Should the UK leave the EU?

[Zoraptor]

 

Most nation states in Europe did evolve organically. 

 

Isn't that pretty much the nature of nation states?

 

 

Not necessarily; the 19th century situation was quite artificial and the EU is effectively an attempt to go back to an even more extreme version of that situation with one 'empire'. Then, Europe was dominated by large multi ethnic empires held together, ultimately, by threat of force; military force probably does not now apply but there's certainly implied economic... leverage that can be applied. Then, even somewhere like Spain (or the aforementioned France) which had 'natural' borders that had been established, more or less, for 500 years were multiethnic, and an amalgam of even older proto-countries that theoretically at least they could revert to. That's largely not true for France nowadays except for some lingering sentiment in Brittany, but is for Spain. However, if you look at the break ups of the empires after WW1 the countries which ended up stable and surviving long term where the ones which formed 'spontaneously' via popular sentiment and which were 'historical' entities. Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (~Bohemia) and to an extent Finland all had long term identities prior to ending up in their respective empires. Same for the organic part of the Ottoman break up too, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Romania (via Wlach/ Moldova) all had long term identities. The 'non organic' approach is always fraught with danger, as with the non organic/ imposed parts of the breaks ups of the Austro Hungarian and Ottoman empires. From that you got Yugoslavia on one hand and that cretinous artificial arbitrary mess in the middle east that still causes so much trouble on the other.

 

That's why an imposed EU is not just a bad idea but verges on being outright dangerous. If it's going to be done it has to be done via genuine popular approval rather than just acclamation from the political elite. Otherwise it risks springing apart, and potentially springing apart violently.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Zoraptor

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Let me illustrate in another way: If they are valueless, what are their use? What use do we have for love, friendship, beauty? Nothing at all

That's beyond stupid. The health, productivity and general quality-of-life benefits of love, friendship and "beauty" are very tangible and measurable.

 

 

As for your quantification of love, friendship and beauty. Oh boy, i pity that mindset.

 

What, exactly, is pitiable about the idea that the positive benefits they have on our lives is not just "in our heads", but actually tangible, measurable and provable? You're arguing with a vast body of research that says human relationships and human contact are good for you; why? To score points in a debate by letting you claim that this is some sort of abstract and fuzzy benefit that can't be quantified?

Edited July 10, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Let me illustrate in another way: If they are valueless, what are their use? What use do we have for love, friendship, beauty? Nothing at all

That's beyond stupid. The health, productivity and general quality-of-life benefits of love, friendship and "beauty" are very tangible and measurable.

 

 

As for your quantification of love, friendship and beauty. Oh boy, i pity that mindset.

 

What, exactly, is pitiable about the idea that the positive benefits they have on our lives is not just "in our heads", but actually tangible, measurable and provable? You're arguing with a vast body of research that says human relationships and human contact are good for you; why? To score points in a debate by letting you claim that this is some sort of abstract and fuzzy benefit that can't be quantified?

?

Alum whats your view on the EU? Do you support it ....wants changes etc. ?

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

Let me illustrate in another way: If they are valueless, what are their use? What use do we have for love, friendship, beauty? Nothing at all

That's beyond stupid. The health, productivity and general quality-of-life benefits of love, friendship and "beauty" are very tangible and measurable.

 

 

As for your quantification of love, friendship and beauty. Oh boy, i pity that mindset.

 

What, exactly, is pitiable about the idea that the positive benefits they have on our lives is not just "in our heads", but actually tangible, measurable and provable? You're arguing with a vast body of research that says human relationships and human contact are good for you; why? To score points in a debate by letting you claim that this is some sort of abstract and fuzzy benefit that can't be quantified?

 

 

I find it pitiful because it restricts them into the material, which means it is indistuingishable to a well balanced diet, a good return of investment or an optimisation of productivity. When in reality it is intertwined into our shared consciousness, expressed in music, art and literature and right down to our mythologies of gods and heroes, how they overcame themselves and elevated their very position thanks to those values.

