Do you think a European federation will ever work?
Are we Europeans more alike than different? Can a United Europe balance out the world once again? What would work, and what wouldn't. What countries could easily integrate?
Not a clickbait, son don't post memes and baits.
Discuss
It will work, inschallah.
What's the point "Europeans" as a distinct people will cease to exist by 2040.
Only if it is free of non-European nations like UK or Greece.
UK doesn't want to be in Europe, Europe in any form. But why Greece exactly? I disagree with you here, but want to hear your reasoning on it. Explain.
The whole continent? No, it could never work, and it would only lead to the destruction of individual cultures and the diversity of Europe.
It could probably work on a lesser scale, with countries such as Germany, Austria, etc. But then it isn't really a "European" federation if it only includes part of the actual continent of Europe.
This is how Europeans look like in 2030
Discuss
United Europe is a good idea but
We have 0 say in the direction we are going.
I have a few questions
About eu aid money
Why do we give money to corrupt governments who spend fuck all of that money actually improving their countries' infrastructure.
About migration
What Brussels wants is not at all what the european inhabitants want. surely they are aware of that.
so why go on the way they've been going.
also
Someone please explain to me why we have unelected bureaucrats in Brussels
This is how Americans look like in 2017
Discuss
>What's the point "Europeans" as a distinct people will cease to exist by 2040.
Europeans are not a distinct people now
A United Europe could never work, your best chance is a lose European Federation.
They're not? Tell me more.
>first nation to be classified as european
>not european
As opposed to German or Scandinavian barbarians.
looks much better than what we have now
you'll never have a united europe because they all speak different languages
it's not like the USA.
English is the lingua franca
Countries like Ireland would never agree to it
>UK doesn't want to be in Europe, Europe in any form.
The old motherfuckers of England don't want to be in Europe. The young are much more europhilic, since they've been brought up with a European identity.
China was able to be united for millennia even though they spoke many different dialects.
This thing can be avoided if the whole of Europe or most countries have same borders, laws and foreign policies. The last 2 things does not happen right now, that's why there huge problems regarding immigration.
No it's not.
They need an actually well funded European border force, because the poorfags of the southeastern EU can't handle it alone.
Every unification must have clear goal - external enemy to struggle against. What is the enemy of EU? Moslims are too weak and not dangerous. USA and Russia has nukes and not good targets of direct war. China is far.
Language, culture and economy vary too much for it to ever work.
They really can, with the blessings of a overwhelming percentage of the Greek population, it's just the border policy is atrophied right now because of EU's pressures to not appear harsh or deport most of them.
I know most Europeans have the same views on illegal immigration, but are just afraid to say what they believe from the fear they will sound non PC. Southern Europeans tend to be more conservative in this matter.
Trump's elections showed we need a strong and united Europe, or the big nations of the world can divide and conquer European nations, one by one. A united Europe can stop Russia of trying to annex or enforce their demands on other nations. Same for China. Europe will became a global financial, military, and politically superpower with time.
I agree Europeans are divided right now, but we are as united and similar right now as we never were before.
Just follow the ways of the ancient Roman Empire and it will work! Make sure to not get corrupted by foolish pacifist ideologies (Christianity) and a lack of discipline like back then!
The real problem is that modern refugee conventions were created after WW2 with the intention in mind of avoiding another situation like where the Jewish people fleeing Europe were sent back to be gassed. But the Jews were comparatively civilized and respectful of the law. The convention isn't fit for people indoctrinated into a desert warlord doomsday cult who have no respect for the laws and culture of their hosts and rape everywhere they go.
It could work with a gradual integration, dont you think? A overnight "unification and annexation" of every European nation will never work, and even if it did, people are really afraid of losing their "national freedom".
If not the entirety of Europe, I think a lot of northern Europe could integrate into some sort of union like the Kalmar Union to make for a strong state, perhaps including the Nordics and Estonia, as Estonians apparently even want to be considered as Nordic.
Just make all of them speak English as a second language.
