Let’s go. I’m from the U.S. but this is a good thing. 👍
2
cosmonauts55122 days ago
+1
Such an amazing neglected country by pretty much every superpower in the world.
Some of the coolest and most modern, intelligent and friends I had were all Syrians.
1
No-Space9371 day ago
+1
Lol, it's more so because of the interest of competing powers it reached its current state, not neglect.
1
No_Doctor74362 days ago
-31
In my opinion, the EU is like a bag of loose sand. They can't seem to get anything done.
-31
--Raskolnikov--2 days ago
+32
Yeah should learn from the US how to "get things done". Act now, think later
32
lurker17c2 days ago
+16
Think never*
16
FedBySheep2 days ago
+5
The EU has been 'getting things done' since it was founded. What are you on about? What do you want them to have achieved that they have not? World peace?
5
one8sevenn2 days ago
+3
One of the biggest challenges the EU faces is unity.
They aren’t as united as a union should be
3
VagueSomething2 days ago
+5
No union is truly united. The USA would be far healthier if it was multiple smaller countries rather than one big one. The EU is a group of individual nations working together, different cultures, different needs, different priorities, this means different opinions. The EU not being one unified voice is because it would have to throw away democracy to do that.
5
one8sevenn2 days ago
+1
I disagree about the US being better or healthier if it was smaller countries.
It would decrease their power and economic output. Also, issues between each state would be bigger than they are currently.
The US right now has relative food and energy independence. Outside of California, there isn't a state that wouldn't have to import something on its own.
In addition, there would be things the federal government does that would take a huge chunk out of each state budgets.
If California had to provide welfare, social security, and military for itself, it would take a huge chunk out of their budget each year.
Each state in the union benefits for things the federal government provides and is able to pursue different economic activities as a result.
Currency is another one. T Bills and Bonds would be a lot weaker without a united union.
1
VagueSomething2 days ago
+2
Multiple states are net recipients of welfare, it isn't Calirornia that would struggle to pay for these things. The country has a clear divide that never fully left after the Civil War, fundamental differences that is a root cause of many modern problems. If the US was split up there would be clear winners and clear losers but it would allow each group to actually live how they want rather than the constant political sabotage.
The USA is a perfect example of why the EU should never federalise.
2
one8sevenn1 day ago
+1
California does have some of the best geography in the US and would be relatively self sufficient.
Water in Southern California, would be a concern they would need to address with multiple different states (in this case countries).
Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. All five have wildly different politics and 3 out of the 5 have their own water issues.
That is about the only concern of things they don't have.
They would also have to change some of their energy policies as well to start producing more energy internally.
Which would increase their carbon footprint, which may politically inviable in the state.
California would have to produce its own navy to protect its trade, which is doable but costly.
These things being said, there are a lot of things that California would prefer not to pay for.
Paying for those things would limit the potential the state has.
The US is currently going through a political realignment, which has happened in its history before.
Every state would be worse off as their own country and there would be conflicts between states.
There isn't as much political sabotage in the US as their is in the EU currently. A lot of the perceived problems in America are really minor in nature, because the US is such a big entity and has so much to offer.
1
CaseOk2941 day ago
+2
The other guy's disinformation is insane. Separatist movements never tell the truth about immense benefit of integrated defense and economy.
Look how disorganized Canada is after being threatened to be annexed. They can't even bring themselves together at the trade talks because each provinces have higher barrier between each other than with American border states.
Speaking of sectarianism, it's not just Alberta or Quebec. In case of Scotland of Cataluña, even they can't realistically secede because doing away with the integration guarantees their catastrophic depression. Disintegrating or forgoing integration means having to build up a total war capable military only to have one that is smaller and less efficient, but military is the least of the true problem.
It means not having access to labor force. It means severing nearshore market demands. It means having exponentially smaller leverage in negotiating in the world commerce. It basically means going back, even at the most optimistic sense, several decades of economic development. 2008 recession hit various nation's economy in varying degree from -2% to -10% GDP growth, and even that was so devastating. Now consider what severing off bigger chunks of economy will do, and then having to afford standalone military and other government institution like education and judicial systel, some of them ground up.
Hence why Russia has been pushing for decades to fracture NATO and its constituents. And its effort to sow idealogical dissent inside American politics to further polarization paid off. And we've seen that the current coordination of EU will not cut it and they seem to couldn't make up their mind when 1)Russian ground invasion is at their doorstep 2)American unilateral withdrawl of the defense pact. One should have been enough for Europeans to come to terms with reality.
For EU there are only two choices: a)stay fractured and return to 19th century europe so Russia would have better chance projecting its powers b)accept that Russia is coming and take up what US used to do as the de facto head of NATO.
Many Europeans, especially supporters of far rights that have long been openly tied to Kremlin, live in this fantasy where they don't need integrated command for their collective defense. The past decades' policy of integrating economy while remaining fractured in military was possible only because Americans filled that role. If what Europeans say about themselves is true then they can take up that mantle, as they should and they must.
2
sumregulaguy2 days ago
+3
More united than "United" States by the looks of it.
3
one8sevenn2 days ago
+1
I disagree.
Especially in terms of economics.
1
CaseOk2941 day ago
+1
For those who are not interested in substance but political headline in lieu of sports, they wouldn't know. The level of integration between EU and US doesn't even compare. To those whose opinions are entirely shaped by listnook scandals, they can't tell.
16 Comments