlife

ESay said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
Click to expand...


The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.  

For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.


----------



## anotherlife

montelatici said:


> The EU, with the departure of England and Wales, will integrate further and become what was it was supposed to be, an analog of the U.S. with EU states having independent motor vehicle licensing and registration, local taxes, local welfare and unemployment compensation systems and local health care systems. People will be able to freely travel within the EU and take up residence anywhere in the EU as long as the person has EU citizenship.


This would be nice, but state administrations use their national languages as weapons against people who want to move there from another state.  Only the EU Lisbon treaty was able to address this problem, and even that has failed so far.


----------



## montelatici

anotherlife said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU, with the departure of England and Wales, will integrate further and become what was it was supposed to be, an analog of the U.S. with EU states having independent motor vehicle licensing and registration, local taxes, local welfare and unemployment compensation systems and local health care systems. People will be able to freely travel within the EU and take up residence anywhere in the EU as long as the person has EU citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> This would be nice, but state administrations use their national languages as weapons against people who want to move there from another state.  Only the EU Lisbon treaty was able to address this problem, and even that has failed so far.
Click to expand...


Not at all, wealthy retired Germans with homes on Elba and Romanian workers doing work Italians no longer want to do (both EU citizens) do just fine in Italy.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
Click to expand...









 because they followed the EU model and created the nations wealth from niche markets, in Spain it was Tourism which is seasonal. In France it was farming which is again seasonal, making for runs of poverty with smaller runs of wealth


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU, with the departure of England and Wales, will integrate further and become what was it was supposed to be, an analog of the U.S. with EU states having independent motor vehicle licensing and registration, local taxes, local welfare and unemployment compensation systems and local health care systems. People will be able to freely travel within the EU and take up residence anywhere in the EU as long as the person has EU citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> This would be nice, but state administrations use their national languages as weapons against people who want to move there from another state.  Only the EU Lisbon treaty was able to address this problem, and even that has failed so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all, wealthy retired Germans with homes on Elba and Romanian workers doing work Italians no longer want to do (both EU citizens) do just fine in Italy.
Click to expand...








 Until the Italians want their homes and jobs back, then the troubles will start


----------



## ESay

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it took 20 years of grooming the British public to make them vote down the EU, it will take 200 years to achieve the same with French thinkers/voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
Click to expand...


I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.

First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.


----------



## anotherlife

montelatici said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU, with the departure of England and Wales, will integrate further and become what was it was supposed to be, an analog of the U.S. with EU states having independent motor vehicle licensing and registration, local taxes, local welfare and unemployment compensation systems and local health care systems. People will be able to freely travel within the EU and take up residence anywhere in the EU as long as the person has EU citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> This would be nice, but state administrations use their national languages as weapons against people who want to move there from another state.  Only the EU Lisbon treaty was able to address this problem, and even that has failed so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all, wealthy retired Germans with homes on Elba and Romanian workers doing work Italians no longer want to do (both EU citizens) do just fine in Italy.
Click to expand...

But they all must learn Italian to do that, the Italians will not learn German or Romanian for them.  Such problem didn't exist before ww1.  Even nobility learned the language of their foreign peasants.  And then we didn't even count yet the new nationalistic hatred that is tied to administrative languages and generated by nation states.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because they followed the EU model and created the nations wealth from niche markets, in Spain it was Tourism which is seasonal. In France it was farming which is again seasonal, making for runs of poverty with smaller runs of wealth
Click to expand...


Shutting down borders and locking people in does nothing about the movement of money.  If it is cheaper to import stuff than making it at home than everyone at home will be jobless, mobile or not.  This has already brought down the Soviet Union and that one had really shut borders.  So borders can't work.  When technology moves money across them, people also must be able to move across them.


----------



## xband

The EU is soon to fall with the Euro soon after the fall from grace. Thanks for good news from France. Somebody has to draw the line.


----------



## anotherlife

ESay said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StLucieBengal said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that the EU could keep the whole bloc together if they dropped free movement of people.
> 
> That and the Muslims acting like animals are the only things breaking up their bloc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
Click to expand...


So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.


----------



## anotherlife

xband said:


> The EU is soon to fall with the Euro soon after the fall from grace. Thanks for good news from France. Somebody has to draw the line.


The only way to normalize Europe is to start killing them like they like to, such as in the 100 year war.  France is a good start point for this, the king of England has experience in it, why don't we read history?


----------



## xband

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
Click to expand...


I once worked with a guy from Croatia who hated Serbians and Napoleon who he called tyrants.


----------



## anotherlife

xband said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I once worked with a guy from Croatia who hated Serbians and Napoleon who he called tyrants.
Click to expand...

Exactly.  Thank you.  This is what happens when powers invent nation states and national administrations, with national languages.  More hate is coming for Europeans soon, and the Muslims will not even be important any more.


----------



## xband

anotherlife said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I once worked with a guy from Croatia who hated Serbians and Napoleon who he called tyrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.  Thank you.  This is what happens when powers invent nation states and national administrations, with national languages.  More hate is coming for Europeans soon, and the Muslims will not even be important any more.
Click to expand...


Bring back the Monroe Doctrine.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because they followed the EU model and created the nations wealth from niche markets, in Spain it was Tourism which is seasonal. In France it was farming which is again seasonal, making for runs of poverty with smaller runs of wealth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shutting down borders and locking people in does nothing about the movement of money.  If it is cheaper to import stuff than making it at home than everyone at home will be jobless, mobile or not.  This has already brought down the Soviet Union and that one had really shut borders.  So borders can't work.  When technology moves money across them, people also must be able to move across them.
Click to expand...







 Russia took it too far and had the workers making millions of unmatched parts just so production was up. As in one factory made bolts and found that the could make 1 million a shift if they were all 50mm long by 5mm diameter. Another factory made nuts and found they could make 1 million as long as they were 1/4 whitworth. This meant that production was as high as it could go but nothing was ever produced. It was only after the breakup of the Soviet republic and borders were put in place that the production of goods started to rise, and they were exported to other nations. The USSR had open borders if you could afford to travel, and that is what the EU was being modeled on, the neo marxist dream that was a proven failure. So we need border controls to halt the free movement of criminals and terrorists, and if they want to work outside of their own country then they can apply for citizenship


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
Click to expand...








 Why should that happen, the borders are already there and worked fine until the neo marxists took control of the EU just a few short years ago. As for the Welsh language it was in use and being taught before we even joined the EU. Or I should say the Common Market, which is the primary mission of the European Union until neo marxism raised its ugly head


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU is soon to fall with the Euro soon after the fall from grace. Thanks for good news from France. Somebody has to draw the line.
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to normalize Europe is to start killing them like they like to, such as in the 100 year war.  France is a good start point for this, the king of England has experience in it, why don't we read history?
Click to expand...








 You mean start another set of communist civil wars cleansing the lands of anyone that does not follow Marx or Lenin ?

 So will you be held up for the deaths of 100's of millions of "untermensch" starting with the Jews of course


----------



## anotherlife

xband said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I once worked with a guy from Croatia who hated Serbians and Napoleon who he called tyrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.  Thank you.  This is what happens when powers invent nation states and national administrations, with national languages.  More hate is coming for Europeans soon, and the Muslims will not even be important any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bring back the Monroe Doctrine.
Click to expand...

This very interesting.  The biggest violation against the Monroe Doctrine was when the US was maneuvered into ww1-2 by something as stupid as the Lusithania and a Mexican telegram.  That proved that America has been managed by the enemies of Monroe ever since.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I once worked with a guy from Croatia who hated Serbians and Napoleon who he called tyrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.  Thank you.  This is what happens when powers invent nation states and national administrations, with national languages.  More hate is coming for Europeans soon, and the Muslims will not even be important any more.
Click to expand...








 And it all derives from neo marxism the scourge of mankind


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because they followed the EU model and created the nations wealth from niche markets, in Spain it was Tourism which is seasonal. In France it was farming which is again seasonal, making for runs of poverty with smaller runs of wealth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shutting down borders and locking people in does nothing about the movement of money.  If it is cheaper to import stuff than making it at home than everyone at home will be jobless, mobile or not.  This has already brought down the Soviet Union and that one had really shut borders.  So borders can't work.  When technology moves money across them, people also must be able to move across them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia took it too far and had the workers making millions of unmatched parts just so production was up. As in one factory made bolts and found that the could make 1 million a shift if they were all 50mm long by 5mm diameter. Another factory made nuts and found they could make 1 million as long as they were 1/4 whitworth. This meant that production was as high as it could go but nothing was ever produced. It was only after the breakup of the Soviet republic and borders were put in place that the production of goods started to rise, and they were exported to other nations. The USSR had open borders if you could afford to travel, and that is what the EU was being modeled on, the neo marxist dream that was a proven failure. So we need border controls to halt the free movement of criminals and terrorists, and if they want to work outside of their own country then they can apply for citizenship
Click to expand...


The USSR certainly didn't have open borders.  The Polish of Lemberg for example didn't get a passport to visit their cousins in Poland.  I know the propaganda better than you, so you can't fool me, bplus I know the facts too, because I have many east European friends.  Hehehe.  Apart from this, the Soviet Union had internal district based visa processes for travel, and no such thing as a temporary address.  So if you lived in like Minsk and went to college in Moscow, it was like changing your entire identity and you needed an internal visa to go home.  Bravo.  This is certainly not what Europe needs, especially not on a nation state basis. This is what border controls and citizenships do.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should that happen, the borders are already there and worked fine until the neo marxists took control of the EU just a few short years ago. As for the Welsh language it was in use and being taught before we even joined the EU. Or I should say the Common Market, which is the primary mission of the European Union until neo marxism raised its ugly head
Click to expand...


No.  No European border worked ever since ww1.  This is why they were created.  To rob people.  This is too why there is now more of them than ever before in history.   The communist only capitalize on this design, and use it to their enjoyment of their bloodthirsty urges.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU is soon to fall with the Euro soon after the fall from grace. Thanks for good news from France. Somebody has to draw the line.
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to normalize Europe is to start killing them like they like to, such as in the 100 year war.  France is a good start point for this, the king of England has experience in it, why don't we read history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean start another set of communist civil wars cleansing the lands of anyone that does not follow Marx or Lenin ?
> 
> So will you be held up for the deaths of 100's of millions of "untermensch" starting with the Jews of course
Click to expand...


