|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
I'd be in favor of it in principal but do think it's almost impossible to pull off with everyone in it. We do have a lot in common but I just can't imagine a situation that doesn't result in every single country wanting some extra special thing because various reasons.
Hell, there's so much "small" things that are different all over the place like education, laws, and whatever else. Do we try to get to some standard or accept that different countries work differently? I wouldn't want to force Finnland to change anything about their education but also don't think we should scrap everything we have everywhere else to try and emulate it 100% (despite acknowledging that trying to emulate some things should be done simply because it works so amazingly for them).
I'd naively argue that starting the thing with few countries involved that are already fairly close on various levels, see how it works and then starting to get more countries in who want to join seems more doable.
Let's start with annexing Austria and the Netherlands and continue from there :3
in case it isn't obvious: That last line is supposed to be a joke. But I do think a start with roughly 5-10 nations would make things easier
|
All these "Yes, but..." make the results of this poll I made 2 months ago much more understandable. + Show Spoiler +On October 03 2017 03:09 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 02:24 Velr wrote:
For most countries that have these issues these are old issues, some just got fired up again while others went to rest (for now).
Imho its more important to feel european than to feel spanish/british/whatever and atm i don't see a long standing strong independence movement that is anti Eu? Let's see (Non-Europeans don't vote please) Poll: What feels more important?Being European (20) 69% Being [your nationality] (9) 31% 29 total votes Your vote: What feels more important? (Vote): Being European
(Vote): Being [your nationality]
Obviously you can be both, but I'm curious which is more important to you guys.
Partially federalized union is dangerous for member states who would choose to opt out because sooner or later they would be forced to adjust themselves to the needs of the federalized core, either by joining (which they wouldn't want, if they did they'd just join earlier) or by accepting being pretty much a satellite country like Belarus.
I guess you can say it could be good for the federalized core, but it's a dick move to invite a bunch of countries to an organization that was mostly about economic cooperation, wait until their economies will be tied to yours so strongly that leaving would put them in a terrible spot, and finally give them an ultimatum: join the federation or leave.
Fortunately nobody wants to do that now. Maybe that's why Merkels keep winning and Schulzes don't.
|
I would want this to happen on some level in the future but i also agree, that there is not enough consensus for it yet. From a German point of view, i doubt even Germany, Austria and France, the Netherlands and Belgium could form a federal government in 2025 and i'd argue that those 4 are the closest to Germany in political thinking and social structure.
The ultimatum behind it is stupid as hell, but i am not even sure how it would work if we would simply have a core of federal states and EU around it. Like, how could the EU states react if France and Germany would now announce, "hey guys, we are merging, whoever wants to join, these are the terms, but if you don't no biggie. By the way, we now have a population of 150m and our economical power outscales the rest of you plebs so hard, we don't really care about you anymore  "
So the best bet would probably be to simply give the process some more time and hope that everything grows together, then you might have an EU in 20 years consisting of countries are close enough to form and those the others don't want around anyway. But this could easily escalate into the other direction, with the meber states drifting apart through economical pressure.
|
I don't think waiting is a good idea and I can't remember that a federation has ever been formed because people twiddled their thumbs and waited for a consensus. As the (probably misattributed) Henry Ford quote goes "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
I don't think it's ever going to happen if we just wait until everybody's happy. And while Schulz's 2025 timeline sounds a little zealous, I like the idea that he doesn't just want for public opinion to come around which has been Merkel's MO for the last 12 years and it hasn't exactly improved things politically.
|
What makes you think Europe can be merged into one country happily without any conflicts? I live in the UK as an immigrant and even I know general German public is different from general British public. Now, add Eastern Europe to the equation, and you can easily see a lot more differences. As a whole, Europe has common values and I keep saying that. However, I don't think there are enough to merge this big continent into one country.
It works for the US for a different reason though. At the very least, they speak the same language which helps quite a lot. Europe doesn't. If you force that, there will be mass riots. If you force me to learn German, I will be rioting for sure. Not because I discriminate Germans, but because I'm not a fan of this language. Why should I learn it? Personally, I like English more but you could easily imagine there are other Europeans who don't want English at all. What language will you use?
