Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "United States of Europe." video.

6:52 The idea that Europe should unite into one nation is much, much older and dates back, predating the EU.
47
@jaroslawborzuchowski8113 Nah, a confederation is most certainly possible. And quite frankly, the east doesn't have to join that confederation. I can see Norway join a confederation, but not a federation.
28
10:06 That's outright false. The continent is made up of peninsulas and islands. The US and China are not, being single landmasses.
14
@alphabetaomega265 Yep, pretty much. But at the same time, the idea of a federal Europe just wouldn't work for the majority of European nations. Most of us are not large nations like Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Poland etc. And people in the more densely populated parts of the continent just doesn't know what it takes to make life work in the parts of it that's not as population dense. Not as fertile, not as well developed etc... People have different challenges, and they need different solutions sometimes.
8
A long term bad idea. I have nothing against a confederated Europe. But a federated Europe is an entierly different beast. Merging Europe would ultimately come at the expense of peoples ability to influence their own lives. Their freedom. Their democracy. And yes, their economy. While small nations can be either well run or poorly run. Big ones are as far as I know always poorly run (the US and the British Empire included here). While small nations can be well run and take care of their citizens needs in a way that a big nation just can't do. Sure, there are drawbacks with smaller nations too, but the creation of supernational political entities (NATO, EU, Council of Europe, UN, etc, etc) essentially removed all of those drawbacks. The Rhin valley has a population of 10 million people. The whole nation of Norway (where I live) has a population of 5 million. The representative in the Norwegian parliament with the fewest votes for her party in this last election got into our parliament with 0,2% of the total national votes, or 4 908 total votes. In Norway that makes sense, in a United States of Europe, it simply would *not*. Why could she get elected given that representatives on average has 17 200 voters behind them in our parliament? Because we give seats to regions not just based on their population, but also based on their land area. Why? Because in any given election term you're quite likely to have a representative from any given city represented in parliament. But if you live in a small rural village chances are that there's many years between each time someone that knows how it is to live where you live actually are a part of the parliament. So if we had a strictly proportional distribution of seats in Norway there wouldn't be any representatives in our parliament who knows how it is to live in a village or city with a hospital only reachable by crossing a mountain that's often impassable in winter. Or in this case, since we do adjust for not just population but also land, and since said hospital hasn't been closed down just yet. Knows how it feels to be afraid of losing the only maternity ward and the only ER unit that's reachable in winter at all (since you can neither fly nor drive to the second closest hospital in winter) Only 3% of Norways land area is suitable for farming. Only 1% is suitable for wheat farming. And even the parts that's possible to farm can only be farmed when the weather is good enough... As you've probably already realized, that's not always the case... So it makes sense, and is fair for low populations areas to take part in ruling us. Even our cities benefit from ensuring that the rural parts of the country has its needs meet, and that we have people from there that knows how it is to live there take part in ruling the country and giving their input in order to adapt our policies. It helps us reduce our food dependence on other places (when we for whatever reason don't have access to the sea and trade we've usually experienced food shortages, or even outright starvation). People in different areas, with different jobs, different backgrounds, different experiences can all help ensure that you get a nuanced goverment. If everyone are the same things just works worse. Also, quite frankly, a big part of why we even exist as a nation is that rural areas has this much influence. While it might be fair for us, a people of just 5 millions to let one of our 169 seats be granted to someone representing just 4 908 votes, many of them from one of our ethnic minorities I might add, it would not make sense for 4 908 voters to decide the fate of the more then 400 million people living in the EU or the over 700 million in Europe... If we where to join a union with a this much bigger population then we as a people would become less democratic... And we would be worse off for it. This kind of things might work for people living in fertile lowlands with a high population density. But so many of the things that works and makes sense there just does not at the fringes of Europe. It's not enough with a high degree of self determination, that is federalization. You need power to fundamentally originate from the bottom and up. That's a important principle. That doesn't mean that I oppose closer integration as long as this principle remains though.
7
@jaroslawborzuchowski8113 In my view that middle ground isn't a federation but a confederation. The fundamental principles like rule of law and a proper democracy isn't something we're going to back down on. But that doesn't mean that all of Europe needs to have the exact same laws. Some level of coordination is useful. Companies should deal with similar laws at least, as the differences leads to a lot of complications. And persecution of minorities, be they ethnic, religious, sexual or otherwise just isn't going to fly. But that doesn't mean that Germany should decide what abortion laws you have, or who can adopt children in your country etc. I hold liberal values here personally (I live in Norway), but I think it's important that people have the right to determine the laws that rule *them*.
7
15:27 Exactly, and the USA is falling apart because of that. The bigger a nation worse less efficent it is and the worse it is for its citizens. Small states can be either well run or poorly run. But big ones are exclusivly poorly run. The US being one of the examples of this. Europe might lack unity vs outside nations, but we're more democratic and more efficient economically as a result.