It is the ww1-2 entente and its successors that have designed this situation and maintain it to this day.  Start with them then. Only the European Union With its open borders can stand up against them.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I once worked with a guy from Croatia who hated Serbians and Napoleon who he called tyrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.  Thank you.  This is what happens when powers invent nation states and national administrations, with national languages.  More hate is coming for Europeans soon, and the Muslims will not even be important any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it all derives from neo marxism the scourge of mankind
Click to expand...

And neo Marxism, like 20th century Marxism, derives from ultra nationalistic interest, which derives from criminals that discovered how to use banking to write laws and start wars to pocket all assets, all money's, all people.  Very clever.


----------



## ESay

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don’t even need to scrap the free movement per se. What you actually should do is separate free movement from the right to work, settle, and get benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
Click to expand...


Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.

Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.


Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.


----------



## ESay

anotherlife said:


> Apart from this, the Soviet Union had internal district based visa processes for travel, and no such thing as a temporary address. So if you lived in like Minsk and went to college in Moscow, it was like changing your entire identity and you needed an internal visa to go home.



Where did you get it from? It isn’t true.


----------



## anotherlife

ESay said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU preconditions all life with administration, so all the settling and work and benefits are inseparable from the movement of people principle.  If we halt those though, then what will you do with people who for example want to buy a house at the other side of their town and move there but that street is across a country border?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
> 
> Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
> 
> 
> Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
Click to expand...


So how will people get back their stolen land then?

Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.

What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?

And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)


----------



## anotherlife

ESay said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from this, the Soviet Union had internal district based visa processes for travel, and no such thing as a temporary address. So if you lived in like Minsk and went to college in Moscow, it was like changing your entire identity and you needed an internal visa to go home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get it from? It isn’t true.
Click to expand...

It is a fact, every old person who lived in the Soviet Union knows it.

There was even a running joke about it here in France, which went like Russian tourists doing city hopping in France and go to the police station ... .  I forgot the end of the joke though.


----------



## ESay

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
> 
> Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
> 
> 
> Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how will people get back their stolen land then?
> 
> Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
> 
> What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
> 
> And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
Click to expand...


What do you mean saying ‘stolen land’?

Again, what do you mean saying ‘checks and balances’? If you are talking about guarantees that there will be no war between European states, then no one can give you these guarantees. And the EU won’t give them either, because when big multinational states disintegrate it is not uncommon to see conflicts between the nations.

In my opinion, the EU should be a trade association without internal barriers concerning goods, services, and capitals. There should be a free travel area which allows people to move between countries without visas and stay freely through say 90 days for tourism purposes. Rules for other visas should be up to national governments. Brussels shouldn’t have any significant role, it is possible to create some body to oversee free trade area and settle disputes.

Main advantages of such system – deep economic ties between the countries make it more profitable to be engaged in trade rather than in war; there won’t be huge bureaucratic body which serves its own purposes.


----------



## ESay

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from this, the Soviet Union had internal district based visa processes for travel, and no such thing as a temporary address. So if you lived in like Minsk and went to college in Moscow, it was like changing your entire identity and you needed an internal visa to go home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get it from? It isn’t true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a fact, every old person who lived in the Soviet Union knows it.
> 
> There was even a running joke about it here in France, which went like Russian tourists doing city hopping in France and go to the police station ... .  I forgot the end of the joke though.
Click to expand...


Again, you are mistaken. The joke was only a joke and nothing more.

There were a certain amount of so-called closed cities in the USSR and you would have to receive a permit to get there, but it has nothing to do with internal visas.

Also, in the Stalin times the peasants didn’t have passports and were not allowed to get out of their village without a permit. But in the late 40-s (if I remember correctly) this system began to be scrapped.


----------



## anotherlife

ESay said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
> 
> Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
> 
> 
> Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how will people get back their stolen land then?
> 
> Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
> 
> What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
> 
> And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean saying ‘stolen land’?
> 
> Again, what do you mean saying ‘checks and balances’? If you are talking about guarantees that there will be no war between European states, then no one can give you these guarantees. And the EU won’t give them either, because when big multinational states disintegrate it is not uncommon to see conflicts between the nations.
> 
> In my opinion, the EU should be a trade association without internal barriers concerning goods, services, and capitals. There should be a free travel area which allows people to move between countries without visas and stay freely through say 90 days for tourism purposes. Rules for other visas should be up to national governments. Brussels shouldn’t have any significant role, it is possible to create some body to oversee free trade area and settle disputes.
> 
> Main advantages of such system – deep economic ties between the countries make it more profitable to be engaged in trade rather than in war; there won’t be huge bureaucratic body which serves its own purposes.
Click to expand...


Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.  

After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations. 

If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.  

Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.  

Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.


----------



## anotherlife

ESay said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from this, the Soviet Union had internal district based visa processes for travel, and no such thing as a temporary address. So if you lived in like Minsk and went to college in Moscow, it was like changing your entire identity and you needed an internal visa to go home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get it from? It isn’t true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a fact, every old person who lived in the Soviet Union knows it.
> 
> There was even a running joke about it here in France, which went like Russian tourists doing city hopping in France and go to the police station ... .  I forgot the end of the joke though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you are mistaken. The joke was only a joke and nothing more.
> 
> There were a certain amount of so-called closed cities in the USSR and you would have to receive a permit to get there, but it has nothing to do with internal visas.
> 
> Also, in the Stalin times the peasants didn’t have passports and were not allowed to get out of their village without a permit. But in the late 40-s (if I remember correctly) this system began to be scrapped.
Click to expand...


For example, the grandmother of my Belorussian friend had to register herself as Ukrainian when she went to Kiev to study.  Movement was closely controlled in the Soviet Union.  She had to report to the police at both ends of her travels both to school and back home at the end of the semester.  There was no state visa department, it was handled by the police, but worked just like a cross border visa program that your international model describes.


----------



## ESay

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
> 
> Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
> 
> 
> Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how will people get back their stolen land then?
> 
> Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
> 
> What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
> 
> And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean saying ‘stolen land’?
> 
> Again, what do you mean saying ‘checks and balances’? If you are talking about guarantees that there will be no war between European states, then no one can give you these guarantees. And the EU won’t give them either, because when big multinational states disintegrate it is not uncommon to see conflicts between the nations.
> 
> In my opinion, the EU should be a trade association without internal barriers concerning goods, services, and capitals. There should be a free travel area which allows people to move between countries without visas and stay freely through say 90 days for tourism purposes. Rules for other visas should be up to national governments. Brussels shouldn’t have any significant role, it is possible to create some body to oversee free trade area and settle disputes.
> 
> Main advantages of such system – deep economic ties between the countries make it more profitable to be engaged in trade rather than in war; there won’t be huge bureaucratic body which serves its own purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
> 
> After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
> 
> If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
> 
> Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
> 
> Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
Click to expand...



National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.

Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.

Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.


----------



## ESay

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from this, the Soviet Union had internal district based visa processes for travel, and no such thing as a temporary address. So if you lived in like Minsk and went to college in Moscow, it was like changing your entire identity and you needed an internal visa to go home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get it from? It isn’t true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a fact, every old person who lived in the Soviet Union knows it.
> 
> There was even a running joke about it here in France, which went like Russian tourists doing city hopping in France and go to the police station ... .  I forgot the end of the joke though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you are mistaken. The joke was only a joke and nothing more.
> 
> There were a certain amount of so-called closed cities in the USSR and you would have to receive a permit to get there, but it has nothing to do with internal visas.
> 
> Also, in the Stalin times the peasants didn’t have passports and were not allowed to get out of their village without a permit. But in the late 40-s (if I remember correctly) this system began to be scrapped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For example, the grandmother of my Belorussian friend had to register herself as Ukrainian when she went to Kiev to study.  Movement was closely controlled in the Soviet Union.  She had to report to the police at both ends of her travels both to school and back home at the end of the semester.  There was no state visa department, it was handled by the police, but worked just like a cross border visa program that your international model describes.
Click to expand...


I live in a former SU state and I have relatives who remember those times very well. I have never heard anything like that. I can clarify it soon.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
> 
> Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
> 
> 
> Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how will people get back their stolen land then?
> 
> Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
> 
> What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
> 
> And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
Click to expand...









 What stolen land is that, be precise as to when and by whom it was stolen


----------



## anotherlife

ESay said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
> 
> Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
> 
> 
> Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how will people get back their stolen land then?
> 
> Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
> 
> What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
> 
> And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean saying ‘stolen land’?
> 
> Again, what do you mean saying ‘checks and balances’? If you are talking about guarantees that there will be no war between European states, then no one can give you these guarantees. And the EU won’t give them either, because when big multinational states disintegrate it is not uncommon to see conflicts between the nations.
> 
> In my opinion, the EU should be a trade association without internal barriers concerning goods, services, and capitals. There should be a free travel area which allows people to move between countries without visas and stay freely through say 90 days for tourism purposes. Rules for other visas should be up to national governments. Brussels shouldn’t have any significant role, it is possible to create some body to oversee free trade area and settle disputes.
> 
> Main advantages of such system – deep economic ties between the countries make it more profitable to be engaged in trade rather than in war; there won’t be huge bureaucratic body which serves its own purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
> 
> After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
> 
> If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
> 
> Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
> 
> Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
> 
> Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
> 
> Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
Click to expand...


Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day.  Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation.  They call them national minorities.  This is a robbery ploy.  But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people?  I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though. 

As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem.  The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition.  If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve.  Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled.  This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
> 
> For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two.  For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain.  So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
> 
> Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
> 
> 
> Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how will people get back their stolen land then?
> 
> Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
> 
> What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
> 
> And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What stolen land is that, be precise as to when and by whom it was stolen
Click to expand...


You forgot the grin emoticon from your post.  

The bible has already informed the entire planet 6000 years ago, that moving border stones is theft.  And you are arguing for national borders?  

