Has the EU .....

[R1Geezer]

Done more damage to Europe than the third Reich.....?

[ichkeria]

You keep saying "we had to do this" "we escaped this" etc. etc. by which you mean Britain. But leaving aside the appalling loss of life among British service personnel (and the other nationalities notably Poles but many others) who fought alongside them and the damage done to the cities etc. , think of the millions of Jews and others murdered in Europe, and don't forget the tyranny of Stalin's Soviet Empire which also, thanks to Hitler, enslaved and divided Europe for several decades. You won't find too many Estonians, for example, sympathising with your view. Or Poles. Or Britons for that matter, even the most Euro-sceptic of them.
A pity you posed your question as a "no-brainer", because we could have an interesting discussion had it been couched in less extreme terms.

[R1Geezer]

41 responses, we are having a discussion, if you can get past the tag line you can join in if you like.

[ichkeria]

But what has emerged? The rather obvious fact that millions dead and displaced across an entire continent and the consequent division of that continent for nearly half a century trumps the perceived inadequacies and shortcomings of a 27-member economic and political union.
Like I keep saying, not really very enlightening and you are bound to lose, because no matter how many arguments you come up with someone will simply come along and swat you with the above line :-)

[R1Geezer]

How can I lose? I haven't put my view yet, this is what is known as a "discussion" resulting from an "enquiry" or "question".

[ichkeria]

Because whatever shortcomings of the EU, no matter how plausible, you may come up with, someone can always come along and say:
"Ah, but at least it's not as bad as Nazi Germany"
:-)

[rov1100]

The problem is they never stopped expanding and having reached 27 members they are the lookout for others to join. When will it stop...having half the planet attached to a giant club can only lead to a surge to the lowest denominator. They should have stopped at 6 members and then Germany might have been more willing to chip in for Italy.

[Gromit]

Of course the EU are worse than the Nazis. At last those Jews in the gas chambers could eat bent bananas. And the Nazis didn't make us fly their flag over the town hall.

And the Nazis may have killed both my grandfathers, but at least they didn't want their flag on the England football shirt.

Is there no end to the EU atrocities?

[Kromovaracun]

"The HRA only applies to criminal scum, it's not a new idea, it's just we previously used common sense."

The Human Rights Act is nothing to do with the EU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe

And it doesn't just protect criminals - it protects everyone, and protects criminals in the same way it protects everyone else. Now, you could argue reasonably that this is a case where equal protection shouldn't apply - which would have some validity, but is a very different argument. Please don't retort to the hysterical knee-jerk 'it puts criminals above victims' soundbite. You speak very often about your intelligence R1 - you ought to be smart enough to realise that.

"How can I lose? I haven't put my view yet,"

Then you can't really expect people to say what they think about your views. It's a basic fact of debating that you can't really discuss someone's view unless you understand it properly. What are you afraid of? Tell us what you think.

"Has the EU done more damage to Europe than the Third Reich?"

I think you can pretty fairly argue that the EU is a very indirect part of the Third Reich's legacy in that the experience of war has given Europe a lasting commitment to peace which is still very much alive. Previously, the closest thing that western and central Europe had known to long-lasting peace was the nineteenth century - which has easily been surpassed by the past 50 or so years.

But I digress. I realise you make the distinction between damage to sovereignty and physical damage, but I'm a little confused by the fact that you see the former as more important. The average person trying to live their life and pursue happiness and their goals does not have any "mere bombs" (which is a horrendous thing to say, incidentally) being dropped on them by the EU. Neither are they grieving over a family member killed abroad in fighting the EU.

As for damage to sovereignty - yes, I'm willing to accept the argument that our government has less freedom of action as a result of being in the EU. But it also has the potential for more influence. The problems facing the world today are global in scale more than ever - you can't realistically expect to, say, combat modern terrorism or deal with the consequences of globalisation within the boundaries of one nation - and like it or not, these are global problems which we are affected by as much as anyone else. The EU is extremely, deeply flawed. But if we took the trouble to improve and reform it, and were willing to work with our neighbours to do so, the UK could hold far more substantial geopolitical influence in reacting more effectively to the problems currently faced by the world.

I appreciate why you think that damaging - at least I think I do. But you need to realise the situation is far more complex and ambiguous than you're making it out to be with your melodramatic comparison to Nazi Germany.

[anotheoldgit]

Re your two links jno,

Seems to me there was a lot more room to move around back then.