EU Chief Blasts The Very Notion Of National Borders In The Latest Call For Globalism

Ioannes_Claudius_Juncker_die_7_Martis_2014For years, European Union advocates denied allegations that they were trying to erase national borders and create a single country with a shared military. Then recently proposals for a single military emerged — just before Britain left the EU. One of the most effective criticisms made against the EU before Brexit was to challenge voters to actually name the people in charge of the EU and policies affecting their lives. Now, the head of the EU has gone out of his way to confirm the worst suspicions of critics. The much-maligned EU chief Jean-Claude Juncker has publicly denounced the very concept of national borders as the “worst invention ever.

We recently discussed Juncker drunken appearances in public. Now he is proclaiming the very globalism and world government that is fueling demands to break up the EU. Speaking at the Alpbach Media Academy Juncker said: “Borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians.”

Juncker’s contempt for the notion of national identity is a touchstone of the new globalism that has taken hold in Europe — and encouraged voters in Britain to leave the EU. Many people have a pride in their national identity and want to control the laws that govern their nation and their lives. The image of a drunken, dismissive uber-bureaucrat in Brussels will hardly improve the situation for the EU. It also shows precisely how little accountability or restraint EU leadership feel in Brussels. The arrogance and erratic behavior of Juncker would not be tolerated in a politician who was subject to local or national elections. However, his audience often seems a circle of EU bureaucrats in an echo-chamber for globalism. The feel for civil libertarians is that such remoteness couple with rising power can be a threat to not just national identity but liberty.

What do you think?

79 thoughts on “EU Chief Blasts The Very Notion Of National Borders In The Latest Call For Globalism”

    1. He might flip flop on that, too.:) Some of his properties are mortgaged to the Chinese and they make his ties. Are his steaks imported?

      1. Well, some might call it “flip-flopping.” Others might call it “evolving.” You know like Obama and Hillary on gay marriage. Me, I just call it “thinking new thoughts.” Which happens when people have brains.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

  1. @SWM

    I think it’s fascinating – two incredible smart Brits over here stumping for Trump (Milo & Farage). HRC has tired old feminists and Hollywood starz. Not as impressive.

    JillnotHill 2016

  2. Right wingers for Trump……. Notice, the Labour Party has nothing to do with Trump.

  3. Borders are an extension of the individual’s natural right of self-defense. Frederic Bastiat said:

    “The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.”

    The 3rd self-evident truth in the Declaration of Independence seems to be lost on many in our society. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

    These are fundamental principles that need to be understood if we are to have any security as individuals. Many on this legal blog seek to use the law and the government as a weapon against those with whom they simply disagree. That’s not why the law exists. Bastiat goes on to say:

    “But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.”

  4. Issacbasonkavich,
    Bravo! Bravo!
    “what does make sense and should make sense to anyone, regardless of the depth of their understanding of the issues and the machine of government is taking back our democracy.”

    That idea is well-supported by the 2016 slogan of the League of Women Voters, “Making Democracy Work for all” and one LWV statewide program is called “Revitalizing Democracy”.

  5. “The EU was foisted on the people”

    Just like the UN is being pushed onto the United States. The Democrats are trying their best to turn our country’s sovereignty over to the United Nations. Obuma has already given them our internet.

    No borders will allow for the caliphate to start happening. No borders in France brought the evil into their country and the evil muslim terrorists were able to slip back out of France without a problem and undetected.

    We need borders now and forever.

  6. “Borders can be a false indication of identity.”

    bor·der
    ˈbôrdər/
    noun
    plural noun: borders
    1.
    a line separating two political or geographical areas, especially countries.
    “the German border with Denmark”
    synonyms: frontier, boundary; More
    2.
    the edge or boundary of something, or the part near it.
    “the northern border of their distribution area”
    synonyms: edge, margin, perimeter, circumference, periphery; More
    verb
    3rd person present: borders
    1.
    form an edge along or beside (something).
    “a pool bordered by palm trees”
    synonyms: surround, enclose, encircle, circle, edge, fringe, bound, flank
    “the fields were bordered by hedges.

    borderless
    adjective UK ​ /ˈbɔːdələs/ US ​

    COMMERCE, POLITICS used to describe a situation in which the border between countries is not important, usually in relation to the movement of goods, people, etc.:
    We are creating an increasingly borderless global economy.
    Free-flowing, borderless markets have made borrowing and capital-raising easier.
    Politicians have been quick to capitalize on the opportunities of a borderless world.

