[oblio]

My list was not an exhaustive list :-)))

> But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration.

Yes, they do. You don't know what the EU project is about. You don't know its history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union

> After the war on 19 September 1946 Chruchill went further as a civilian, after leaving office, at the University of Zürich, calling for a United States of Europe

> To ensure Germany could never threaten the peace again, its heavy industry was partly dismantled (See: Allied plans for German industry after World War II) and its main coal-producing regions were either awarded to neighbouring countries (Silesia), managed as separate directly by an occupying power (Saarland) or put under international control (Ruhr area)

> The founding fathers of the European Union understood that coal and steel were the two industries essential for waging war, and believed that by tying their national industries together, a future war between their nations became much less likely.

The EU was always a political union.

[JadeNB]

> > But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration.

> Yes, they do. You don't know what the EU project is about. You don't know its history:

…

> The EU was always a political union.

I'm confused, because it seems that you and your parent are saying the same thing. Did you misread them as saying the EU doesn't want political integration?

[oblio]

If you read their tone, EU political integration is a negative aspect.

I'm saying that a) it was always the plan and b) it's good.

[JadeNB]

> If you read their tone, EU political integration is a negative aspect.

> I'm saying that a) it was always the plan and b) it's good.

As someone who thinks the EU's mission of political integration is a good thing, I think jumping from "someone seems not to think that it's a good thing" to "they don't understand the history of the EU" is less than civil. Even if you and I both agree with the program, surely it is possible to understand it and yet disagree with it?

[pyuser583]

I understand the history of European integration.

Contrary to the expectation of everyone, the EU is mostly an economic body. It has other missions, but those are nowhere as popular or as effective as economic integration.

Cultural integration? EU cultural policy is focused on preserving local cultures, not promoting a Pan-European culture. They want a pan-European culture. They just don’t know how to make it.

Are there EU-wide sports leagues? EU wide award shows? Irish authors brag when they get shortlisted for the Booker Prize, not when they get some obscure EU award.

Political integration? What’s the turnout on EU elections?

Military integration? I read something about some experimental “European” unit somewhere. But there are probably more Germans in the French Foreign Legion than there are soldiers in the “EU” military.

The EU is a failure at everything except economics.

They want to do more. They really do. It’s “in the cards.”

And my original complaint was that the EU justifies non-economic measures using economic logic. Why? Because despite the despite the cultural, military, and political goals, the EU is mostly an economic entity,

But an economic union based upon mandatory liberal economics is certainly not what anyone had in mind before 1989.

Edit: A good example is freedom of movement. Originally, this was a cultural policy decided to make “Europeans.”

It’s failed. When Poles move to Ireland, they and their descendants become Irish, not European.

So the EU justifies it by talking about an “integrated labor market.”