Could one justify the point of view that the EU is Franco/German hegemony by another name.?

Question

When Churchill wass quoted about the US of Europe he stated that the UK would not be a part of it. It would be for the European nations comprising mainland westen europe as a bulwark against communism. The UK had an Empire at that time and he saw no need to involve the UK with 'Europe'. Churchill was an "Atlanticist". At least that's my interpretation of history. I think Churchill would be aggrieved to see what a state we are in after giving away our sovereignity.

Answer 1

No.You have it wrong.

Answer 2

There is no justification in your statement.  The fact of the matter is that France and Germany are far more committed to protecting their interests in the EU than the British.  They invest hugely in lobbying activities and reap the benefits.  If you don't "put in" you don't "get out"!

Answer 3

Granted, France and Germany have a lot of power within the EU, I mean they were part of the founding members. However, France has no more votes/say than Britain or Italy in the European Parliament, the country with the most votes is Germany and that is due to its large population, plus, the size of its economy gives it influence as the European Project's fiscal engine. But to claim this power is comparable to hegemony is not correct. Neither the Germans nor the French can push through any proposal by themselves without the backing of every other member state.

Answer 4

The purpose of the EU in the post-war period was to make Germany safe for Europe and Europe safe for the world. By tying Germany and the rest of the countries in Europe's fate together economically it no longer made sense for all the war and chaos that plagued Europe for centuries to continue. With 25 member nations currently I think it is hard to make the case that the EU is Franco/German hegemony by another name. While France and Germany have a larger influence than other states within the EU this is largely by virtue of their population size and economic clout. It is a fairly democratic way or organizing things and as we have seen lately with Poland a fairly small state can hold back progress within the EU if they want to.

Answer 5

That's a load of bull, concocted and repeated by the Murdoch media, eagerly believed by the English, because they keep themselves on the edge of the EU, but complain at the same time about not having enough influence.

Germany was actually one of the losers in the first years of the Euro, although they seem to be on their way back. That Europe  took on a lot of the former German guidelines for keeping the currency stable was only common sense.

Considering the utterings of any economist I would look for their vested interests first. After the first shock and rip-off most Europeans are happy with the Euro, even the Germans.

That the Americans look on the Euro with a jaundiced eye has good reasons, their own currency going down the drain and it being only a question of time when another oil-rich country apart from Hussein's Iraq wants to be paid in a stable currency. They would have difficulties at this time to invade and occupy another one.

Answer 6

Britannia

Answer 7

The "United States of Europe" have been proposed by Winston Churchill.

Answer 8

Not at all. The larger more prosperous nations are getting the short end of the stick. With the open borders and strong Euro the small countries are flooding the borders of the UK and France. The poorer nations are unloading there unskilled workers to their benefit.

Answer 9

There is a German EU which is merging with the main EU, and the EU originates out of  Belgium, but evolved with the "Treaty of Rome". The EU will be part of what in Biblical prophecy (Christian Bible) is known as the New Roman Empire, or New Babylon.  It will be somewhat like the old Roman Empire revived and operating under various political and social philosophies.  The UN and EU will merge or integrate, and the United States is scheduled to merge with the EU.  There will be a Global political power, a one world Global Economy and currency at some point, and a one world "social order", and a World Military.

The UN and EU same difference, different names, same purpose, same goal.

As far as merger dates, this has changed but there has been specific goals for specific dates. The Millenium was one. Another is the year 2010 (Integration Date for EU), then 2015, and 2020. That doesn't mean things cannot happen before then. Many changes have to take place and are in the works now. For example, all trade, monetary indexes, banking etc will have to be more unified.  To make the new system work it will have to be controlled and monitored through technology. Technology needs more development before a Global Government will work. Technology for Global Government includes perfecting the GPS/Galileo and other similar systems which will be merged into one.

Russia has their "own" now merging, and the US Navy has their own.  Technology will include better control over computer communications, wireless operations, and interoperability of communication devices between first responders.  These are some but not all of the changes that must take place.  

If your concern is a tyranny, it will be. However currently it is being disguised as for "global good" and school children in America are being prepped (brainwashed) against nationalism/country sovereignty and to accept a more "global way" of thinking. Same with college students.

Students are also being pushed more heavily in mathematics, science and computer operations for the same purpose.

Also more social control programs have already been put in place to control government rights over children to include usurping the rights of parents, and over freedoms of medical choices. Environmental controls are taking place, and controls over your property rights as well.  

Laws and the Judicial system have already been drastically changed and the US Constitution is basically being obliterated. The US government admits in it's own documents that the sovereignty of the US will be given over to the new world government.

President Bush and former President Bush Senior both have spoken of the New World Order.  It is not conspiracy theory, but political fact.

Answer 10

You do not have to justify it. It is

Answer 11

Well, can you name two countries more powerful in mainland Europe?  If it is the fourth reich, I like it a lot better than the second and third ones, and at least they aren't wiping people out.  But I don't think it should be called the fourth reich, because Germany doesn't have supreme power over Europe.

Answer 12

No, I do not agree.  But it would be less time consuming to simply address your justification for saying that it is.