I'm not too sure again, but I thought as well, that you get a larger share of the antarctica, if your country is next to it (which is the case with the falklands for the UK). Fishing rights should be included in that. If somebody knows more about that, I'd be thankful for more info. And there is a Oil and Gas Company located on the Falklands, so the guess with the resources can't be that wrong^^

The base in the antarctica itself is just for science reasons (at least that's the case with the german one)

@fmc83: Considering historical things, Bavaria was an independent country until 1870 (it was forced to join the German Empire), when it was the 3rd biggest german speaking country at the time (after Prussia and Austria), which basically would justify Bavaria be seen as a country in the same way as Scotland.

Well, historically the "forced" alliances (notice that despite parlament making decisions, the people may not agree) haven't held, peacefully even less (Soviet Union, Yugoslavia as the latest most famous examples). Basically there has been only two ways to keep the alliance alive; fight internal conflicts or fight outsiders. Roman and british empires fought both, Soviets fought both, China has had large number of revolutions and has been even conquered sometimes.
USA have held surprisingly well, but that was due to indepence seeking nationalists losing the civil war and it has been "fighting" a common "enemy" ever since (and it doesn't have similar multinational-multicultural split as EU for example).
The need for political or armed forces superpower is definaly debatable and in any case, it could be achieved by contracts between the countries.

@TheFury&fmc: The main reason for the Falkland crisis was due to Argentine government trying to get some popularity in the middle of economic crisis. Although, they misjudged what the british was going to do about it.
It was pretty much the same that USA has done with the Iraq issue for ages; trouble in homeland, bomb someone to get the public attention elsewhere.

The reference to Bavaria was more in a sarcastic way and to show how hard it is to give the definition of a country. Bavaria actually was made a separate kingdom by Napoleon and has been part of a very loose German Reich long before that and as well during its existence as a kingdom. So it wasn't really forced into this, neither does anyone really want to gain independence. It's too complicated to describe the whole affair, as it would take ages here. I study history (ancient, medievil and new) and english (literature+ linguistics+ culture) so I actually know quite a lot about all that stuff. And I've been active in a political party since over 9 years now.

The theory with attacking the outsiders is definitely a good one. I would add to the Romans, that they absorbed others cultures quite succesful (the gods i.e.). The US held well, because they replaced the 19th century classical national identity with the American dream and the "ex pluribus unum".

The Falkland war happened definitely because of the reasons you described, but why did Britain want to keep that islands full of sheep anyway???

And that's where I would answer: resources and special antarctica rights

He's gonna hold that position for 6 months I believe, so you can expect four more month of Vaclav smacking the EU.

The British won the Falklands war, mantained control of the Islands and caused the Argentinian government to collapse. How does that prove they needed aircraft carriers?

Anyway you are stating your case purely on military terms, yes America is the sole military superpower. It is not, however, the sole economic superpower. Both China and the European Union deserve that label, the EU moreso than the USA.

OK, I'm done with my Euro talk. But don't complain to me when you wake up in a totalitarian police state one morning just like in the novel 1984 :)

Once the exchange rate between the dolar and the euro turn around I'm going to visit Europe. I've always wanted to visit England and have never got the chance. I don't think my wife would let me go to the Netherlands though :(

Back on topic, I got to say wow to Vaclav Klaus. Christ he must have big balls to get up and say the things he says. I can't imagine how much it made the other delegates cringe. EU union compared to the soviet union? Holy fuck I can't beleive he would say that.

But I can understand though what he is saying. He is not willing to cede Czech parilmentary power to the EU. The Czechs spent 40 years under Soviet rule with a local government merely a puppet of Russia. A centralized European government to him is essentialy the same thing, the Czech people are once again ruled from abroad.

The idea behind the legal use of soft drugs is that you take it out of criminal hands, regulate it and can even have taxes on them. It's not like you can get them in any other country.

My wife wouldn't let me go to the Netherlands because of the hookers. I know only a very small part of the country is like that. But that's how woman think. And umm, if I was there, I mean you can't not at least take a stroll down the red light district just to check it out. So yeah, the Netherlands would be out as far as a vacation stop.

Considering the preassure from Prussia and Austria, Bavaria had very little options. It already had evaded from being taken over with playing politics. The German Empire was propably the best and the most peaceful way to keep the right to decide from their own things.

And by forced, i don't necessarily mean anything like pointing a gun to someones head, but a situation where you still have the possibility to choose from bad option and worse option, and also the parlament deciding against what the people would want to (a thing that can also be seen with the uprise of populistic right wing parties in EU).

The romans were kind of forced to absorb different cultures, since the empire grew "beyond its limits" and "Rome" became the minority in the empire where people were allowed to travel pretty freely. Also, the absorbing took centuries, not decades or even years. One of the key things in successfully keeping the empire together, was the constant warware, which took resources from the conquered regions (which were very weak after getting conquered in any case), so that they usually couldn't build up an army to fight Rome to get out of it. Also the psycholical view of "us and them", is the best (only?) way to create unity between people, just what the USA is using all the time with their politics.

US could replace the classical national identity because there never was one in the first place. Everyone had their roots elsewhere and culturally the country was so mixed bag all around, that the people really didn't feel like being a part of anything other than the land they owned. And still, they went into civil war.

Special Antarctica rights is a bad reason because nobody has them. Resources nearby sound more plausible, but in reality, i would bet a good strategic location. Not wanting to give up territories would be a good reason if UK hadn't gotten rid of most of their colonies (and even then it still is), but think about if UK had gotten a beating from Argentina or given up without a fight, what that had done to Thatchers career.

@Tyrannical: Now would be a good time, since british pound is pretty low at the moment.

And you don't seem to get the direction where EU is heading; it's going towards what USA is.

Why hadn't he said it? It's freedom of speech.