Watch "Canada's PM Carney: "This fall we will begin intense discussions with the European Union, the world's second-largest economy, to build a much stronger and deeper economic and security partnership"" on Streamable.
I doubt it will ever happen, but it would be extremely funny if Canada joined the EU, and the border between the US and Canada suddenly got loads of EU flags.
At least some Canadians seem to agree. I was honestly surprised by how positive the reaction was, even though I still think that Canadian membership would be a roadblock to the EU becoming a single, federated state.
What the EU is, is something open for debate and common decision among EU citizens, but personally I prefer a federalist approach and think I can make a good argument for it.
The US is a collection of states which are federalized. The result is a federal government which increasingly controls the small details of life in these states. When the federal government is taken over by a hostile leader, all of the states suffer.
With seperate EU governments. Sure you may have a few states who are bad actors, but this is much better than all of the states being controlled by a bad actor.
Yes, nationalism pales in comparison to what we can achieve as a federation!
I like Volt and especially what they do for a pan-european identity. For me they always battle it out with the Greens for first place of my personal “who to vote for” and I think, looking at the recent political rapprochement between the conservatives and the greens, I think Volt might come out on top next time.
How long will it take? A lot of water shall flow as the saying goes… maybe 20 years will be enough? Btw, since you should be enjoying the idea, would you prefer to abolish national states and to keep the regions (with the necessary adjustments, i.e. finally merging Tyrol with South Tyrol)?
Voßkuhle, by contrast, spoke of a “gradual transformation into a European federal state.” The political agenda claims that we are still a long way from such a development, but in reality, it is already taking place. “It may be that we are talking about a European federal state as something far off in the future and fail to recognize that we are already living in one.” One must be careful not to set in motion a gradual, unnoticed process “that we cannot control,” the president of the court said.
This was the president of the german constitutional court, and I think that he’s right about the EU sliding into a de-facto federal state faster than we recognize. This is imho. why we should start to quickly organize as one so we have some more control over what the result is instead of ending up in another mess of a de-facto status that is not entirely regulated de-jure.
The details are open to debate, in the end we as citizens will have to agree on something. Personally I would not be opposed to keeping the national states as a form of federal states under the umbrella of a common federal government, but then again I could see a more prominent role for the European Committee of the Regions solving some serious issues.
I’m not a regionalist and not a nationalist, I don’t care in principle if we break national states up into regions and those then reorganize, split or unify however they please and federate into a european state or if the existing national states federate as-is. And because I don’t care I think the people who do care (like the various european seperatist movements) should be allowed to plead their case and make an argument about it.
Personally I am not affected enough by any of this to have a strong opinion and I suspect that, with a European Union that takes on many of the responsibilities and decisions that rest with national states right now, those movements to separate or unify would lose a lot of urgency. Just like (for example) the Troubles basically stopped when both the UK and Northern Ireland were part of the EU, without a rigid border between them.
I find the Europe of Regions conceptually fascinating, I’m just also worried that regionalist or nationalist tendencies could increase if we treat borders more like dividing lines between cultures, ethnicities, languages, religions or histories rather than imaginary lines on a map that only influence administrative divisions.
But I also understand that those things affect people and identity can be very caught up in it, so…
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ make a good case to abolish nations and have regions be the federal states instead and I’ll listen.
Thanks for the reply, definitely food for thought.
make a good case to abolish nations and have regions be the federal states instead and I’ll listen.
I don’t have any, and I fear that having that many entities would complicate things. Borders are imperfect things, but identity is an important concept, so we should strive to build an European one. More than a Europe of nations, we need a Europe in which everyone (ok, most) can identify with (I’m in Italy and I’m under the impression that I’m in the minority that does, not sure of what’s like elsewhere). Then borders won’t have such a strong meaning anymore.
I’m in Italy and I’m under the impression that I’m in the minority that does, not sure of what’s like elsewhere
I’m in Germany, but I live in a fairly leftist, academic bubble. In my bubble the European identity is already way more important than the german one. But I’ve read that Germans in general are, for historical reasons, less caught up in their national and more in their regional identities and since those are already subsumed under a common german one the step to a common european identity is easier than it might be for more centralized nations.
I fear that having that many entities would complicate things
I get that and I share that feeling. For small-scale representation we have the parliament and that’s already a smaller scale than the region. Currently we’re treating the Council of the European Union as an upper house equivalent, representing the member-state governments and in theory the CoR could become an upper house instead. But as you said it would complicate things. Not least because the political power of regions varies vastly among member-states. Bavaria for example has massive budgetary and legislative power at home while regions in highly centralized France don’t.
I think a better way to enforce subsidiarity would be to give binding consultation rights to the Council of Regions. This would mean that while it wouldn’t vote on every law, the EU would legally be prohibited from passing laws affecting local governments without the explicit approval of the regions. Basically veto power if a majority of the regions feel something goes against their interest.
Right now the Council must be consulted, but can then be ignored.
