To be fair, the people of Lombardy also shit on the people in South of Italy. People in the north shitting on people in the south for being lazy is something universal within countries as well. (Or it is really a Europe-only thing?)
There is much more to achieve. Like did you know the Benelux countries share the task to protect their airspace with Netherlands and Belgium switching every six months.
it's the only way for us to learn that humans are creatures who breed on conflict given a chance. a unified state would allow us to work on solving problems in the future to eventually set us up for moving beyond the world.
I just edited the post with a similar comment, but you're certainly correct (See: Belgium!)
you implied that uniting the states would get rid of nationalism and right wing ideologies. Which is stupid considering we have one very good example of why it wouldn't be the case.
So you're saying the countries wanting to change something should leave the EU to start a new thing because some others don't want to participate?
Even more so by knowledge of how EU actually functions.
Well there was an equally stupid thread once about how the us should annex canada and how it would be great and canada should be happy about it.
No because there is no political union nor you can force it. Countries in EU have a long history with their unique traditions, languages, specific characteristics etc, and thus too many strong barrier for a true union. The EU is not the US, not even close.
There would be two speeds Europe only if there are members who do not wish for further integration. In practice this already happens with some members not in the Euro or in Schengen, for example. Some are out by choice, other are out by criteria.
The idea of a multispeed is that you allow countries that want to work together on specific things can already do so, and the others can sign on later on when they are ready. Like, at the core of the EU you have Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Germany, France and Austria which are fairly collaborative with each other. Like if you would start an integrated military with them, you have a very strong base. At the same time, you can consider that countries at the border with Russia don't feel ready for this.
Just how it has been doing till now, slowly expanding the scope of the European Project. For instance:
Because they are "rich and stable" unlike us poor Southern Europeans.
Countries like Germany and Netherlands who don't want to have further integration as a way to aid other countries during the pandemic, while one of them is a tax haven and the other finances it's production-oriented economy with a lower value currency. I don't want to hear about those countries being at the forefront of EU integration ever again.
There's a difference between negotiation and "force". Yes, in a negotiation one of the stakeholders may have the upper hand and another may be at a disadvantage. It may be unfair but you can't also force a status quo forever.
Because the founding idea of the EU is to bind germany to it's neighbors to make military conquest too costly.
All languages are already in use by all EU institutions. Of course in public events English, French and German are most common in use.
I think Finnish is a decent compromise. Nobody speaks or understands it. Everyone equal.
For what purpose?
Nah, EU hasnt been as popular as now, although it might change depending on the EU reaction to this crisis (it has been slow but now you see Germany starting to notice they should not put everything on fire as they agreed to finally give money instead of loans).
An EU army is already happening, it is more about tighter cooperation and unification of standards and R&D (which has already started to happen with Spain, France, and Germany) for instance. Thank Trump fucking up NATO to make most of EU realice they might need to be better coordinated.
Why no Austria?
So we close the EU, all go through unheard economic hardship and end up in the same place where people complain about the north having better economies and the south having bad economies?
