The EU is doing fine, what's so bad about the NAU?

The only reason the EU is doing well, right now, is that their currency is NOT the world's reserve currency (ours is). We have the distinct advantage of exporting our inflation to the world (which keep the dollar the same, here at home)...sadly though, this has two drawbacks--we can under-export (which we've done, and why we have massive inflation at home), and it gives the foreign nations to buy out our own country from under us.

The EU is doing well because people perceive the dollar as weak, and the Euro as being strong. However, that said, from what I've heard by a few smarter-than-average Europeans, despite the fact that they are not the world's reserve currency, they have a housing bubble, not to mention a few others...and their their economy is in just as much trouble as ours is...or at least will be, the signs just aren't fully showing yet.

Either way, when the dollar is considered useless, the Euro will become the world's reserve currency...guess what they'll do? The same thing as us...the only thing is, they won't be able to do it for nearly as long, as they're already in trouble, not to mention they didn't have near the influence (militarily or economically) as we did.

Not sure what would happen after the Euro and the Dollar crashed...a NAU+EU currency? Geesh, that's a scary thought....though it wouldn't surprise me.

Russia is the one who's sitting well right now--they have 0 debt, and 100% of their currency is backed by gold, silver, platinum, oil, or natural gas....of course, I don't think they're doing it for their people, I think they see what's coming, and they're trying to set themselves up to become a world power once things are pulled out from underneath them.

Also, let's not forget the EU is collectivist over individualist...yes, it might appear they have more rights than us (on the surface), but they're collectivist rights, not individualistic rights.

An excellent example of this (so I've heard) is that if you're a OB doctor, and a woman wants and abortion from you, if you refuse, your medical license can be revoked (before the EU formed it wasn't like this)--definitely a collectivist right there...not to mention (IMHO) an immoral one.

Of course, the UN supports population control...why wouldn't the EU?
 
Rhys said:
Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

Other than global communism, that is. I mean, in theory, isn't an NAU just the next step to a United States? Didn't everyone think we were crazy for thinking our "more perfect union" would work?

Are we going overboard on Federalism?
Click to expand...

I used to feel somewhat similar on the topic.. But how does this grab ya.. There are a few countries in Europe that have voted down the European Constitution yet there is still a European Parliament meeting and making laws...

Thats not too far from Congress voting down a law and the president just going ahead with it anyway..
 
Rhys said:
Everyone who said I should just know and why even bother asking.... maybe you know everything already, but I don't.
Click to expand...

Good thread - Good Question.

It should make everyone THINK and ARTICULATE logical responses.

And that is always a good thing
 
Rhys said:
Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

Other than global communism, that is. I mean, in theory, isn't an NAU just the next step to a United States? Didn't everyone think we were crazy for thinking our "more perfect union" would work?

Are we going overboard on Federalism?
Click to expand...

OP, I hear ya man. The problem is not the size of the union (well not really... local government is always better than remote government, but a country needs to be a certain size to defend itself. I think we're capable of defending ourselves at our current size). The problem is a lack of sovereignty, lack of accountability, and lack of our directly elected representatives making the choices based on what we want. Just because the NAU would cover a larger geographical area and would have more people, doesn't necessarily make it evil. The problem is the lack of responsibility that the EU/NAU/whateverU leaders have to the citizens because they're unelected by members of every country (well half of them anyway... one half is elected by members of every country, the other half is mostly made of national leaders who were elected within their own country but not the the EU at large... it's complicated), with almost zero accountability (e.g., in the NAU, we wouldn't elect the Mexican Prez or the Canadian Prime Minister, but they would sure as hell be in charge of making rules for us. That would suck. See?). It's more or less a return to kings and serfs, except this time the kings are doing it "for your own good." Know what I mean? I would actually like to admit a few more states to the union, but I refuse to give up our national sovereignty to an unelected group of corrupt rulers. See the difference?

