LOL@ at the one globalist man who sat on RT and voted 1 start non stop to make people think this guy isn't right. EU is a joke. EU does not represent anyone in any European nation, it is a beauracracy on top of a beauracracy that serves global Western interests. If you like it, enjoy it.

Of course the EU isn't democratic. The EU is basically a Eurocratic dynasty. It's sole purpose now is to further build out its ruling elite's power and reach. The EU has been sold at various times on free trade, economic benefits, freedom of movement and European friendship. However, really all these were marketing slogans on the way to a Eurocratic elite, who just wanted, like all power hungry politicians to build the biggest organisation they could; be the kings of it, and expolit it to further their families nests. Yes, they faced problems; the naturally balkanised nature of Europe, meant that no one was going to buy a united Nationhood concept of Europe, so they had to invent the EU Nation by stealth, through legal integration, and party political eurocratic elite's marriages across europe, a process that is still incomplete and further underway today. But in fairness the elite have done their job very well, they have worked hard in the shadows, waiting until they had the legal framework and control points to finally come out from the shadows and sit upon their Lisbon throwns, adorned in their robes of office and fine crowns, with chests of fine gems transported to their Dynastic members. The rulers finally exert the fine velvet glove of control, which hardens with each further day to become the leather glove and fist of a modern EUSSR. Whose leather glove will that be though in the end. the Eurocrats feel like genius, they have invented and created this Eurocratic empire, but are they realy safe, to be the rulers, or have they just created a tool to be taken over by a core set of partners, a union of majority mapped onto a few nations that effect the coup and take control of the empire for their national benefits. And what about those outside, like Russia, well we can deal with any rulers, who offer us advantage! Be that a Eurocratic elite or an old european masters union. Results are all we care about in the end!

Yes, wouldn’t it be great if the EU never existed, and if the primitive patchwork of individual chauvinistic states continued their narrow-minded bloodletting, more recently confined to portions of the former Yugoslavia, across all of Europe. Who needs 65 years of continent-wide peace and prosperity, anyway? And best of all, Russia can then pick off its disunited neighbours one by one, without having a solid political-economic-military alliance to have to contend with which tells Russia that if it messes with one of them, it faces the consequences of messing with them all.

Marzipan6: Your either we keep the EU or we devolve into "bloodletting" among EU "member" nations is unsound. Don't forget, it is the same generational group of Elites who have force fed us all into the [Soviet] European Union that is responsible for all of that bloodletting you mention. The point is to rid ourselves of their ugly control and influence, not institutionalise it.

“EU is economic and democratic disaster”- new soviet propaganda

EU funds have made it possible for new members to take a huge step forward in development. It's difficult to see any negative effects of EU entry, but the pluses are apparent in all aspects of life ( single market, free movement of people, goods, services, and capital, including the abolition of passport controls, common currency etc.)

One would have been reluctant to perceive the EU as a loose conglomerate of nations that are European, glued together mainly by Germany. It is practically the product of economic convenience and political expedience. Most likely, its life expectancy would be relatively short. (zizenn, vzc43)

Upswing, I couldn’t actually locate any “either-or” construct in my previous post, and I’d be grateful if you detail it for me if you found it. I simply pointed out the enormous benefits which an institution like the EU has brought to Europe over the past several generations already. The EU is by no means perfect, and there is lots of room for reform within it. But the thrust of RT’s article is one-sided, and I sought to redress this.

I usually don't comment on the news I read, but did I just read what I think I did? "I simply pointed out the enormous benefits which an institution like the EU has brought to Europe over the past several generations already." Enormous benefits? Where do you live, perhaps in France or Germany? As a citizen of Hungary, it is easy to see that the majority of our EU membership was a disaster. Most of the EU money arrives in the pockets of our politicans, it is hard to see what has actually changed. Or say, not far from my town, there are wind turbines installed, so you might think electricity is somewhat cheaper,but the case is, the electricity is in fact more expensive year by year, and this extra power goes abroad, and does not stay in Hungary. Or say, thanks to the EU, the once prosperous Hungarian agriculture was destroyed, and now, we can "gladly" buy French meat instead. Once, the news said that our PM urged Serbia to join the EU because of its potential benefits...and the next news (what an ironic touch from the news editor :P ) said that Hungarian egg producers simply stopped production, because they couldn't compete with the EU market...These are just few of the many examples of how "enormously benefitting" our EU membership was, and I haven't even touched on things like national workforce, degradation of education, constant harasses by the IMF to meet EU economical requirements (tell me how on Earth is it fair to have the same guidelines on debt for France, Germany, Holland and then Hungary, did they forget that socialism made us end up in huge debt in the first place?)...in theory, there is nothing wrong with the EU, but sadly, in practice it turned into something else, and that's why I agree with Gerard Batten's point of view, and thank RT for showing these news. "...primitive patchwork of individual chauvinistic states continued their narrow-minded bloodletting" "new soviet propaganda" Thess were way too funny to be commented on...