    As you can surmise, only politicians capitalize on borderless countries.

    Does this also mean you won’t mind if someone comes into your fence-less unidentifiable yard and park their car? Your yard is my yard and everyone else’s too? Just a thought.

  7. “Assange is creepy. Trump is a buffoon. But, you go to war w/ the army you have.”

    There are always those who can define the moment through pointing out failures, contradictions, wrongs, etc. However, you would not elect Bob Dylan to be President. Throughout the shameful period of America during the sixties and seventies when this country still believed that Blacks were lesser human beings, women should stay at home and do what they were told, and three million dead Vietnamese was a necessary cost to secure the mineral rights and economic controls of the emerging SouthEast Asia, there was an unending parade of singers, songwriters, and other artists that illustrated that shame. That was the change coming up from the bottom. However, one doesn’t put a buffoon like Trump, who if he could sing, would, nor a muckraker like Assange anywhere near power.

    Trump has served this country in illustrating just how dysfunctional the democracy is, how lost America is from its origins, how delusional its citizens are in their perception of what really is. If an idiot like Trump can make it this far then it should serve as a ‘come to Jesus meeting’ of the first order. Clinton is another in a long line of the same old thing. She is no worse than any politician that has come before. What she illustrates can be found in the performances of most if not all who have preceded and those that are lined up to continue. Trump is all that and less, no substance, no idea.

    The main problem with this country’s leadership is how it is found and elected. We have a government that provides us with a military, social services, and other elements that idealistically and theoretically are to be objective and non political. We have a judicial system that idealistically and theoretically is there to ensure that the objectivity of the performance of the government be maintained. It doesn’t always work out that way but those two elements have no rivals, in spite of the Davy Crockets out there who in their delusional ranting don’t need government.

    The government must take over the system of electing our representatives by barring all private funding other than a nominal $100.00 from each citizen-citizen only, funding the presentations of the candidates to the citizens so as to achieve the essence of the informed voter. If a candidate chooses to spend the equal allotted time pointing out what is wrong and smearing the competition then perhaps they and those tactics will fall, where they should fall, by the wayside. Perhaps the candidates with concepts and ideas on how to better our condition will be elected. Perhaps the mindless core of American voters will become truly informed and competent to determine their leaders.

    As it is now it is not the unfortunate choice of leadership that is to blame but the system and the system is the people. Any fool off of the street, myself included, can point out what is wrong and come up with meaningless jingoes like Take America Back. The problem is that when the pitch stops there you have a mob, a mindless number of malcontents, determining its leadership. Clinton may be all that is attributed to her as pertains to all that needs to be changed, however, she does represent a steady ship. Trump represents chaos and himself. The number one weapon in business is the threat of walking away. That has been and is the principle strength of Trump. Walking away is what the Republican party has been doing for the last eight years, obstruction for the sake of obstruction. Perhaps it is time to work together, the essence of leadership. We have not seen it from the right. We will certainly not see it from Trump.

    The theory goes something like this, if a rising political star understands what the people want then they will represent these desires and hopefully demands. If the people understand and are informed as to what should be then they will desire and hopefully demand what should be. It starts from the local elections and proceeds through to the Senate and Congress. The options for President are a result of our understanding, desires, and demands. The blame is with the uninformed voter. The cause is concentrated private wealth. We have an oligarchy, not a democracy. Taking back America makes no sense at all to an intelligent person. It makes sense only to someone who is running on fumes. However, what does make sense and should make sense to anyone, regardless of the depth of their understanding of the issues and the machine of government is taking back our democracy.

      1. LOL. Art, Can you imagine getting cornered in a bar w/ this pompous, long-winded, poutine eating, Canadian?

    1. issac – you have not seen Trump speak and at best you have seen clips of him on TV. While Hillary was resting last month and gathering more money, he was out campaigning. The press has not covered him fairly so go to his website and read his position papers, see his speeches. Then do the same for Hillary.

  8. He almost got it right: Government is the worst invention of humanity. Borders are just one of the results of forming a government. Unfortunately, politicians are also one of the worst results of governments. Best example today: Hillary cLIEnton.