For example, England and the rest of the UK is bound by EU laws, even though England's parliament doesn't make these laws, and can be overruled by these laws:

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index....htm#The_member_countries_of_the_European_Uni

How European Union law relates to UK law

Under UK law, Acts of Parliament are not challengeable unless they conflict with European law.

Apart from Treaties, there are two main ways in which European law is made:-

* regulations
* directives.
Click to expand...

If the NAU were analogous to the EU, our Congress could pass laws that could be completely made null and void by the NAU leaders, who would consist of our national leaders as well as national leaders from Canada and Mexico -- leaders that we didn't elect and therefore have no accountability to us. I don't think that is the best direction for our country. The idea behind our form of government is that the citizens directly elect the leaders, who should then make laws and decisions based on what the citizens want. Obviously it doesn't always work out this way because people don't invest enough time into figuring out who to vote for (otherwise Ron Paul would be getting many more votes!). But at least US citizens have a say in how the US government operates. The UK's citizens and parliament can be completely overruled by the EU.

Let me refer you to this thread, explaining why it sucks to live in England under the EU (not that England was perfect before, but it's gotten much worse):

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=118490
 
Last edited:
What is your prooof that the EU is doing "great"? I am speaking of the people, not the entity.
 
The SPP, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, etc. already ARE more powerful than our Constitution in case you had not noticed.
 
I'm still a youngster but I think I can share my two cents

I live in Finland which joined the EU in 1995, and we got the Euro in 2002. Now theres a couple things that I think are just great with the EU. Of course with the euro, you dont have to go through a lot of trouble of changing money and comparing prices when traveling around (except England and Scotland). Traveling is relatively easy, all you need is a passport and there you go. And then there's these things which I dont yet care about like moving your capital, moving your workforce etc. around the EU.

BUT, then there's these directives and laws they throw at us. A good small example of this is the swing they got us in primary school. The swing we had in the yard for a long time was a great one, simple and fun. But then came along the EU-directive-swing, and it was just a huge piece of shit. I couldn't believe how bad it was. So yeah, basically these directives are not laws but they give a suggestion what we should do. Germany and Finland are pretty much the only countries who follow these directives blindly. They've done all these ridiculous directives about how curvy the bananas are and so on. Especially the Finnish agriculture has had some hard times during the EU. Every small farm has pretty much ended their production because of bankruptcy. Only the large farms are doing great. So the country-side has been an issue in elections lately, everyone promising to make things better in the country-side, but of course failing to do so.
Thank god the "EU-constitution" was rejected, even though they are trying to "reform" it. The good things I listed are great, and the EU should stay just like that, making some basic things easier. But when they start telling us what to do, how to do, it just drives me mad and that's why I think that in the end the EU is not a good thing to be in.
Thats why I would love to live in Norway or Switzerland, they're both doing just great. Although I cant speak the language :p

Thats my two cents.
 
EU follows the UN Rights of the Child. This sounds great, but it really is against parental rights and puts our children in the hands of the state. Hillary and Obama support this type of legislation. I'm guessing McCain may as well, but I'm not sure. I'd love to see any or all three be asked to support parental rights (www.parentalrights.org, there's a petition...please sign it). I'm guessing they would not. They are only for "freedoms" that are state controlled.

If we join the EU or for a NAU you can kiss parental rights goodbye. You no longer will be the parent to your children, ultimately the state will have authority at any time to step in to do what they deem best for your child.

They've done such a great job in the public school system, what could go wrong? (Note sarcasm please).
 
This is a tough one for me - im against bureaucracy, strong arm government, political consolidation etc, but for the free flow of capital and labor, with literally no barriers to such. The problem with economic integration is the politicians always make sure that political bureaucracy is added and power is consolidated. So its a win-lose situation either way...
 
"The EU is doing fine, what's so bad about the NAU?"

Ask bernanke and you would probably get this answer.....

news


The economy is doing fine, what's so bad about the Federal Reserve? :rolleyes:
 
its all moving towards 1 union. thats why!

