Comments by "" (@Arcaryon) on "United States of Europe." video.
-
@derFleetadmiral I am convinced that this momentum will carry far longer than some people might expect because an entire new generation has now a very strong war experience growing and as a result, a lasting motivation for change. I think the step by step approach will see continued boosts whenever crisis allows for rapid change and as a result progress at a steady and overall acceptable speed.
It could and should be a lot faster but I do not think that it’s a likely scenario for the time being, as for instance, the economic question concerning a potentially fundamental restructuring of certain established systems in Europe will need a long time to be at a point where implementation is possible, perhaps one or two decades and I am almost convinced that a majority of problems and challenges at their core originate from this issue.
Case in point, the north-south divide, which of course, while different in nature than the east-west divide, is a continued reason for concern and imo. much bigger than the security question because their is still no clear consensus and a long term strategy of notable proportions aka. as long as we keep, for example, investing so heavily in China instead of Greece, Italy or Spain aso. we will keep loosing any potential growth and in return, slow down or even cripple European ambitions.
Short term profits and shortsighted planning has plagued the organization immensely in its expansion and popularity and I think that unfortunately, beyond the human tragedy, the war in Ukraine will overshadow these large issues unless we manage to actually divide our attention between the new crisis and the familiar crisis.
It is my understanding that the European question will most likely never be decided on battle fields or treaties directly concerning military matters but in our ability to finally adapt our continent for this century via a healthy discussion about the impact the financial crisis and previous developments have had on our current realities.
Shared arms programs can be a first step but it must be one of many combined efforts that absolutely have to ensure a healthy cycle exchange as opposed to common practices of today evident in the financial transactions etc.
14
-
12
-
10
-
9
-
@pandabear-k7e They never promised APVs. There are extensive and detailed lists on what has been delivered and what is going to be delivered.
And you can not suddenly change a countries entire energy policy in three weeks, that’s perhaps possible in the mind of a child or people with no understanding of politics but not in the real world.
Former German governments banked on Russia not going to war to such a degree.
They didn’t ignore warnings, they simply followed a different policy.
Nearly the entire German political system was build around the believe that Putin would not wager so much on a large scale conflict because it would ruin his economy in the longterm as China has no interest in a wealthy Russia and Putin is going to loose Germany/Europe as a market forever, not immediately but eventually, there is even a term called "change through trade" which was used by countless politicians over the years, describing the assumption that trading would create a different social environment, more educated citizens and therefore, ultimately end with change in the Russian system.
It’s btw. the exact same reasoning Americans and the rest of the world have had in regards to China ( many still do ) for decades.
Guess who wanted Germany to be like that, hellbent on peace? The USA. France. The United Kingdom. Nearly all of Europe.
All wanted Germany to be the most pacifistic place on the planet, a country that would try EVERYTHING to avoid war, EVERYTHING. And it worked. The entire modern German state was built on this concept, dozens of millions of people were raised using these principles, for decades that was how German citizens voted, against going to war, against sending weapons into ongoing conflicts, it is a pacifism that you can only get when a people has seen the absolute worst war has to offer, not just being defeated but being on the wrong side of history and having lost all for nothing.
And now, this entire system, built on a society that grew up with people being afraid of a united Germany, with hatred against their whole country for things they didn’t do themselves, is gone and all you have to say is "they are pretty slow in abolishing decades of pacifism that is deeply engraved in their society, we should only rely on the USA because Germany…
What? What is so horrible about Germany? That it’s not magically able to reverse a process of multiple generations within a few weeks?
That it hoped that peace could be maintained?
Or maybe, the only thing that’s wrong here is that Putin decided to invade. Which one is it?
8
-
6
-
@JoostEurovisionFans Mate. I am not a man who wants tax cuts for 0.5% of the population or someone who screams "let’s go to war in distant land with no relevancy to the common people just so some mad industrialists can fill their pockets or politicians can subvert attention away from their internal failings."
I am not "one of them" .
I am also not some idealist who is naive enough to believe in some ridiculous economic ideas that lack any sense of realism. On the contrary. But I know that things are not working as they should.
I advocate for large reforms with the Euro because it currently isn’t working.
I advocate for large reforms in the EU because it’s the status quo is not working.
Tens of millions of Europeans do not live well, in fact, for many, the situation has gotten increasingly worse and yet you say it’s ok, just keep going?