      1. Humanity’s problems aren’t its tools and inventions. Its problems are in the nature of Humanity itself. Humans evolved to be a species that survived by competition and violence. If individuals being cooperative and peaceful with others had been more successful for survival, that is how people generally would behave today. Instead, Humans form giant packs and go around the world attacking and killing those who have more desirable territory and resources to ensure their own survival and success. It will be a long time before the concept of peaceful cooperation becomes the default, normal behavior for mankind universally. And then, only if those who are intelligent enough to understand the idea and its benefits can convince everyone else to adopt it over death and destruction as the standard for life. I don’t expect to ever see it happen in my lifetime, or for many generations to come.

  9. Brexit. Hopefully to be followed by Frexit, Auxit, Grexit, etc. The Pan-Euro experiment is over. People want their countries, sovereign coins (and borders) back! The EU was foisted on the people — it is a lot easier for lobbyists to bribe pols in Brussels – but the push for TTIP was a major tipping point.

    1. The first action I would take is to have them live in the world they create. Perhaps, without creating a world like this, perhaps make a village patterned after their idea, sorta like a movie set, and force them to live there.

  10. Open borders!? This is what you get when people believe human nature evolves. Man began without borders and then quickly realized associating with like-minded individuals provided an additional level of security over their life, liberty and property. These One World Government lunatics need to walk the walk on open borders and they can start by eliminating ALL borders they’ve created for their own security. No locks on their doors. No alarm systems. No security details. No passcodes or pins. Nothing. When THEY are secure in their own life, liberty and property WITHOUT these layers (borders) of protection, then I’ll entertain the idea.

  11. Since our blue collar resistance movement is fighting powerful, wealthy, elitists, we need to look upon this conflict as a guerilla war. Julian Assange is a powerful soldier. Listen, I know the resistance movement is not all desirable people. Assange is creepy. Trump is a buffoon. But, you go to war w/ the army you have. The MSM has exposed itself as a propaganda tool for globalists/elitists.

  12. Welcome to the wonderful world of George Soros’ ‘Open Society Foundations’ and all his other socialist (communist) minions around the world, including many of the U.S.’s ‘establishment’ types.
    Ready for one world government? They are.

  13. Doggone Nick, there you go again… Putin is mowing down Europe just like Hitler… Have you read the news lately? With NATO right on his doorstep and with low-yield nukes, he is just holding his on border. Now that they caught another sneaky and probably NGO insurgency in the Crimea area, we have cranked up the possibility of real war again, right where NATO and the defense industry wants it. Keep listening to your neocon warmongers… haven’t they cost us enough?

    I am kind of stymied by a couple of the remarks on here. Of course we have the “blue sky” bureaucrat viewpoint where everything works out on a spreadsheet–I get that one, they are always around, and we have the whole geography inside the beltway that thinks that way. But come on… “what would a world government need an army for?” First off… the main problem is the error of thinking you could get 7+ billion people to sign on to the plan to begin with. But it can work out on a spreadsheet I guess. All neat and tidy… like Karen says, “what could go wrong????”

  14. Actually, borders in the Eastern Block were the most defined of all and relied on the severity of the communist regimes of each puppet state. East Germany’s borders with Poland were almost as tight as East Germany’s borders with the West. The Soviet Union reinforced the nationalist feelings and impulses of its client states. Borders can be a false indication of identity.

    The issue at hand is not whether or not there should be borders or not but what those borders should represent. Juncker’s drunken blathering is a result of a mix of alcohol and philosophizing. His statements are out there in ‘what if…’ land.

    There are excellent examples of independent nations maintaining their identities, balancing worker and economic protection with universal trade agreements, and doing away with unnecessary ‘border’ rituals. Taking a train from Berlin to Paris without stopping for customs and immigration does nothing to reduce the concept of nationality and identity. Juncker is simply forgetting to completely sober up before he starts.

    1. You have a good point Issac, but I do not believe we can assign local ideals and logical arguments across the world. Took France and Germany generation upon generation of technological, political, and social upheaval to get to that point. The problem is the arrogance of other humans who think they can circumvent a process with their enlightened viewpoints. Kind of like spreading democracy in the ME. All the smart guys just knew that would work. Maybe they should have checked with the locals. Although, the counter argument is that we did bring a democracy to some ME countries… but in the end we didn’t seem to like it very much. SO… in the end… what’s in a name. Systems work out, and we apply labels to them, but seldom do they actually encompass the entire model of the way things actually work.

    2. His statements are out there in ‘what if…’ land.

      REALLY?
      Would you like to make a wager that if he had his way, borders would be gone?

Comments are closed.