All your United States of Europe will achieve is that it will make nationalists more popular. We already see that now but it will be on a bigger scale.
Scotland and Catalonia feel the need to be separated and independent, let alone whole countries in one big Europe. It's just not going to happen.
|
I don't think it can happily create a federation without conflicts, but I fail to see why conflicts are necessarily bad when they bring about something better. Again, which country has ever formed without conflict? The Americans went to war with each other and to this day it remains the bloodiest conflict for the US. I think if we can survive a little political conflict in Europe.
And nobody will force you to learn German. We don't need to give up our languages to create a European state. People speak plenty of language in Switzerland and are part of a nation without oppressing each other. You can totally create something that respects the autonomy of indivual regions.
And Scotland and Catalonia are an interesting example, because they're both strongly pro-EU. They want to be part of the EU, they don't want to be part of their nation states. Democratic organisation is possible beyond contemporary nations. That is not a contradiction.
|
Accept migrants, or else.
|
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union and Japan concluded negotiations on a free trade deal to create the world’s largest open economic area, signalling their rejection of the more protectionist stance of U.S. President Donald Trump.
The two parties, who agreed the outlines of a deal in July, said on Friday negotiators had now finished a legal text that would open up trade for economies making up about 30 percent of global output.
“Japan and the EU will join hands and build a free, fair and rule-based economic zone, which will be a model of an economic order in the international community in the 21st century,” Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told reporters.
Japan had been one of the signatories to the planned Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive 12-nation trade alliance that Trump ditched on his first day in office. Abe said a “new era” would now start for the EU and Japan.
uk.reuters.com
|
Guess who is jumping on the move-your-embassy-to-Jerusalem train?
You're damn right, it's the former Neonazi and upcoming vice chancellor of austria, Heinz-Christian Strache!
|
On December 09 2017 14:42 SK.Testie wrote:
Accept migrants, or else.
Why do you make appearances in this forum just to troll?
Damn... There is no proof a neo-nazi from austria will do anything wrong in the world... Nope nothing at all.. :|. Is Austria even allowed to without the EUs approval? I mean an embassy obviously belongs to a nation but I'd imagine that it would piss a lot of people off around the continent especially given the EUs rejection of yet another an example of Trump's stupidity...
|
I thought testie was banned from posting in the political forum as a compromise between giving bw vets favourable treatment and his racism, but I guess this was wrong.
|
On December 09 2017 05:23 Toadesstern wrote:
I'd be in favor of it in principal but do think it's almost impossible to pull off with everyone in it. We do have a lot in common but I just can't imagine a situation that doesn't result in every single country wanting some extra special thing because various reasons.
Hell, there's so much "small" things that are different all over the place like education, laws, and whatever else. Do we try to get to some standard or accept that different countries work differently? I wouldn't want to force Finnland to change anything about their education but also don't think we should scrap everything we have everywhere else to try and emulate it 100% (despite acknowledging that trying to emulate some things should be done simply because it works so amazingly for them).
I'd naively argue that starting the thing with few countries involved that are already fairly close on various levels, see how it works and then starting to get more countries in who want to join seems more doable.
Let's start with annexing Austria and the Netherlands and continue from there :3
in case it isn't obvious: That last line is supposed to be a joke. But I do think a start with roughly 5-10 nations would make things easier
I refuse to be annexed unless you legalize pot.
Although we should properly legalize it ourselves first.
The EU should strengthen itself by collaborating more on military, foreign policy and economic matters (in countries where we share currency). Leave the rest to the countries themselves.
If countries, out of their own free will, decide to take over policies that work in other countries after they themselves determine/believe those policies will improve their own countries, then that's up to them. Hopefully we will take the best out of other countries and thusly improve our living standards across the board. I don't think these kind of things should be forced through the EU.
Federalizing seems unnecessary to achieve this. Some type of reform to the way the current system seems like it could be useful, but I don't know enough of the details. Personally, I'd like a more clear-cut way in which my country's representatives come to be in the various EU... institutions. I know absolutely zero of the people who might represent me in the EU. It might just be a problem of publicity or my own ineptitude - I'm only vaguely aware of Dutch ministers and party representatives as it is. I think it would do wonders for EU acceptance if there was more clarity on this in some way, though.
|
On December 09 2017 12:36 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think it can happily create a federation without conflicts, but I fail to see why conflicts are necessarily bad when they bring about something better. Again, which country has ever formed without conflict? The Americans went to war with each other and to this day it remains the bloodiest conflict for the US. I think if we can survive a little political conflict in Europe.