Our economy is a gigantic mess. Do we really want to become like the USA where being poor can kill you, you work like a madman until you are an old man and the government is usually exclusively run by multi millionaires that make a man with a networth of 20 million USD look like a very modest individual?
Loans in Germany have stagnated for three decades, ever since the wall fell. Greece is basically bankrupt. Italy is rallying but still not looking good… Shall I go on?
That is madness friend. The status quo is slowly becoming unbearable. Not for me mind you. I will be fine no matter what. But for my country. My continent.
OUR content.
Do you want to go back to the early 1900s / 1800s?
Cause that is where we are headed if we do not start to finally find a way out of our predicaments.
The USA will withdraw more and more, weakening NATO, the EU slowly crumble if nothing is done about it and countries like China and Russia will start to bully many of us even more than they already do, one economically, the other militaristically. That’s the world you want to live in? Are you sure?
I don’t want an empire with emperors and subjects. I want a safe, wealthy and strong Europe for Europeans.
Nothing more and nothing less.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@chadliampearcy I assure you that this isn’t the goal. We are not trying to erase our identity but merely to create a shared one in order protect our individual uniqueness better.
Unlike the United Kingdom ( hint, it’s in the name ) we don’t want to have a central authority like England, we want a shared authority to better organize our individual countries, in whatever shape is acceptable and serves our interests the best.
That’s a very unique concept, it actually has never been done before because unlike, for instance, Switzerland, we are VERY distinct countries. Therefore, it’s a lot more difficult but also potentially rewarding because if we get this right, this could inspire other regions to increase or establish their own unions and fundamentally change geopolitics by giving all of us little guys a tool to be heard.
The best potential region for next to us ( as we are pioneers due to circumstances) this is without a doubt South&Central America.
Despite setbacks, this area is potentially next in line for a somewhat similar idea, despite past failures. As long as the idea survives, the concept will re-emerge, again and again, always improving itself and learning from other comparable projects.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@HallsteinI And a lot do. Welcome to politics. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter because Europe is uniting either way. The question is weather we fall in line with Washington or establish our own government aso. aka HOW Not IF. Unification of earth is inevitable.
Someday, something will be so powerful that it can take over anyone, by force or otherwise.
Science fiction aside, if I had told you only 100 years ago that today, American, British & French governments would welcome Germany dramatically increasing its military spending, while the latter is best buddies with France who are all together united against Russia, including Turkey, you would have called me a madman.
And had I told you that most of Europe was part of a political entity, you would probably just have laughed at the absurdity I propose.
Just a few weeks ago, many well informed people, including myself, doubted the seriousness of a Russian threat.
And as it turns out, a lot can change in a very short amount of time. Little known fact: one of the most fundamental aspects of unification is not necessarily something you have in common, in the traditional sense, with other people but something you want to differentiate yourself from.
Putin is perfectly willing to play this part to perfection.
We are also not talking about immediate unification but merely the possibility. How long 200 years are politically? A small eternity. Had you imagined that Russia would march on Kyic 30 years ago while China is officially neutral on the issue? Because I sure as hell didn’t.
And likewise, nobody even knew that the Soviet Union would fall back in the 50s. History has a way of surprising us and cultural differences constantly change.
And finally, look at us. All speaking English. It’s not my native langue and yet, I can already communicate with anyone who happens to speak the language. Most big movements start with only a handful of people. And if this handful of people is able too organize itself internationally, no one knows what reach this development could have in a few years.
And finally: the best argument for the fundamental goals and ideals of the EU is that for Europeans, all alternatives are worse. Independence is where Ukraine is now. Being a supporter of the USA with no teeth of our own gave us the Middle eastern mess. When will people finally realize that a side with objectively better, rational arguments has MUCH higher chances to realize her goals than a side whose best arguments is emotionally driven nostalgia?
The Baltic’s literally could care less about representation, they want security. And guess who is threatening the USA for more than Russia? China. A country that to us is literally on the other side of the planet.
Have the setbacks after Napoleon stopped the nation state as a tool for freedom and wealth of the common people? No.
And in the same way, resistance now is most likely going to be temporary, set backs aside.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@vermilion7777 No. It would be naive to think that I will live see most of the things I described in my current biological state.
Also, it’s pretty funny how you call me naive when Europe was busy killing another less than 100 years ago and is currently already literally almost entirely part of one union.