 

A human being can perfectly survive without experiencing a friendship where you can completely depend on each others help, or experiencing a love so strong that you can give your own life for another without hesitation, or just admire a piece of art in complete disinterest of oneself and be completely in awe of its beauty. But i pity such an existence or mindset, because it is missing on what essentially makes us human.

 

I am not trying to throw empirical knowledge to the side, if that's what you think. I am simply stating that i find it lacking.

[Elerond]

 

 

Most nation states in Europe did evolve organically. 

 

Isn't that pretty much the nature of nation states?

 

 

Not necessarily; the 19th century situation was quite artificial and the EU is effectively an attempt to go back to an even more extreme version of that situation with one 'empire'. Then, Europe was dominated by large multi ethnic empires held together, ultimately, by threat of force; military force probably does not now apply but there's certainly implied economic... leverage that can be applied. Then, even somewhere like Spain (or the aforementioned France) which had 'natural' borders that had been established, more or less, for 500 years were multiethnic, and an amalgam of even older proto-countries that theoretically at least they could revert to. That's largely not true for France nowadays except for some lingering sentiment in Brittany, but is for Spain. However, if you look at the break ups of the empires after WW1 the countries which ended up stable and surviving long term where the ones which formed 'spontaneously' via popular sentiment and which were 'historical' entities. Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (~Bohemia) and to an extent Finland all had long term identities prior to ending up in their respective empires. Same for the organic part of the Ottoman break up too, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Romania (via Wlach/ Moldova) all had long term identities. The 'non organic' approach is always fraught with danger, as with the non organic/ imposed parts of the breaks ups of the Austro Hungarian and Ottoman empires. From that you got Yugoslavia on one hand and that cretinous artificial arbitrary mess in the middle east that still causes so much trouble on the other.

 

That's why an imposed EU is not just a bad idea but verges on being outright dangerous. If it's going to be done it has to be done via genuine popular approval rather than just acclamation from the political elite. Otherwise it risks springing apart, and potentially springing apart violently.

 

 

If use of violence to ensure formation of nation state prevents it being organic evolution then most of European nation states didn't born organically.

 

Finland isn't really a nation state, because we are federacy of multiple nations.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Most nation states in Europe did evolve organically. 

 

Isn't that pretty much the nature of nation states?

 

 

Not necessarily; the 19th century situation was quite artificial and the EU is effectively an attempt to go back to an even more extreme version of that situation with one 'empire'. Then, Europe was dominated by large multi ethnic empires held together, ultimately, by threat of force; military force probably does not now apply but there's certainly implied economic... leverage that can be applied. Then, even somewhere like Spain (or the aforementioned France) which had 'natural' borders that had been established, more or less, for 500 years were multiethnic, and an amalgam of even older proto-countries that theoretically at least they could revert to. That's largely not true for France nowadays except for some lingering sentiment in Brittany, but is for Spain. However, if you look at the break ups of the empires after WW1 the countries which ended up stable and surviving long term where the ones which formed 'spontaneously' via popular sentiment and which were 'historical' entities. Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (~Bohemia) and to an extent Finland all had long term identities prior to ending up in their respective empires. Same for the organic part of the Ottoman break up too, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Romania (via Wlach/ Moldova) all had long term identities. The 'non organic' approach is always fraught with danger, as with the non organic/ imposed parts of the breaks ups of the Austro Hungarian and Ottoman empires. From that you got Yugoslavia on one hand and that cretinous artificial arbitrary mess in the middle east that still causes so much trouble on the other.

 

That's why an imposed EU is not just a bad idea but verges on being outright dangerous. If it's going to be done it has to be done via genuine popular approval rather than just acclamation from the political elite. Otherwise it risks springing apart, and potentially springing apart violently.

 

 

If use of violence to ensure formation of nation state prevents it being organic evolution then most of European nation states didn't born organically.

 

Finland isn't really a nation state, because we are federacy of multiple nations.

