Is European Union historically unique or have similar projects been tried before?

>implying that the EU is democratic

The Commission has all the power.

The Parliament is a walking joke.

The Council is a waste of space since it is just national leaders.

you are either retarded or im taking a bait

It's babel, user

The western hemisphere SORTA has something like it called the Organization of American States, but it's mainly used to hash out trade deals, it doesn't interfere with the sovereignty of nations.

There's the forum of Pacific nations or some shit.
Naturally, Australia is bigger than all the others combined, and they and maybe NZ are the only countries with any relevance within the forum.

>It's babel, user
Babel is the Hebrew word for Babylon, user.

>trade deals
>not interfering with the sovereignty of nations
That's the whole point of trade deals though.

It's a Confederacy.

Just thinking about this image gets me hard. Imagine if Canada and the US were included? A band of prosperous, mainly white nations united by a common goal and common heritage? It could be called the Great Northern Prosperity Ring or something. A united front to the barbarism to the south.

Japan, Australia, and New Zealand can come too.

It sounds like the opposite of the EU.

EU version 1.0

The early United States.

I'm sure there's some Ancient Greek league or alliance that parallels could be drawn with.

The only incorrect part is

>Trey Gowdy 2020

>Babel is the Hebrew word for Babylon, user.
Wow, this clarifies my mind. Thanks, pirate.

Austria-Hungary.

>holy
>roman
>empire

The refugee quotas we're currently struggling with are set by UN, not EU.

>He thinks Eastern Yurop is "prosperous"
Enjoy your gypsies building shanty towns Burger retard

>Carolingian Empire
>H
>R
>E
>Habsburg Empire
>Roman Empire
There's been plenty attempts

soviet union
it will probably '''''mysteriously''''' collapse one day too just like the ussr

this. fucking blueeyed american mongs. theres only 3 big players in the EU. The rest is vasall states and states that are only in it for the gibs(poland, romania, anywhere balkan or eastern europe)

The norddeutsche bund could work as an analogy. Both allow for freedom of movement and commerce between nations.

>his go to example for criticism of the EU is a meme about a statistically irrelevant number of brown people

Pleb detected.

Historically unique. You just don't see major states willingly giving up their individual sovereignty for the benefit of the whole. Maybe the closest thing would be the Church in the Middle Ages, a supranational body that holds significant political sway over its constituents. Just like the Church, these constituents may resist the authority of the supranational body leading to conflict as the Investiture controversy or later the Reformation. Then as in now, England pulled out of Papism as it pulled out of the unified Europe. Both times, in effect, the English's perceived sovereignty was judged more powerful then the say so of a Continental overlord.

What about the Holy Roman Empire?

It has been tried and nearly succeeded.

>The Commission has all the power.
No, thats European Council

I would argue Holy Roman Empire was more simlar to NATO than to EU

Occultism is gay and faggot

I really like the fact that they use the imagery of the tower of babel
Something about people working together and accomplishing great things makes me really happy.

Most people appear to think otherwise, considering the negative connotations attached to the Tower of Babel.

Alliance of Delos?

protestantism wouldve torn it apart
sad boi too ahead of his time

While it is true that all members are there voluntarily and can leave whenever they want, it is basically a franco-german empire and that is not new, not even within europe. The only difference is that they are ruling by giving the ruled peoples money to keep them happy instead of rolling tanks in.

>people working together to build a more harmonious society
>they are the bad guys
wew

They were talking without sense and couldn't get shit done.
Perfect analogy

It's a shame but they're going to fail because of their bully attitude toward total non-agreeing members. The way they treat the members will prevent unification from ever happening and those affected will put up a defense to prevent it. The EU even want's to create an army before some kind of unification and this is a questionable move.

>all members are there voluntarily and can leave whenever they want
>they are ruling by giving the ruled peoples money to keep them happy instead of rolling tanks in.
I think those are pretty crucial differences

Well the Americans are proving to be pretty unreliable and might not have the economic might to protect europe militarily in the long run.
And isn't the EU army project based on just streamlining existing militaries to work together like NATO?