EU. NAU. AU( Asian Union) then, Global Union.

get it?
 
You can't disregard Central Banking in this debate. The Unions are just a means for larger Central Banking systems. The other issues surrounding it are side effects whether they be detrimental to society or not. The NAU and it's "AMERO" is the tool to extract wealth from a larger group of people. The more people the central bankers can hand monopoly money to, the more wealth they take, channel to the other elites, and remain in control. It's not about so called "unions" it's about holding people slaves to a single currency.
 
I am all for one world government.

It's easy to topple one tyranny than having to go around the world seeking out despots and stringing them up by their chicken bags.
 
AisA1787 said:
OP, I hear ya man. The problem is not the size of the union (well not really... local government is always better than remote government, but a country needs to be a certain size to defend itself. I think we're capable of defending ourselves at our current size). The problem is a lack of sovereignty, lack of accountability, and lack of our directly elected representatives making the choices based on what we want. Just because the NAU would cover a larger geographical area and would have more people, doesn't necessarily make it evil. The problem is the lack of responsibility that the EU/NAU/whateverU leaders have to the citizens because they're unelected by members of every country (well half of them anyway... one half is elected by members of every country, the other half is mostly made of national leaders who were elected within their own country but not the the EU at large... it's complicated), with almost zero accountability (e.g., in the NAU, we wouldn't elect the Mexican Prez or the Canadian Prime Minister, but they would sure as hell be in charge of making rules for us. That would suck. See?). It's more or less a return to kings and serfs, except this time the kings are doing it "for your own good." Know what I mean? I would actually like to admit a few more states to the union, but I refuse to give up our national sovereignty to an unelected group of corrupt rulers. See the difference?

For example, England and the rest of the UK is bound by EU laws, even though England's parliament doesn't make these laws, and can be overruled by these laws:



If the NAU were analogous to the EU, our Congress could pass laws that could be completely made null and void by the NAU leaders, who would consist of our national leaders as well as national leaders from Canada and Mexico -- leaders that we didn't elect and therefore have no accountability to us. I don't think that is the best direction for our country. The idea behind our form of government is that the citizens directly elect the leaders, who should then make laws and decisions based on what the citizens want. Obviously it doesn't always work out this way because people don't invest enough time into figuring out who to vote for (otherwise Ron Paul would be getting many more votes!). But at least US citizens have a say in how the US government operates. The UK's citizens and parliament can be completely overruled by the EU.

Let me refer you to this thread, explaining why it sucks to live in England under the EU (not that England was perfect before, but it's gotten much worse):

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=118490
Click to expand...

It's not just the fact that bureaucrats are unelected and therefore unaccountable to the people and unrepresentative of them. If the power of government were decentralized, then size would not be quite as relevant, but because our power is currently centralized in Washington and the power of these unions would also be centralized, size is actually extremely relevant. The more centralized power is, the more unaccountable it is to the people, even if the officials ARE elected. You do seem to vaguely understand this, based on your comment regarding local vs. remote government, but the casual nature of that comment makes me wonder if you realize the magnitude of difference between local and remote government. When the seat of power is farther, individual votes count for less. In addition, the bigger government is and the more people it controls, the easier it becomes for that government to crush small bands of resistance - the larger a government becomes and the more people it governs, the larger dissident groups must become to reach a "critical mass." Also, when power is consolidated, it becomes even more attractive to evil, power-hungry people, and it's also a lot easier for special interests to lobby centralized power than decentralized power. Therefore, one huge, superpowerful regional government, even if elected, is much more dangerous and unaccountable than one huge, superpowerful national government! Size is quite important. Even if centralized power remained benevolent (which would never, ever happen), there are still some other major reasons why it's a bad idea: One is that not everyone is the same, so one-size fits all government can't make everybody happy (consider polarizing issues like abortion for example). Another is that when a centralized authority dictates policy for everyone, it's almost invariably a bad decision. Sometimes it's only bad for some of the people involved, but sometimes, it's bad for just about everyone (consider the Department of Education and No Child Left Behind, for example). Decentralization allows for experimentation and competition of policies - other jurisdictions copy and improve upon what works and avoid what doesn't work.

