While we can't say what the future holds for both the UK and the EU, we can at least discuss EU itself. E.g. there seems to be a fair amount of people who believe that the EU is run by non-elected politicians, which is just factually false (and not to mention worrying that people believe that).
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
Really enjoying all these informed views on the EU and suggested courses of action from Americans in the past week.
usually the one that gonna become the PM/president is the front runner of the party/coalition and usually you can give him a preference at last that is what we do in italy; but i suspect that spain is the same isn't rajoy the one that is gonna try a new gov after recent election?
Currently in europe you just vote for the meps then the various head of the states do their mambo jumbo and peoples like Junker become EU commission president.
Exactly.
Like Dezerte said, people don't know how the EU works. But that, in many ways, is the EU's fault. We're talking about the greatest peace project in human history, which have brought bitter enemies like Germany and France together, stopped war in what was 100 years ago the world's largest meatgrinder, and has made the former insignificant nation-states of Europe a force to be reckoned with. To make the EU look like a bad thing should be an effort in itself, yet here we are.
So not only does the EU have to reform, preferably by decreasing the amount of areas it has influence in, while at the same time increasing the influence in the areas where the institutions keep control, but it needs to market itself a lot more. It shouldn't be hard.
Yes. Let me be clear, it has stopped war between countries in Europe which are part of the EU. That is an achievement in itself. Don't believe me? Compare the amount of wars and conflicts the last 70 years with the amount of wars and conflict the last 70 years leading up to the formation of the ECSC. Hell, the standard way of settling disputes between countries in the EU was hailed as revolutionary in the 1920s when Sweden and Finland settled the issue of the Åland islands without *gasp* waging war against each other!
The atomic bomb and civilization becoming more civilized is what stopped war.
Problem here is that if they don't have some control over countries one country alone can run the whole currency into the ground.
Just look at greece and that is WITH the control.
I asked myself the question:
If my country was beeing conquered and it's not worse, would I fight that? Should I? Why?
How exactly does the atombomb keep germany from starting another world war? You won't use it, not in the middle of europe.
History speaks otherwise. Remember when people thought the Great War of 1914-1918 was the war to end all wars? Woops! Guess it wasn't. Not even NATO can keep peace between its members - see Greece and Turkey.
There's not a lot that speaks for that war in Europe was unlikely after WW2, even without the ECSC. Remember, the entire reason the ECSC was formed was to prevent wars between its members, and even then the French and Germans have consistently had disputes and disagreements up until the unification of the West and East Germanies, when Germany cemented its spot as the dominant European power.
jaylock thread again.
Whats next? Should lesbian marry? Should we neuter all brown people? Are the tories from Mars?
grow up.