Uncovering the European Union
Euromania is a film produced by Peter Vlemmix in which he voices his personal concerns over losing his beloved Holland to the European Union and investigates what being part of the E.U. really means for it’s citizens.
The European Union was one of the most brilliant ideas of modern society. It meant freedom, the end of wars, 28 countries joined together, one single coin, and no borders. But there is a down side to all of this: countries are losing their individuality as the EU becomes more and more involved in their trivial domestic issues. The EU is calling the shots about when and how to get pregnant, how much energy to consume, and agricultural habits. The big question is, where is the line drawn?
According to Wim Van De Camp, a member of the European Parliament, “To understand the European Union in a proper way you need some knowledge and some experience because it’s quite complicated… it’s a corporation of 28 sovereign states.” Van De Camp states that the economic framework is laid out in Brussels, but the details are managed in each country. Considering that a sovereign country is supposed to be boss over its money and laws, the definition offered by this Member of Parliament seems a bit twisted. He does admit, however that the countries are required to function according to national priorities.
Another Member of Parliament states that Brussels is involved in about 80% of each country’s law making. This is quite a shock because what it means is that The EU is handing down what might be ‘one size fits all’ laws that completely ignore each country’s specific needs.
Brussels has become a Mecca for lobbyists. There are anywhere between 15,000 and 30,000 lobbyists and special interest groups there. Unfortunately it’s voluntary and even if they are required to register, there’s very little transparency so the numbers might not be quite accurate. The consequences of this touch the most intimate details of everyday life. For instance, foods that have been rejected in other parts of the world due to the known threat of producing cancer cells in the human body are deemed fit for consumption by the EU.
Is it possible for a country to take back some of its power from Brussels? Experts think it might be close to impossible because for some issues there’s not a clear line that separates EU interests from National interests. Nevertheless some countries have been able to retain some of their independence. What’s next? Is it worth trying to change? Watch this documentary now.
Very well presented, and a good starting point for the negatives of the European union however contains very little new information.
Great documentary, but subititles on some of the non enlgish interviews would have been helpful.
@Sam has subs in English on YouTube I just watched
farage wants out of the eu so he and his mates can cut your holidays and your wages. Very disappointed with this film its just propaganda with no really evidence being presented
“Considering that a sovereign country is supposed to be boss over its
money and laws, the definition offered by this Member of Parliament
seems a bit twisted.”
What a weird statement. If a country decides to be part of a transnational trade union, it’s not twisted at all. By joining a trade union, some sovereignty is transferred to the trade union. A trade union can only work if there’s harmonisation between member states. Without harmonisation, there’s no trade union. After all, if each member state has its own rules and regulations, companies are still confronted with a different business environment in each country. Only if the same rules and regulations exist throughout the trade union, can business flourish. That’s the very essence of free trade. That’s precisely what a trade union tries to accomplish and encourage.
So being part of a trade union and also having complete sovereignty is an impossibility. It’s mutually exclusive. Is this bad? In the European Union’s case, I’d say no, because the overwhelming consensus amongst economists is that the European Union’s internal market benefited the member states greatly. The economic literature is very clear about the tremendous benefits of a pan-European market. For that reason, even the majority of eurosceptic political parties don’t want to give the European Union’s internal market up. Most disagreements stem from the political elements of the European Union, not the economic integration.
But the economic benefits aside, there’s also another important reason why it’s not bad: the transfer of sovereignty is wholly reversible. It’s not as if the European Union annexed the member states, they’re still free to leave the union whenever they want. The Treaty of Lisbon specifically contains an exit clause. From this perspective, the European Union is very much unlike a country like the United States. In the United States, an American state can’t solely decide to leave the union. Unilateral secession is unconstitutional.
One-sided docu. I prefer documentaries that give voice to opposing views as well. Not very convincing…
completely unbalanced doc
This doc is not asking “both sides” to figure out the tenor of european citizens. As a swiss I can say that politics in this country are by fare more diverse than mister Blocher and mister Köppels oppinion. Even I would say they are obvioulsy fare-right politicans and certainly they are not just a bit nationalistic as Vlemmix concluded (and Farage goes the same path)…