And nobody will force you to learn German. We don't need to give up our languages to create a European state. People speak plenty of language in Switzerland and are part of a nation without oppressing each other. You can totally create something that respects the autonomy of indivual regions.
And Scotland and Catalonia are an interesting example, because they're both strongly pro-EU. They want to be part of the EU, they don't want to be part of their nation states. Democratic organisation is possible beyond contemporary nations. That is not a contradiction.
A) Economic and demographic heavier weight of some countries won't lead to an homogenization towards the culture in those countries. That's a given.
B) Use Switzerland as an example for federalization. There are plenty of factors which led to a successful (¿?) federalization of Switzerland, but also other countries tried and failed, like for example Spain due to the lack of a true communistic homogenization where Spain fails to be a nation, being merely a state (no reformation, imperialistic approach to the state, late and unequal industrialization, etc). Extra points because you include Catalonia as being pro-EU (which pretty much tells you the story of a failed federation), but you don't seem to see the problem an state withouth a national homogeneus identity will face, where i would dare to say it is way more different and works on a completely different scope than the Switzerland project.
What will this European Federal State would do that isn't on today? Unify foreign policy? How would it try to lead to a true nation of nations rather than a state divided by nations who are fundamentally unequal? I have to doubt there is something to gain through the conflict derived from such kind of federalization and ultimately it will fail. A path towards federalization, withouth solidarity and resolving the unequalities between the countries first and foremost, will ultimately fail.
|
It's not remotely a troll. You were talking about how there will be challenges ahead. Well Hungary, Poland, and Czech Republic do not want to accept your migrant quotas. And that is what part of being in the EU is now. Accept migrants, or else. Do you think that's a tenable and reasonable position to have? The power players in the EU think migrants are the best solution to demographic decline, but those in the EU that are unimportant do not want migrants. So governments will sue other governments for not accepting migrants or holding up 'their end of the bargain.'
Is "Accept migrants, or else" wrong?
|
yes, it's wrong. Nobody is threatening anybody, and now please migrate out of the thread again
On December 12 2017 04:38 Godwrath wrote:
What will this European Federal State would do that isn't on today? Unify foreign policy? How would it try to lead to a true nation of nations rather than a state divided by nations who are fundamentally unequal? I have to doubt there is something to gain through the conflict derived from such kind of federalization and ultimately it will fail. A path towards federalization, withouth solidarity and resolving the unequalities between the countries first and foremost, will ultimately fail.
It's a old debate that always comes up with this topic. Should the EU create political institutions first and accept friction or should we wait and try to remove the friction by other means and then create a closer political union? We've tried to do the latter for a long time now, and it's not going anywhere. Frictions aren't getting smaller although the EU, for the most part, is being lead by conservative parties who fall into the precautionary part of the spectrum.
It's slowly weakening the EU. If you look back at the history of the EU it started as the coal and steel union between France and Germany. The countries were hardly homogeneous in the 50s. The French still were sceptical because of the war experiences, and Germany wasn't even denazified with a majority of people being distrustful in democracy. Yet, political leadership managed to put both countries on a converging path. If it was doable then It hink it's doable now, because honestly compared to two or three generations ago the differences don't even look that big.
|
Yes it is wrong. But I guess you won't try to prove claim and work through a general list of laws and orders passed by the European organs and show us those 99% that are about migration. I'd guess, although the topic has been very hot, it hasn't made up for even 5% of the legal efforts of the union in the past years. Simply because there is so much more going on in the world. The legal side of any single currently discussed trade contract is probably more important/meaningful than anything that any state in the EU has passed on the matters of migration.