August 28, 2010, 06:03, Marzipan6 wrote > Yes, wouldn’t it be great if the EU never existed, and if the primitive patchwork of individual chauvinistic states continued their narrow-minded bloodletting, more recently confined to portions of the former Yugoslavia, across all of Europe. Who needs 65 years of continent-wide peace and prosperity, anyway? And best of all, Russia can then pick off its disunited neighbours one by one, without having a solid political-economic-military alliance to have to contend with which tells Russia that if it messes with one of them, it faces the consequences of messing with them all. The EU has played and continues to play no role whatsoever in providing peace in Europe (although it was the reasoning behind it's conception). Peace in Western Europe was and still is the responsibility of NATO. One could also argue that the USSR also played a part in maintaining that peace due to the simple expedient that nobody wanted a war fought with nuclear weapons. The snag for the EU is all about money. The new member states all think it is great that they can take subsidies from the EU but many of the original EU members also continue to take out more then they pay in, leaving a few countries to foot the bill. This is not going to work long term.

August 29, 2010, 00:06, Maple leaf wrote > EU funds have made it possible for new members to take a huge step forward in development. It's difficult to see any negative effects of EU entry, but the pluses are apparent in all aspects of life ( single market, free movement of people, goods, services, and capital, including the abolition of passport controls, common currency etc.) The snag is that those EU funds have to come from somewhere. The negative effects of the new members entering the EU have been the export of jobs and money from the handle of existing member states that actually pay for this fiasco.

August 27, 2010, 10:35, Artyom wrote > LOL@ at the one globalist man who sat on RT and voted 1 start non stop to make people think this guy isn't right. EU is a joke. EU does not represent anyone in any European nation, it is a beauracracy on top of a beauracracy that serves global Western interests. If you like it, enjoy it. Almost right - the EU serves only the interests of those running it. The electorates of the various member states don't get to decide anything. Note that when Ireland voted NO to the EU constitution/treaty, they were told to keep voting until they voted YES. The rest of us never had such a vote, despite several governments having promised referenda on such issues.

@marzipan .... Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia ... bla bla bla ... soviet union .. and if you look at the past you'll notice that most of the soviet leaders were non russians with their own interests ... stalin ... brezhnev .. and after inheriting their debts we have to also answear for their crimes ... ???? not a chance

Actually he.s right there are many downsides to the eu even here in the netherlands many people were complaining ... especially after the lisbon treaty ... the ignorance of some people in here is stunning ... maple marzi and rakata ... soon you.ll all be crying once you.ll switch to euro and will depend on the euro bank

And what about greece and ireland ...soviet propganda too ?

JG, NATO certainly provides the physical muscle which guarantees Europe’s security from external threats. But the political and economic integration that the EU provides facilitates co-operation, mutual understanding and inter-dependence in place of the traditional hostilities of European nations.

Alex, this is a Russian media outlet. It seems appropriate to discuss Russia's past, present and potential future in it. And Soviet crimes may have been planned by its leaders, not all of whom were Russians, but they were implemented overwhelmingly by people who were Russians then and who remain Russians now.

@marzipan .. but it were western european countries that have funded and sheltered the terrorists like lenin and stalin who eventually have killed 6o million of the russian intellectual elite and "gave"the power to some farmers and workers ... i haven't heard one single word of regtret from the western countries about this issue

The EU has become dysfunctional just like US is. The economy in EU is just like the one in the US - going down the drain. This is the price the European nations have to pay for staying too long with the US. NATO should be dismantled as it is under the control of the Pentagon = offensive. After WWII, European nations were scared of Russia but now, it is Russia that should be scared of Europe. EU follows the guidelines of the Pentagon, some whore countries let US install those "missile shields" supposedly against Iran but it is obvious that it is against Russia. Will European countries have the stomach to invade and destroy Russia and China as this is the ultimate goal of the neo-cons at the Pentagon to control the planet? Why are the NATO nations fighting in Afghanistan? Afghanistan never invaded or threatened Europe. European soldiers are dying in Afghanistan. Well, this is the price, I guess, they have to pay because of their leaders being too americanized. US is presently negotiating with Romania and Bulgaria to have missile shields installed overthere. The consequence will be that Russia will be a prisoner in the Black Sea. No more moral in Europe. Money $$$ rules them.