Score + - 4 Report post.
img
Posted on 2018-04-29 14:35:51 by Astrolys

Remove | Add note | Keep | Edit | Note history | Tag History | Previous | Next


12 comments (0 hidden)

Art_Mapper-Aufer
Posted on 2018-05-08 18:35:43 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down)    (Report as spam)
my dream

Fjana
Posted on 2018-05-08 19:03:21 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down)    (Report as spam)
Well, I'm pro-EU but not pro-Paneuropism... Why would be united Europe better than free associated?

Astrolys
Posted on 2018-05-08 23:46:30 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down)    (Report as spam)
Pro-Paneuropism... berk. I think you mean "European Federalist".

I truly think a European Federation, or European country would be better for many reasons. Under the same flag, the European Federation, or the 27 EU countries would be the strongest country in the world: First economy, first military, 3rd largest population and richest one, highest GDP, large and diverse territory, the biggest EEZ, etc. We could rival the United States and China, and even the rising India. We could implement better social reforms for all the EU citizens and create one the best welfare state in the world and a really healthy and rich population. United, we could also create powerful ecological reforms that have a greater impact.
Our voice in the world if United would be much greater.
In Europe, one single federal government with one budget could make significant savings for better results. We could also create one of the most efficient education systems in the world. Investments in scientific research could be more importants and thus create a real competition against the US in R&D resulting in more scientific discoveries in many fields. Also, investments in public infrastructure could be also more efficient in countries that need more infrastructure (Like the Balkans and the Baltics mostly).

There are so many advantages I can't really tell them all. The only massive "disadvantage" would be the loss of sovereignty for the 27 actual nation states of the EU. But this loss would mean an ultimate greater good, so I don't really think it is a disadvantage.

Fjana
Posted on 2018-05-09 12:32:48 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down)    (Report as spam)
Sorry, but in my language are both options acceptable... I prefer paneuropism, because it is not related only to the EU, but actually to all pro-united organisatian (Like planned post-world war 1 Panropa or Atlantropa)

Fjana
Posted on 2018-05-09 12:42:08 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down)    (Report as spam)
Well. I'm actually for something like confederation. I saw some plans based on fact, that historicly and culturaly related states would form member states (F.E. Poland, Czechia and Slovakia (maybe Lusatia) together, Germany, Austria and part of Switzerland together...) But actual federation is i think nonsense. Which languages would be official? If UK leaves, will be english official? What about less prosperating states (Greece, Romania...) High GDP, ok... But Europe is just too divided to be forever united in one federation. This would cause many problems... What about minorities (Catalans, Scots, Lusatian Sorbs...)

Astrolys
Posted on 2018-05-09 12:55:52 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down)    (Report as spam)
For languages: This problem even exist today without a Federation. English is the de facto lingua franca. As it makes little to no sense to use it as such since the beginning and more since the UK departure, many propose Esperanto to become the official lingua franca. It's an artificial european-based, simple and easy to learn language.
The poorest states would actually benefits from a United Europe because, if it is done correctly, massive funds would help greater development.
Europe is too divided ? Look, most of Europeans use the same currency: The Euro. Most of countries are in the Schengen area. We share a same state-like government: The European council + European Commission + The European Parliament. We also share the greatest free trade zone of the world. We share a common citizenship. There is only one thing that misses for all the EU to be really united: All members to use the Euro, all members to be in the Schengen Area, a common language and a common military (which is somewhat under development, or at least some kind of cooperation). Europe is really, really united yet, the only thing that divides us is the importance of nation states and their identities.
As for minorities, the only thing to do is to simply give them a state within the federation. Simple. I did this in one of my maps. Look for it.

Fjana
Posted on 2018-05-09 13:10:35 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down)    (Report as spam)
I'm Czech. I don't think that czech crowns are Euros... And to understand - I'm pro federational parts (via my last post), but i think that complete federation is nonsence. I also dream about united Europe, but when i look at the demographics and in news, i have to say, that if countries breaks apart, it's step back from complete federation. If all these problems suddenly dissappear, I'm also pro-EU, but i think, that today, Schengen area and proposed united military is in this moment good enough.

Astrolys
Posted on 2018-05-09 17:06:45 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down)    (Report as spam)
As for the euro, I said "most of europeans": 75% of Europeans use the euro (if we exclude the UK) and all members at the exception of Denmark will have to join at some point.

And I don't really understand what you mean after that. Correct me if I'm wrong: Do you mean that a European Federation is impossible given the political tendencies of some countries, like separatism in Spain or the rise of euro-skepticism in a lot of countries ?

Fjana
Posted on 2018-05-09 17:34:34 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down)    (Report as spam)
Yes. You are right.

Astrolys
Posted on 2018-05-09 20:38:53 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down)    (Report as spam)
Then, just like any project, it's not because things do not seem right that it makes nonsense or is impossible.


1 2>>>

>>Respond

Would you like to help us to try to get this site ad free? Check out our patreon!