The EU doesn't have ultimate power as it has no military — member states can just ignore it. They will stop receiving benefits though. Most EU states realise a rising tide lifts all boats.
If the EU becomes an actual state then it can be sovereign, but then it means that member states won't be sovereign anymore as they will no longer be independent states. This process is already in progress.
It's the other way around. If the EU becomes sovereign it becomes an actual state.
The EU can be said to be sovereign in some limited areas without being really sovereign, though. We say the Schengen agreement sets border law, even though countries often set up illegal border checks.
That's the whole point of the EU, it's not some hidden agenda. Many people support a stronger EU. Yes, this means that single member states have less sovereignity. But the EU is a democratic institution (and yes, there's a lot to improve here I know) and giving up sovereignity doesn't mean giving up democracy.
As another EU citizen I'm strongly against it. There is a reason one of the 5Ds of the Potsdam Conference was "Decentralization".
This is just way too close to the nationalist-wing ideology of the 2nd International. Combine that with the overall strong shift left during the last 30 to 40 years and the staggering unawareness of the ideologies of the Internationals (beyond buzzwords) and you've put yourself on a path for repeated history.
Which sovereignty in this matter have countries which anyway would not have possibility to develop this capacity in anyway ? Estonia has not the know-how to make satellites, or make rockets or put anything into orbit by itself. Are they more or less sovereign with a shared guaranteed access to such a capacity provided by bigger countries of Europe and or Europe itself ?
I think that such discourse are FUD to prevent any advancement of European integration. Without such development small EU countries would be dependent upon the will and need of Elon Musk or the american DOD.
It is not FUD, it is stating the obvious that "European integration" is happening little by little non-transparently and deceptively. If nation states are to disappear and to be replaced by a federalised EU then it should be very clearly put to the people once and for all for them to decide (my guess is that the EU wouldn't like the answer)...
> Without such development small EU countries would be dependent upon the will and need of Elon Musk or the american DOD.
They're not getting replaced. It's just one think tank who wrote an opinion piece. While it keeps being a "what if?" and some people think it should happen, it has no political traction right now, not among the people, not among the EU itself, and not among the member states.
If interested to dig in further I recommend Antonio Damasio's work. I think his is the main contribution to this new way of thinking about the mind's connection to the body.
What gives you the right to randomly move to places that have laws that satisfy you, if they are not all part of a (more or less) centralised government?
A lot of countries are happy to accept immigrants from other civilized countries. If some are not, that's their choice, I will look into those who are open to accepting me.
We can have freedom of movement without tons of other regulations.
I can for example move to Thailand as many of my friends did even though Thailand isn't in any way of form part of centralized EU government. They will just be happy if I live, pay taxes and spend money there.
There are laws that need to be set at global level but set of those is way smaller than EU legislature operates on.
>> They will just be happy if I live, pay taxes and spend money there.
And don't critisize the King or the Military. 'cause you might encounter what real consorship looks like. Unlike the EU, Thailand actually has censorship laws.
I posted it because I thought the videos are both enlightening and aesthetically pleasing. I'm not sure how they managed to make it look like the lecturers are all da Vincis and have no problem writing mirrored text. Would a simple flip around the middle of the screen do it?
I mean yes, technology was "stolen" all the time - from BOTH sides. F-117 stealth technology is based on research done in USSR. In 80ties, the US people happily took a ride in the first MiG-29s delivered to us in the 1980s and "stole" technology from there.
And yet, we don't go running around claiming that all USA flight technology achievements are based on CIA agents stealing tech and thus diminishing everything people Lockheed etc. did.
If you actually look at declassified primary sources you'll see that a huge amount of effort went into eastern designs as well and the impact of "stolen" technology is actually rather limited due to the differences in approaches of R&D teams.
Yes (which is what I said), did you also read the rest of my post.
For example for your Manhattan project thing is the classic example of how misleading such simplified outlook on the world can be. GRU stole the information about US atomic bomb, but then the info wasn't really used (because it wasn't trusted) and the USSR bombs ended up being developed independently. See this post for more: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21zc0v/how_d...
This is actually a rather common occurence - even in things like USSR copying the US bomber design it showed that the technology and approaches to it were suffciently different that stolen plans weren't really that useful for plain copying. They did provide invaluable direction for R&D of course.
Let me be clear - I'm not even remotely claiming that USSR didn't attempt to copy technology or attempt to benefit it. I'm just a bit annoyed at the amount of Americans that reflexively try to erase contributions and hard work of a lot of USSR's engineers and scientists with this naive and simple dismissal. I understand that it's driven by what's effectively 50 years of propagands (from both sides!), but in 2017 we should do better. We have declassified sources now.
reply