@SamuelRSmith:
You're right, if it wasn't for the separate, sovereign, European nations, the USA wouldn't exist.
Yeah, and the US beat Europe precisely because the sates gave up their sovereignty in order to become a bigger more powerful state.
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.
Then how do you justify the participation of NATO forces in Iraq? It's a war the US started.
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.
There are NATO troops fighiting if Afghanistan.
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.
Why depend on the US when Europe can create it's own army? All the national armies could be merged into a sigle army.
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.
An EU federal state doesn't need to rule the world per se. However it would be a huge economic power (more powerful then the US actually) and could create an army to defend itself.
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.
This is only the war aspect of it, an aspect which isn't even mandatory (the US can keep playing world polcie if it wants to).
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.
Really? Do the US states have more sovereignty then EU states NOW? the EU isn't a country, and it has next to no power over the individual states. Heck, things like Hungary's constitution prove it. In the US there's a federal constitution that is above the individual state's constitutions. This does not exist in Europe... yet. And centralization of power is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Plus, the 13 colonies are a perfect example of the benefits of standing united. Do you think any of them, had they never formed a single country, would've become as powerful and prosperous as the US is today?
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?
If the Eu were an actual country, then this would be a valid concern. The EU is not a country. If it were one, then the individual states would no longer have presidents, there would be parties covering the whole of Europe, and these parties would have candidates that have political campaigns to try and get EU citizens to vote for them. In the current istuation this would be too hard to pull off, and considering that
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?
Because a referendum wasn't required, and the decision was taken by people who the public voted to represent them?
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?
What's the problem? The voted to accept it. That' democracy. If they didn't want it they cpuld've voted against it.
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.
Shouldn't disobedience be punished when a superior's orders are no respected?
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.
The vast majority of the people who are opposed to the EU are nationalists. You can even visit anti-EU sites etc. to check that out. The fact that you don't want to be the best at everythin just shows you lack ambition. Nationalism is the defined as an individual's strong identification with a nation. the EU transcends nationalism, and you'll only be able to talk about nationalism regarding the EU when there will be such a thing as an European national identity. Oh, and I should've guessed you were a Libertarian. I disagree with what you guys stand for. In modern society your views jsut don't work. Not to mention that history has shown that division is bad and leads to weakness and eventually defeat.
