Comments by "리주민" (@user-nf9xc7ww7m) on "United States of Europe." video.
-
2
-
The US Constitution (the charter of the United States of America) was drafted in secret and only ratified by each sovereign state little by little, while still under the old articles of confederation.
Following that model, the United States of Europe (USE) proponents could draft the USE constitution and send out to each member state of the EU. Those that sign it will become USE States and drop the old EU. If France and Germany go into USE, smaller EU States may be forced to join or cobble together with a smaller GDP and loss of the giant players. Eventually, most would probably join the USE for one reason or another, perhaps with the bicameral compromise (which already exists for the EU—the Council, which resembles the Bundesrat).
As for Unanimity or consensus, I don't think it's a bad thing, as long as affected States and representatives are forced to recuse themselves, if an interested party. The recusal part could easily bypass the deadlock that occurs in the EU and even the UN security council. If agreement couldn't be reached at the federal level, nothing to stop the States from trying to pass at the state level, or even the Counties, etc.
Keep in mind, juries are unanimous. Someone long ago deemed that a major life altering decision should not be decided by a majority or even ⅔, but by all.
2
-
The US Constitution (the charter of the United States of America) was drafted in secret and only ratified by each sovereign state little by little, while still under the old articles of confederation.
Following that model, the United States of Europe (USE) proponents could draft the USE constitution and send out to each member state of the EU. Those that sign it will become USE States and drop the old EU. If France and Germany go into USE, smaller EU States may be forced to join or cobble together with a smaller GDP and loss of the giant players. Eventually, most would probably join the USE for one reason or another, perhaps with the bicameral compromise (which already exists for the EU—the Council, which resembles the Bundesrat).
As for Unanimity or consensus, I don't think it's a bad thing, as long as affected States and representatives are forced to recuse themselves, if an interested party. The recusal part could easily bypass the deadlock that occurs in the EU and even the UN security council. If agreement couldn't be reached at the federal level, nothing to stop the States from trying to pass at the state level, or even the Counties, etc.
Keep in mind, juries are unanimous. Someone long ago deemed that a major life altering decision should not be decided by a majority or even ⅔, but by all.
2
-
1
-
The US Constitution (the charter of the United States of America) was drafted in secret and only ratified by each sovereign state little by little, while still under the old articles of confederation.
Following that model, the United States of Europe (USE) proponents could draft the USE constitution and send out to each member state of the EU. Those that sign it will become USE States and drop the old EU. If France and Germany go into USE, smaller EU States may be forced to join or cobble together with a smaller GDP and loss of the giant players. Eventually, most would probably join the USE for one reason or another, perhaps with the bicameral compromise (which already exists for the EU—the Council, which resembles the Bundesrat).
As for Unanimity or consensus, I don't think it's a bad thing, as long as affected States and representatives are forced to recuse themselves, if an interested party. The recusal part could easily bypass the deadlock that occurs in the EU and even the UN security council. If agreement couldn't be reached at the federal level, nothing to stop the States from trying to pass at the state level, or even the Counties, etc.
Keep in mind, juries are unanimous. Someone long ago deemed that a major life altering decision should not be decided by a majority or even ⅔, but by all.
1
-
I wonder if tricameralism, quadracameralism, or even pentacameralism is 🔑 🗝 🔐. Continental, "national", state, county, and even possibly district (smallest contiguous area, containing towns and surrounding country) is federated together. Continental Diet = 500 MPs (directly elected by population), "national" council = 27 national councillors (represents the former nations within the USE), states council = 117 states councillors (representing the states within each USE "nation"), county Assembly = 3300 assemblymen (counties within each USE "nation"), and district diet = 10000 dieters(?) (Subcounty districts within each "nation").
1
-
The US Constitution (the charter of the United States of America) was drafted in secret and only ratified by each sovereign state little by little, while still under the old articles of confederation.
Following that model, the United States of Europe (USE) proponents could draft the USE constitution and send out to each member state of the EU. Those that sign it will become USE States and drop the old EU. If France and Germany go into USE, smaller EU States may be forced to join or cobble together with a smaller GDP and loss of the giant players. Eventually, most would probably join the USE for one reason or another, perhaps with the bicameral compromise (which already exists for the EU—the Council, which resembles the Bundesrat).
As for Unanimity or consensus, I don't think it's a bad thing, as long as affected States and representatives are forced to recuse themselves, if an interested party. The recusal part could easily bypass the deadlock that occurs in the EU and even the UN security council. If agreement couldn't be reached at the federal level, nothing to stop the States from trying to pass at the state level, or even the Counties, etc.
Keep in mind, juries are unanimous. Someone long ago deemed that a major life altering decision should not be decided by a majority or even ⅔, but by all.
1
-
1
-
1