The good thing is most Europeans know a second and third language, German, English, French etc. Hell, in my country the educational system teaches Latin and Ancient Greek, which helped me immensely to understand other modern languages without really knowing the language.
>estonia
because Hansa and teutonic settlements
#
Just make all of them speak English as a second language! Most of them already do!
being buttslaves to germanics for most of your history doesn't really make you nordic, tbqh
>Someone please explain to me why we have unelected bureaucrats in Brussels
First, the entire bureaucratic machinery of the EU is roughly the size of Birmingham City Council, so it's hardly the sprawling, centralised big supranational organisation of many a Europhobe's imaginings.
Second, can you have a guess as to what would happen if the EU Commission's Presidency were on an elected basis rather than rotating between member states?
That's right, everyone in Germany would vote for the German candidate, everyone in France would vote for the French candidate, everyone in [insert member state] would vote for the candidate from [same member state].
It would be pretty much meaningless, and smaller countries would get next to no representation. And before you argue that they oughtn't get much representation on account of their population size, I'd hasten to add that that's the same argument used against the US Electoral College, and I presume you're in favour of that.
Thirdly, what you call "bureaucrats" are generally performing roles similar to civil servants/government employees at the national level. I can't think of a single country in which people in equivalent positions are elected. Can you?
Probably not. Federalisation in the current European Union has already been happening in a Fabian manner, bit by bit, and yet most people still recognise that it's happening and are trying to resist it. To integrate by stealth is to admit that there is no popular support for it.
It could work on a lesser scale but countries such as the United Kingdom are never going to support it, from what I can tell opinion on the European Union on the mainland is generally positive in most countries.
>Someone please explain to me why we have unelected bureaucrats in Brussels
Same reason you have unelected bureaucrats in the civil service
This. You fell for the "unelected bureaucrats" meme.
You havent answered about enemies.
>big nations of the world can divide and conquer European nations
Are you kidding? What the nations?
> stop Russia of trying to annex or enforce their demands on other nations
So, the goal is to send troops in frontline of Ukraine?
Love how old nostalgic filled traditionalists hate any kind of union because they think they don't need anyone, and figure they'll be an empire again. Meanwhile 95% of their past wars they had some kind of support. Looking at you, Britain.
Pretty much this, but try to counter the weird historical revisionism and you "hate Britain".
glass house
The EU isn't about countering an external enemy, it was always about bringing European nations closer together - both culturally and economically - to prevent all the incessant and often silly infighting which has plagued the continent for recorded history.
Now, there are valid questions about whether this can be done without infringing on people's national identity and causing a backlash (like we're seeing now), but it's a difficult goal to achieve.
No economic and cultural entanglement = People chimp out and start wars for petty and nationalistic reasons.
Too much economic and cultural entanglement too fast = People chimp out and vote for nationalists to try and scrap the whole thing, and we're back to starting wars for petty and nationalistic reasons.
Sure, the nationalists are on good terms with one another now, but you can't be an internationalist nationalist. They're far less likely to attempt to resolve conflicts of interest diplomatically, and far more likely to chimp out.
Saudi Arabia is full of slaves, not migrants.
>Second, can you have a guess as to what would happen if the EU Commission's Presidency were on an elected basis rather than rotating between member states?
>That's right, everyone in Germany would vote for the German candidate, everyone in France would vote for the French candidate, everyone in [insert member state] would vote for the candidate from [same member state].
>It would be pretty much meaningless, and smaller countries would get next to no representation. And before you argue that they oughtn't get much representation on account of their population size, I'd hasten to add that that's the same argument used against the US Electoral College, and I presume you're in favour of that.
Would Europeans vote for a far left of far right candidate of their country if they are oe the opposite side themselves, purely because of nationality ? I don't know honestly
Even then you'd get multiple candidates from every single country wouldn't you ? Which would be a mess with way too many candidates
You could simply restrict the number of parties to a decent number based on approximative political alignment and make them have lists requiring a representant in each country. Europe-wide parties for an Europe-wide goverment.