Federation us not only a political act to cede national soverignity and power to the federation. It is also the founding of a nation. And that requires first and foremost a majority consensus of the EU people that they’re Eu citizens.
I for one doubt that I will see it in my lifetime (still some 60 years I hope).
My major concern is the USA interpreting Canadian accession to the EU as a hostile move by Europe to “encircle” the USA. The so-called “Donroe Doctrine” asserts that the entire New World is the USA’s turf and that it won’t tolerate anyone trying to make in-roads there. In Trump’s mind the USA already owns Venezuela, Cuba, Canada, Greenland, etc and any challenge to that ownership will be interpreted as an attack on American security.
Of course, the rest of the world only humors such a doctrine when the USA makes it worth their while. When the USA was willing to take on certain global responsibilities, that was worth giving them certain privileges. No responsibility = no privilege.
There really isn’t any reason to be scared of the USA right now. It’s a rotting shell of what it used to be. It’s struggling to project power against Iran, let alone Canada and the EU.
It’s also not designed to win wars or conflicts, only to profit off of them indefinitely. Not to mention attacking our former allies and neighbors will be an even more unpopular move amongst an already angry population. People are already pissed about the Israeli pedo state distraction that is the Iran war, attacking Canada or the EU would probably spark massive unrest.
I would like to believe you’re correct, but as a disenchanted American, I think the only thing that will cause mass unrest will be the populous suffering. Americans can stomach doing a lot of horrible shit to the rest of the world so long as their bread is buttered.
All the more reason to build those alliances now. A defense partnership between Canada and the EU would be a huge boon strategically for the defense of Greenland in particular.
Especially considering the US corpos illegally trespassing and preparing to drill oil field in Greenland are currently using Canadian ports to stage their equipment and vessels.
Also, it would be a valuable deterrent on the Canadian border as well. Drumpf is less likely to try annexing Canadian territory if the entire EU is at their back.
Better to present a unified front and have each other’s backs rather than be picked off piecemeal like drumpf wants to do. That’s precisely why he gets so upset about these partnerships. It makes his plans less feasible.
He absolutely will interpret it that way, it’s better to deal with it now than later he was always coming for the whole world like the child raping maniac he is.
I doubt it will ever happen, but it would be extremely funny if Canada joined the EU, and the border between the US and Canada suddenly got loads of EU flags.
At least some Canadians seem to agree. I was honestly surprised by how positive the reaction was, even though I still think that Canadian membership would be a roadblock to the EU becoming a single, federated state.
Is that the end goal for the European Union?
For federalists like me it is.
What the EU is, is something open for debate and common decision among EU citizens, but personally I prefer a federalist approach and think I can make a good argument for it.
I think that not even the EU is ready for a federation, as much as I wish it would
I don’t understand this view.
The US is a collection of states which are federalized. The result is a federal government which increasingly controls the small details of life in these states. When the federal government is taken over by a hostile leader, all of the states suffer.
With seperate EU governments. Sure you may have a few states who are bad actors, but this is much better than all of the states being controlled by a bad actor.
Not ready, yet.
Ah another European federalist, love to see them in the wild!
I’ve felt more alligned with Europe as a whole than with the respective European regions my parents come from for a while now.
I will be joining Volt, since they seem to be the first serious pan-european Party with the goal of federating Europe.
I believe european federalism is also the right movement to counter all the nationalism on the rise in Europe.
Federalist high five
Yes, nationalism pales in comparison to what we can achieve as a federation!
I like Volt and especially what they do for a pan-european identity. For me they always battle it out with the Greens for first place of my personal “who to vote for” and I think, looking at the recent political rapprochement between the conservatives and the greens, I think Volt might come out on top next time.
Yeah, I migrated from voting for green to Volt aswell.
I think the Green Party, at least where I’m from, represents my beliefs quite well but are really lacking when it comes to the european project.
Really looking forward to seeing what we can achieve with Volt!
How long will it take? A lot of water shall flow as the saying goes… maybe 20 years will be enough? Btw, since you should be enjoying the idea, would you prefer to abolish national states and to keep the regions (with the necessary adjustments, i.e. finally merging Tyrol with South Tyrol)?
And on the topic of time:
This was the president of the german constitutional court, and I think that he’s right about the EU sliding into a de-facto federal state faster than we recognize. This is imho. why we should start to quickly organize as one so we have some more control over what the result is instead of ending up in another mess of a de-facto status that is not entirely regulated de-jure.
The details are open to debate, in the end we as citizens will have to agree on something. Personally I would not be opposed to keeping the national states as a form of federal states under the umbrella of a common federal government, but then again I could see a more prominent role for the European Committee of the Regions solving some serious issues.
I’m not a regionalist and not a nationalist, I don’t care in principle if we break national states up into regions and those then reorganize, split or unify however they please and federate into a european state or if the existing national states federate as-is. And because I don’t care I think the people who do care (like the various european seperatist movements) should be allowed to plead their case and make an argument about it.
