Would this be a big deal? Sounds like it could negatively impact immigration. Would more countries consider leaving:
This is why the EU was always heavy-handed with the UK. They didn't want the dominoes to start falling. There really is only two possible outcomes here: Either the EU falls apart or the EU becomes a consolidated nation-state similar to the US in which the countries become the equivalent of US states.
The nations of the EU have too much history of conflict, too differing societies, and totally different philosophies to ever be a united entity. Heck, you can't even get the English to unite peacefully with the Scottish, let alone the Germans with the French.
Nations should make trade agreements rather than get sucked into a beast such as The E.U. The E.U. is an abomination favoring wealthy nations, ie. GERMANY, raping smaller nations' resources such as GERMANY and Greek fisheries. No E.U. No NATO No Moi Liberate The Provinces from the Quebec - Ontario Axis
The E.U. is the modern day soviet union. I agree with Nigel Farage 100% on this point. And it will eventually wind up just as the Soviet Union did.
The EU was never very tight. I traveled etensively in the EU and business-wise the countries remained very independent. Militarily too. The only real "EU" I saw was at customs where citizens of the EU got through the lines quicker. The EU really made no difference at all. I loved how Britain kept the Pound rather than succumb to the Euro. If the EU falls apart it will be difficult to detect.
I think the EU is already there. The difference is that people in the U.S. states speak the same language and share a common culture. The EU will fail ultimately. It was founded as an economic union and has devolved into a governmental one. Government is always about power and control.
Maybe one day, but the USSR didn't let Hungary go like the EU did the UK (reluctantly). Neither has the EU purged several million people or committed mass genocide against the Ukranians and Kulaks. I do not support the EU at all, but let's be realistic about what it is and is not.
I would look at Hungary leaving the EU rather than Poland, since Warsaw quickly falls into line when the funds it receives are threatened.
Mass genocide? Sounds like Nazi Germany? Oh that's right, that's the genocide in Ukraine that we forgot about. We also forgot that Khruschev the Ukrainian was in charge of food distribution in the so called 'holodymir' and it was the Russians that suffered predominantly. But look, if it makes people happy to blame Stalin or the Russians for everything and anything, then why not? Anyway the murders of tens of millions by the criminal Bolsheviks might not be taking place in the EU, but the intent and structure is quite similar.
How about let's look past the Cold War genocide reference....which ain't exactly correct. But what about the millions of Russians in Latvia and Estonia that were stripped of citizenship and became stateless when those countries joined the EU? Wouldn't that be an EU 'purging'?
That's not the only possibly outcome, but I would agree that the most likely outcome is it dissolves. When you create a State, you have only three options: 1) Unitary-State 2) Confederation 3) Federation All EU-members are unitary-States save Germany which is a federation but formerly a unitary-State. Unitary-States only work if you have a homogeneous population and Europe is anything but homogeneous. That's why there have been grumblings in the EU for a long time and it's crumbling now. A confederation would work well in the EU. The States reign supreme and you have a central government with limited powers, and in this case probably best to limit those powers to coining money, defense and regulating commerce between the States, which is what the EU had already been doing since 1956 and has worked quite well. A federation might also work, but not as well as a confederation. The early US was anything but homogeneous, but what distinguishes the early US from the EU is that a cultural identity had already started to form. That cultural identity was effectively, "Damn, I'm glad I came here!" which is not something that could form in the EU. The populations in the EU are far more culturally conservative than Americans are. So, unless the EU sits down and re-writes its charter, it will continue to have problems.
As I understood it, Germany shouldered a lot of the load of bailing out nations whose finances were under water, like Greece.
I find that hard to believe, since the way you describe it, would be against international law. So how 'bout you don't assume that we all follow what happens to Russians in Latvia, and try actually explaining what happened, clearly. For example, if these were Russian citizens, how could the EU possibly take away their Russian citizenship? I am, therefore guessing that you meant to say, "ethnic Russians." So, again, if they were Estonian or Latvian citizens, how would joining the EU change that? That actually makes even less sense: so only citizens of those two countries who were ethnically Russian, had their citizenship, "stripped away?" Absurd! Please explain what the hell you are talking about.
