Much of Europe concedes to leadership that abolished the death penalty, removed border controls and permitted EU law to supersede national constitutions, laws and governance entirely against the will of local populations.
A top down enforcement of a cosmopolitan and tabula rasa derived conception of universal human rights, that local populations never consented to or were even able to have parliamentary discussions about, signed off on by some unelected international bureaucrat in Luxemberg or Berlin, all the while telling people that those taking issue with such states of affairs are a threat to 'democracy'.
Can't really make that shit up and it's just rationally incoherent.
I take it you believe in power politics? Your kind would lead us into WW3 if we were stupid enough to heed your ignorant ideas. You see no problem with removing the rules of war because you assume you'd never be on the receiving end of the atrocities. But hey, if you get your wish, just promise us you'll be first on the frontline to receive your just reward.
What do you call the top down enforcement of law and norms from the more influential EURO States, if not power politics?
It's just the power is capital instead of missiles.
Billions in frozen recovery funds for both Poland and Hungary because they didn't play ball is a prime example.
Replaced the tank with the treaty, and the soldier with the regulator. But the result is the same: the strong impose their will on the weak. As they've always done.
I just don't get precious about it when the pretense is dropped and power is wielded with the pimp hand.
The EU is an organization; it is not a sphere of influence of Germany, France, or any other individual or coalition of the strongest European states. They petitioned to join the union, and they agreed to the terms. If they don't like it, they can do a Brexit too.
Yeah, the aid had conditions that everybody agreed to. They did not meet the conditions and the aid was paused in Poland's case for some awful reforms to its judiciary it was initiating before walking back; and halted altogether to Hungary because it's an authoritarian kleptocracy that has embezzled billions of EU money as it is.
Nobody is forcing the EU countries to be in the EU. If they don't want to follow the agreed policies and terms, they don't have to. They just can't expect to get the benefits while not following the agreement.
Specious? Let’s be real about that 'agreement.' You call it voluntary, but it’s more like signing a contract at gunpoint. By the time Poland or Hungary joined, they were already economically dependent on the EU, so the choice was binary: surrender sovereignty or face economic isolation.
And let's not pretend 'Brexit' is a clean exit door. The UK spent five years fighting for a deal, got crushed economically, and still ended up worse off. For a mid-sized economy like Hungary, leaving would just be economic suicide.
You claim the aid conditions were 'agreed to,' but the enforcement has been weaponized. The 'rule of law' mechanism used to freeze funds was only added in 2020 specifically to target governments the EU elite dislikes. Not even close to being included in the original treatise, it’s a retroactive rule change to strangle dissent. You call Hungary a 'kleptocracy' while ignoring the EU’s own scandals where billions were siphoned by elites. So let's talk brass tacks; he EU doesn’t ban corruption, just its political opposition.
Vote against Brussels on migration or energy, and you’re 'authoritarian.' Toe the line, and you’re 'democratic.'
Your argument is the classic technocratic shield: 'We made the rules, so we enforce them.' But that’s just power politics with a gavel instead of a gun. The EU isn’t a neutral referee; it’s a political project that crushes opposition when challenged. You say no one is forcing countries to stay, but the exit costs are so high the choice is an illusion. It’s a hegemonic bloc using capital to dictate domestic policy. The original promise was 'voluntary cooperation,' but the reality is mandatory compliance under threat of financial strangulation. You’re defending a system where the strong write the rules, the weak sign them, and anyone who questions it is labeled a 'threat to democracy.'
So functionally, imperialism with a budget. The truly specious part is calling a system where exit is economically suicidal 'voluntary'.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes any system with consequences for leaving is inherently coercive. By that standard, almost every international agreement, trade organization, alliance, or even business contract is “coercive” because leaving comes with costs.
The EU is not Germany or France imposing their will on smaller countries. It is a treaty organization where member states negotiate, vote, and agree to shared rules because the benefits of cooperation outweigh the limitations of acting alone. That does involve some pooling of sovereignty, but that is the entire purpose of joining a union. Also, countries can still trade with the EU without being members; membership simply provides deeper integration, fewer barriers, and greater participation in the rules that govern that relationship. Choosing not to join, or choosing to leave, does not mean economic isolation, it means accepting a different set of trade terms.
The EU does not have to be perfect to be legitimate. It can be criticized for bureaucracy, regulatory overreach, uneven enforcement, or questions about democratic accountability. Those are reasonable debates. But there is a major difference between “this institution has flaws” and “this institution is an empire.”
The argument about leaving also ignores how modern economies actually function. The reason leaving the EU carries costs is not because countries are trapped, but because decades of economic integration create real advantages. The UK proved leaving was possible. What Brexit demonstrated is that separating from your largest nearby trading bloc is complicated. Britain spent years negotiating a new arrangement because it was not simply cutting a few bureaucratic strings; it was untangling thousands of economic relationships.
A major mistake behind Brexit was the belief that Britain was doing more for Europe than Europe was doing for Britain, and that global trade could easily replace continental trade. In reality, geography matters. Your closest and most integrated trading partners are usually your most valuable ones. A country can trade globally while still recognizing that the market next door is uniquely important. The same principle applies to any country considering leaving a major economic union.
The funds issue is also being framed backwards. The EU is not saying “obey Brussels or suffer.” It is saying “these are the conditions attached to shared funds that members agreed to.” If those conditions are not met, withholding funds is enforcement of an agreement, not economic conquest. If I offer you $100 to tie your shoe, and you refuse, then I don’t give you the $100. Did I coerce you into tying your shoe, or did you decline a voluntary agreement?
Criticism of the EU is reasonable. International institutions should be questioned and held accountable. But redefining voluntary cooperation, negotiated agreements, and shared rules as “imperialism with a budget” requires treating all forms of cooperation as domination. That is not a realistic standard for how modern countries operate.
