Yeah.
How many of those descended from democratic states and aren't a result of a Russian invasion?
Here's a quick answer: Zero.
Your point? Well, unifying the continent isn't going to be easy or straightforward. What of it?
McHrozni
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...
- Thread starter Archie Gemmill Goal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- brexit
- Status
Yeah.
How many of those descended from democratic states and aren't a result of a Russian invasion?
Here's a quick answer: Zero.
Your point? Well, unifying the continent isn't going to be easy or straightforward. What of it?
McHrozni
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
That all of these supposedly sovereign nations were built by conquest of smaller nations. Sometimes these stick like say Holland and Germany, and other times they do not like Czechoslovakia. As a long political process of unification this is fundamentally different from previous building of nations.
That's exactly what EU has been doing for over half a century now. I suspect it will take at least another century to become a proper, unified, functioning state. It could go quicker, but the wreckers are everywhere. If we manage to achieve a fiscal union in the next couple of decades I'll be happy.
Yes. There is nothing special about the state, it's just the highest current level of community with any sort of real power. Except for international unions. And the UN.
There is no law of physics that is to be broken if several countries unify into one, peacefully or otherwise. If you want the union to be democratic you need it to be joined peacefully sure. But this is doable and was done in the past. EU is trying something new, it is trying to join up a conglomerate of several nation-states whose history turned the world upside down, many of whom have more pride than common sense. This makes the progress difficult.
So? We don't do it because it's easy. We do it because it's better that way. The vision of divided Europe, with tall border walls and animosity between nations is a vision of Europe dominated by competing interests of USA, China, Russia and possibly India. The vision offers nothing a European would like. The alternative is a unified Europe, which horrifies, just horrifies those that wish it ill for their own selfish self-interest. I fail to see why keeping their interests above those of all others would be a good thing for an European or Europe.
If one of the naysayers can explain, I'd be grateful
McHrozni
They are multinational.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
That almost NOBODY wants it or is interested in it. Who is going to make it happen?
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
Exactly Europe's time as a leader is over it needs to accept its status as a group of nobodies to be pushed around by the real players in the world. Once they accept their own worthlessness everything will be better.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 37,150
An excellent idea. Let's get on with it and leave the idiot Brits to become a US or Russian satrap.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 37,150
His opposition does seem a tad hypocritical.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 86,553
Nigel Farage says he will not attend a committee investigating whether he broke European Parliament rules by accepting funding from Leave campaigner Arron Banks.
The Brexit Party leader has said he did not declare the £450,000 sum to the assembly because at the time, he was about to leave politics and had been seeking a new life in the US.
He said he had only been given 24 hours' notice to attend a meeting of the committee on Wednesday, which he branded a "kangaroo court".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48516348
Arron Banks has said he had "willingly helped Farage and was honoured to do so", adding: "This was all designed to help Nigel get out of politics."
So it would seem Farage stiffed Banks for a lot of cash.
The Brexit Party leader has said he did not declare the £450,000 sum to the assembly because at the time, he was about to leave politics and had been seeking a new life in the US.
He said he had only been given 24 hours' notice to attend a meeting of the committee on Wednesday, which he branded a "kangaroo court".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48516348
Arron Banks has said he had "willingly helped Farage and was honoured to do so", adding: "This was all designed to help Nigel get out of politics."
So it would seem Farage stiffed Banks for a lot of cash.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Edit: My reply is better suited to the 'Trump comes to London' thread.
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Since that is such a terrible disaster, you are clearly in favour of scottish independance, right?
Have you checked the European election results recently?
Over 72% of the seats went to parties who agree Europe should become a proper state someday down the line. Not too soon, but not in the unfantomably different future either - a 2-5 decades or so, other questions depending.
72% is not a definition of "nobody" I'm familiar with.
McHrozni
In part by conquest of smaller nations and in part by a more peaceful political process - England-Scotland and Castillie-Aragon being the two most famous.
McHrozni
Lothian
should be banned
The EU is a collection of independent sovereign countries. It would not be the EU converting them rather them choosing to convert themselves. I know you don't have any evidence that those countries want to cede their sovereignty in the way that US states have. It is yet another brexiteer lie. A bit like you one you made about not posting again in this thread.
Not quite - 28% of the seats went to parties which identify as Eurosceptic and either want the EU to be disbanded altogether (ENF, EFDD) or rolled back considerably (ECR). I'm not sure where one would put the GUE/NGL on that continuum, probably on the rolling back side of things.
Assuming that the rest want a European super-state is the exclusion of a pretty large middle comprising keeping the same level of integration and cooperation or increasing the level of integration but stopping (far) short of a European super-state.
The UK Labour Party is a member of the S&D grouping and as their Brexit position shows, they have little appetite for a European super-state. The LibDems are a member of the ALDE grouping and are possibly the most Europhile UK party and don't want a Euro superstate..
ALDE+EPP+S&D+Green/EFA have 68% of the total. All four groups are pro-union. That's a 2/3 supermajority and includes the results in UK. If you cut out the softest supporters (Greens) you still have 62% support for an ever closer union. This is just the result of the largest three parties who all support further integration, which has support beyond those three.
EU is currently in an unstable state. It must either integrate further or roll back considerably. The results show a clear supermajorty for further integration exists continent-wide. Now, granted, I'm sure not all are on board of full integration at this time. Neither am I, the common European identity is too weak for full European superstate at this time.
With further integration and another generation however that becomes the obvious end result I reckon between 20 and 50 years from now. Unless something Bad happens EU will have us think what is the distinction between a union of soverign states and a soverign federal state within a decade or two.
I'm sure we'll find that border is fuzzy and can't be determined to any great precision. No, I do not envision the United States of Europe being declared anytime soon if that's what you're asking. Instead what will happen is further integration in small steps and occasional larger ones (fiscal union), each of whom will stop far short of declaring a superstate. After a while and looking back you won't be able to tell at which point did the EU become a superstate.
It's evolution all over again. You're the same species as your parents and your parents are the same species as their grandparents ... do this long enough and you find your great-great-...-great grandfather was a fish and so was his mate. The plan is to do the same with EU.
UK is a tad special, yes. If you cut the UK out of the results you get close to a 75% majority for an eventual European superstate.
McHrozni
Last edited:
Ceding soverignty is a misnomer, it implies you lose something. The said countries transfer a portion of their soverignty to European institutions yes, but those institutions are every bit as much theirs as their home country was. You're just a part of a larger group of people, with all the ups and downs this brings.
The voter doesn't lose any soverignty at all. The power of national politicians decrease, but the politicians being soverign has gone out of fashion in the 1790s.
McHrozni
Not wanting to dissolve the EU or roll it back considerably != wanting further integration
Wanting further integration != wanting a European superstate
All the former Yugoslavian ones, so I make that 5(?).
(Haven't looked at a map to count them)
"This committee would better spend its time investigating the waste of public money by well-known MEPs," (Farage) added.
I assume he was taking the mick with that line?
How much has he cost the public as an MEP that never bothers to turn up?
Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia is six, Kosovo would be the seventh, if it's a country. However Yugoslavia was one party socialist dictatorship, not a democracy. The country fell apart and some pieces implemented democracy to go alongside independence, unambigiously discounting all but one. Montenegro is indeed a "maybe", if you count Serbia and Montenegro in 2006 to be democratic, or one country. Both are in the grey zone and it can be argued both are false.
McHrozni
Last edited:
- Status