noemon wrote:Please. Answer your own question.
If I already knew I wouldn't have asked.
noemon wrote:It has been working just fine for decades.
The EU does not have centralized EU armed forces yet in anything akin to the USA or RUSSIA. So I don't know what you are talking about.
noemon wrote:If all the states unanimously agreed to do that, that is their issue.
Obviously, and its a good argument as to why they shouldn't have got in to begin with. Once again, the EU member states can look at the U.S. if they want to see their future as part of union.
noemon wrote:That is a silly and ludicrous argument, you do not leave something out of fear of what will happen in the future, otherwise you would not walk out of your front-door, especially when you are always free to leave if such a thing ever gets discussed and when you are also free to vote it down if it does get discussed.
How is that ludicrous? I don't invest in high risk stocks or gamble in slot machines because of a cost-benefit analysis and calculation of risks to my future well-being.
You are straw-manning my critique here to the point that I don't think that you WANT to have this discussion. Fact is, by being part of the EU, each state risks its future sovereignty based on historic precedent, namely the individual states of the American union.
noemon wrote: If a state does not have the right to vote, propose, veto and amend something then it has no mechanism to express its sovereignty. It can and will be threatened into submission.
I appreciate your explanation; however, this claim almost requires its own thread because its clearly part of some broader system of political theory that needs analyzed because its quite contrary to common-sense.
Most people would regard a nation as sovereign if its able to have full reign over its own internal affairs and policies, not because it got a vote in some of international club.
Under that argument; prior to the advent of international organizations, there were no sovereign nations.
So, just in case i'm not understanding. if the United States, right now, was kicked out the UN and every other fraternal organization of an international scope, are you saying it would no longer be sovereign and would now be vulnerable?
noemon wrote:For your argument to make any sense you have to ignore reality, put blinders on your head and wish international relations away. A state is part of the globe whether you call it a union, or a coalition or merely an existence of states and these states share borders and cannot physically or practically exist in vacuums. They have to agree between them from simple things like whether their passports are valid or not to how much tax they will impose on each other to a whole list of things. There are only 2 extremes here on how to govern their relationships and everything falls either at or between these 2 extremes. Brute force or consensus. The EU is the one that offers states equal representation not only in its decision making but throughout every single one of its bodies, that aims to achieve equitability and justice.
You can call it ignoring reality, but that's if you ascribe ZERO nuance to my position or any other EU skeptic.
bilateral agreements can occur without joining in unions or alliances; we've done this for hundreds of years before the EU, UN, or any other such thing ever even existed.
I just find this whole idea of a nation "needing representation" as crazy talk.
Maybe my American context makes this very hard for me to comprehend psychologically, but I really don't care if the USA has representation in a international organization and I don't think most Americans really care that much either. You speak of nations as individuals having some sort of rights to be protected by a larger body. I have never heard people speak this way here in the States, only in terms of honoring or not-honoring agreements.
You are advocating a government for governments; however, as has been pointed out; this is a reductive position, for eventually there will be just one government (The EU Council) and one nation (Europe).
You might want this because Greece would not likely do well without the EU or some other membership to some other international fraternity, as apparently nations need to have their rights protected by some other group or organization; However, I don't understand the hositility to those countries that think they could manage quite well on their own and don't want to risk being consolidated into some new European nation-state down the road.
I get why they would be concerned by this. Like I said before, I couldn't give a shit, but it seems to me that Euroskeptics are just being shit on for expressing some valid historical concerns.
If you don't really care about what I have to say on this, or just think i'm crazy. Thats fine, i'll move along.