Norway rejected post-Brexit trade pact with UK

Is there something you’re trying to tell me? Can you frame it in the context of US constitutionalism? because this subject is about a region of the world that does not behave within that framework.
You followed up your self admitted poor comprehension skill with utter gibberish. I am to explain in the context of US constitutionalism...because this subject is about a region of the world that does not behave within that framework.

I bet you are an expert on that too. Not gibberish but the US Constitution.

You are projecting like a Liberal. Since you became personal and I defended myself against it.

But let me share one funny thought on imperialist bullying before retiring myself,

Did you notice Scotland voted to remain in the EU?

Pleasant evening to you Olog-hai.

Where did I become personal? I think I said “with all due respect” in at least one case. And I was apologetic in another.

I think in terms of the US and its constitutional framework. The EU is antithetical to that. Brexit on the UK’s part (although not initiated on its politicians’ part) shows a willingness to break away from that and move towards a more US constitutional framework-like model (if only DC would). Norway has expressed fear of the EU now, regarding the EEA as a tether for which they fear reprisal over even the slightest hint of tweaking.

Olog-hai said: What “errors”?

I think there can be circumstances where two or more groups can form an alliance which allows mutual benefit.

The admission of Greece to the Union, given their incredibly poor level of contribution to the group, is one of the "errors" I was pointing out. Italy and Spain are simply less egregious examples.

With all due respect, “contributions” in the EU does mean “redistribution”. And the euro fathers let Greece into both the EU and eurozone knowing full well the state of its economy, even manipulating things on the EU side to get them to come in. And now Greece (and frankly the EU at large) had political chaos ever since 2008, and that financial crisis (which the EU elites actually wanted) was caused by the European Central Bank raising interest rates continuously.

Remember this article from 2008? There were some details about what the founders of the euro currencey were up to.

The European Commission's top economists warned the politicians in the 1990s that the euro might not survive a crisis, at least in its current form. There is no EU treasury or debt union to back it up. The one-size-fits-all regime of interest rates caters badly to the different needs of Club Med and the German bloc.

The euro fathers did not dispute this. But they saw EMU as an instrument to force the pace of political union. They welcomed the idea of a “beneficial crisis”. As ex-Commission chief Romano Prodi remarked, it would allow Brussels to break taboos and accelerate the move to a full-fledged EU economic government. …

So they were encouraging Greece’s accession knowing full well that the ECB’s interest rate scheme was a bad fit for its state of being back then with respect to its economy. The political turmoil that resulted, they were expecting.

Well, one of the benefits was getting to appoint Italy’s prime minister directly. Another was being able to take direct control of five member states’ national budgets, which in all of the member countries’ cases the governments fell and were replaced with politicians willing to follow the EU’s dictates. They didn’t get all they wanted out of it (which was, ultimately, the fully-realized centralized “economic government” with an appointed president, which they are still pushing for), but they did get some rather draconian precedent that they are still building on.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.