Talk:Euroskepticism

Netanyahu and the EU

These comments Benjamin Netanyahu made, which he thought was a private discussion, are revealing on his position towards to EU and relevant to his article.[1] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2017 (EDT)

Could Euroskepticism lead to the resurrection of old hatreds between Western nations in the long term?

There are two things that are leading me to ask this question.

First, it's becoming increasingly apparent that Germany is the engine that runs the European Union. Not surprisingly, this has lead to rising anti-German sentiment throughout Europe in general, especially in Eastern Europe, which still has memories of German attempts to colonize the region during the two World Wars. My fear is that if and when the European Union collapses, there will be efforts by nationalist/populist governments in Europe, especially Poland, to use this as an excuse to punish Germany geo-politically. In other words, a 21st century Treaty of Versailles. We all know what happened after the 20th century Treaty of Versailles.

Second, there's a conspiracy theory that the European Union was part of an Anglo-American-Zionist plot to hijack and destroy efforts to create an independent, united Europe that would prevent efforts by either the United States or Russia to dominate the continent (the original intent of the post-WWII European integration movement). Right now, this conspiracy theory is popular only among fringe elements of the nationalist/populist movement, and among neo-Nazis. But what happens once the European Union falls apart? Will this conspiracy theory gain popularity in mainstream European politics, especially if my "21st century Treaty of Versailles" fear comes to pass? And if so, will this lead to the rise of governments in European countries that are blatantly anti-American? --Geopolitician (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

What a smelly stinking turd. Globalism, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have caused the resurrection of old hatreds between Western nations. What do you think Trump-Russia is all about? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:58, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

I'm not talking about post-1945 geopolitical hatreds. I'm talking about pre-1945 genocidal hatreds where some European countries (like Germany) considered the peoples of their enemies (like Poland and Russia) to be subhumans worthy of extermination. We haven't seen the return of those hatreds yet. But I fear that we soon might, especially if the collapse of the EU results in Germany being assigned sole blame for the wrongs inflicted by the EU and humiliated in a manner similar to Versailles (a real possibility, given Germany's role in the migrant fiasco and Poland's increasingly and understandably anti-German foreign policy positions). I don't know if you're aware of it, but neo-Nazism is already growing in Germany today, especially now that Mein Kampf is in the public domain there. Should Germany end up in a situation similar to that after Versailles, I fear we could see history repeat itself. You do know why and how Hitler's rise to power was made possible, right? --Geopolitician (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

Your John Lennin version of Imagine is bs. Germany, under Merkel, agrees with Trump that Germany and Russia should have better relations and don't buy into Progressive fearmongering responsible for resurrecting old hatreds.RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:38, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

You think Merkel wants better relations with Russia? Then it is you who have been deceived by the Globalists. Merkel's number one goal is to ensure German domination of the European continent through the European Union. She is even going as far as calling for all EU member states to surrender control of their militaries so they can merge into a European Army under German command.

Should this actually happen, it would probably mean war between Germany and Russia, and it would definitely mean war between Germany and the United States. Russia will not tolerate what would amount to a pseudo-annexation of much of the continent by its ancient enemy, and the United States will not tolerate what would amount to a hostile nation using globalist treachery to cut out a large amount of its sphere of influence.

Do I believe Germany deserves to be confronted for this behavior? Yes. Do I believe it deserves to be punished for its behavior? Yes, even if Merkel is ousted and replaced with AFD. But how far should this punishment go, is the question. I don't want to punish Germany in a manner severe enough to recreate the conditions that made Hitler's rise to power possible. I don't want a Versailles redux. But there are plenty of people out there who want to go that far. Check out some of the comments on Breitbart articles that discuss Germany.

I suspect that once the EU collapses, there will be a serious movement to impose a Versailles redux on Germany, probably spearheaded by Poland. And then what?

Should we side with Germany and demand Poland leave it alone? If we do that, many Eastern European nationalists will turn against us, and accuse us of selling out to the Globalists. They will never trust us again, and will become hostile to the United States.

Or should we allow Poland to go at it and lead an effort to isolate Germany and tear it to shreds economically, which to be honest is something Germany may well deserve by then? If we do that, many Western European nationalists will turn against us. They will accuse us of having betrayed them because we essentially allowed the most powerful country in Western Europe to be turned into a scapegoat for the harms inflicted on the West by globalism. They will never trust us again, and will become hostile to the United States. And Germany specifically may begin to say, "you know what? Hitler was onto something after all." --Geopolitician (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

Put down the crack pipe. The Germans at first remained silent on the Obama/Clinton bullcrap about Putin the bogeyman. As the deep state coup plotters executed Michael Flynn and scuttled Trump's proposed detente, the German Foreign Ministry issued statements it wasn't goosestepping to Washington anylonger, and was definitely opposed to the Democrats neo-Cold Warmongering. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:24, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

Germany's refusal to goosestep to Washington wasn't aimed at the Deep State. It was aimed at Trump. Germany decided to take a hard globalist turn and demand that a European Army be formed in response to Trump waking much of the world up to the evils of globalism. Germany knows that if it goes too far with this European Army plan, it will end up at war with the United States. Hence why it is now trying to play the "Russia is (not really) my ally" card. Germany at this point considers Russia to be a lesser evil than the United States, and is trying to get Russia to side with Germany should war break out over the European Army plan. Hitler employed the same strategy when he concluded that the USSR was a lesser evil than Britain and France. Fortunately, Hitler's plan failed. Let's hope Merkel's does, too. If and when the US and Russia normalize relations, let's hope containing Merkel's Germany is one of the main agendas on the table. --Geopolitician (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