>Would Europeans vote for a far left of far right candidate of their country if they are oe the opposite side themselves, purely because of nationality ?
No, but I think sufficiently many Europeans still have entrenched prejudices about other European nations that people with centre-left views would be willing to vote for a centre-right candidate of corresponding origin to theirs, and vice versa, especially if there were a language barrier.
Plus, we underestimate the extent to which the political hot potatoes of the day in one country may not resonate at all in others.
>Sure, the nationalists are on good terms with one another now, but you can't be an internationalist nationalist.
If you want to make the EU a single country i don't see why you would be anti-nationalist and wouldn't be nationalist for it honestly. How do you expect anyone to follow you if you aren't even a little enthusiastic ?
If you want to "bring European nations closer together - both culturally and economically - to prevent all the incessant and often silly infighting" well then you have to create a European nation. And you have to create pan-European nationalism. Not pan-European anti-nationalism wtf. Otherwise yes people will stick with the old model since YOU aren' offering anything new, and don't you blame them for that.
If Europe was united, strong, not ideologically bankrupt, not anti-Europeans and something to be proud of then nationalists would be proud of it. The more anti-EU voices in the nationalist parties would just become regionalists. Honestly i think many nationalists could be attracted to the idea of united Europe, it's every European dictator ever's wet dream, but it's just very badly done right now.
>le subhuman mooslems meme
Syria before the civil war was a stable, modern, and and culturally rich nation.
Common state doesnt needed for cultural and economical links. Real political unification can be:
1. Forced.
2. Volunteer - the neccesar and only condition of it is struggle agaist external enemies.
European countries were clashing because were top world powers. Do you consider whole Europe is weak enough to unite agaist other world?
I served in the army and one of my posts was to assist in refugee camps here in Greece. Syrians are modern, good people who come with their family and kids, hoping to escape war and give their kids a better life. The things English speaking Syrians told me they witnessed from ISIS or Assad's army still haunts me in my imagination.
It's all the others from peaceful nations who use this war to their advantage to come to Europe for free and with 0 papers and education, and besides that, bring their shitty ideologies and backwards beliefs and try to enforce it where they go to. Hell, they found 88 "refugees" with papers from fucking Venezuela in Lesvos, last winter, a country with social issues, but without war or a reason to seek "asylum" from.
>not knowing the difference between alliances and political union.
I try to be a pragmatist here, does that mean that telling the truth is racist? I will not even get started on the Afghani, Pakistani, Somali and so on "refugees", who are the only people who vandalize, rape and demand things they don't deserve to in these camps. How to not be racist when we issued jackets for parents and their kids, and later finding out these "asylum seekers" and "refugees" steal jackets and warm clothes from small kids for themselves? This a minor example, but things like this happen in these camps almost daily.
>tfw your democratic processes take a backseat or are completely ignored by the EU because they are now """""populism"""""
Boy I sure love this neo-democracy.
It's true
I honestly do not understand how the EU works, not really.
Can someone point me to something to read in order to better understand? maybe some documentaries?
Americans are a distinct people now. They are united by the Americanization process that has happened since WW2.
No longer is there really a German people, a Spanish people, just a pan-european people. A distinctly American-European phenomenon.
I for one love American nationalims simply because there's few things more obnoxious than some faggot from the most powerful nation on earth going on about being proud of his forefathers chimping out in some fjords 1000 years ago.
Most of the real countries in Europe (i.e. ethnostates) can't fucking stand to even work together with their closest, genetically similar neighbors.
>If you want to make the EU a single country i don't see why you would be anti-nationalist
You would be a civic nationalist, like America. Rather than the traditional form of nationalism based on ethnicity. You are not going to convince European nationalists to be patriotic based on their government rather than their ethnicity.
>China was able to be united for millennia
China is what happens when a bunch of far-eastern ethnicity and realms get merged together for so long that individual cultures that survived became 'types of Chinese' rather than fully independent cultures.
>euro
>pean
>federation
yes it is
bump