 

Elerond can I ask you two questions

 

• What laws and control  exactly would you have  restored to the Finnish government, you guys keep saying you have lost sovereignty so what specifically do you mean?
• Who are these " elites " people keep referring to...where do they live ?

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

 

But anyhow, you ask for an inherit value of cultures, ethnicites etc? They are an essential part of the human condition in how we express ourselves directly, indirectly and how we find meaning. Taking a materialistic approach and try to add metrical values is missing the point entirely. They cannot be switched, repackaged or optimized into one super one fitting for all, they have to grow, expand and die naturally

 

Yet you seem to be quite dismayed at the thought of a unified European culture growing, expanding and subsuming national identities. Why can't we just let national identity die in peace naturally?

 

 

Let me illustrate in another way: If they are valueless, what are their use? What use do we have for love, friendship, beauty? Nothing at all

That's beyond stupid. The health, productivity and general quality-of-life benefits of love, friendship and "beauty" are very tangible and measurable.

 

 

Two reasons: 

 

1) It's being replaced by something lower in principle, of which no one is willing defend to the death. It will not satisfy anyone and give rise to real marching right/left-wing parties and another war, which is what i want to avoid for the next generation.

 

2) The power is centralised if national governments shift their power to Brussels, which will end with continental size warfare unlike anything seen before. Don't fool yourself just because we currently live in relatively peaceful times that it will continue forever if you give up on nations.

 

Both are destructive in the design and i wish to move away from it for a better future. Nation states might erode, but power has to shift to locally with their own laws, hierarchies and armies. That kind of "death" we can all get behind; I would even call it rebirth.

 

As for your quantification of love, friendship and beauty. Oh boy, i pity that mindset.

 

It seems to me that you think their is some kind of spiritual benefit of a nation state.

 

The spiritual benefit is the culture, the history, the language, the ancestry, the sense of belonging, of community. The EU is destroying most of those things.

 

 

I don't necessarily agree that its the EU that's destroying those things. The overall project of diminishing the reach and power of the state (and the notion of community) began in the Reagan and Thatcher eras. The economic logic of their policies, which essentially meant free reign for the capitalist elite over a diminished (in power and responsibility) state introduced a system that actively seeks to destroy bonds between the individual and his community/state. It constantly seeks to remove the state from the market, which actually means removing all forms of interventionism. Translated to the cultural domain, all of a sudden it becomes improper for the state to suggest that this or that behavior, religion, sexuality etc. is more proper or more suited for society than any other and the result is a culture with no sense of direction or historical mission. Behavior ends up being dictated by market forces which themselves are led by influential groups. Thus the agenda of the day becomes whatever they set it to be, whether it is  the "gay thing", or the "black thing", or the "female thing", but never our thing because everything is being done to break the us apart into atomized consumers (equally fit for the market in China, France or Bangladesh)  instead of responsible national citizens (that are by their very definition harder to sway or influence).

 

This system was implemented before the EU became what it is now, and even though its championing these same ideas, it is the national elites (national in name only) that brought them to the EU structure.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

Most nation states in Europe did evolve organically. 

 

Isn't that pretty much the nature of nation states?

 

 

Not necessarily; the 19th century situation was quite artificial and the EU is effectively an attempt to go back to an even more extreme version of that situation with one 'empire'. Then, Europe was dominated by large multi ethnic empires held together, ultimately, by threat of force; military force probably does not now apply but there's certainly implied economic... leverage that can be applied. Then, even somewhere like Spain (or the aforementioned France) which had 'natural' borders that had been established, more or less, for 500 years were multiethnic, and an amalgam of even older proto-countries that theoretically at least they could revert to. That's largely not true for France nowadays except for some lingering sentiment in Brittany, but is for Spain. However, if you look at the break ups of the empires after WW1 the countries which ended up stable and surviving long term where the ones which formed 'spontaneously' via popular sentiment and which were 'historical' entities. Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (~Bohemia) and to an extent Finland all had long term identities prior to ending up in their respective empires. Same for the organic part of the Ottoman break up too, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Romania (via Wlach/ Moldova) all had long term identities. The 'non organic' approach is always fraught with danger, as with the non organic/ imposed parts of the breaks ups of the Austro Hungarian and Ottoman empires. From that you got Yugoslavia on one hand and that cretinous artificial arbitrary mess in the middle east that still causes so much trouble on the other.