Also, another issue related to size: The larger the existing governments are, the less other governments exist. In the one-world government scenario, there are no other sovereign nations. There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

Big government is bad government, even if it the officials are elected.

You do raise a good point about defense of a country, but size in this case is all relative...for instance, if no nations banded together to form regional government, no other nations would "have to" in order to defend themselves from the larger force. The correct response to the rise of supranational government is not to fall into the same trap ourselves to "keep up" - rather, the correct response is to stay sovereign and encourage other nations to do the same by example. Let's pretend for a moment that the United States government was still accountable to the people, and that we were not ourselves marching toward the NAU. As regional governments around the world become larger and larger, they become more and more fascist, and other sovereign nations take note of that (Switzerland trying to stay out of the EU, for instance). Although this "world domination" type of takeover is not the same as Hitler's, it is still often a hostile takeover...and when a clear pattern of consolidation becomes established (as in World War II), it becomes a direct threat to our national sovereignty, and that is the point when we and other sovereign governments can form a temporary alliance to stop hostile expansionism. A noninterventionist foreign policy only applies when our sovereignty is not under threat by an attacking country or a pattern of hostile expansionism. Of course, in the real world today, this entire paragraph is irrelevant, since we're also moving in the same direction...
 
Last edited:
Here's a a youtube comment from that video. Can smell the absurdity?

Grayh00d (2 days ago) Show Hide

Anti-EU Europeans are really stupid. Of course, EU governmental system should be improved, but the idea of EU is great, like the idea of Soviet Union (but communism spoiled the idea of union). Without EU you'll always be marionettes of big countries like USA or Russia. With EU you have a chance to be Number 1 in the world. You may lose a part of your independence inside EU, but you'll become more powerful and independent outside EU, on the world's scale.
Click to expand...
 
polomertz said:
You can't disregard Central Banking in this debate. The Unions are just a means for larger Central Banking systems. The other issues surrounding it are side effects whether they be detrimental to society or not. The NAU and it's "AMERO" is the tool to extract wealth from a larger group of people. The more people the central bankers can hand monopoly money to, the more wealth they take, channel to the other elites, and remain in control. It's not about so called "unions" it's about holding people slaves to a single currency.
Click to expand...

Something like that... i think it has less to do with "elites" and more to do with very overt sentiments. There is plenty wrong with the masses, some shadowy "elites" need not be blamed. There are control grids in every society, and there are elites, but they hardly have "plans" beyond normal human ambition, and many of them are probably let by some form of self-righteous do-gooder spirit than by pure evil. Humans are much more complex than that!

Central banking was ill-conceived in hindsight, but at the time it was considered essential to dealing with the business cycle. Hayek and Friedman did alot to disprove the need for a monopolized currency and a central bank as an institution, without having to attribute it to conspiracy theories.. although they might have some validity, you certainly cannot perfectly know the motives of EVERY person in power. Allt hat being said, a single currency is certainly not the most worrying issue of global power consolidation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Occam's Banana
  • Featured
The Evolution of Communism
Replies
11
Views
8K
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
This Is a Slow-Motion Nationalization of the Economy
Replies
0
Views
798
PAF
PAF
PAF
L’État, C’est Moi (“I Am the State”).Trumpian Version
Replies
0
Views
51
PAF
PAF
PAF
Donald Trump Agenda47: Rebuilding America’s Depleted Military
Replies
1
Views
311
PAF
PAF
FineSpeech
Steve Bannon: "I will do anything to keep Musk out of the White House"
2 3
Replies
48
Views
8K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top