Personally I am not affected enough by any of this to have a strong opinion and I suspect that, with a European Union that takes on many of the responsibilities and decisions that rest with national states right now, those movements to separate or unify would lose a lot of urgency. Just like (for example) the Troubles basically stopped when both the UK and Northern Ireland were part of the EU, without a rigid border between them.
I find the Europe of Regions conceptually fascinating, I’m just also worried that regionalist or nationalist tendencies could increase if we treat borders more like dividing lines between cultures, ethnicities, languages, religions or histories rather than imaginary lines on a map that only influence administrative divisions.
But I also understand that those things affect people and identity can be very caught up in it, so…
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ make a good case to abolish nations and have regions be the federal states instead and I’ll listen.
Thanks for the reply, definitely food for thought.
I don’t have any, and I fear that having that many entities would complicate things. Borders are imperfect things, but identity is an important concept, so we should strive to build an European one. More than a Europe of nations, we need a Europe in which everyone (ok, most) can identify with (I’m in Italy and I’m under the impression that I’m in the minority that does, not sure of what’s like elsewhere). Then borders won’t have such a strong meaning anymore.
I’m in Germany, but I live in a fairly leftist, academic bubble. In my bubble the European identity is already way more important than the german one. But I’ve read that Germans in general are, for historical reasons, less caught up in their national and more in their regional identities and since those are already subsumed under a common german one the step to a common european identity is easier than it might be for more centralized nations.
I get that and I share that feeling. For small-scale representation we have the parliament and that’s already a smaller scale than the region. Currently we’re treating the Council of the European Union as an upper house equivalent, representing the member-state governments and in theory the CoR could become an upper house instead. But as you said it would complicate things. Not least because the political power of regions varies vastly among member-states. Bavaria for example has massive budgetary and legislative power at home while regions in highly centralized France don’t.
I think a better way to enforce subsidiarity would be to give binding consultation rights to the Council of Regions. This would mean that while it wouldn’t vote on every law, the EU would legally be prohibited from passing laws affecting local governments without the explicit approval of the regions. Basically veto power if a majority of the regions feel something goes against their interest.
Right now the Council must be consulted, but can then be ignored.
Re: first paragraph. I think that the difference comes from late unification. Italy was divided into small states too, particularly in the north.
Re CoR: yes, I like your idea, but I don’t know enough about EU institutions to say if it’s redundant or not with regards to the parliament
Also, thanks again for the insightful conversation :)
Federation us not only a political act to cede national soverignity and power to the federation. It is also the founding of a nation. And that requires first and foremost a majority consensus of the EU people that they’re Eu citizens.
I for one doubt that I will see it in my lifetime (still some 60 years I hope).
Yes, sadly I have to agree with you
My major concern is the USA interpreting Canadian accession to the EU as a hostile move by Europe to “encircle” the USA. The so-called “Donroe Doctrine” asserts that the entire New World is the USA’s turf and that it won’t tolerate anyone trying to make in-roads there. In Trump’s mind the USA already owns Venezuela, Cuba, Canada, Greenland, etc and any challenge to that ownership will be interpreted as an attack on American security.
Of course, the rest of the world only humors such a doctrine when the USA makes it worth their while. When the USA was willing to take on certain global responsibilities, that was worth giving them certain privileges. No responsibility = no privilege.
Fair concern. But if the pedofelon USA doesn’t approve, fuck 'em.
There really isn’t any reason to be scared of the USA right now. It’s a rotting shell of what it used to be. It’s struggling to project power against Iran, let alone Canada and the EU.
It’s also not designed to win wars or conflicts, only to profit off of them indefinitely. Not to mention attacking our former allies and neighbors will be an even more unpopular move amongst an already angry population. People are already pissed about the Israeli pedo state distraction that is the Iran war, attacking Canada or the EU would probably spark massive unrest.
I would like to believe you’re correct, but as a disenchanted American, I think the only thing that will cause mass unrest will be the populous suffering. Americans can stomach doing a lot of horrible shit to the rest of the world so long as their bread is buttered.
All the more reason to build those alliances now. A defense partnership between Canada and the EU would be a huge boon strategically for the defense of Greenland in particular.
Especially considering the US corpos illegally trespassing and preparing to drill oil field in Greenland are currently using Canadian ports to stage their equipment and vessels.
Also, it would be a valuable deterrent on the Canadian border as well. Drumpf is less likely to try annexing Canadian territory if the entire EU is at their back.
Better to present a unified front and have each other’s backs rather than be picked off piecemeal like drumpf wants to do. That’s precisely why he gets so upset about these partnerships. It makes his plans less feasible.
I am hoping that the EU, Canada, and Mexico agree to mutual defense before the US crosses a red line.
He absolutely will interpret it that way, it’s better to deal with it now than later he was always coming for the whole world like the child raping maniac he is.