 

That's why an imposed EU is not just a bad idea but verges on being outright dangerous. If it's going to be done it has to be done via genuine popular approval rather than just acclamation from the political elite. Otherwise it risks springing apart, and potentially springing apart violently.

 

 

If use of violence to ensure formation of nation state prevents it being organic evolution then most of European nation states didn't born organically.

 

Finland isn't really a nation state, because we are federacy of multiple nations.

 

Elerond can I ask you two questions

 

• What laws and control  exactly would you have  restored to the Finnish government, you guys keep saying you have lost sovereignty so what specifically do you mean?
• Who are these " elites " people keep referring to...where do they live ?

 

You ask me question that I don't know answers. You probably should aim them towards those who make those claims.

[mindswayer]

 

 

 

 

 

But anyhow, you ask for an inherit value of cultures, ethnicites etc? They are an essential part of the human condition in how we express ourselves directly, indirectly and how we find meaning. Taking a materialistic approach and try to add metrical values is missing the point entirely. They cannot be switched, repackaged or optimized into one super one fitting for all, they have to grow, expand and die naturally

 

Yet you seem to be quite dismayed at the thought of a unified European culture growing, expanding and subsuming national identities. Why can't we just let national identity die in peace naturally?

 

 

Let me illustrate in another way: If they are valueless, what are their use? What use do we have for love, friendship, beauty? Nothing at all

That's beyond stupid. The health, productivity and general quality-of-life benefits of love, friendship and "beauty" are very tangible and measurable.

 

 

Two reasons: 

 

1) It's being replaced by something lower in principle, of which no one is willing defend to the death. It will not satisfy anyone and give rise to real marching right/left-wing parties and another war, which is what i want to avoid for the next generation.

 

2) The power is centralised if national governments shift their power to Brussels, which will end with continental size warfare unlike anything seen before. Don't fool yourself just because we currently live in relatively peaceful times that it will continue forever if you give up on nations.

 

Both are destructive in the design and i wish to move away from it for a better future. Nation states might erode, but power has to shift to locally with their own laws, hierarchies and armies. That kind of "death" we can all get behind; I would even call it rebirth.

 

As for your quantification of love, friendship and beauty. Oh boy, i pity that mindset.

 

It seems to me that you think their is some kind of spiritual benefit of a nation state.

 

The spiritual benefit is the culture, the history, the language, the ancestry, the sense of belonging, of community. The EU is destroying most of those things.

 

 

I don't necessarily agree that its the EU that's destroying those things. The overall project of diminishing the reach and power of the state (and the notion of community) began in the Reagan and Thatcher eras. The economic logic of their policies, which essentially meant free reign for the capitalist elite over a diminished (in power and responsibility) state introduced a system that actively seeks to destroy bonds between the individual and his community/state. It constantly seeks to remove the state from the market, which actually means removing all forms of interventionism. Translated to the cultural domain, all of a sudden it becomes improper for the state to suggest that this or that behavior, religion, sexuality etc. is more proper or more suited for society than any other and the result is a culture with no sense of direction or historical mission. Behavior ends up being dictated by market forces which themselves are led by influential groups. Thus the agenda of the day becomes whatever they set it to be, whether it is  the "gay thing", or the "black thing", or the "female thing", but never our thing because everything is being done to break the us apart into atomized consumers (equally fit for the market in China, France or Bangladesh)  instead of responsible national citizens (that are by their very definition harder to sway or influence).

 

This system was implemented before the EU became what it is now, and even though its championing these same ideas, it is the national elites (national in name only) that brought them to the EU structure.

 

You are correct in saying that it started before the EU became what it is now (although the EU existed back then still), but at least with national elites you can, at minimum, vote those people out of power.  With the EU, you can't do anything. None of the decision-makers and schemers are elected, they're hand picked.