<SNIP> Poland’s government, which is led by the conservative Law and Justice party, has been in conflict with EU officials in Brussels since it took power in 2015. The dispute is largely over changes to the Polish judicial system, which give the ruling party more power over the courts. Polish authorities say they seek to reform a corrupt and inefficient justice system. The European Commission believes the changes erode the country’s democratic system of checks and balances. <End Snip> Wow, talk about a timely analog! This seems a relevant reflection of what is going on right this moment, between our federal government, and many Republican-led states, over voting rights. Though, your SNIP says that it has been a simmering friction since 2015, so I guess that makes us, the reflection.
I dont live there and I havnt been there, so I'll avoid telling europeans what to do. But its worth mentioning that it appears from where I am like they're paying a lot of taxes to an institution that was literally dreamed up by Hitler as a means to rule europe by proxy while allowing them the illusion of sovereignty, and it doesnt look like those taxes are returning much to the europeans.
That is off the charts ignorant. Lot of Europeans would be glad to see a "taker" nation like Poland leave, because they being so little to the table.
I found your overall post to be a good one, but I have one disagreement with it, and one other point to raise. Though you may well be correct that there was a degree of shared, cultural identity, beginning to form in the earliest stage of U.S. history, that sense of unity showed serious signs of strain, with every wave of new immigrants that came from countries beside Britain, and maybe France. Also, it was not too long before the slavery issue, also began dividing our "cultural identity," far more than was already the case, from the far different lifestyles between the northern & southern parts of the country. It might be interesting if you worked some of those dynamics, onto your evaluation. My disagreement is on your blanket statement that all of the EU is more culturally conservative than the U.S. The huge problem of this general statement, is the idea that one even can generalize about Europe's degree of cultural conservatism. The differences are vast, between Ireland, with its highly-restrictive abortion laws, and strong Catholic tradition, versus say the Netherlands, with legal prostitution, ample shops geared toward sex, and pot cafes. Even closer to the Dutch, on the map, are the rather conservative Danes. Or one can compare the rather culturally liberal Swedes, with their much more reserved Norwegian neighbors. Also, sharing a border with conservative Portugal, is libertine Spain, whose sexual licentiousness far surpasses the attitudes of anywhere in the U.S. which, when it comes to sex, is definitely more, "conservative," that is, reserved, made uncomfortable by, close-minded about it, than the majority of Europe. The French, for example, are far less embarrassed by nudity, than we, and the idea of sex in general, of mistresses and extra-marital affairs, are far less titillating or taboo there than in the main of the U.S., which still bears the features of its Puritan beginnings. That said, there are some issues on which the U.S. seems more liberal, as perhaps on the transgendered, but, remember, for a long time Americans had to go to the Netherlands, for sex-reassignment surgery. Likewise, while the Dutch have long been in the forefront of tolerance towards drug use, the U.S. is now racing past the main of the EU, in the number of states loosening up on marijuana laws.The U.S., however, I believe bans the use of embryonic stem cells for research, whereas the EU is not as restrictive. In short, I think it is clearly an overly-broad contention, both because of the inconsistent levels of "conservativism," which America & the EU may have on different issues that fall under that umbrella, but especially because of the drastic differences between different EU nations (which, to a lesser degree, is also true of different parts of our own country).
European nations are different from each other, but culturally conservative in the sense that they'll do anything to preserve their cultural heritage. In US we tear down old buildings and build shiny new skyscrapers, but Europeans insist on preserving buildings that are hundreds of years old, which is why Rome is filled with art and historic structures, and same it true everywhere in Europe. That's why people find European cities interesting places to visit.
Is that an actual expression, which you are defining? I never heard that, before, and so assumed that Mircea had intended it (in his post, which I was answering) as synonymous with "social conservative." But, contextually, your definition of it translating more literally, to conserving of one's culture, actually makes more sense. Thanks for broadening my vocabulary. I actually have a book, recommended by one of the other members, here, that is titled: American Nations-- A History of The Eleven Regional Cultures of North America. Unfortunately, I haven't yet started it, so I will have to get back to this topic (the hypothesis of the book, is that these 11 cultures have remained constant, in their locations).
I'd say that we certainly care about preserving historic sites here, as well. The difference is that our history is not nearly as long as is Europe's, so naturally they would have accrued, with more actual history (if we do not count Native American history), also more historic "stuff," including much that is far more ancient than even our oldest remains, from European settlers. By my new understanding of cultural conservatism, one large constituency of U.S. cultural conservatives, though, are those defending the statues of Confederate leaders.