Seems like the naive believe in realpolitik and science won out over all of the idealistic nonsense people love to throw around when trying to justify why something can never happen.
Like France and Germany being allies. Will never happen, arch rivals till eternity.
Germany, unified? Please, they are a bunch of small, greedy, selfish states, they will never be united.
The USA, a global power? The 13 colonies will never match our empire, we rule the world.
Flying? To the moon? Are you mad? Humans could never survive in space, it’s impossible.
Keep saying never friend.
History will find a way to prove you wrong.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@account-369 Rome worked for thousands of years.
The USA works.
The British Empire worked.
The Spanish Empire worked.
India works.
We can play this game all day long.
If I were to judge the present like you do, I wouldn’t get out of bed because statistically 100% of people who were ever alive died. History doesn’t repeat itself. It sometimes rhymes but only if circumstances are similar enough.
Unlike all of the examples you named, the EU isn’t a result of warfare in the traditional sense. It’s entirely diplomatic in its core foundation, in fact, it’s even an anti war establishment at its core.
No dictator forced us together. The EU also has no Danish dominance that is only held together by a personal union and partial support of the nobility in Sweden and Norway. It also isn’t anywhere near as broken economically as the Soviet Union.
All in all; I don’t see how your comparison is going to hold up. Sure, neither will mine but judged with your line of argument, they might as well all be seen as equal so either way, how is your argument going to prove itself?
With every passing generation, people become more used to the EU. Of course there is a possibility of failure, but there is also always the possibility of slipping and breaking your neck and yet, few people live their life’s with that constant fear in the back of their head, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeroenmeesters7703 5. The 7 years war was the first true world war. Yet, it is not mentioned by you. Doesn't fit the narrative? Because neither is the war of the American revolution, happening as a result of said conflict. The birth of modern democracy. So are you a democrat, willing to fight for his freedom or a royalist, who is content with whatever bones the aristocracy is willing to drop to him, as long as he is left alone?
During the 30 years war, which largely happened on the territory of the HRE, entire regions were completely depopulated. Millions died. In a time, when the global population was drastically lower than it is today.
Participants were, among others, Spanish, French, Swedish, Austrian & Danish monarchs, local dukes and cities and much of the worst fighting happened in the highly disunited HRE. So, once again, are you really sure that you want to turn back the clock? Because that's effectively the core of your argument. You argue that newly centralized powers face the history of their regions. So what? All nations do.
6. Germany itself went to war like all other MONARCHIST nations have done and continue to do. It was hardly democratic, apart from some very weak parliaments. And to go from a monarchy to democracy is not what we are discussing so where is the connection?
Economic instability was more instrumental to the rise of any significant totalitarian rule in the last 122 years than unification. Case in point, modern China and modern Russia. Economic turmoil lead one to Stalin, the other to Mao. Where do they fit in your narrative?
Most of the world has had fascist tendencies. Like, have you ever looked at the budget of most governments throughout the ages?
Palaces & armies.
To make an ideology out of this is hardly a product of unification. What leads to radicalization is turmoil and oppression. Case in point, modern Iran. Install a dictator, let him oppress the locals, watch how peaceful activists turn into religious fanatics and boom. Astonishingly similar, isn't it? It appears that unification has nothing to do with the core of the issue.
7. You say Germany caused nothing but trouble - if I was a nationalistic Spanish I would make the exact same argument about your own country, same if I was a certain French monarch. That's not arguing, that's throwing around wild accusations hoping to hit a mark.
You lost all credibility by making that "argument".
With your logic, I might as well argue that the unification of the Netherlands caused your nations colonial empire. Shall we ask the people there what they think the unification of the Netherlands did to them? Or perhaps the inhabitants of the other formerly European ruled colonial nations?
Are you sure you want to go down that road because I certainly can go down there and you will not like where that story ends if we tell it using your own arguments?
1
-
1
-
@vermilion7777 The common goal is economic prosperity and political independence while utilizing and maintaining core European values like humanism.
I want a European Union lead by an elected leader. If a majority of Europeans elect Macron, I will take Macron. And if they choose, say,
Miloš Zeman, that would be fine too.
But to get one thing straight, you can either become European president or national president / chancellor aso. but not both.