 

Also, an always relevant screenshot from an eternally relevant videogame: 

 

 

 

 

 

because I'm 99% sure that Roger Waters would vote Remain.

 

Agreeing 100% with your idols is never healthy.

 

Neverminding that one should not make intellectual idols of musicians or artists (or very arguably anyone at all), agreed that it is never healthy to agree with anyone 100%.

 

That said, I'd wager a medium sum that Waters was pro 'Brexit'. He's actually a relatively politically conscience person, and is more awake than most of his contemporaries. He also has a history of criticism of consolidated power and corruption (The EU is the modern 'poster boy' for consolidating power and corruption). There's more than a few songs penned by him on the subject. One of the best albums ever made in my opinion being essentially one big song on the subject:

My reason for believing Waters would be pro-remain is the fact that his hereditary war-trauma probably leads him to believe that Britain leaving would give rise to isolationalism and nationalism in Europe, which would open path to new conflicts and a new war. Also he's really good friends with Bob Geldof, who openly supported Remain. But all in all, I honestly don't think Roger Waters cares much about Britain. Pretty sure he's been done with Britain since the 80s.

Edited July 10, 2016 by mindswayer

[Gfted1]

Brexit: Petition for second EU referendum rejected.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

Most nation states in Europe did evolve organically. 

 

Isn't that pretty much the nature of nation states?

 

 

Not necessarily; the 19th century situation was quite artificial and the EU is effectively an attempt to go back to an even more extreme version of that situation with one 'empire'. Then, Europe was dominated by large multi ethnic empires held together, ultimately, by threat of force; military force probably does not now apply but there's certainly implied economic... leverage that can be applied. Then, even somewhere like Spain (or the aforementioned France) which had 'natural' borders that had been established, more or less, for 500 years were multiethnic, and an amalgam of even older proto-countries that theoretically at least they could revert to. That's largely not true for France nowadays except for some lingering sentiment in Brittany, but is for Spain. However, if you look at the break ups of the empires after WW1 the countries which ended up stable and surviving long term where the ones which formed 'spontaneously' via popular sentiment and which were 'historical' entities. Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (~Bohemia) and to an extent Finland all had long term identities prior to ending up in their respective empires. Same for the organic part of the Ottoman break up too, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Romania (via Wlach/ Moldova) all had long term identities. The 'non organic' approach is always fraught with danger, as with the non organic/ imposed parts of the breaks ups of the Austro Hungarian and Ottoman empires. From that you got Yugoslavia on one hand and that cretinous artificial arbitrary mess in the middle east that still causes so much trouble on the other.

 

That's why an imposed EU is not just a bad idea but verges on being outright dangerous. If it's going to be done it has to be done via genuine popular approval rather than just acclamation from the political elite. Otherwise it risks springing apart, and potentially springing apart violently.

 

 

If use of violence to ensure formation of nation state prevents it being organic evolution then most of European nation states didn't born organically.

 

Finland isn't really a nation state, because we are federacy of multiple nations.

 

Elerond can I ask you two questions

 

• What laws and control  exactly would you have  restored to the Finnish government, you guys keep saying you have lost sovereignty so what specifically do you mean?
• Who are these " elites " people keep referring to...where do they live ?

 

You ask me question that I don't know answers. You probably should aim them towards those who make those claims.

 

Elerond on this thread there is a fair amount  about of negative and incorrect information about the EU, you not getting concerned or a little depressed by the comments are you?

[Elerond]

Elerond on this thread there is a fair amount  about of negative and incorrect information about the EU, you not getting concerned or a little depressed by the comments are you?

It isn't anything that I haven't heard in past 21 years multiple times, even from people that know better. But it isn't really different from any other political discussion. It isn't optimal but one learns to live with it. Edited July 10, 2016 by Elerond

[BruceVC]

 

Elerond on this thread there is a fair amount  about of negative and incorrect information about the EU, you not getting concerned or a little depressed by the comments are you?