But okay, let's play by your angle and consider the current map of Europe, just to keep it simple.  It is entirely a single handed French design, adapted by the entente for ww1-2.  Is there even one border the same as before ww1-2?  Or even better, has the number of national borders ever been as high as it is since ww1-2?  This is a dirty invention, and an integral part of the nation state ideology that came to dominate the world with ww1-2.  Nobody knows this better and profits more from it than the communist.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
> 
> First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
> 
> Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
> 
> 
> Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how will people get back their stolen land then?
> 
> Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
> 
> What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
> 
> And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What stolen land is that, be precise as to when and by whom it was stolen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot the grin emoticon from your post.
> 
> The bible has already informed the entire planet 6000 years ago, that moving border stones is theft.  And you are arguing for national borders?
> 
> But okay, let's play by your angle and consider the current map of Europe, just to keep it simple.  It is entirely a single handed French design, adapted by the entente for ww1-2.  Is there even one border the same as before ww1-2?  Or even better, has the number of national borders ever been as high as it is since ww1-2?  This is a dirty invention, and an integral part of the nation state ideology that came to dominate the world with ww1-2.  Nobody knows this better and profits more from it than the communist.
Click to expand...






what are you rambling about the borders are defined in international law, it is the neo marxists that want to use these to control the people. They draw a line on the earth and say this side is pollution free, that side is where we pollute to provide for this side. So they partition it into industrial and urban areas. True relaxation of borders would see heavy industry in the heartlands of France and Germany and farms in the big cities. As they want it the nuclear power would by in the former soviet bloc nations, then the heavy polluters next to them until finally you reach Germany which will be picture postcard perfect for the affluent champagne socialist to live in


----------



## ESay

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
> 
> Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
> 
> 
> Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how will people get back their stolen land then?
> 
> Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
> 
> What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
> 
> And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean saying ‘stolen land’?
> 
> Again, what do you mean saying ‘checks and balances’? If you are talking about guarantees that there will be no war between European states, then no one can give you these guarantees. And the EU won’t give them either, because when big multinational states disintegrate it is not uncommon to see conflicts between the nations.
> 
> In my opinion, the EU should be a trade association without internal barriers concerning goods, services, and capitals. There should be a free travel area which allows people to move between countries without visas and stay freely through say 90 days for tourism purposes. Rules for other visas should be up to national governments. Brussels shouldn’t have any significant role, it is possible to create some body to oversee free trade area and settle disputes.
> 
> Main advantages of such system – deep economic ties between the countries make it more profitable to be engaged in trade rather than in war; there won’t be huge bureaucratic body which serves its own purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
> 
> After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
> 
> If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
> 
> Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
> 
> Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
> 
> Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
> 
> Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day.  Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation.  They call them national minorities.  This is a robbery ploy.  But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people?  I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
> 
> As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem.  The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition.  If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve.  Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled.  This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
Click to expand...


I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.

Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.


BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country?  This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too.  The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership.  Discriminative, yes.  This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago.  The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission.  This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time.  Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
> 
> Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
> 
> 
> Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how will people get back their stolen land then?
> 
> Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
> 
> What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
> 
> And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What stolen land is that, be precise as to when and by whom it was stolen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot the grin emoticon from your post.
> 
> The bible has already informed the entire planet 6000 years ago, that moving border stones is theft.  And you are arguing for national borders?
> 
> But okay, let's play by your angle and consider the current map of Europe, just to keep it simple.  It is entirely a single handed French design, adapted by the entente for ww1-2.  Is there even one border the same as before ww1-2?  Or even better, has the number of national borders ever been as high as it is since ww1-2?  This is a dirty invention, and an integral part of the nation state ideology that came to dominate the world with ww1-2.  Nobody knows this better and profits more from it than the communist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what are you rambling about the borders are defined in international law, it is the neo marxists that want to use these to control the people. They draw a line on the earth and say this side is pollution free, that side is where we pollute to provide for this side. So they partition it into industrial and urban areas. True relaxation of borders would see heavy industry in the heartlands of France and Germany and farms in the big cities. As they want it the nuclear power would by in the former soviet bloc nations, then the heavy polluters next to them until finally you reach Germany which will be picture postcard perfect for the affluent champagne socialist to live in
Click to expand...


I was talking about national borders.  And international law defines them only as much as the number of people that they can kill for them.  Has it ever occurred to you why international law always starts with the latest winning aggressor and never earlier?  Hehe.


----------



## anotherlife

ESay said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how will people get back their stolen land then?
> 
> Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
> 
> What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
> 
> And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean saying ‘stolen land’?
> 
> Again, what do you mean saying ‘checks and balances’? If you are talking about guarantees that there will be no war between European states, then no one can give you these guarantees. And the EU won’t give them either, because when big multinational states disintegrate it is not uncommon to see conflicts between the nations.
> 
> In my opinion, the EU should be a trade association without internal barriers concerning goods, services, and capitals. There should be a free travel area which allows people to move between countries without visas and stay freely through say 90 days for tourism purposes. Rules for other visas should be up to national governments. Brussels shouldn’t have any significant role, it is possible to create some body to oversee free trade area and settle disputes.
> 
> Main advantages of such system – deep economic ties between the countries make it more profitable to be engaged in trade rather than in war; there won’t be huge bureaucratic body which serves its own purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
> 
> After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
> 
> If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
> 
> Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
> 
> Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
> 
> Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
> 
> Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day.  Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation.  They call them national minorities.  This is a robbery ploy.  But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people?  I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
> 
> As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem.  The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition.  If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve.  Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled.  This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
> 
> Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
> 
> 
> BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
Click to expand...


I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's.  This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations. 

Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't.  For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them.  The French are assimilative too.  But the German are not, the Spanish are not, .... 

I meant that globalization corners away assets.  Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions.  The people move to the capital then.  But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere.  In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.


----------



## ESay

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean saying ‘stolen land’?
> 
> Again, what do you mean saying ‘checks and balances’? If you are talking about guarantees that there will be no war between European states, then no one can give you these guarantees. And the EU won’t give them either, because when big multinational states disintegrate it is not uncommon to see conflicts between the nations.
> 
> In my opinion, the EU should be a trade association without internal barriers concerning goods, services, and capitals. There should be a free travel area which allows people to move between countries without visas and stay freely through say 90 days for tourism purposes. Rules for other visas should be up to national governments. Brussels shouldn’t have any significant role, it is possible to create some body to oversee free trade area and settle disputes.
> 
> Main advantages of such system – deep economic ties between the countries make it more profitable to be engaged in trade rather than in war; there won’t be huge bureaucratic body which serves its own purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
> 
> After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
> 
> If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
> 
> Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
> 
> Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
> 
> Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
> 
> Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day.  Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation.  They call them national minorities.  This is a robbery ploy.  But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people?  I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
> 
> As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem.  The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition.  If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve.  Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled.  This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
> 
> Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
> 
> 
> BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's.  This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
> 
> Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't.  For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them.  The French are assimilative too.  But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
> 
> I meant that globalization corners away assets.  Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions.  The people move to the capital then.  But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere.  In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
Click to expand...


It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.

About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.

No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.


----------



## anotherlife

ESay said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
> 
> After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
> 
> If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
> 
> Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
> 
> Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
> 
> Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
> 
> Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day.  Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation.  They call them national minorities.  This is a robbery ploy.  But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people?  I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
> 
> As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem.  The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition.  If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve.  Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled.  This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
> 
> Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
> 
> 
> BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's.  This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
> 
> Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't.  For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them.  The French are assimilative too.  But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
> 
> I meant that globalization corners away assets.  Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions.  The people move to the capital then.  But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere.  In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
> 
> About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
> 
> No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
Click to expand...


I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court.  So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court.  This is unimaginable in a modern nation state. 

What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe?  The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is.  How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
> 
> Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
> 
> 
> Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how will people get back their stolen land then?
> 
> Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
> 
> What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
> 
> And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What stolen land is that, be precise as to when and by whom it was stolen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot the grin emoticon from your post.
> 
> The bible has already informed the entire planet 6000 years ago, that moving border stones is theft.  And you are arguing for national borders?
> 
> But okay, let's play by your angle and consider the current map of Europe, just to keep it simple.  It is entirely a single handed French design, adapted by the entente for ww1-2.  Is there even one border the same as before ww1-2?  Or even better, has the number of national borders ever been as high as it is since ww1-2?  This is a dirty invention, and an integral part of the nation state ideology that came to dominate the world with ww1-2.  Nobody knows this better and profits more from it than the communist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what are you rambling about the borders are defined in international law, it is the neo marxists that want to use these to control the people. They draw a line on the earth and say this side is pollution free, that side is where we pollute to provide for this side. So they partition it into industrial and urban areas. True relaxation of borders would see heavy industry in the heartlands of France and Germany and farms in the big cities. As they want it the nuclear power would by in the former soviet bloc nations, then the heavy polluters next to them until finally you reach Germany which will be picture postcard perfect for the affluent champagne socialist to live in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about national borders.  And international law defines them only as much as the number of people that they can kill for them.  Has it ever occurred to you why international law always starts with the latest winning aggressor and never earlier?  Hehe.
Click to expand...








 Because that is how international laws are formulated, so the lessons leared wont be repeated again. International laws define national borders because they are what all the other nations recognise as the borders of adjacent nations. If the nations cant agree on what is their border then the other nations step in and saw these have stood for decades and are recognised so these are your borders. Most are defined by cease fire or armistice lines


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean saying ‘stolen land’?
> 
> Again, what do you mean saying ‘checks and balances’? If you are talking about guarantees that there will be no war between European states, then no one can give you these guarantees. And the EU won’t give them either, because when big multinational states disintegrate it is not uncommon to see conflicts between the nations.
> 
> In my opinion, the EU should be a trade association without internal barriers concerning goods, services, and capitals. There should be a free travel area which allows people to move between countries without visas and stay freely through say 90 days for tourism purposes. Rules for other visas should be up to national governments. Brussels shouldn’t have any significant role, it is possible to create some body to oversee free trade area and settle disputes.
> 
> Main advantages of such system – deep economic ties between the countries make it more profitable to be engaged in trade rather than in war; there won’t be huge bureaucratic body which serves its own purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
> 
> After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
> 
> If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
> 
> Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
> 
> Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
> 
> Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
> 
> Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day.  Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation.  They call them national minorities.  This is a robbery ploy.  But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people?  I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
> 
> As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem.  The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition.  If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve.  Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled.  This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
> 
> Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
> 
> 
> BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's.  This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
> 
> Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't.  For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them.  The French are assimilative too.  But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
> 
> I meant that globalization corners away assets.  Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions.  The people move to the capital then.  But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere.  In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
Click to expand...