In addition, the EU will almost 100% go the path of a Europe of multiple speeds rather sooner than later. People also should not throw never so much because I think most can not even plan 50 years ahead, let alone two centuries which still is nothing compared to „never“.
On the lack recourses, that never stopped anyone from expanding. On the contrary.
All you need is an opportunity and enough ruthlessness and cleverness to be successful about it.
On nukes; for being in an age of nuclear weapons, an awful lot of us do not have any and we also aren’t using them much so let’s not pretend like nukes are going to stop conventional wars and more importantly, economic ones. Also, nukes can be built. The UK isn’t going to want to stay a fairly isolated island forever.
It is just simple math. If you were to split up China along it’s current provinces, it would be a gigantic, literally, gigantic difference to its current power level.
Also, the EUs influence doesn’t have to end in Europe. In a few decades, if Russia could join vis some unique treaty, one could focus more on North Africa which makes for an excellent place for some kind of expansion.
Finally, the ideal United Europe is not the USA but Switzerland. Neutral, wealthy, stable and free.
We don’t want to be a traditional superpower, just powerful enough to thrive on our own terms.
1
-
@jeroenmeesters7703 Allow me to break down your arguments a little bit:
1. First, you outline an issue of a lack of democracy. Initially, you only argue against methods and not principles. You claim that the commission is unelected and yet it is entirely made up of the elected governments of the members. It is obviously not fully democratic yet but it is not intended to be fully democratic for if it was, it would just be a full-blown government, which goes against the interests of some of the member governments ( note , I distinguish between a government and the people it represents ).
You yourself are of course dutch, evident by your last name and the aforementioned population amount in your home country. The Netherlands, as the English call your country, are organized as a constitutional monarchy, ruled via a representative, parliamentary democracy and, important for our discussion, also a unitary state, despite also employing a system of federacy. I am using the government.nl, for instance, the "Relationship between government and parliament" as my primary source here.
Now; your own country is ruled by ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. I emphasize again REPRESENTATIVES.
So; what are we really criticizing about the EU in your first paragraph, implementation of government or the question of principle you make it out to be?
2. Secondly, the idea that some political scientists argue against the EU is not what I am disputing, I am disputing this being a notable majority with valid arguments in the political-scientific community. Because your own arguments really lack...Reason.
3.
Further, to push the ideas of unification in one category with deeply immoral ideals is like arguing that the nationalists are really all repressed fascists, it's a strawman argument intended to undermine the entire discussion and does not actually have any merit. It also shows something else in your argument; that you emphasize emotions more than logic.
You claim that objectivity is impersonal and I agree. But you also make the conclusion that it is automatically a bad thing. And yet, an unbiased judge is seen as honourable in any society on the planet. Laws shall not distinguish between a persons wealth or influence. So objectivity is not automatically something that goes against individual humanity, and while it can, so can emotions.
Greed for instance is at its core deeply indivdualistic.
So is anger, sadness or happiness.
Ceaser himself was famously vocal about favouring abstinence from emotions in matters of politics.
And yet, here you are, rejecting his advice in favour of politics you based on nothing but your own, individual emotions, beginning your entire argument with the phrase "I'd choose".
"The idea that a vision for the future is purely objective and not ideological has never rang true." 1+1 will always be 2.
Weakness will almost always be punished. Strength will almost always be rewarded. The same is usually true for stupidity and wisdom.
Perhaps not immediately, but far more often than not, eventually. A functional democracy ensures that the majority gets ruled exactly as well as it deserves according to its political understanding.
Which leads us into:
4. Do you know why you can say that sentence today? "to validate the right to rule over more people" why it's not just "god gave me the right to rule anymore?
Because while you argue against democratic unification and the Netherlands itself, your own country, fought a brutal war and long to unite under its own terms and not to be ruled over by others. To rule TOGETHER and not to be ruled OVER. Another noteworthy distinction.
Where are the small city-states where your democratic voice would matter a great deal more than in a gigantic state of 17 million people, most of whom you will never get to know or even talk to? What happened with them?
In the whole world, only Monaco, Singapore, and Vatican City remain. 3. Out of tens of thousands. Most microstates do not even field armies today, relying entirely on the bigger surrounding countries.
In this context, what do you think ensured that we are free today? Three separate empires did, one ruled from London, one from Washington, and one from Moscow. The separate democratic nations you talk about got crushed by a single authoritarian union, the European Axis.