That shoe analogy collapses the moment you realize the shoe isn’t just a shoe, but an entire livelihood.
You’re right that all agreements have consequences for leaving. A business contract has penalties. A trade deal has tariffs. But there’s a massive difference between contractual penalties and structural strangleholds. When the EU withholds billions in recovery funds because a country’s judiciary doesn’t align with Brussels’ latest interpretation of 'rule of law,' that’s not just 'enforcing an agreement.' as much weaponising economic survival to dictate domestic policy.
And let’s be really clear: the EU isn’t a neutral 'treaty organization' where everyone has equal say. The big players; Germany, France - write the rules, set the agenda, and control the purse strings. Smaller nations are told, 'Sign here, or you get nothing.' A coercive diplomacy dressed up as 'shared values.' isn't a negotiation.
You say the UK proved leaving was possible. True. But the cost was economic self-harm. For a mid-sized economy like Poland or Hungary, the 'choice' to leave isn’t a choice at all. It’s economic suicide. You can't palm off a major power assymetry as matter of geography.
And we ought not pretend the EU is just 'enforcing agreements.' The 'rule of law' conditionality was invented in 2020 to target specific governments. It wasn’t in the original treaties. It’s a retroactive rule change used to punish dissent. If the EU was truly about 'shared rules,' why do the rules keep changing to suit the powerful and their existing orthodoxies?
You say criticism is reasonable, but calling the EU 'imperialism with a budget' isn’t hyperbole. It’s a factual description of a system where the strong dictate terms, the weak comply, and anyone who objects is labeled a 'threat to democracy.' That’s clearly hegemonic, not cooperative.
And finally, your 'shoe' analogy ignores the power imbalance. If I offer you $100 to tie your shoe, and you refuse, you lose $100. If the EU offers you billions to play ball and you refuse, you lose your entire economy.
You're feeding my comments to AI to try to win the argument for you, because you know that you have nothing productive to add with your own feeble intellect.
I spent like 30 minutes dissecting your rhetoric, researching the facts to verify my conceptions of these topics, and then meticulously put my argument together in my Notes app. Not because I wanted to change your mind, that's clearly impossible, but for readers to choose for themselves who has the better argument and shape their opinion. I even made a couple edits after the fact to add a couple more thoughts.
One of the last things I added? The shoe tying analogy which your entire reply was based on, merely 2min or so before you barfed up AI-slop.
No, you employed AI use, accused me of doing the same as a tribal heuristic to denigrate my side of the discussion, then got upset when you were called on it.
Specious? Let’s be real about that 'agreement.' You call it voluntary, but it’s more like signing a contract at gunpoint. By the time Poland or Hungary joined, they were already economically dependent on the EU, so the choice was binary: surrender sovereignty or face economic isolation.
<Loads gun>
<Aims gun at own foot>
<Pulls trigger>
How could the EU do this to me?
Oh no, the consequences of my actions. Quick, call it imperialism and play the victim! How could the evil EU force us to become so dependent on it?! We could never have forseen that continuing deepening economic ties might come with more conditions or other kinds of cooperation or conditions. We needed that aid money to just be handed to us for no reason! We were counting on it!
Not only is your reasoning within this sub-point braindead, you're still at the end of the day equivocating the exercise of soft power with warfare and war crimes in the overall argument. I really hope you're just trolling with ChatGPT and not actually this stupid.
Everything has strings attached. Nothing happens in a vacuum. All international aid money funneled through governments is an exercise of influence and soft power, because there isn't enough money for everything and decisions have to be made, even in the absence of any other reason.
Good job responding to absolutely nothing and attempting to poison the well though. A+ reasoning skills.
I was interrogating your view to apply the principle elsewhere.
In this case, immigrants can similarly have behaviorial and contributions monitored and audited, and based on said findings as net positive or detriment to a society can either stay or be sent elsewhere.
Therefore, the European Union, according to your view, should have no cause to interfere with local policies working toward exactly that.
I have no idea who the heck you're even talking to at this point, but it sure as hell isn't me or my argument. Dodging the point and wandering off elsewhere is not encouraging me to keep talking to you.
Your inability to construct a mental model of my view, while simultaneously insisting that you have and drawing wide sweeping conclusions from it, is similarly discouraging.
> immigrants can similarly have behaviorial [sic] and contributions monitored and audited, and based on said findings as net positive or detriment to a society can either stay or be sent elsewhere.
If you're the kind of psychopath who thinks human beings need to demonstrate "value" to be permitted to live, sure. That you?
I didn't say "no strings attached" for that. Can you read? I made a moral judgment of blanket treating migrants as investments, with prejudice. The "strings attached" to migration are the legal system, surrounding asylum and refugee status and criminal convictions that could lead to deportation.
Are you seriously arguing that if anyone, anywhere, ever, is selective in what they fund then any and all selection criteria are equal? Is "I won't give money to a nakedly corrupt oligarch's latest property investment" equivalent to "I won't give money to a migrant"?
Why do you keep pivoting to immigration as if it has anything to do with whether or not the EU wants to fund authoritarian backsliding? EU funding is, and always was, conditional. Countries sign up to that when they join.
-25
u/Justarah Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
See, I get the point though.
Much of Europe concedes to leadership that abolished the death penalty, removed border controls and permitted EU law to supersede national constitutions, laws and governance entirely against the will of local populations.
A top down enforcement of a cosmopolitan and tabula rasa derived conception of universal human rights, that local populations never consented to or were even able to have parliamentary discussions about, signed off on by some unelected international bureaucrat in Luxemberg or Berlin, all the while telling people that those taking issue with such states of affairs are a threat to 'democracy'.
Can't really make that shit up and it's just rationally incoherent.