The EU has not modeled itself around the USA, what are you on about?
>(By the way, some far rightists have pushed a united Europe for some time. The two ideas are not necessarily contradictory. Oswald Mosley was such a person.)
Had no idea who Oswald Mosley even was, but looking him up, he's been dead for 30+ years now. It's disingenuous to paint such long deceased people as still representative for their original cause today.
People change, organisations change and countries change over the decades. What was a democratic/left-wing point 30 years ago (strict immigration controls) is now considered far right extremism.
The EU, in its form back then from 30 years ago is different than the EU beast of today which swallowed the previously separate EU, EEC and EC post 2009. The US of 30 years ago is different than the US of today because society has changed a lot since then both demographically and economically.
You can't dig up people from 70 years ago as representative for the same ideologies because both the ideologies and the people are different now. That's like driving forward while only looking in the rearview mirror.
Right wing people have and will be Eurosceptics (Euro here meaning the EU org in Brussels, not Europe the continent) since they don't want to be led by a foreign org that's not directly accountable to them.
He explicitly said what they mean: "which is fast turning into its primary model".
What it WAS (emphasis in past tense) modeled itself around is not the point here.
I heard ideas being promoted in the early to mid nineties that are only coming about now. In fact the 1980s, "Star Trek the Next Generation" does that in several instances (such as AI assistants and tracking everyone's location electronically.)
"Had no idea who Oswald Mosley even was, but looking him up, he's been dead for 30+ years now."
Erm, that was my point. It's not a new idea and has long been promoted across the political spectrum including the far right.
"The EU, in its form back then from 30 years ago is different than the EU beast of today which swallowed the previously separate EU, EEC and EC post 2009. The US of 30 years ago is different than the US of today because society has changed a lot since then both demographically and economically."
I see it largely developing to plan. It started as a kind of customs union in Benelux and has been on that road ever since.
The absorption of the Iron Curtain countries has been its biggest challenge, and if it expands outside Europe that won't be some great shock either. There has been talk of adding Turkey and even Morocco to the EU for decades.
"You can't dig up people from 70 years ago as representative for the same ideologies because both the ideologies and the people are different now. That's like driving forward while only looking in the rearview mirror."
Yes, you can. It's historical progression. There was a roadmap for EU development that was being discussed as far back as the seventies and even the fifties.
"Right wing people have and will be Eurosceptics (Euro here meaning the EU org in Brussels, not Europe the continent) since they don't want to be led by a foreign org that's not directly accountable to them."
That isn't true. Plenty of right wing people have been Europhiles, even the far right.
On the flipside, there have also been plenty of left and far left Eurosceptics. Left wing Brexiteers in the UK are/were a thing. They called their movement "Lexit" but have been mostly written out of accounts, which tend to focus more on Farage and the right wing ones. Their arguments are not usually based around migration, but local democracy and also their notion that the EU was capitalist and neoliberal, and revolved around trade and money.
Did those far right people wish for the current version of the EU, or the 1970's ideal of the EU?
Because without accounting for the massive societal changes since then, it's disingenuous to say those people were having the same ideas of today back then.
Pretty sure back then the far right's ideal of the EU was one when you could leave your bike unlocked without it getting stolen, christmas markets didn't need to have anti-terrorist attack barriers, and Sweden and Germany didn't top the charts of sexual assaults per capita.
>That isn't true. Plenty of right wing people have been Europhiles, even the far right.
Like who? Give me someone living and active today.
Far right MEPs in the European Parliament have their own grouping... There are enough to do so.
That's how you have massive pro an anti EU splits in the same country. Because central planning tends to produce massive economic gaps between the winners and losers of the planning policies.
It is currently bussing in lots of Mandarin speakers into Hong Kong to undermine Cantonese. It has done a good job of undermining Tibetan as well.
https://thehimalayantimes.com/nepal/mandarin-made-mandatory-...
https://www.regentschool.edu.np/chinese-language-classes/
China will destroy or subsume all native culture in every nation/land it gains control of. China is following the Colonial model of divide, conquer/conquest and containment, except this is all happening in the modern era.
What are you talking about then? These are quite serious claims to make, it would make sense to substantiate them.
But China is not a neighbour of any of these nations, unless if you admit that China colonised Tibet and it's doing the same to Nepal too.
It's just a useful language to learn that'll increase the opportunities of the learner.
But Mandarin is not of Tibetan or Nepalese origin. In fact, their origin is Bharat/India.
China is NOT a neighbour of Tibet, and Nepal. Their closest neighbour, and the one whom they share most of their culture & traditions with, is India.
Tibet and Nepal were subjugated by China, they never welcomed China. China invaded and seized the peaceful Tibet, and systematically dismantled the Tibetan learning centres and cultural centres. Tibetan monks were exiled or executed by China to destroy the Tibetan culture.
Chinese Maoists caused the massacre of the Nepalese royal family, and seized the government after a brutal violent civil war.
China/CCP is using Mandarin (forcibly taught in Tibetan and Nepalese schools) as a weapon to destabilize and destroy the native cultures, language and traditions of Tibet and Nepal. This is why Hindi is no longer the secondary language taught in Nepal schools, even though it makes better economic sense for Nepalese to learn Hindi, due to lots of Indian tourists and cross-border trade with India.
So your arguments don't sway anyone who knows what evils China is doing in these ancient Himalayan lands.
Google for "Macaulay Doctrine" to understand how the colonial British brutally enforced English as the primary language in Indian schools, with evil intention to erode and destroy ancient Indian education system (Gurukul system) and learning traditions (including outlawing the learning of classical martial arts, banning the teaching of Hindu/Sanatani scriptures in Indian schools, banning classical Indian music & arts in schools, etc.).
But thankfully, after India for Independence after centuries of oppression and enslavement/subjugation by Mughal and British, it is ironical that English is not mandatory in Indian schools, and there is stil significant population (hundreds of millions of citizens, especially in rural areas) of India who don't know English (but they know their native language as they learnt it in school as a primary language).
So what China has done in Tibet, Nepal and other lands it has seized, is similar to the evil colonial Macaulay Doctrine, by enforcing Mandarin as a mandatory language in schools, with the evil intent to destroy the traditional language, history, culture.
But Chinese government (CCP) didn't start such native culture destruction in other lands first. It did it in China first. CCP destroyed thousands of classical literature, Chinese Buddhist sacred texts and other traditional knowledge repositories, with the singular evil aim to enforce its own mutated corrupted version of Chinese Buddhism across China. That's why CCP tried to arrest & assassinate the Tibetan religious leader (His Holiness The Dalai Lama; but he managed to escape to India in the nick of time when China invaded and seized Tibet, and he's been living and teaching peacefully in India since then) and when it failed to do so, the CCP brought in its own fake Dalai Lama to confuse and mislead the subjugated Tibetan population.
But this is modern era and Age of Information, so all such evil tactics and corruption of history and culture are getting exposed. World knows what evils China is up to, especially in Asia and Africa.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Personally I wish the EU had modelled itself more around Switzerland than the USA which is fast turning into its primary model.
(By the way, some far rightists have pushed a united Europe for some time. The two ideas are not necessarily contradictory. Oswald Mosley was such a person.)