5. So, what holds NATO together? What is at the core of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? The United States of North America. A country on the other side of the Atlantic which is currently trying to take on China. A country, which has signalled to us for YEARS that we need to start to handle our own stuff, from Bush to Obama, Trump & Biden.
That is who you want to rely on? A country whose last president said "the EU is like China, just smaller".
Divide et impera? Ever heard about that one?
Why do all people who want to rule over others always try to keep the masses as separate entities with seemingly conflicting interests? Your own country relies HEAVILY on European exports & imports. Germany is both your biggest exporting trading partner & also the biggest importer of dutch goods.
What do you think is going to happen in a few years, when the USA inevitably declares "this is it Europe, I can either focus on Russia ( which you should really be able to handle on your own ) or on China and while I love you guys, India & the rest of Asia dwarf you so goodbye Europe, see you when China collapses and frees up my recourses.
Which empire is going to protect our shared European interests then? We split up, doesn't even have to be leaving NATO and China grabs ( economically ) whoever it can, same with Russia and even France & Germany. And then we are essentially back to the early 1900s.
Do you want that?
The best-case scenario without the EU is that the USA has good presidents ( while China turns out to be much weaker than anyone expects ), who you will NEVER elect in ANY way shape or form without migrating or the USA annexing the Netherlands OR we do what humans have always done when they are weak on their own, combine our capabilities and work together.
End of Part 1.
1
-
@Gaphalor If they were to split up, even more reason to be United because then it goes from being a necessity to superiority and it is always well worth it to be superior, especially if costs as good as nothing because all you are doing is restructuring your government to align with a larger collective.
Also; ever thought about what happened the last time when we didn’t have a unified entity in Europe?
Like, from 476 to 1945/1990/1991 depending on which side of the iron curtain you ask about it?
The EUs core function is to ensure peace by making war impossible. However, unification is extremely beneficial to us so ignoring these benefits due to ideological none-sense as in, there is literally no good reason that goes against more cooperation in Europe, is quite frankly, naive.
However; point is that theoretically, there is a necessity for immediate unification TODAY and there will always be enormous benefits from unification.
But because that is not going to happen any time soon, we have to look at short term alternatives and the best way to do that is to ask where we actually want to go, identify existing problems and implement solutions and reforms accordingly.
International cooperations already start to act like countries, so even if the USA were to collapse entirely, which is still extremely unlikely, and if China were to collapse as well, which is also very unlikely, the risks will not stop. There has also never been a time in the world without shifting powers and as Europeans, I would be especially worried about what that might include because an unpredictable future is even more reason to do everything in your power to be prepared for the unexpected. Si vis pacem para bellum. There has never been a time in human history where having less allies & friends was beneficial to a people.
Nation states are also simply a thing that is already beginning to slowly die out intellectually ( please note that I said beginning and not is already in the process of ).
How many highly educated men & women who often work in the already extremely international scientific community are nationalistic? Who actually upholds the nation?
As less and less educated supporters of this practice exist, we can safely assume that it’s no longer at its peak which begs the question of what to do after the fact. Don’t get me wrong, there are still many nationalists but their intellectual capabilities are declining.
So what do we actually want to do?
I say, what Europeans want most, regardless of their nationality is, 1. a maximum of sensible individual freedom for their countrymen, 2. universal wealth for the bast majority of citizens and 3. stability /& peace in all of Europe.
None of these three goals require a nation, in fact, in many cases, national governments are hindering and not advancing progress relating to these objectives. All successful human civilizations are build on exactly one trait: cooperation.
Managing already existent cooperation, discussing future cooperation, advancing any shared cooperation and deepening cooperation overall is therefore the most sensible political position of our entire world.
Even unequal cooperation like an empire, is still cooperation.
In conclusion: do you really want to make a serious case against human civilizations most fundamental, most widely accepted and embraced principle?
1
-
@Gaphalor I am also German. And as it happens, I know many people who think the exact opposite of what you just outlined. So either we are both wrong or there is a political divide ( however, looking at parliament, the only party opposed to the EU is the AfD so that’s currently only 10% of the population.
Let’s look at the facts; a few short centuries ago, we all still had near all powerful kings, nobles and religious rulers.
As you can remember, Germany, did not exist. It’s people, while similar in their faith and culture, were not part of a single state for centuries. On the contrary. We were ruled over from foreign princes and kings, crowning themselves as emperors and kings.