But we know very well that those who profit from these trade deals and political influencing do not care that any light is shed on them and are very happy to keep the migration topic hot. It's funny, most of the EU seems to be under the influence of conservative powers, but for "some reason" they can't stop migration. As if they were profiting from the ongoing discussions. 
|
On December 12 2017 04:53 SK.Testie wrote:
It's not remotely a troll. You were talking about how there will be challenges ahead. Well Hungary, Poland, and Czech Republic do not want to accept your migrant quotas. And that is what part of being in the EU is now. Accept migrants, or else. Do you think that's a tenable and reasonable position to have? The power players in the EU think migrants are the best solution to demographic decline, but those in the EU that are unimportant do not want migrants. So governments will sue other governments for not accepting migrants or holding up 'their end of the bargain.'
Is "Accept migrants, or else" wrong?
Not that you can understand it but accepting EU migrants is part of the 4 freedoms. I personally know no one who migrates to those countries. Unless you cite places like Bratislava (Amazon), etc. A migrant is not an immigrant who is not a refugee (do you even differentiate between those terms?). As a resident of the country with the highest Chinese population, outside of China, I would have thought that you would be more open to this principle. It's not because you were once a player of worth that you can spout this hypocritical garbage; are you of the very small minority of my countrymen who is xenophobic? A Canadian xenophobe, the idea is hilarious.
|
On December 12 2017 05:56 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2017 04:53 SK.Testie wrote:
It's not remotely a troll. You were talking about how there will be challenges ahead. Well Hungary, Poland, and Czech Republic do not want to accept your migrant quotas. And that is what part of being in the EU is now. Accept migrants, or else. Do you think that's a tenable and reasonable position to have? The power players in the EU think migrants are the best solution to demographic decline, but those in the EU that are unimportant do not want migrants. So governments will sue other governments for not accepting migrants or holding up 'their end of the bargain.'
Is "Accept migrants, or else" wrong? Not that you can understand it but accepting EU migrants is part of the 4 freedoms. I personally know no one who migrates to those countries. Unless you cite places like Bratislava (Amazon), etc. A migrant is not an immigrant who is not a refugee (do you even differentiate between those terms?). As a resident of the country with the highest Chinese population, outside of China, I would have thought that you would be more open to this principle. It's not because you were once a player of worth that you can spout this hypocritical garbage; are you of the very small minority of my countrymen who is xenophobic? A Canadian xenophobe, the idea is hilarious.
Generally, when people complain about "migrants" they mean "refugees", and especially the muslim variant thereof. They will insist on calling them "economical migrants", because that means that if they are against them, they are not against giving a place for people fleeing from war, they are just against people who want something that is not theirs. Economical migrants basically want to steal your economy! There is only a limited amount of it, and they want to have some of yours instead of building their own in their own country!
And if you try to correct their terminology, they start a gigantic "well technically..." rant based on "They are not refugees if they passed a safe country!!!!!"
|
Not to mention that the line between economic migration, humanitarian migration, political persecution and so forth is obviously blurred. Many people fall into all of these categories to different degrees. Given the huge movements of economic migration from Eastern Europe to Western Europe, from Ukraine to Poland, and so forth this is hardly a relevant argument.
In fact I'd wager there is a significant group of EE expats in Germany being infuriated by Syrians working here and sending checks home while they are doing the exact same thing.
|
On December 09 2017 12:36 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think it can happily create a federation without conflicts, but I fail to see why conflicts are necessarily bad when they bring about something better. Again, which country has ever formed without conflict? The Americans went to war with each other and to this day it remains the bloodiest conflict for the US. I think if we can survive a little political conflict in Europe.
And nobody will force you to learn German. We don't need to give up our languages to create a European state. People speak plenty of language in Switzerland and are part of a nation without oppressing each other. You can totally create something that respects the autonomy of indivual regions.
And Scotland and Catalonia are an interesting example, because they're both strongly pro-EU. They want to be part of the EU, they don't want to be part of their nation states. Democratic organisation is possible beyond contemporary nations. That is not a contradiction.
The fact that we have so many languages in Europe is precisely the reason why I have serious doubts about any form of a federation. The average person in the EU does not have access to the public discourse in another EU member state unless they know the local language. You can expect an average person to learn one or two foreign languages, especially if the right environment is provided since childhood. Case in point: Switzerland. But you can't expect an average person to learn twenty-odd languages.
The language barrier makes it easy to create rifts in mutual understanding among nations, which can in turn be taken advantage by partisan media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
