sapphi_snake said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Yes, we should follow our own interest... but it's painstakingly obvious that our interest lies in being pro-USA. If it wasn't for the USA, most of Europe wouldn't exist, because it is in the USA's interest that we are their allies, and it is in our interest that the USA is on our side.
And being number #1 would be great, but it's not necessarily the best. If being number 1 means giving up sovereignty, giving up liberty, hell, giving up democracy, then it's not worth it.
I don't care if people are richer or better than me, as long as I'm doing pretty good myself.
|
If it wasn't for Europe, the US wouldn't exist 
You're right, if it wasn't for the separate, sovereign, European nations, the USA wouldn't exist.
It's in Europe's best interest to be independent of the US, and to leave NATO. With all the wars the US is starting, it's better to not have to get involved to be in it's good graces.
We don't have to get involved in any of the wars the USA is starting. We only have to "support" the USA if the USA, itself, is attacked. NATO is a defensive organization.
Hell, in Afghanistan, where the war was declared to be a defensive one by the USA... most members of NATO just "supported" the USA with words, and didn't actually commit any kind of resource to the effort.
NATO's primary role is to prevent attacks on European states. The world knows not to attack any European state, because they know that the USA is contractually obliged to support the country. Odds are, the USA would defend Europe with or without NATO... NATO exists as a guarantor, and without it, I'm willing to put money on the fact that Europe may have been attacked by now.
Being #1 is best of course (how can you say otherwise? how can it not be good to rule the world?), and giving up sovereignty is hardly what I'd call a big price to pay. It certainly worked for the 13 colonies, look how well they turned out. Europe could be a big powerful state, with a big powerful army, and NATO would become obsolete.
Ruling the world doesn't come cheap. It costs the USA half a trillion dollars each year in military spending alone, when you also consider the costs of the ongoing wars and diplomacy (they are the largest funders of organizations like the UN, IMF, WTO, etc), that figure is much higher. In fact, "ruling the world" is so costly, that it often leads to the collapse of empires. It's called Imperial Overstretch - the latest example is the USSR. Ruling their half of their world proved to be too expensive for them to handle.
Do I want to give up my sovereignty so that I can pay more to do a job (that could cause my country to collapse) that the Americans were already doing? No.
The 13 Colonies didn't give up their sovereignty to become a world power. There's so much wrong in this statement. In the War of Indepedance, the 13 Colonies gained sovereignty from the British. They became sovereign. Shortly afterwards, the merged some of the sovereignty for their own benefit... but they still had more control over their lives than they did under the British, and they didn't do it with the primary intention of having the burden of the world on their shoulders. The Colonies still had more sovereignty back then than what European nations have now.
I don't think you could have picked a worse example, to be honest.
As for liberties, I don't see how a EU federal republic would hurt your freedoms. And how would an EU federal republic mean giving up democracy? If anything, it would do a better job then the individual states do today, especially the backwards eastern ones.
Any position which comes with any kind of power in the EU was not won through election. Do you have any idea what Barosso or Van Rompey are up to right now? Do you have any idea what their policies are? I mean, the President of the EU could be opposed to gay marriage and abortion, like this Hungarian Constitution, and you'd have no idea about it. How is that democratic?
What about the Lisbon Treaty? Many European nations were denied a referendum on the matter and signed, when the public were clearly against it. How is that democratic?
And then there's Ireland. They got a referendum, except when the EU didn't like the result, they made them vote again, until they got the result they wanted. How is that democratic?
Or when the European minister said that Ireland won't be allowed to hold an election until they passed the EU-approved budget. Democratic? The strict reverse? Hurting out freedoms? Certainly.
The only democratically elected part of the EU is the Parliament, which serves as nothing more than a talk shop.
Really, what is your evidence to suggest that the EU would be better for democracy, in any way? So far, the institution has blatantly rejected democracy at every turn.
As Einstein used to say, nationalism is an infantile disease, so the citizens of the EU member states better give up on such sentiments (especially considering that they are responsable for the two World Wars, but alas, people never learn), and embrace an unified Europe that is the best solution for everyone in the long term (and let's face it, it's inevitable, and eventually there will be a World Sate).
You're right, nationalists are responsible for two world wars. I'm not a nationalist, and not everybody who is opposed to the EU is. Hell, I'm arguing here that I don't want to be the best at everything... isn't that the reverse of nationalism? What I am is a Libertarian, and I believe that powers should be as low as possible. With the individual having ultimate power and responsibility, and local authorities/mayors having more influence over your lives than your national Government... and certainly not having powers at a supranational level.
|