6
I actually shared this as a reply to a comment earlier, but having written so much I figured I'd share this with all of you: A long term bad idea. I have nothing against a confederated Europe. But a federated Europe is an entierly different beast. Merging Europe would ultimately come at the expense of peoples ability to influence their own lives. Their freedom. Their democracy. And yes, their economy. While small nations can be either well run or poorly run. Big ones are as far as I know always poorly run (the US and the British Empire included here). While small nations can be well run and take care of their citizens needs in a way that a big nation just can't do. Sure, there are drawbacks with smaller nations too, but the creation of supernational political entities (NATO, EU, Council of Europe, UN, etc, etc) essentially removed all of those drawbacks. The Rhin valley has a population of 10 million people. The whole nation of Norway (where I live) has a population of 5 million. The representative in the Norwegian parliament with the fewest votes for her party in this last election got into our parliament with 0,2% of the total national votes, or 4 908 total votes. In Norway that makes sense, in a United States of Europe, it simply would *not*. Why could she get elected given that representatives on average has 17 200 voters behind them in our parliament? Because we give seats to regions not just based on their population, but also based on their land area. Why? Because in any given election term you're quite likely to have a representative from any given city represented in parliament. But if you live in a small rural village chances are that there's many years between each time someone that knows how it is to live where you live actually are a part of the parliament. So if we had a strictly proportional distribution of seats in Norway there wouldn't be any representatives in our parliament who knows how it is to live in a village or city with a hospital only reachable by crossing a mountain that's often impassable in winter. Or in this case, since we do adjust for not just population but also land, and since said hospital hasn't been closed down just yet. Knows how it feels to be afraid of losing the only maternity ward and the only ER unit that's reachable in winter at all (since you can neither fly nor drive to the second closest hospital in winter) Only 3% of Norways land area is suitable for farming. Only 1% is suitable for wheat farming. And even the parts that's possible to farm can only be farmed when the weather is good enough... As you've probably already realized, that's not always the case... So it makes sense, and is fair for low populations areas to take part in ruling us. Even our cities benefit from ensuring that the rural parts of the country has its needs meet, and that we have people from there that knows how it is to live there take part in ruling the country and giving their input in order to adapt our policies. It helps us reduce our food dependence on other places (when we for whatever reason don't have access to the sea and trade we've usually experienced food shortages, or even outright starvation). People in different areas, with different jobs, different backgrounds, different experiences can all help ensure that you get a nuanced goverment. If everyone are the same things just works worse. Also, quite frankly, a big part of why we even exist as a nation is that rural areas has this much influence. While it might be fair for us, a people of just 5 millions to let one of our 169 seats be granted to someone representing just 4 908 votes, many of them from one of our ethnic minorities I might add, it would not make sense for 4 908 voters to decide the fate of the more then 400 million people living in the EU or the over 700 million in Europe... If we where to join a union with a this much bigger population then we as a people would become less democratic... And we would be worse off for it. This kind of things might work for people living in fertile lowlands with a high population density. But so many of the things that works and makes sense there just does not at the fringes of Europe. It's not enough with a high degree of self determination, that is federalization. You need power to fundamentally originate from the bottom and up. That's a important principle. That doesn't mean that I oppose closer integration as long as this principle remains though.
3
@baronvonjo1929 With big I'm referring to population, not land area.
2
@cardenova Actually, the two party system makes things harder in the US because election results tends to be binary you end up with parties that just does not cooperate, and lack of nuance in the political debate. And state law does not trump federal law, that's kind of the problem. As for a "solid constitution"... Yeah, the US one is a bit outdated I'm afraid, and far from solid...
2
@primilumi7472 Okey, you're saying that Europe is falling behind economically because we make up a smaller percentage of the total economy of this planet. But what does the numbers say when you look at our economic output pr capita? We have a lower population growth then nations like India or Nigeria. It's only natural that these will catch up with us economically too. That doesn't make this a zero sum game where we're somehow losing.