 NO as you dont send your money there unless you are getting a good return. Only a complete idiot would send their money out of the country and then go chaceing it to buy it back. That is as stupid as trying to borrow to get out of debt, it just erodes your buying powers and you end up broke. This is what killed the neo marxists in the UK when they tried to borrow to pay of the national debt after selling the family silver and then the gold.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
> 
> Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
> 
> Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day.  Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation.  They call them national minorities.  This is a robbery ploy.  But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people?  I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
> 
> As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem.  The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition.  If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve.  Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled.  This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
> 
> Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
> 
> 
> BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's.  This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
> 
> Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't.  For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them.  The French are assimilative too.  But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
> 
> I meant that globalization corners away assets.  Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions.  The people move to the capital then.  But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere.  In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
> 
> About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
> 
> No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court.  So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court.  This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
> 
> What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe?  The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is.  How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
Click to expand...





Because the people want was is not theirs, and when they get it they find it is not what they thought. Would you allow your neighbour to demolish you home so they could make their larger ?   Without borders that is what will happen, and you will end up fighting


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how will people get back their stolen land then?
> 
> Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
> 
> What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
> 
> And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What stolen land is that, be precise as to when and by whom it was stolen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot the grin emoticon from your post.
> 
> The bible has already informed the entire planet 6000 years ago, that moving border stones is theft.  And you are arguing for national borders?
> 
> But okay, let's play by your angle and consider the current map of Europe, just to keep it simple.  It is entirely a single handed French design, adapted by the entente for ww1-2.  Is there even one border the same as before ww1-2?  Or even better, has the number of national borders ever been as high as it is since ww1-2?  This is a dirty invention, and an integral part of the nation state ideology that came to dominate the world with ww1-2.  Nobody knows this better and profits more from it than the communist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what are you rambling about the borders are defined in international law, it is the neo marxists that want to use these to control the people. They draw a line on the earth and say this side is pollution free, that side is where we pollute to provide for this side. So they partition it into industrial and urban areas. True relaxation of borders would see heavy industry in the heartlands of France and Germany and farms in the big cities. As they want it the nuclear power would by in the former soviet bloc nations, then the heavy polluters next to them until finally you reach Germany which will be picture postcard perfect for the affluent champagne socialist to live in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about national borders.  And international law defines them only as much as the number of people that they can kill for them.  Has it ever occurred to you why international law always starts with the latest winning aggressor and never earlier?  Hehe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is how international laws are formulated, so the lessons leared wont be repeated again. International laws define national borders because they are what all the other nations recognise as the borders of adjacent nations. If the nations cant agree on what is their border then the other nations step in and saw these have stood for decades and are recognised so these are your borders. Most are defined by cease fire or armistice lines
Click to expand...


No, there are no lessons learned.  Ever.  Especially not with an all out robbery marauding like ww1-2.  There is a good reason why international borders and international law work by the cease fires and armistices.  Can you justify an international or national law that robs people because they lost the war you started on them?  This is what is happening, but who should think that this is just?  A communist?


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day.  Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation.  They call them national minorities.  This is a robbery ploy.  But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people?  I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
> 
> As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem.  The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition.  If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve.  Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled.  This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
> 
> Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
> 
> 
> BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's.  This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
> 
> Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't.  For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them.  The French are assimilative too.  But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
> 
> I meant that globalization corners away assets.  Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions.  The people move to the capital then.  But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere.  In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
> 
> About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
> 
> No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court.  So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court.  This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
> 
> What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe?  The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is.  How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the people want was is not theirs, and when they get it they find it is not what they thought. Would you allow your neighbour to demolish you home so they could make their larger ?   Without borders that is what will happen, and you will end up fighting
Click to expand...


The ww1-2 piece treaties were created and upheld for the exact purpose that you are saying, which is like "to demolish your home so others can make theirs larger".  It is a fact that this happened a lot less before ww1-2 because there were a lot less borders.  So reality is the exact opposite of your logic.  The problem is in the direction of more borders not less.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
> 
> After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
> 
> If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
> 
> Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
> 
> Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
> 
> Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
> 
> Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day.  Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation.  They call them national minorities.  This is a robbery ploy.  But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people?  I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
> 
> As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem.  The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition.  If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve.  Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled.  This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
> 
> Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
> 
> 
> BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's.  This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
> 
> Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't.  For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them.  The French are assimilative too.  But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
> 
> I meant that globalization corners away assets.  Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions.  The people move to the capital then.  But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere.  In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO as you dont send your money there unless you are getting a good return. Only a complete idiot would send their money out of the country and then go chaceing it to buy it back. That is as stupid as trying to borrow to get out of debt, it just erodes your buying powers and you end up broke. This is what killed the neo marxists in the UK when they tried to borrow to pay of the national debt after selling the family silver and then the gold.
Click to expand...


By money I meant investment capital.  And as a worker you need to run after it and it is called wage or salary.  You can't run after it when a border visa is put in your way.


----------



## ESay

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
> 
> Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
> 
> Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day.  Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation.  They call them national minorities.  This is a robbery ploy.  But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people?  I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
> 
> As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem.  The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition.  If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve.  Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled.  This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
> 
> Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
> 
> 
> BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's.  This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
> 
> Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't.  For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them.  The French are assimilative too.  But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
> 
> I meant that globalization corners away assets.  Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions.  The people move to the capital then.  But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere.  In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
> 
> About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
> 
> No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court.  So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court.  This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
> 
> What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe?  The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is.  How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
Click to expand...


What kind? I don’t want razor wires and guard towers to be reinstalled on the borders.  And I think there won’t be any necessity to do so. Though, it may be that there will be checkpoints on the main roads or something like that. As I said above, Europeans should travel freely between European countries and stay there through 90 days. It is more than enough for tourist purposes, business travels, visiting relatives, and so on.

What do you mean administrative language? The language which will be used in official documents between these countries? There will be a lingua franca common for all. Now it is English, maybe some time in the future it will be German or some other one.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What stolen land is that, be precise as to when and by whom it was stolen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot the grin emoticon from your post.
> 
> The bible has already informed the entire planet 6000 years ago, that moving border stones is theft.  And you are arguing for national borders?
> 
> But okay, let's play by your angle and consider the current map of Europe, just to keep it simple.  It is entirely a single handed French design, adapted by the entente for ww1-2.  Is there even one border the same as before ww1-2?  Or even better, has the number of national borders ever been as high as it is since ww1-2?  This is a dirty invention, and an integral part of the nation state ideology that came to dominate the world with ww1-2.  Nobody knows this better and profits more from it than the communist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what are you rambling about the borders are defined in international law, it is the neo marxists that want to use these to control the people. They draw a line on the earth and say this side is pollution free, that side is where we pollute to provide for this side. So they partition it into industrial and urban areas. True relaxation of borders would see heavy industry in the heartlands of France and Germany and farms in the big cities. As they want it the nuclear power would by in the former soviet bloc nations, then the heavy polluters next to them until finally you reach Germany which will be picture postcard perfect for the affluent champagne socialist to live in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about national borders.  And international law defines them only as much as the number of people that they can kill for them.  Has it ever occurred to you why international law always starts with the latest winning aggressor and never earlier?  Hehe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is how international laws are formulated, so the lessons leared wont be repeated again. International laws define national borders because they are what all the other nations recognise as the borders of adjacent nations. If the nations cant agree on what is their border then the other nations step in and saw these have stood for decades and are recognised so these are your borders. Most are defined by cease fire or armistice lines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there are no lessons learned.  Ever.  Especially not with an all out robbery marauding like ww1-2.  There is a good reason why international borders and international law work by the cease fires and armistices.  Can you justify an international or national law that robs people because they lost the war you started on them?  This is what is happening, but who should think that this is just?  A communist?
Click to expand...







 What are you rambling on about the laws were made by both victors and losers after the formation of the UN. National laws are made by the nations for their own benefit, as in the laws of the UK that allowed us to vote on leaving the neo marxist controlled EU. Can you justify an unelected eurocrat making laws that take away a full nations human rights to make their own laws and sit in judgement of criminals. In WW1 the Germans strted the war, and again in WW2 they started the law so how did they make laws that robbed the British and Americans ?


----------



## anotherlife

ESay said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day.  Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation.  They call them national minorities.  This is a robbery ploy.  But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people?  I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
> 
> As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem.  The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition.  If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve.  Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled.  This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
> 
> Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
> 
> 
> BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's.  This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
> 
> Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't.  For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them.  The French are assimilative too.  But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
> 
> I meant that globalization corners away assets.  Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions.  The people move to the capital then.  But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere.  In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
> 
> About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
> 
> No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court.  So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court.  This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
> 
> What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe?  The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is.  How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind? I don’t want razor wires and guard towers to be reinstalled on the borders.  And I think there won’t be any necessity to do so. Though, it may be that there will be checkpoints on the main roads or something like that. As I said above, Europeans should travel freely between European countries and stay there through 90 days. It is more than enough for tourist purposes, business travels, visiting relatives, and so on.
> 
> What do you mean administrative language? The language which will be used in official documents between these countries? There will be a lingua franca common for all. Now it is English, maybe some time in the future it will be German or some other one.
Click to expand...


No I mean by administrative language, the language used in domestic government offices.  All European countries need to adapt a single common domestic administrative language.  This used to be Latin, then was German-ish, and now English would be the most practical.  France will of course never accept any of this. 