It isn't anything that I haven't heard in past 21 years multiple times, even from people that know better. But it isn't really different from any other political discussion. It isn't optimal but one learns to live with it.

 

Okay the reason is I can dispute some of what people are saying but its not worth doing unless people like you are upset 

 

So I wouldn't want you getting negative about the EU just because of some of  the comments. But I know you know a lot about the EU so I would assume you wouldnt believe the negative views 

[Elerond]

 

 

Elerond on this thread there is a fair amount  about of negative and incorrect information about the EU, you not getting concerned or a little depressed by the comments are you?

It isn't anything that I haven't heard in past 21 years multiple times, even from people that know better. But it isn't really different from any other political discussion. It isn't optimal but one learns to live with it.

 

Okay the reason is I can dispute some of what people are saying but its not worth doing unless people like you are upset 

 

So I wouldn't want you getting negative about the EU just because of some of  the comments. But I know you know a lot about the EU so I would assume you wouldnt believe the negative views

 

I can tell that this conversation is tame, compared to what I have had with my family, as most of them voted against joining EU in 1994.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Elerond

[Zoraptor]

If use of violence to ensure formation of nation state prevents it being organic evolution then most of European nation states didn't born organically.

It isn't the use of violence during formation that meant they weren't organic, it was that they had to put effort in- threat of violence, usually- to simply maintain themselves as a country. Without that effort they just kind of... fell apart into bits which didn't require as much effort to hold together. If they'd been organic they would not have fallen apart when the opportunity arrived.

 

There isn't any sort of hard taxonomy as to what constitutes being an organic country and it would be possible with sufficient effort and time to become organic through assimilation- it's more that if you were to draw 'low energy' boundaries around areas in Europe linking those with similar cultures/ religions together you would tend to put them more or less where the borders currently are. That certainly isn't the case in the 19th century; nor is/ was it the case for arbitrarily created countries.

 

(That's a 'chemistry' view of geopolitics where low energy states are more stable and high energy ones tend to decay. Blame the use of the term organic for it if you want)

[Elerond]

 

If use of violence to ensure formation of nation state prevents it being organic evolution then most of European nation states didn't born organically.

It isn't the use of violence during formation that meant they weren't organic

 

I thought it point of view where organic formation is one where people of nation/area themselves are the ones who behind the formation of state and non-organic formation is where outside forces are ones that are responsible of the formation of the state.

 

Like for example formation of Israel is my opinion an example of non-organic formation of state and formation of USA is an example of organic formation of state. 

[Zoraptor]

That is essentially it. The issue of violence in their formation is a parallel one- you can have peacefully formed organic and artificial states, and either can be formed via violence as well. The main difference is whether they're intrinsically stable and made up of people who are mostly/ entirely happy to be part of that country, or not. It's all pretty subjective though, and there's certainly no hard definition.

[BruceVC]

That is essentially it. The issue of violence in their formation is a parallel one- you can have peacefully formed organic and artificial states, and either can be formed via violence as well. The main difference is whether they're intrinsically stable and made up of people who are mostly/ entirely happy to be part of that country, or not. It's all pretty subjective though, and there's certainly no hard definition.

No happiness is a choice if you live in the EU, not that you have done much to assist our EU friends in feeling happy  in  living the EU 

 

In the example of the EU its a unusual construct, someone like Meshugger or Dark may feel the EU needs to change and they say " I'm not happy " ...but they happy they just dont realize how happy they are

 

The EU is exactly what its suppose to be, it wont  function without the  central government and EU institutions...these are mandatory. So it makes no logical sense to say " we want more sovereignty " ...thats like saying " I want to watch a movie but the screen doesnt work "  

[Volourn]

^L0L

[BruceVC]

^L0L

What part you laughing at, its true what I said 

[pmp10]

You just declared other people unwittingly happy.

And I doubt you know very much about them.

[BruceVC]

You just declared other people unwittingly happy.

And I doubt you know very much about them.

