noemon wrote:Would you not care if one of your best friends, did not want to be friends anymore? Would that not undermine the pack? Would you not be sad about it? And try to convince him that we are all buddies? Would it not be even worse if that friends left for a lying bitch, such as Murdoch's lying corporate media?
You make it sound so personal. You make it sound like two fuck-buddies having a bad break-up. Is that really a good way to look at nation-states?
noemon wrote:Of course I do.
You don't see how that could eventually endanger individual member sovereignty?
noemon wrote:This is indeed an excellent argument originally made by One Degree. Well there is no guarantee for anything, but the EU members taking example from the US have already imposed constraints so that this does not happen. These constraints are that they(EU members states) hold the initiative to legislation and not a centralised EU institution, in the US you have ceded that right to Congress. In the EU this cannot change unless all 28 unanimously vote to change it,
I didn't realize that One Degree made that same argument, regardless, my point is that if EU states have concerns that that EU membership would trend towards centralization to the detriment of individual autonomy; their would be historical precendent and justificaiton for such concerns. That's all.
noemon wrote:which when and if it is brought about, then we should all stand against it.
Well, if you have a central-command and a united EU military force at such a time, you may not be able to stand against it.
Which is part of my point.
Indeed, in the case of the USA, the only reason the civil war was able to be waged at all was because the raising of armies was still the primary responsibility of the individual states, and up to that point (which was still practiced somewhat afterwards); the USA dismantled its united military after every war as to prevent a central government from using a standing force to subjugate the individual states. Thus, the states were militarily able to secede (or attempt such). With an enormous standing military under a centralized command, such a evenly-matched civil war between states would be impossible today.
If the EU continues to centralize militarily, any notion of ever leaving this union in the future will be made impossible under threat of force.
Let me also remind you; that at one time, the states of the USA each had a veto under the Articles of Confederation and no changes could be made without the approval of ALL the legislatures of each state.
Hell, they even called it a "league of friendship"
not unlike your own description of the EU.
noemon wrote:But let us not pretend that if the EU break that EU member states will become more sovereign, they won't, they will simply become easy pickings and they will not have any veto to disagree with the big boys.
Under that logic, no revolution or act of secession resulting in a smaller state leaving a bigger one would ever be justified, because the resulting smaller state would be more subject to other powers after leaving the bigger one.
Should Greeks and Serbs never have resisted the Turks because in leaving they would have become more vulnerable to the British, Russians, and Germans?
Of course not!
Sovereignty is not about invulnerability, its about choosing your own fate, even if it means facing bigger and badder enemies all alone.
Do you think there was not a risk to the American colonies in the leaving the British Empire? Especially with other empires like the Spanish and French on all sides?
America today is retracting its powers of influence, not expanding them, so I think the fears are a bit exaggerated. I mean seriously, do you really think the Americans are planning to conquer Europe like Hitler had attempted?
We can't even keep fucking Afghanistan in check.