Exactly my point. Germany is more attuned to an alliance with Russia than the globalists who control NATO are. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 15:08, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

Germany is not attuned to an alliance with either the US or Russia. Deep down, it despises both. It is fed up with 70+ years of those two countries being the only countries capable of dominating the continent. It wants to go back the pre-1945 era, where Germany was just as big of a player on the continent as the US and Russia were then and are today. The EU globalist bureaucracy is all for this, because it means more control over the increasingly restless European populations. Trump strongly opposes this, and has publicly warned the EU on at least one occasion to not go through with it. The Deep State globalists are divided on this, because some elements have interests in Germany, while others don't. Russia is divided on this as well, because it wants to counter American influence in Europe, but it doesn't want an all-powerful Germany dominating the continent.

If war between the US and Germany does break out over this European Army project, it will not be a war between globalism and nationalism. It will be a war between a hegemon and its client state. The "globalism vs. nationalism" narrative will go out the window because different groups of globalists and nationalists will form unholy alliances to support one side in the name of common interests. In that event, who would you support? --Geopolitician (talk) 15:23 21 April 2018 (EDT)

Germany has no commander in chief of its armed forces. The German military is not under the control of the German government (although the German taxpayer pays for it). The German General Staff is fully integrated into NATO's command structure. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:43, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

I don't mind Germany controlling its own military. I do mind Germany attempting to control the militaries of other countries, much less all of Europe, under the EU banner. --Geopolitician (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

For the Germans to ever be in control of their own military, you'd have to remove NATO, the German Constitution, and the German state. It's never going to happen democratically at the ballot box. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 15:07, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

You're right. It won't happen democratically. The EU bureaucracy will see to it that this happens on its own nefarious terms. --Geopolitician (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

Secondly, Why should the EU have two votes in the UN Security Council while the US, Russia, and China have only one? RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:16, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

Better yet, why should the EU have any votes in the UN Security Council at all, when it is basically run by a non-member? --Geopolitician (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

New Italian government: truly Euroskeptic?

There was a lot to enjoy in the first speech made by Italy's new prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, who among other things did not shy away from the term "populism", which most Europeans try to flee from (1,2,3). However, one of his agenda items was renegotiating the Dublin Agreement to give the EU more power over its member states on immigration issues, allowing it to force countries such as Hungary and Poland to accept refugees against their will (1,2,3). Interestingly, Interior Minister Matteo Salvini (who is in charge of immigration issues) said he would work with Hungary to fix Europe's immigration problems, (but then again, Salvini is a consistent conservative, unlike his M5S partners): [2][3] I'm hopeful on this new government, but we should watch out that it doesn't turn into what it campaigned against. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2018 (EDT)

I don't trust Conte. He was a leftist before he approached Five Star, a big tent movement that "catch-alls" from different ideologies. As far as I'm concerned, he hasn't renounced his leftism, so I assume he approached Five Star (and this coalition by extension) because he sees something in it for him as a leftist. Yes, he hates the EU and wants to deport the migrants. And then what? --Geopolitician (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2018 (EDT)

The fact he was a leftist doesn't concern me as much as it apparently does you -- here in the U.S., people such as Peter Navarro, Matteo Salvini, and Steve Bannon were also leftists, or considered leftist, earlier in their lives, though they are now considered some of the strongest nationalist-conservatives around. Also, Conte has supports doing away unnecessary laws and supports trimming bureaucracy. I don't think Conte's background is concerning. I do agree that the M5S's flip-flopping on issues is concerning -- it was consistent under Grillo, but its current leader, Di Maio, is an opportunist who cares more about getting into a government position than taking principled stands on issues. I think that the government is in dangered to adopting an establishment outlook in order to (as it sees it) increase its popularity or because it doesn't have the guts to fight the European deep state. But on the bright side, the M5S is stuck with the League, which does take strong and principled stands on the issues. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2018 (EDT)

Well, one of is will be right and one of us will be wrong on whether Conte's rejection of leftism is genuine. Prior to him being appointed PM, I had never even heard of him. For me, he has to prove his conservatism in action. Fortunately, I initially had the same sentiments towards President Trump, and he ultimately proved to me that his rejection of leftism is genuine over time. If Trump could do it, so can Conte. Conte has no excuse to not try. --Geopolitician (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2018 (EDT)

To be clear, I don't think there's zero doubt that Conte has 100% rejected leftism. What I mean is that the fact he was once a leftist isn't a very big deal to me, based on other recent examples. Besides, some of the strongest globalists (Romney, Bush, David Cameron, Merkel, etc.) have consistently been members of their "conservative" parties. I think Conte is a populist over all (which is a good thing right now), and he needs Salvini's support to stay in power. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2018 (EDT)

What I do worry about, however, is that Conte will want to "fit in" or "join the club" when dealing with the EU and other world leaders and thus abandon his populist-nationalist values in the process. This "Reuters" article suggests that this may be happening, though it's still way too early to tell (and once again, he still needs the support of Salvini and the other League ministers). However, seeking acceptance from the global elite is not limited to any one political ideology, and many people considered on the Right have also fallen for it. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2018 (EDT)