As for the border question, how can 90 days and no job/business rights be acceptable?  People need to be able to travel and freely do any job in any of the towns they have ethnic brothers and linguistic brothers in.  Most European borders cut across towns and you find that you can't go to your own town to get a job.  Check the map of Europe.  Your plan of border management is possible only if we redraw at least half of all European borders.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot the grin emoticon from your post.
> 
> The bible has already informed the entire planet 6000 years ago, that moving border stones is theft.  And you are arguing for national borders?
> 
> But okay, let's play by your angle and consider the current map of Europe, just to keep it simple.  It is entirely a single handed French design, adapted by the entente for ww1-2.  Is there even one border the same as before ww1-2?  Or even better, has the number of national borders ever been as high as it is since ww1-2?  This is a dirty invention, and an integral part of the nation state ideology that came to dominate the world with ww1-2.  Nobody knows this better and profits more from it than the communist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what are you rambling about the borders are defined in international law, it is the neo marxists that want to use these to control the people. They draw a line on the earth and say this side is pollution free, that side is where we pollute to provide for this side. So they partition it into industrial and urban areas. True relaxation of borders would see heavy industry in the heartlands of France and Germany and farms in the big cities. As they want it the nuclear power would by in the former soviet bloc nations, then the heavy polluters next to them until finally you reach Germany which will be picture postcard perfect for the affluent champagne socialist to live in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about national borders.  And international law defines them only as much as the number of people that they can kill for them.  Has it ever occurred to you why international law always starts with the latest winning aggressor and never earlier?  Hehe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is how international laws are formulated, so the lessons leared wont be repeated again. International laws define national borders because they are what all the other nations recognise as the borders of adjacent nations. If the nations cant agree on what is their border then the other nations step in and saw these have stood for decades and are recognised so these are your borders. Most are defined by cease fire or armistice lines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there are no lessons learned.  Ever.  Especially not with an all out robbery marauding like ww1-2.  There is a good reason why international borders and international law work by the cease fires and armistices.  Can you justify an international or national law that robs people because they lost the war you started on them?  This is what is happening, but who should think that this is just?  A communist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you rambling on about the laws were made by both victors and losers after the formation of the UN. National laws are made by the nations for their own benefit, as in the laws of the UK that allowed us to vote on leaving the neo marxist controlled EU. Can you justify an unelected eurocrat making laws that take away a full nations human rights to make their own laws and sit in judgement of criminals. In WW1 the Germans strted the war, and again in WW2 they started the law so how did they make laws that robbed the British and Americans ?
Click to expand...


No, pretty much everything is backwards from your post.  Let me answer it one by one. 

Laws are never made by losers, especially not after ww1-2.  The "peace treaties" were laughed at even by the victorious French president Clemenceau. The UN doesn't change this, or the borders would be different. 

National laws are not for a nations own benefit but for the benefit of the national majority only.  And lately not even that but for those only who control the national majorities, such as for the Marxists. 

An unelected King is proven by history to be capable to do more good for all his subjects than a national majority elected gang. 

Even the ancient Chinese General Sunzu educated the world in his lessons, that wars are rarely started by those who start them.  This is especially true when the "starter" loses it.  This has been known for at least 2000 years. 

The German didn't make laws to rob the British and the Americans.  The entente made laws to rob the German and all other European countries that suited them.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> what are you rambling about the borders are defined in international law, it is the neo marxists that want to use these to control the people. They draw a line on the earth and say this side is pollution free, that side is where we pollute to provide for this side. So they partition it into industrial and urban areas. True relaxation of borders would see heavy industry in the heartlands of France and Germany and farms in the big cities. As they want it the nuclear power would by in the former soviet bloc nations, then the heavy polluters next to them until finally you reach Germany which will be picture postcard perfect for the affluent champagne socialist to live in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about national borders.  And international law defines them only as much as the number of people that they can kill for them.  Has it ever occurred to you why international law always starts with the latest winning aggressor and never earlier?  Hehe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is how international laws are formulated, so the lessons leared wont be repeated again. International laws define national borders because they are what all the other nations recognise as the borders of adjacent nations. If the nations cant agree on what is their border then the other nations step in and saw these have stood for decades and are recognised so these are your borders. Most are defined by cease fire or armistice lines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there are no lessons learned.  Ever.  Especially not with an all out robbery marauding like ww1-2.  There is a good reason why international borders and international law work by the cease fires and armistices.  Can you justify an international or national law that robs people because they lost the war you started on them?  This is what is happening, but who should think that this is just?  A communist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you rambling on about the laws were made by both victors and losers after the formation of the UN. National laws are made by the nations for their own benefit, as in the laws of the UK that allowed us to vote on leaving the neo marxist controlled EU. Can you justify an unelected eurocrat making laws that take away a full nations human rights to make their own laws and sit in judgement of criminals. In WW1 the Germans strted the war, and again in WW2 they started the law so how did they make laws that robbed the British and Americans ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, pretty much everything is backwards from your post.  Let me answer it one by one.
> 
> Laws are never made by losers, especially not after ww1-2.  The "peace treaties" were laughed at even by the victorious French president Clemenceau. The UN doesn't change this, or the borders would be different.
> 
> National laws are not for a nations own benefit but for the benefit of the national majority only.  And lately not even that but for those only who control the national majorities, such as for the Marxists.
> 
> An unelected King is proven by history to be capable to do more good for all his subjects than a national majority elected gang.
> 
> Even the ancient Chinese General Sunzu educated the world in his lessons, that wars are rarely started by those who start them.  This is especially true when the "starter" loses it.  This has been known for at least 2000 years.
> 
> The German didn't make laws to rob the British and the Americans.  The entente made laws to rob the German and all other European countries that suited them.
Click to expand...








 Spoken like the typical neo marxist stooge that is force fed this same information to repeat ad nauseum


----------



## ESay

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
> 
> Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
> 
> 
> BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's.  This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
> 
> Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't.  For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them.  The French are assimilative too.  But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
> 
> I meant that globalization corners away assets.  Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions.  The people move to the capital then.  But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere.  In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
> 
> About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
> 
> No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court.  So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court.  This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
> 
> What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe?  The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is.  How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind? I don’t want razor wires and guard towers to be reinstalled on the borders.  And I think there won’t be any necessity to do so. Though, it may be that there will be checkpoints on the main roads or something like that. As I said above, Europeans should travel freely between European countries and stay there through 90 days. It is more than enough for tourist purposes, business travels, visiting relatives, and so on.
> 
> What do you mean administrative language? The language which will be used in official documents between these countries? There will be a lingua franca common for all. Now it is English, maybe some time in the future it will be German or some other one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I mean by administrative language, the language used in domestic government offices.  All European countries need to adapt a single common domestic administrative language.  This used to be Latin, then was German-ish, and now English would be the most practical.  France will of course never accept any of this.
> 
> As for the border question, how can 90 days and no job/business rights be acceptable?  People need to be able to travel and freely do any job in any of the towns they have ethnic brothers and linguistic brothers in.  Most European borders cut across towns and you find that you can't go to your own town to get a job.  Check the map of Europe.  Your plan of border management is possible only if we redraw at least half of all European borders.
Click to expand...


If you recognise that France will never accept this then what is a point? It is highly doubtful that French will become the lingua franca for the EU to such extent that it fully sideline national languages in domestic administrative purposes. Actually, your idea is a non-starter whatsoever.


As to the borders and visas, I don’t know what to add to those I wrote above. I think that our disagreements lie between perceptions what is better – a big multinational federation or small (relatively) national states. I think that national states are better than the federation. I agree that this model has some disadvantages and one of them is a national issue when the representatives of one nation are divided by state borders and this may cause problems because some of them may try to redraw borders and that may end up in violent clashes. But I don’t think that a super-federation can resolve national issues; on the contrary – it can make them worse in the long run. Moreover, a super-federation is not convenient for democracy, because the more structures exist above ordinary people the fewer chances to control these structures, the weaker ties between the common people and the top level bureaucrats.

So, there are no unique good or bad choices, you should always chose between the lesser of two evils. I think that national states with deep cooperation is the lesser evil in compare with a multinational federation with huge bureaucratic apparatus.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about national borders.  And international law defines them only as much as the number of people that they can kill for them.  Has it ever occurred to you why international law always starts with the latest winning aggressor and never earlier?  Hehe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is how international laws are formulated, so the lessons leared wont be repeated again. International laws define national borders because they are what all the other nations recognise as the borders of adjacent nations. If the nations cant agree on what is their border then the other nations step in and saw these have stood for decades and are recognised so these are your borders. Most are defined by cease fire or armistice lines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there are no lessons learned.  Ever.  Especially not with an all out robbery marauding like ww1-2.  There is a good reason why international borders and international law work by the cease fires and armistices.  Can you justify an international or national law that robs people because they lost the war you started on them?  This is what is happening, but who should think that this is just?  A communist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you rambling on about the laws were made by both victors and losers after the formation of the UN. National laws are made by the nations for their own benefit, as in the laws of the UK that allowed us to vote on leaving the neo marxist controlled EU. Can you justify an unelected eurocrat making laws that take away a full nations human rights to make their own laws and sit in judgement of criminals. In WW1 the Germans strted the war, and again in WW2 they started the law so how did they make laws that robbed the British and Americans ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, pretty much everything is backwards from your post.  Let me answer it one by one.
> 
> Laws are never made by losers, especially not after ww1-2.  The "peace treaties" were laughed at even by the victorious French president Clemenceau. The UN doesn't change this, or the borders would be different.
> 
> National laws are not for a nations own benefit but for the benefit of the national majority only.  And lately not even that but for those only who control the national majorities, such as for the Marxists.
> 
> An unelected King is proven by history to be capable to do more good for all his subjects than a national majority elected gang.
> 
> Even the ancient Chinese General Sunzu educated the world in his lessons, that wars are rarely started by those who start them.  This is especially true when the "starter" loses it.  This has been known for at least 2000 years.
> 
> The German didn't make laws to rob the British and the Americans.  The entente made laws to rob the German and all other European countries that suited them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like the typical neo marxist stooge that is force fed this same information to repeat ad nauseum
Click to expand...


Says you whose country has been robbing its neighbors for a 100 years.  So what kind of borders do you want?   Hehehe.  (Edit for better answer.)