...

>It's a shame but they're going to fail because of their bully attitude toward total non-agreeing members.
How else would you treat non-agreeing members?

"bully-attitude" against members who dont give a fuck about the values of the eu and are just here for the money. taking eastern europe in was a mistake. well, some are okay like czechia or slovenia, but hungary and poland need to gtfo. especially considering they are pretty much the reason the brits left. trading poles for brits was a really dumb move from eu-perspective.

>are you actually retarded?

It's not my personal opinion, but from what I've seen that's what most people take away from that image.

Brits were the ones who pushed for Eastern Europe entering EU in the first place.
In British mind, the bigger the EU, the more divided and weaker it is

Wasn't that just Greater Prussia + obedient little Saxony?

Apparently not many people know about it but it was the closest thing to a united Europe because it would also include all Slavs.

The perfidious albion strikes again

Words can't describe the depths of my loathing for British "people"

no, germany wanted them in, brits wanted them to be part of the tariffs union like turkey and norway are but no full membership. germany pushed for full membership, taking in even 3rd world shitholes like bulgaria and romania, and rest of the balkan gypsie countries are soon to follow.

>The inferior continentals honestly thought they could stop us glorious Anglos from maintaining the balance of power throughout Europe.

>russia
lmao

>YFW by leaving the Brits removed actually the only obstacle from the EU becoming a strong, centrally governed continental power

If Brits hate the EU so much, why did they join in in the first place?

youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE

It is too late, filthy T*uton slave. We have already planted the seeds of your "union's" destruction.
How else would we implement the policies to weaken your pathetic coalition of pesudo states?

>mfw David Cameron was blackmailed by the White House using his father's offshore account into pulling the UK out of the EU to hurt Germany for hosting Syrian Refugees against America's wishes

Brits think the choice was theirs.

>Brits think the choice was theirs.
It always was.
thehonestintelligence.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/united-states-of-america-is-not-what.html

It was shilled as an economic union not a political one to people in Britain.

>statistically irrelevant number of brown people

LIke the statistically irrelevant waste of money, crime. rape and conflict those people will cause.

correct

The poles in the end always want to help Europe but are shitted on by fellow europeans

If you wanna help so much, you could take some refugees

>UN
Fucking amerishits.

It's always them

I'm not a pole, I'm italian.

Get rekt Hanz

Take the goddamn refugees, take then now,

That's only because God cursed them apart.

It was smart if you were a non-brit looking for lots of cheap labour.

>same top level administration (lizzy),
I wouldn't call a purely representative figure part of the administration, since the monarchy is detached from the day-to-day business of politics. The administration in the Commonwealth is much looser.

>NAFTA - trade agreement
The EU goes far beyond just trade agreements. It is also a monetary and political union.

>The Commission has all the power.
>The Parliament is a walking joke.
The Commission can't pass a single law without the Parliament and the Council, and the head of the Commission is at all times possible to be subject to a vote of mistrust to get replaced. Furthermore, he is appointed by the Parliament.

>The Council is a waste of space since it is just national leaders.
The Council is the most powerful entity in the political system of the EU. It also doesn't consist of national leaders, but ministers.

Membership of the EU is completely voluntary. The transfer of competences does not equal the giving up of supremacy, because the competences can be taken back at any time by giving up the membership.

> theres only 3 big players in the EU. The rest is vasall states and states that are only in it for the gibs(
In consultation proceedings, even the smallest EU members have veto powers.
In ordinary proceedings, the qualified vote gives them disproportionally more power than the big countries, which makes coalitions with them worthwhile.

>It also doesn't consist of national leaders, but ministers.
Thats Council of the European Union. European Council consists of the national leaders

The European Council is not part of the European Union.
The Council of the European Union is part of the European Union.

Bringing up the former in the context of the political system of the EU makes zero (0) sense.