Oh dont get so defensive, people get so defensive sometimes

 

I am telling you the truth about the EU, it can only work if there is a central government. Yes it appears many people who live in the EU have forgotten this and somehow this has become a huge criticism and is seen as a failure

 

There are real social and political that the West is undergoing, these things dont have to be seen as something serious but they can be. So for example BREXIT and Syrian\Refugee crisis have made people start questioning the actual sustainability of an institution like the EU

 

And there is nothing wrong with a different view to me or a negative view but there are also people  on this forum who care about the EU and I want to set the record straight

 

Criticize the EU about many things but this whole " sovereignty " point is just misplaced unless someone can explain exactly what freedom or laws they want from Brussels ....but lets not criticize something that cannot and shouldn't change because its necessary for EU to survive    

[Meshugger]

 

That is essentially it. The issue of violence in their formation is a parallel one- you can have peacefully formed organic and artificial states, and either can be formed via violence as well. The main difference is whether they're intrinsically stable and made up of people who are mostly/ entirely happy to be part of that country, or not. It's all pretty subjective though, and there's certainly no hard definition.

No happiness is a choice if you live in the EU, not that you have done much to assist our EU friends in feeling happy  in  living the EU 

 

In the example of the EU its a unusual construct, someone like Meshugger or Dark may feel the EU needs to change and they say " I'm not happy " ...but they happy they just dont realize how happy they are

 

The EU is exactly what its suppose to be, it wont  function without the  central government and EU institutions...these are mandatory. So it makes no logical sense to say " we want more sovereignty " ...thats like saying " I want to watch a movie but the screen doesnt work "  

 

 

Hahaha

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

That is essentially it. The issue of violence in their formation is a parallel one- you can have peacefully formed organic and artificial states, and either can be formed via violence as well. The main difference is whether they're intrinsically stable and made up of people who are mostly/ entirely happy to be part of that country, or not. It's all pretty subjective though, and there's certainly no hard definition.

No happiness is a choice if you live in the EU, not that you have done much to assist our EU friends in feeling happy  in  living the EU 

 

In the example of the EU its a unusual construct, someone like Meshugger or Dark may feel the EU needs to change and they say " I'm not happy " ...but they happy they just dont realize how happy they are

 

The EU is exactly what its suppose to be, it wont  function without the  central government and EU institutions...these are mandatory. So it makes no logical sense to say " we want more sovereignty " ...thats like saying " I want to watch a movie but the screen doesnt work "  

 

 

Hahaha

 

 

I am not trying to embarrass you but you represent an important demographic in the EU structure

 

You represent a fairly vocal group who criticizes aspects of the EU on issues like the "loss of nationhood  " 

 

 

But please tell what exactly what you want from the EU, what would make you happy? And lets say you could ask for anything within reason 

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

That is essentially it. The issue of violence in their formation is a parallel one- you can have peacefully formed organic and artificial states, and either can be formed via violence as well. The main difference is whether they're intrinsically stable and made up of people who are mostly/ entirely happy to be part of that country, or not. It's all pretty subjective though, and there's certainly no hard definition.

No happiness is a choice if you live in the EU, not that you have done much to assist our EU friends in feeling happy  in  living the EU 

 

In the example of the EU its a unusual construct, someone like Meshugger or Dark may feel the EU needs to change and they say " I'm not happy " ...but they happy they just dont realize how happy they are

 

The EU is exactly what its suppose to be, it wont  function without the  central government and EU institutions...these are mandatory. So it makes no logical sense to say " we want more sovereignty " ...thats like saying " I want to watch a movie but the screen doesnt work "  

 

 

Hahaha

 

 

I am not trying to embarrass you but you represent an important demographic in the EU structure

 

You represent a fairly vocal group who criticizes aspects of the EU on issues like the "loss of nationhood  " 

 

 

But please tell what exactly what you want from the EU, what would make you happy? And lets say you could ask for anything within reason 

 

 

Stop playing willfully ignorant, i have already stated my wishes several times in this thread.