----------



## anotherlife

ESay said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's.  This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
> 
> Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't.  For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them.  The French are assimilative too.  But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
> 
> I meant that globalization corners away assets.  Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions.  The people move to the capital then.  But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere.  In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
> 
> About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
> 
> No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court.  So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court.  This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
> 
> What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe?  The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is.  How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind? I don’t want razor wires and guard towers to be reinstalled on the borders.  And I think there won’t be any necessity to do so. Though, it may be that there will be checkpoints on the main roads or something like that. As I said above, Europeans should travel freely between European countries and stay there through 90 days. It is more than enough for tourist purposes, business travels, visiting relatives, and so on.
> 
> What do you mean administrative language? The language which will be used in official documents between these countries? There will be a lingua franca common for all. Now it is English, maybe some time in the future it will be German or some other one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I mean by administrative language, the language used in domestic government offices.  All European countries need to adapt a single common domestic administrative language.  This used to be Latin, then was German-ish, and now English would be the most practical.  France will of course never accept any of this.
> 
> As for the border question, how can 90 days and no job/business rights be acceptable?  People need to be able to travel and freely do any job in any of the towns they have ethnic brothers and linguistic brothers in.  Most European borders cut across towns and you find that you can't go to your own town to get a job.  Check the map of Europe.  Your plan of border management is possible only if we redraw at least half of all European borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you recognise that France will never accept this then what is a point? It is highly doubtful that French will become the lingua franca for the EU to such extent that it fully sideline national languages in domestic administrative purposes. Actually, your idea is a non-starter whatsoever.
> 
> 
> As to the borders and visas, I don’t know what to add to those I wrote above. I think that our disagreements lie between perceptions what is better – a big multinational federation or small (relatively) national states. I think that national states are better than the federation. I agree that this model has some disadvantages and one of them is a national issue when the representatives of one nation are divided by state borders and this may cause problems because some of them may try to redraw borders and that may end up in violent clashes. But I don’t think that a super-federation can resolve national issues; on the contrary – it can make them worse in the long run. Moreover, a super-federation is not convenient for democracy, because the more structures exist above ordinary people the fewer chances to control these structures, the weaker ties between the common people and the top level bureaucrats.
> 
> So, there are no unique good or bad choices, you should always chose between the lesser of two evils. I think that national states with deep cooperation is the lesser evil in compare with a multinational federation with huge bureaucratic apparatus.
Click to expand...


Very interesting point and your point is well taken, albeit disagreed.  Cantonization?  That could be an alternative to national statehood.  Cantons can be small enough to unite ethnic and linguistic islands with lesser border violations I think.  Interesting that Cantonization is never mentioned as an alternative.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is how international laws are formulated, so the lessons leared wont be repeated again. International laws define national borders because they are what all the other nations recognise as the borders of adjacent nations. If the nations cant agree on what is their border then the other nations step in and saw these have stood for decades and are recognised so these are your borders. Most are defined by cease fire or armistice lines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there are no lessons learned.  Ever.  Especially not with an all out robbery marauding like ww1-2.  There is a good reason why international borders and international law work by the cease fires and armistices.  Can you justify an international or national law that robs people because they lost the war you started on them?  This is what is happening, but who should think that this is just?  A communist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you rambling on about the laws were made by both victors and losers after the formation of the UN. National laws are made by the nations for their own benefit, as in the laws of the UK that allowed us to vote on leaving the neo marxist controlled EU. Can you justify an unelected eurocrat making laws that take away a full nations human rights to make their own laws and sit in judgement of criminals. In WW1 the Germans strted the war, and again in WW2 they started the law so how did they make laws that robbed the British and Americans ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, pretty much everything is backwards from your post.  Let me answer it one by one.
> 
> Laws are never made by losers, especially not after ww1-2.  The "peace treaties" were laughed at even by the victorious French president Clemenceau. The UN doesn't change this, or the borders would be different.
> 
> National laws are not for a nations own benefit but for the benefit of the national majority only.  And lately not even that but for those only who control the national majorities, such as for the Marxists.
> 
> An unelected King is proven by history to be capable to do more good for all his subjects than a national majority elected gang.
> 
> Even the ancient Chinese General Sunzu educated the world in his lessons, that wars are rarely started by those who start them.  This is especially true when the "starter" loses it.  This has been known for at least 2000 years.
> 
> The German didn't make laws to rob the British and the Americans.  The entente made laws to rob the German and all other European countries that suited them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like the typical neo marxist stooge that is force fed this same information to repeat ad nauseum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you whose country has been robbing its neighbors for a 100 years.  So what kind of borders do you want?   Hehehe.  (Edit for better answer.)
Click to expand...





Who have we robbed then and how ?

 What it cost to bail out Scotland alone in todays money would buy all of the US


----------



## ESay

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
> 
> About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
> 
> No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court.  So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court.  This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
> 
> What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe?  The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is.  How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind? I don’t want razor wires and guard towers to be reinstalled on the borders.  And I think there won’t be any necessity to do so. Though, it may be that there will be checkpoints on the main roads or something like that. As I said above, Europeans should travel freely between European countries and stay there through 90 days. It is more than enough for tourist purposes, business travels, visiting relatives, and so on.
> 
> What do you mean administrative language? The language which will be used in official documents between these countries? There will be a lingua franca common for all. Now it is English, maybe some time in the future it will be German or some other one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I mean by administrative language, the language used in domestic government offices.  All European countries need to adapt a single common domestic administrative language.  This used to be Latin, then was German-ish, and now English would be the most practical.  France will of course never accept any of this.
> 
> As for the border question, how can 90 days and no job/business rights be acceptable?  People need to be able to travel and freely do any job in any of the towns they have ethnic brothers and linguistic brothers in.  Most European borders cut across towns and you find that you can't go to your own town to get a job.  Check the map of Europe.  Your plan of border management is possible only if we redraw at least half of all European borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you recognise that France will never accept this then what is a point? It is highly doubtful that French will become the lingua franca for the EU to such extent that it fully sideline national languages in domestic administrative purposes. Actually, your idea is a non-starter whatsoever.
> 
> 
> As to the borders and visas, I don’t know what to add to those I wrote above. I think that our disagreements lie between perceptions what is better – a big multinational federation or small (relatively) national states. I think that national states are better than the federation. I agree that this model has some disadvantages and one of them is a national issue when the representatives of one nation are divided by state borders and this may cause problems because some of them may try to redraw borders and that may end up in violent clashes. But I don’t think that a super-federation can resolve national issues; on the contrary – it can make them worse in the long run. Moreover, a super-federation is not convenient for democracy, because the more structures exist above ordinary people the fewer chances to control these structures, the weaker ties between the common people and the top level bureaucrats.
> 
> So, there are no unique good or bad choices, you should always chose between the lesser of two evils. I think that national states with deep cooperation is the lesser evil in compare with a multinational federation with huge bureaucratic apparatus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very interesting point and your point is well taken, albeit disagreed.  Cantonization?  That could be an alternative to national statehood.  Cantons can be small enough to unite ethnic and linguistic islands with lesser border violations I think.  Interesting that Cantonization is never mentioned as an alternative.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean by cantonization, but if it means creating single-nation independent cantons then this is not practically achievable.


----------



## anotherlife

ESay said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court.  So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court.  This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
> 
> What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe?  The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is.  How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind? I don’t want razor wires and guard towers to be reinstalled on the borders.  And I think there won’t be any necessity to do so. Though, it may be that there will be checkpoints on the main roads or something like that. As I said above, Europeans should travel freely between European countries and stay there through 90 days. It is more than enough for tourist purposes, business travels, visiting relatives, and so on.
> 
> What do you mean administrative language? The language which will be used in official documents between these countries? There will be a lingua franca common for all. Now it is English, maybe some time in the future it will be German or some other one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I mean by administrative language, the language used in domestic government offices.  All European countries need to adapt a single common domestic administrative language.  This used to be Latin, then was German-ish, and now English would be the most practical.  France will of course never accept any of this.
> 
> As for the border question, how can 90 days and no job/business rights be acceptable?  People need to be able to travel and freely do any job in any of the towns they have ethnic brothers and linguistic brothers in.  Most European borders cut across towns and you find that you can't go to your own town to get a job.  Check the map of Europe.  Your plan of border management is possible only if we redraw at least half of all European borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you recognise that France will never accept this then what is a point? It is highly doubtful that French will become the lingua franca for the EU to such extent that it fully sideline national languages in domestic administrative purposes. Actually, your idea is a non-starter whatsoever.
> 
> 
> As to the borders and visas, I don’t know what to add to those I wrote above. I think that our disagreements lie between perceptions what is better – a big multinational federation or small (relatively) national states. I think that national states are better than the federation. I agree that this model has some disadvantages and one of them is a national issue when the representatives of one nation are divided by state borders and this may cause problems because some of them may try to redraw borders and that may end up in violent clashes. But I don’t think that a super-federation can resolve national issues; on the contrary – it can make them worse in the long run. Moreover, a super-federation is not convenient for democracy, because the more structures exist above ordinary people the fewer chances to control these structures, the weaker ties between the common people and the top level bureaucrats.
> 
> So, there are no unique good or bad choices, you should always chose between the lesser of two evils. I think that national states with deep cooperation is the lesser evil in compare with a multinational federation with huge bureaucratic apparatus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very interesting point and your point is well taken, albeit disagreed.  Cantonization?  That could be an alternative to national statehood.  Cantons can be small enough to unite ethnic and linguistic islands with lesser border violations I think.  Interesting that Cantonization is never mentioned as an alternative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by cantonization, but if it means creating single-nation independent cantons then this is not practically achievable.
Click to expand...


I too think that it is difficult to achieve it, if even possible.  So far only Yugoslavia achieved it and even that only partially.

Should be a better utopia though.