>The European Council (French: Conseil européen), charged with defining the European Union's (EU) overall political direction and priorities, is the institution of the EU that comprises the heads of state or government of the member states
Sounds to me like it is part of the EU
Maybe you are talking about Council of Europe, which is indeed not part of the EU

I'm interested, where can I read more about this?

Yeah, I meant the Council of Europe, which includes even Russia.

However, when you're reading a political text about the EU and see the term "the Council", then the one that is meant is always the Council of the European Union, a.k.a. the Council of Ministers.

The poster I was responding to was comparing the primary institutions of the EU (except the European Central Bank and European Court of Justice), which are the Parliament, the Council (of Ministers) and the Commission. The European Council is not one of them, albeit it is an organ of the EU since Lissabon.
Bringing up the European Council is misleading because it doesn't even have any legislative powers, it only coordinates policymaking by giving the impulses on what to work on. He could've meant that, though, since he was talking about "national leaders".

Nice try germ

P.S.: I got confused because in my language the names of the Council of Europe and European Council both translate to the same English term.

I am pretty sure ALL the power is within the European Council, since EU member states are still sovereign countries and they need to agree if new policies are to be implemented.

China was pretty much a union of Asian territories.
America was originally separate States (aka Countries).
Many European empires United Countries as well.

h-how did you know?

The European Council just decides on what the focus of work should be on. It tackles the "what should we do", but not the "how should we do it". I think that the latter has a bigger impact on outcomes.
They can agree there but the Council (of Ministers) can still come to different solutions and, more importantly, vote differently. The European Council has no legislative powers. The Council has.

If a head of a government has a tight leash on his cabinet, though, then that country's part of the European Council can have more power than the Council counterpart, because at the end of the day, the head of the government has the policy-making power.

But think about this potentiality: The government of, say, Slovakia is a coalition government. The head is from party A, the minister from party B. The head can say "I want this policy, convince the others", but the minister's party can want a different policy. So the minister votes for the different policy. The head is outraged, but what is he going to do? He can replace the minister, but the vote is through, and replacing the minister angers the coalition partner, which might even lead to the government failing and new elections taking place. So, the head gives the coalition partner that concession.

Also, remember that the Council of Europe includes the head of the Commission, which the Council does not.

None of those were united by peaceful means, though, contrary to the EU.

>NAFTA
a free narket zone is one of the first steps to what the EU is today, but it's not comparable. In fact, what it is happening nowadays with Truno is a step on the opposite direction.

The steps are

Free Market Zone
Customs Union
Common Market
Economic Union

In the 70-80's there were talks to integrate the Latin American countries into a single market, on par of what the EU is today, but due Mexico's foreign policy of approachment to USA,which ended up in the NAFTA agreement, this idea was ultimately abandoned.

It's funny when you compare what the EU is an a theorical LAU could have been in regard of what kind of obstacles both needed to face.

In Europe you have different cultures, religions, languages and the historical rivalry between countries and yet they manage to form the EU, whereas in Latin America we have a common ancestry, language, religion and I don't believe any rivalry between LA is comparable to any of Europe.

>and I don't believe any rivalry between LA is comparable to any of Europe.
Brasil vs. Argentina?

>The steps are
>
>Free Market Zone
>Customs Union
>Common Market
>Economic Union
You forgot the monetary union and the step after that would be a political union.

You could also prefix it with a preferential zone.

>prefix it
All of them, that is.

Fuck, the Poles can start by stopping being refugees themselves. Bexit happened more from wanting to stop Poles from coming in rather than Muslims.

All nations are constructs of common interest and artificial identity.

How is the European Union different from, let's say, Russia or China, also highly heterogenous unions?

As far as I understand, council of leaders makes the strategic long term decisions, while council of ministers is responsible for concrete legislation (which follows the strategy decision of council of leaders).
Is that wrong?

Freedom of movement is one of the fundamental rights of single market.
If you leave out that freedom, eastern european countries would become western colonies

What are you refering to?

This is actually a theory often brought forward in political theory.