6 Good Reasons for ABANDONING the European Union

This is an adaptation of a brochure made by our organization, first handed out at the #TakeBackTheNet rally on the 26th of January in Brussels, which we held together with De Liberalisten. For access to the flyer in English, French, and Dutch, scroll to the bottom.


You might be surprised to know: In 2017 The European Commission released a document called: 60 Good Reasons for the EU. Within, there were several false and/or exaggerated claims. We have endeavored to correct some of them.

We, however, are a non-profit organization. We haven't the time, money, or manpower to devote to tackling the whole list, with everything we have to get organized.

If you would be interested in helping out, we would be happy to have you on board. We are always looking for bright new talents who are willing to defend the principles that make western nations great. Take a look at the Activism tab at the top of the page if this sounds like something you’d like to get involved with.

EU_Brib_done.jpg

“Europe for freedom” by Gleca. Click here for more of her art: https://www.deviantart.com/gleca


Argument 1: The EU has NOT been keeping the Peace for 70 Years.

  • NATO and the UN have been keeping the peace in Europe, as well as the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction.

  • The EU as an entity possess no formal military power to enforce peace with, though they are attempting to create one now at the behest of Angela Merkel and Jean-Claude Junker.

  • Most regions have been comparatively peaceful as well, despite not belonging to Europe. This shows that there is less will over-all for warring.

  • There is no proof of a causal link between the formation of the EU and peace in Europe. There is only correlation.


Argument 2: We're not Europe just because we have Europe Day, a European flag and the Ode to Joy

  • The claim that an european identity exists because of the existence of a day, a flag and a co-opted symphony is ridiculous.

  • National identity cannot be artificial, it is formed through time, in a people that share culture and history together.

  • Anyone can come up with a flag, point out a day on a calendar, and just claim to be a nation.

  • This is especially true for upper class, cosmopolitan politicians and industry kings who get to travel every year and live far from the lower class majority of the population

  • Those who actually do identify with a national identity and will not take kindly to having an outside cultural identity being forcibly imposed on them.


Argument 3: The EU is a bureaucratic mess of imperialistic ideals and thinly veiled supremacy

  • Despite claiming to aid countries after the fall of the Iron Curtain, the actual effect of the EU in former Soviet States has been to supplant native infrastructure already in place by having French, German and Belgian companies move in to dominate the markets, essentially turning the former soviet states into vassal states.

  • Besides that, claiming that European values are “in our genes”? Does that not seem to be an incredibly ethno-nationalistic statement? Stating that cultural pracitces are ethnically determined?

  • The idea that members of the European Commission think that Europe can be an “Empire of Good” is an extremely dangerous one, one that speaks of naivety and also of lack of any and all foresight.

  • If the EU itself was enough to inspire the rest of the world to do better, as they claim, Guy Verhofstadt wouldn’t be seen demanding new transfers of powers and sovereignty to the Union from the member states. A government that inspires democracy need not make undemocratic demands of those whom belong to it.


Argument 4: The EU does not care about the will or consent of the governed

  • The EU claims that being a part of it means you have the power to pass initiatives through the citizens initiative. The requirement for that being to gather over 1 million signatures from the 28 members states, and then submit the initiative.

  • Your initiative will then be reviewed by the Commission, and if they decide it, will be completely thrown out based on whether or not the Commission can justify doing so.

  • The Commission is under no pressure to pass or table legislation to which they do not agree with, as they are appointed to their positions, they are not voted for by the public. Therefore, anything that passes before them can be ignored if they so choose, and the populace have no recourse.


Argument 5: A "Social Market Economy" is utopian fantasy

  • The EU seeks to achieve full employment, prosperity and full protections for workers through their economic ventures. This is impossible to achieve, as the root problem of scarcity driving supply and demand render both full employment AND prosperity for all mutually exclusive.

  • Prices of superior and inferior goods are based on the supply of the goods in question, and the ability to haggle a reasonable price based on the purchasing power of the currency. The higher employment grows, the higher prices will raise, with more people having funds to buy more of the same goods.

  • Price inflation will lead to currency inflation, and the two will either cause a crash in the market leading to unemployment, or a massive hyper-inflationary period which will cause total market collapse.

  • The EU attempts to sell you a dream that sounds too good to be true, because it is. You can not have an economy which protects all workers and also have full employment. The fundamental forces of market economics will not allow for it to sustain itself for any prolonged period.


Argument 6: The Euro is an unstable currency that requires a domineering market presence to sustain it

  • Viewing the Euro throughout its history, and not at current, we can acknowledge that it has had a shaky past, wherein the budgeting of other governments threatened the EU with multiple debt crises.

  • The EU now attempts to disregard this, having foisted economic control over such budgets, essentially cowing the governments into compliance of a supreme authority.

  • This would, perhaps, sound like a reasonable argument to an authoritarian who has no issue with sovereign states being controlled by a super-state entity, excepting the fact that, as earlier noted, the EU has no military authority to enforce this compliance over.

  • The EU argues to let failing states have their economies shored up thanks to the likes of Germany, France and Great Britain, and other net contributors to the EU. With Great Britain leaving, however, one wonders how the European Bloc will fare when 10% of the annual funding is suddenly cut. Should any other contributing state choose to leave, the re-distributive project might simply collapse in on itself, but still we hear that the Euro is a strong, “stable currency.”

English

French

Dutch