Enforcing current borders is backwards 50 years into the post ww2 communist era with walls, barbed wire fences, and ideological militia.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there are no lessons learned.  Ever.  Especially not with an all out robbery marauding like ww1-2.  There is a good reason why international borders and international law work by the cease fires and armistices.  Can you justify an international or national law that robs people because they lost the war you started on them?  This is what is happening, but who should think that this is just?  A communist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you rambling on about the laws were made by both victors and losers after the formation of the UN. National laws are made by the nations for their own benefit, as in the laws of the UK that allowed us to vote on leaving the neo marxist controlled EU. Can you justify an unelected eurocrat making laws that take away a full nations human rights to make their own laws and sit in judgement of criminals. In WW1 the Germans strted the war, and again in WW2 they started the law so how did they make laws that robbed the British and Americans ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, pretty much everything is backwards from your post.  Let me answer it one by one.
> 
> Laws are never made by losers, especially not after ww1-2.  The "peace treaties" were laughed at even by the victorious French president Clemenceau. The UN doesn't change this, or the borders would be different.
> 
> National laws are not for a nations own benefit but for the benefit of the national majority only.  And lately not even that but for those only who control the national majorities, such as for the Marxists.
> 
> An unelected King is proven by history to be capable to do more good for all his subjects than a national majority elected gang.
> 
> Even the ancient Chinese General Sunzu educated the world in his lessons, that wars are rarely started by those who start them.  This is especially true when the "starter" loses it.  This has been known for at least 2000 years.
> 
> The German didn't make laws to rob the British and the Americans.  The entente made laws to rob the German and all other European countries that suited them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like the typical neo marxist stooge that is force fed this same information to repeat ad nauseum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you whose country has been robbing its neighbors for a 100 years.  So what kind of borders do you want?   Hehehe.  (Edit for better answer.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who have we robbed then and how ?
> 
> What it cost to bail out Scotland alone in todays money would buy all of the US
Click to expand...


Who did you rob?  Had a look at the map of Europe lately?  It was not designed by Germany.   Hehehe.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind? I don’t want razor wires and guard towers to be reinstalled on the borders.  And I think there won’t be any necessity to do so. Though, it may be that there will be checkpoints on the main roads or something like that. As I said above, Europeans should travel freely between European countries and stay there through 90 days. It is more than enough for tourist purposes, business travels, visiting relatives, and so on.
> 
> What do you mean administrative language? The language which will be used in official documents between these countries? There will be a lingua franca common for all. Now it is English, maybe some time in the future it will be German or some other one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I mean by administrative language, the language used in domestic government offices.  All European countries need to adapt a single common domestic administrative language.  This used to be Latin, then was German-ish, and now English would be the most practical.  France will of course never accept any of this.
> 
> As for the border question, how can 90 days and no job/business rights be acceptable?  People need to be able to travel and freely do any job in any of the towns they have ethnic brothers and linguistic brothers in.  Most European borders cut across towns and you find that you can't go to your own town to get a job.  Check the map of Europe.  Your plan of border management is possible only if we redraw at least half of all European borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you recognise that France will never accept this then what is a point? It is highly doubtful that French will become the lingua franca for the EU to such extent that it fully sideline national languages in domestic administrative purposes. Actually, your idea is a non-starter whatsoever.
> 
> 
> As to the borders and visas, I don’t know what to add to those I wrote above. I think that our disagreements lie between perceptions what is better – a big multinational federation or small (relatively) national states. I think that national states are better than the federation. I agree that this model has some disadvantages and one of them is a national issue when the representatives of one nation are divided by state borders and this may cause problems because some of them may try to redraw borders and that may end up in violent clashes. But I don’t think that a super-federation can resolve national issues; on the contrary – it can make them worse in the long run. Moreover, a super-federation is not convenient for democracy, because the more structures exist above ordinary people the fewer chances to control these structures, the weaker ties between the common people and the top level bureaucrats.
> 
> So, there are no unique good or bad choices, you should always chose between the lesser of two evils. I think that national states with deep cooperation is the lesser evil in compare with a multinational federation with huge bureaucratic apparatus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very interesting point and your point is well taken, albeit disagreed.  Cantonization?  That could be an alternative to national statehood.  Cantons can be small enough to unite ethnic and linguistic islands with lesser border violations I think.  Interesting that Cantonization is never mentioned as an alternative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by cantonization, but if it means creating single-nation independent cantons then this is not practically achievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I too think that it is difficult to achieve it, if even possible.  So far only Yugoslavia achieved it and even that only partially.
> 
> Should be a better utopia though.
> 
> Enforcing current borders is backwards 50 years into the post ww2 communist era with walls, barbed wire fences, and ideological militia.
Click to expand...









 Only if you are a neo marxist out to create a new Soviet from the remains of Europe. A pity that you jumped the gun and showed your back hand before you were ready to take control


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you rambling on about the laws were made by both victors and losers after the formation of the UN. National laws are made by the nations for their own benefit, as in the laws of the UK that allowed us to vote on leaving the neo marxist controlled EU. Can you justify an unelected eurocrat making laws that take away a full nations human rights to make their own laws and sit in judgement of criminals. In WW1 the Germans strted the war, and again in WW2 they started the law so how did they make laws that robbed the British and Americans ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, pretty much everything is backwards from your post.  Let me answer it one by one.
> 
> Laws are never made by losers, especially not after ww1-2.  The "peace treaties" were laughed at even by the victorious French president Clemenceau. The UN doesn't change this, or the borders would be different.
> 
> National laws are not for a nations own benefit but for the benefit of the national majority only.  And lately not even that but for those only who control the national majorities, such as for the Marxists.
> 
> An unelected King is proven by history to be capable to do more good for all his subjects than a national majority elected gang.
> 
> Even the ancient Chinese General Sunzu educated the world in his lessons, that wars are rarely started by those who start them.  This is especially true when the "starter" loses it.  This has been known for at least 2000 years.
> 
> The German didn't make laws to rob the British and the Americans.  The entente made laws to rob the German and all other European countries that suited them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like the typical neo marxist stooge that is force fed this same information to repeat ad nauseum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you whose country has been robbing its neighbors for a 100 years.  So what kind of borders do you want?   Hehehe.  (Edit for better answer.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who have we robbed then and how ?
> 
> What it cost to bail out Scotland alone in todays money would buy all of the US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who did you rob?  Had a look at the map of Europe lately?  It was not designed by Germany.   Hehehe.
Click to expand...







 So you have no evidence to support your original claim then, is this why you are deflecting because you have been caught LYING again


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I mean by administrative language, the language used in domestic government offices.  All European countries need to adapt a single common domestic administrative language.  This used to be Latin, then was German-ish, and now English would be the most practical.  France will of course never accept any of this.
> 
> As for the border question, how can 90 days and no job/business rights be acceptable?  People need to be able to travel and freely do any job in any of the towns they have ethnic brothers and linguistic brothers in.  Most European borders cut across towns and you find that you can't go to your own town to get a job.  Check the map of Europe.  Your plan of border management is possible only if we redraw at least half of all European borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you recognise that France will never accept this then what is a point? It is highly doubtful that French will become the lingua franca for the EU to such extent that it fully sideline national languages in domestic administrative purposes. Actually, your idea is a non-starter whatsoever.
> 
> 
> As to the borders and visas, I don’t know what to add to those I wrote above. I think that our disagreements lie between perceptions what is better – a big multinational federation or small (relatively) national states. I think that national states are better than the federation. I agree that this model has some disadvantages and one of them is a national issue when the representatives of one nation are divided by state borders and this may cause problems because some of them may try to redraw borders and that may end up in violent clashes. But I don’t think that a super-federation can resolve national issues; on the contrary – it can make them worse in the long run. Moreover, a super-federation is not convenient for democracy, because the more structures exist above ordinary people the fewer chances to control these structures, the weaker ties between the common people and the top level bureaucrats.
> 
> So, there are no unique good or bad choices, you should always chose between the lesser of two evils. I think that national states with deep cooperation is the lesser evil in compare with a multinational federation with huge bureaucratic apparatus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very interesting point and your point is well taken, albeit disagreed.  Cantonization?  That could be an alternative to national statehood.  Cantons can be small enough to unite ethnic and linguistic islands with lesser border violations I think.  Interesting that Cantonization is never mentioned as an alternative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by cantonization, but if it means creating single-nation independent cantons then this is not practically achievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I too think that it is difficult to achieve it, if even possible.  So far only Yugoslavia achieved it and even that only partially.
> 
> Should be a better utopia though.
> 
> Enforcing current borders is backwards 50 years into the post ww2 communist era with walls, barbed wire fences, and ideological militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you are a neo marxist out to create a new Soviet from the remains of Europe. A pity that you jumped the gun and showed your back hand before you were ready to take control
Click to expand...


No, the Soviet Union didn't work.  Your proposal is to do a Soviet Union at national levels.  You do this because you figure that trapping national minorities within new borders gives you new loot.  I would hate to be you.  Do you sleep with Satan frequently?


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, pretty much everything is backwards from your post.  Let me answer it one by one.
> 
> Laws are never made by losers, especially not after ww1-2.  The "peace treaties" were laughed at even by the victorious French president Clemenceau. The UN doesn't change this, or the borders would be different.
> 
> National laws are not for a nations own benefit but for the benefit of the national majority only.  And lately not even that but for those only who control the national majorities, such as for the Marxists.
> 
> An unelected King is proven by history to be capable to do more good for all his subjects than a national majority elected gang.
> 
> Even the ancient Chinese General Sunzu educated the world in his lessons, that wars are rarely started by those who start them.  This is especially true when the "starter" loses it.  This has been known for at least 2000 years.
> 
> The German didn't make laws to rob the British and the Americans.  The entente made laws to rob the German and all other European countries that suited them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like the typical neo marxist stooge that is force fed this same information to repeat ad nauseum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you whose country has been robbing its neighbors for a 100 years.  So what kind of borders do you want?   Hehehe.  (Edit for better answer.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who have we robbed then and how ?
> 
> What it cost to bail out Scotland alone in todays money would buy all of the US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who did you rob?  Had a look at the map of Europe lately?  It was not designed by Germany.   Hehehe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no evidence to support your original claim then, is this why you are deflecting because you have been caught LYING again
Click to expand...