1
@Inderpal Singh Let's agree to disagree on that one... Eastern Europes way of looking at the continent at times leaves something to be desired... They worry about Russia, fair enough. I live in Norway, we share a border with Russia too. But that does not in any way, shape or form mean that federalization would benefit us at all. Quite the countrary. And this video is clearly both partial and quite flawed... The facebook page of the channel is in Polish apparently. So that might explain why they're so keen on European unity. It would solve many of the issues that the citizens of Poland has had for a long, long time. Living on the European plains they've always been exposed to invasions from both east and west, so European unity would provide improved security and safety for the poles. The democracy of Poland leaves a bit to be desired, with rule of law taking a back seat in later years. Something that I imagine a progressive and pro-union individual in Poland would probably consider a problem. If the European Union became federalized it would drive the quality of the democracy of this continent more towards the middle. Great for nations whose democracy leaves something to be desired, like Poland. Not so much for nations whose democracy is ahead of the EU average or the EU organs themselves. Poland being located on the European plains also means that the agricultural conditions and population density gives the country quite a lot of potential on the European stage even if its population of course is far below that of Germany. This would not be true for everyone though. Poland has a population of about 37 millions. Germany about 83. The EU about 300 millions. Europe as a whole about 700 millions. The Ruhr valley alone has a population of about 5 millions. Roughly the same as my own country, Norway. A single valley with the same population as a country that's almost as long as the width of the US or Australia... Here in Norway we had someone elected in this last election from a party with just 4 908 votes, or 0,2% of the total number of people voting in that election. And she got one of the 169 seats in our parliament. And we don't have a first past the post system like India does either. No, she was voted in through a proportional system. In the electoral circle she represents there's 5 seats, and she got one of them. And in the process she probably stopped a hospital from being closed that was the only hospital for a big part of that electoral circle that's reachable all year long (the replacement hospital would be unavailable during bad weather in winter, since it would require either crossing a mountain that's impassable in winter, or flying, not a option in bad weather) Our electoral system ensures that small places like that has a say in how their lives are ruled. And it makes sense for us, just 5 million people to let someone represent a few thousands of us and still have a voice. But you're not going to be representing less then 5 000 people in a nation of bout 300 millions (EU) or if the Union ends up spreading throughout Europe a total of over 700 millions... People have different living conditions. In Norway only 3% of our land area is suitable for farming, 1% for wheat. And large parts of the year isn't suitable for agriculture at all... That involves different considerations then someone from the lowlands in Germany, France, Poland etc... The thing is I actually want more European solutions, but they need to be confederal in nature. With the power comming from the bottom up. People from the big nations, fails to see that way too often. And are blinded by their historic empires and dreams of grandure. Poland is the 8th most populous nation in Europe, and has the history of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth to look back upon. Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain all have a history of being major nations, empires even. But Europe is made up of more then Empires. It's made up of more then just the peoples of the lowlands with easy farming and a dense population. Europe has issues to deal with that people in these countries just does not face. Nor does the urbanists of some of the smaller nations. In the UK London has left the north of the country behind economically in stagnation. The urban west of Germany is doing great while the east is suffering. France... France is just a mess right now and suffers from the same kind of elitism... And so one and so forth... We need common European solutions to a lot of our problems. We need European solidarity. But if we tried to unify this continent into one country it would devestate the majority of it... And federalization isn't a silver bullet for that... A confederate approach is the only real option. Only if we can opt out will people here be willing to opt *in*.
1
@inderpalsingh713 Well, I happen to be voting for a political party that intentionally want to lower our standard of living in order to have a more sustainable society from a environmental point of view. There's of course a limit to how much people are willing to lose. But there's a difference between wealth and quality of life. Anyway, the German version of that party is a part of the current cabinet coalition in Germany. So I wouldn't be so sure about that statement of yours. Poorer nations like India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia etc, etc in Asia as well as the nations i Africa and south America needs improvements in living standards. But here in the west we're living at unsustainable levels.
1
@kaia1962 I'm not talking about land area, I'm talking about population.
1
@Neion8 And my point is that you can have a large land area with a small population and be well run (look at the nordic countries), but a country with a large population almost exclusively are poorly run. And no, your argument about Canada doesn't hold water. There being few people in those rural northern territories doesn't mean that there's no difference in culture there. Nor that that difference doesn't matter. Low population areas should not be ignored. Indeed that's part of why republicans in the US are so against a "fair fight" electorally. They feel that they represent a part of the country that while small has concerns that the population in bigger urban centers simply doesn't understand. Those differences between rural central areas in the US and the urban coastline is actually a good thing in my view as it could provide more perspectives if the US used a proportional representation system with relative proportionality with its current seat allocation calculation system so more voices could be heard from all parts of the country. Not just two parties and the polarization of politics that always leads to... However I do feel that the US would have been better off as a confederation of multiple fundamentally free nations that worked together rather than as a federal nation. And instead of forcing other members of the confederation to follow all the same exact laws as you'd like you could simply use the same mechanics used in international diplomacy. If one state wants to practice slavery, then fine, don't trade with them, don't cooperate with them, exclude them till they're willing to behave again and vote themselves to abolish the practice. Instead of forcing the matter at gunpoint. This has worked at s international level in many, many countries that used to practice slavery. It simply wasn't worth it long term. And you avoid the bloody martyrs created in such a war and the misgivings people have with being controlled by people they feel are outside their influence. Sure, some of those states would be poorly run. But by being truly separate entities these states would have a chance at truly succeeding. And yes, they could cooperate through a confederation. That is, the power ultimately comes from the bottom up. But larger goals can still be achieved. Think a ESA style NASA. France, Italy, Germany and the UK still make up some of the top 10 spending space nations, but multiple European nations benefits from ESAs work. Despite the other smaller nations only contributing about a third of the budget if I don't remember wrong.
1
@luisoviedo-perez2896 You might want to look more into the real capabilities of the German military... It's severely underfunded, and barely operational at all. There's little point in owning a submarine if the funding for its maintainance is so poor that it's not operational at all as a example...
1