Our people suffered through some of the worst wars on the continent in that time.
The brutal 30 years war marks the birth of German nationalism, the napoleonic wars the full arrival of the patriotic ideals and national movements.
And yet, in 1848/1849, a popular rebellion in Germany crumbled into dust. Germany would not be united by the masses but due to the "wishful thinking" of a certain Prussian chancellor you will recognize as Otto von Bismarck.
The world went from hunter gather clans to villages, citiy states, small tributary systems, kingdoms, empires, colonial empires and finally, nation states.
To assume that we have reached the pinnacle of civilization rests on the outspoken assumption that the current system is flawless. Which we can both agree, is fundamentally inaccurate.
So it must be concluded that that the nation state itself merely rest on fragile set of traditions and cultural believes that shift with every passing generation of leaders and people alike.
So is the EU itself useless? Do you know how useless our own government has been in 32 years under the CDU lead governments in 8 out of the last 9 legislative periods?
Shall I make a list breaking it all down?
The EU isn’t a full blown government. What do you expect from it? It can only be as good as the members allow it to be and for a very simple reason:
Imagine what would happen if it actually had the power to be truly impactful?
You would ask yourself the same thing I already do, what difference does it make of the people I elect sit in Berlin or Brussels? I already can share at most roughly 25% of the broadest opinions with my own countrymen according to our own elections. In the EU, it wouldn’t be any different in a significant manner. So have you ever considered what that means? What it means when countries like China and the USA exist while we, as "powerful" as we may be, are dwarfed by both?
A nation is not a standalone ideology. It is merely a TOOL to facilitate our lives. Keep that in mind.
Of course the EU isn’t suddenly become a country over night, so don’t be ridiculous. We needed roughly 200 ( 187 ) years from the thirty years war till our own unification. I predict that Europe will become a country somewhere in the mid to late 2200s. So no concern to you. All you need to worry about is the question of direction.
I want my loved ones, my region, my state and my country to do well. But the best way for all European to do this is massive cooperation because that’s exactly what a nation is as well. Imagine if you were going to tell the ancient Spartans that modern Greece's capital is Athens.
And yet, united, the Balkan’s could shake the Ottomans yoke.
Napoleon was not beaten by Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Prussia, Austria-Hungary or Russia. He was defeated by Europe.
So if the greatest shield against tyranny is unity, what is actually holding us back from attempting to form a federation? Culture? Tradition? Or merely people who still think that nations are going to last while history illustrates that nothing ever does?
Nobody who supports in the European project wants the EU to stay as it is right now. We are not naive and we know it’s problems well. But we also know that every alternative to the EU is a worse option.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UlpianHeritor When looking at a map, it was a thousand times worse than anything in the EU. The political level of devision was insane in a direct comparison. And it lasted for centuries.
Furthermore, it’s not like most educated people here in Europe could not communicate in Latin or, before and during the Napoleonic era, in French.
And if you would like another example, take ancient Rome. Held for centuries. Later, Ottoman sultans, Russians tsars and others would try to "claim" the crown of emperor. Or India. Almost always divided for the entire middle ages, then united by a unifying spirit in the wake of colonialism.
The one thing the EU doesn’t have is violence to facilitate a fast unification, so we use peaceful diplomacy, which is also a lot more friendly and what shall I say, it works. Slowly, but consistently. Because language in the end, is just a tool. Just like a government. And if you lack the right tool for a job, you get another one that fits.
It obviously is a lot more personal but think about it long enough and it becomes apparent that, even if you were given the dramatic choice between keeping your language and your freedom, most people would probably eventually choose freedom and that’s obviously not the choice that’s up for debate here as we merely talk about building something above the nation, not at all to abandon it.
Also, it’s kind of ironic that you can clearly divide the people into so few categories already, concerning opinions on this topic.
Content with status quo, don’t care, against the EU and for further unification.
That’s a really narrow opinion pool if you think about it.
Finally, actually speaking the same language may sound essential but even google can already translate Russian ( to an extent, even Japanese ) to a decent extent.
So if that’s all it takes, a single app focused on EU member states could lay the foundations needed to solve that issue with relative ease. Afterall, we live in the age of information.
Finally, look at the debates surrounding the EU. What language do people use the most to voice their adversity or content with either side of the argument internationally? I am not British or Irish, after all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1