Don't worry about that because you can buy or download a Europe map any day free of charge.  Are you afraid to face the evidence?  Hehehe.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you recognise that France will never accept this then what is a point? It is highly doubtful that French will become the lingua franca for the EU to such extent that it fully sideline national languages in domestic administrative purposes. Actually, your idea is a non-starter whatsoever.
> 
> 
> As to the borders and visas, I don’t know what to add to those I wrote above. I think that our disagreements lie between perceptions what is better – a big multinational federation or small (relatively) national states. I think that national states are better than the federation. I agree that this model has some disadvantages and one of them is a national issue when the representatives of one nation are divided by state borders and this may cause problems because some of them may try to redraw borders and that may end up in violent clashes. But I don’t think that a super-federation can resolve national issues; on the contrary – it can make them worse in the long run. Moreover, a super-federation is not convenient for democracy, because the more structures exist above ordinary people the fewer chances to control these structures, the weaker ties between the common people and the top level bureaucrats.
> 
> So, there are no unique good or bad choices, you should always chose between the lesser of two evils. I think that national states with deep cooperation is the lesser evil in compare with a multinational federation with huge bureaucratic apparatus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting point and your point is well taken, albeit disagreed.  Cantonization?  That could be an alternative to national statehood.  Cantons can be small enough to unite ethnic and linguistic islands with lesser border violations I think.  Interesting that Cantonization is never mentioned as an alternative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by cantonization, but if it means creating single-nation independent cantons then this is not practically achievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I too think that it is difficult to achieve it, if even possible.  So far only Yugoslavia achieved it and even that only partially.
> 
> Should be a better utopia though.
> 
> Enforcing current borders is backwards 50 years into the post ww2 communist era with walls, barbed wire fences, and ideological militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you are a neo marxist out to create a new Soviet from the remains of Europe. A pity that you jumped the gun and showed your back hand before you were ready to take control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Soviet Union didn't work.  Your proposal is to do a Soviet Union at national levels.  You do this because you figure that trapping national minorities within new borders gives you new loot.  I would hate to be you.  Do you sleep with Satan frequently?
Click to expand...








 No that is yours, mine is to go back to basics and have national powers to defend our own. If the muslims want to invade we want the right to stop them, not to be told we cant do it.   Your neo marxist fantasy world has collapsed and there is nothing you can do to bring it back


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like the typical neo marxist stooge that is force fed this same information to repeat ad nauseum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you whose country has been robbing its neighbors for a 100 years.  So what kind of borders do you want?   Hehehe.  (Edit for better answer.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who have we robbed then and how ?
> 
> What it cost to bail out Scotland alone in todays money would buy all of the US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who did you rob?  Had a look at the map of Europe lately?  It was not designed by Germany.   Hehehe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no evidence to support your original claim then, is this why you are deflecting because you have been caught LYING again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry about that because you can buy or download a Europe map any day free of charge.  Are you afraid to face the evidence?  Hehehe.
Click to expand...









 And where does that say this land was stolen by Britain on any of these maps ?


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says you whose country has been robbing its neighbors for a 100 years.  So what kind of borders do you want?   Hehehe.  (Edit for better answer.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who have we robbed then and how ?
> 
> What it cost to bail out Scotland alone in todays money would buy all of the US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who did you rob?  Had a look at the map of Europe lately?  It was not designed by Germany.   Hehehe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no evidence to support your original claim then, is this why you are deflecting because you have been caught LYING again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry about that because you can buy or download a Europe map any day free of charge.  Are you afraid to face the evidence?  Hehehe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where does that say this land was stolen by Britain on any of these maps ?
Click to expand...


I guess this is why brexiters and franxiters are called stupid.  They are all about borders, but they don't know about the very borders that their own country has been drawing and redrawing just recently.  Bravo.  Britain and France have a bright future then.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting point and your point is well taken, albeit disagreed.  Cantonization?  That could be an alternative to national statehood.  Cantons can be small enough to unite ethnic and linguistic islands with lesser border violations I think.  Interesting that Cantonization is never mentioned as an alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by cantonization, but if it means creating single-nation independent cantons then this is not practically achievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I too think that it is difficult to achieve it, if even possible.  So far only Yugoslavia achieved it and even that only partially.
> 
> Should be a better utopia though.
> 
> Enforcing current borders is backwards 50 years into the post ww2 communist era with walls, barbed wire fences, and ideological militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you are a neo marxist out to create a new Soviet from the remains of Europe. A pity that you jumped the gun and showed your back hand before you were ready to take control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Soviet Union didn't work.  Your proposal is to do a Soviet Union at national levels.  You do this because you figure that trapping national minorities within new borders gives you new loot.  I would hate to be you.  Do you sleep with Satan frequently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that is yours, mine is to go back to basics and have national powers to defend our own. If the muslims want to invade we want the right to stop them, not to be told we cant do it.   Your neo marxist fantasy world has collapsed and there is nothing you can do to bring it back
Click to expand...


To the basics?  Okay, so who will draw your borders basically?  You will?


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by cantonization, but if it means creating single-nation independent cantons then this is not practically achievable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I too think that it is difficult to achieve it, if even possible.  So far only Yugoslavia achieved it and even that only partially.
> 
> Should be a better utopia though.
> 
> Enforcing current borders is backwards 50 years into the post ww2 communist era with walls, barbed wire fences, and ideological militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you are a neo marxist out to create a new Soviet from the remains of Europe. A pity that you jumped the gun and showed your back hand before you were ready to take control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Soviet Union didn't work.  Your proposal is to do a Soviet Union at national levels.  You do this because you figure that trapping national minorities within new borders gives you new loot.  I would hate to be you.  Do you sleep with Satan frequently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that is yours, mine is to go back to basics and have national powers to defend our own. If the muslims want to invade we want the right to stop them, not to be told we cant do it.   Your neo marxist fantasy world has collapsed and there is nothing you can do to bring it back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the basics?  Okay, so who will draw your borders basically?  You will?
Click to expand...








Already drawn and set in stone so niether I or anyone else will need to re-draw them. Most are sea coast's with a small number across old defence lines.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I too think that it is difficult to achieve it, if even possible.  So far only Yugoslavia achieved it and even that only partially.
> 
> Should be a better utopia though.
> 
> Enforcing current borders is backwards 50 years into the post ww2 communist era with walls, barbed wire fences, and ideological militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you are a neo marxist out to create a new Soviet from the remains of Europe. A pity that you jumped the gun and showed your back hand before you were ready to take control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Soviet Union didn't work.  Your proposal is to do a Soviet Union at national levels.  You do this because you figure that trapping national minorities within new borders gives you new loot.  I would hate to be you.  Do you sleep with Satan frequently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that is yours, mine is to go back to basics and have national powers to defend our own. If the muslims want to invade we want the right to stop them, not to be told we cant do it.   Your neo marxist fantasy world has collapsed and there is nothing you can do to bring it back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the basics?  Okay, so who will draw your borders basically?  You will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already drawn and set in stone so niether I or anyone else will need to re-draw them. Most are sea coast's with a small number across old defence lines.
Click to expand...


Will that hold up against the Muslims?  Not even Germany could keep the bullets going fast enough to stop the tide of Russian peasants.  And the Muslims are twice as angry as the Russian peasants.

My bet for the future borders of Britain is, Newcastle for the Scottish EU border, Bristol for the welsh border, and central London for the londonistan border.  Hehehe.  This is not a scare tactics though, because those are always stupid.  Long term investment bet?


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who have we robbed then and how ?
> 
> What it cost to bail out Scotland alone in todays money would buy all of the US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who did you rob?  Had a look at the map of Europe lately?  It was not designed by Germany.   Hehehe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no evidence to support your original claim then, is this why you are deflecting because you have been caught LYING again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry about that because you can buy or download a Europe map any day free of charge.  Are you afraid to face the evidence?  Hehehe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where does that say this land was stolen by Britain on any of these maps ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess this is why brexiters and franxiters are called stupid.  They are all about borders, but they don't know about the very borders that their own country has been drawing and redrawing just recently.  Bravo.  Britain and France have a bright future then.
Click to expand...







 And it seems that you make things up to suit as you go along, hoping that you wont be pulled on what you claim.  How about a link to this claim of the re-drawing of borders by the UK for starters.  And it is the neo marxists that want to see the new Soviet bloc arise from western Europe that are called stupid after playing their ace when a two would have won the hand


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who did you rob?  Had a look at the map of Europe lately?  It was not designed by Germany.   Hehehe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no evidence to support your original claim then, is this why you are deflecting because you have been caught LYING again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry about that because you can buy or download a Europe map any day free of charge.  Are you afraid to face the evidence?  Hehehe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where does that say this land was stolen by Britain on any of these maps ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess this is why brexiters and franxiters are called stupid.  They are all about borders, but they don't know about the very borders that their own country has been drawing and redrawing just recently.  Bravo.  Britain and France have a bright future then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it seems that you make things up to suit as you go along, hoping that you wont be pulled on what you claim.  How about a link to this claim of the re-drawing of borders by the UK for starters.  And it is the neo marxists that want to see the new Soviet bloc arise from western Europe that are called stupid after playing their ace when a two would have won the hand
Click to expand...


I knew it was this easy.  Kill people just don't teach about it in school, that way it never happened.  But let me help.  Look up ww1-2 peace dictates on Wikipedia or something, before your friends at the Mossad delete them.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no evidence to support your original claim then, is this why you are deflecting because you have been caught LYING again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry about that because you can buy or download a Europe map any day free of charge.  Are you afraid to face the evidence?  Hehehe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where does that say this land was stolen by Britain on any of these maps ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess this is why brexiters and franxiters are called stupid.  They are all about borders, but they don't know about the very borders that their own country has been drawing and redrawing just recently.  Bravo.  Britain and France have a bright future then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it seems that you make things up to suit as you go along, hoping that you wont be pulled on what you claim.  How about a link to this claim of the re-drawing of borders by the UK for starters.  And it is the neo marxists that want to see the new Soviet bloc arise from western Europe that are called stupid after playing their ace when a two would have won the hand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew it was this easy.  Kill people just don't teach about it in school, that way it never happened.  But let me help.  Look up ww1-2 peace dictates on Wikipedia or something, before your friends at the Mossad delete them.
Click to expand...








Typical neo marxist methods, kill the dissenters and so win every argument.    I asked you for evidence so how about you use a valid unbiased source to prove your claims, and Wiki is hardly unbiased as you can edit the entries if you want to


----------

