Yes, because it will benefit us all, although I already know it will be incredibly unpopular with many people. Ideally it should be somewhat like the USA, but with each nation having more rights.
As a non european it doesn't affect me much but a more unified eu would be a good way to maybe stop Russian beligerenge and return peace to europe since this war affected everyone.
I disagree regarding the flag, having a star for each member state looks too cluttered. I think the current flag suits the EU well, you don’t literally need an icon for each state on the flag.
I see a lot of these flag-redesign arguments always boil down do "we need one star for each subdivision of this region." There are some places doing it, like USA, Brazil, Australia, but this isn't the only way of doing it. EU has 12 stars with 27 members. China has 5 stars with 31 provinces. New Zealand has 4 stars and 16 regions.
@@Liggliluff Australia has 6 states and 2 territories (dependent overseas territories are usually not counted as they're uninhabited). The Southern Cross has 5 stars and in addition the Australian flag has the Federation Star, a seven pointed star where each state and the federation is represented as a spike in it. It's not like the US.
I mean even if it was called United States of Europe, it may just adapt Europe or EU as the most common name anyway. Look at Mexico, officially it's called the United Mexican States, but it's really just referred to by it's most common name.
That’s just because “United States” is meant to describe what type of country it is. It’s the same as how most countries are “Republic of X” or “State of X.” It’s like a title in a way.
I like the European flag. It's nice looking, simple enough, and yet unique enough and very recognisable. There doesn't need to be a lot of deep meaning behind it. Tradition & style is enough.
@@Espiritu_de_Obiwon Flag maker: How many stars would you like? EU: 12 is well enough. USA: Add 52 more. EU: Are you compensating for something you land eating troglodyte? USA: Screw you, you're not my dad!
If you google the meaning of the European flag, you will get this: The European flag symbolizes both the European Union and the unity and identity of Europe in general. The European flag is made up of a circle of 12 gold stars on a blue background. The stars represent the ideals of unity, solidarity and harmony among the peoples of Europe. In my opinion we must leave it like this. 🇪🇺
To me it makes so little sense, why does 12 stars represent unity, solidarity and harmony? There is no link between those two things - the flag looks good but the whole symbolism is a bit of a made up afterthought in my opinion. Its a blue flag with 12 stars the end
@@Bager_Wisdoms it seems obvious to me that all flags have an invented meaning such as the Japanese one. Tell me what meaning should a white flag with a red dot in the center have without first knowing the history of the people and the territory?🇯🇵
If the EU moves towards a more federal or even unitary system, it will be absolutely crucial to maintain cultural and linguistic sovereignty. Trying to stamp down cultural secession movements by basically gerrymandering the regions in question is a recipe for disaster.
I think that by cutting the current national states into smaller states you would actually be able to much better conserve cultural and linguistic diversity. For example, in a Bavarian state as a part of a European Federation Bavarians would have it much easier to keep unique features of their culture than inside Germany which being a national state has historically mostly assimilated local cultures. Also, in places like the South of France or Northern Germany it would be much easier to have programmes aimed at reviving languages which 100 years ago were thriving but were sacrificed on the altar of the national state like Occitan or Low German. Also, more thriving languages like Basque or Catalan could be further protected, and so-called Italian "dialects" would be able to gain more of an official status and re-gain their proeminence in their respective regions.
In the case of EU, all documents are in each nation language, there’s no a specific língua franca so I don’t believe any culture could be under threat. In the past many languages were oppressed and overridden by imperialism, but it is a natural phenomenon that some languages and cultures get shaded by others until become eventually in disuse and remain history, forcing people to practice it is futile I think, since is no longer organic.
Being from Northern England, the idea of a separate entity as part of a European whole is quite appealing. I am definitely European, also British (more then English) but I'm also sick of the London-centric attitude that prevails in the UK.
I would hope the EU could look at the history of the US and see both what's working and what's NOT working, and come up with a better alternative to what it is now vs more like the US. Some things in the US definitely are not working...
@@Ballin4Vengeance The electoral college was established as a mechanism to prevent big coastal cities from dictating all US policies and to share political power evenly across the country. So the electoral college is actually very necessary for maintaining political stability and proper functioning of democracy in US.
@@hendriktonisson2915 unfortunately, population density means that the votes in some states, aren’t as important as others, as in, for example, in the 2016 election, Trump won the electoral college vote despite losing the popular vote by close to two million.
@@S-Fan2006 Electoral college is still a better system than letting a small part of the country decide everything while majority of the country is basically excluded from decision making.
@@hendriktonisson2915 That's a load of BS! Cities like Los Angeles and New York are big, but they are not big enough to decide a POTUS election on their own. Every so called advantage of the Electoral College is covered by the equal representation in the Senate. The Electoral College is an anachronistic institution and no other country that has a Presidential system has copied it. The US is the ONLY one that uses an electoral college, and it needs to go.
Not having a military doesn’t guarantee that they won’t declare independence. Look at Yugoslavia. They had a shared military. Didn’t stop them breaking up.
@@billdexhart5179 Basically a Slovenian news organization reported on a story that made the then governments agenda look bad. So the government tried to censor it. This made Slovenia declare independence and thus started the downfall of Yugoslavia.
@@belstar1128 And take all their gear with them too. What kind of paint are these unelected chimps huffing? Are they seriously so out of touch that they can't even open a history book?
6:15 As a European and as French citizen, the current events do not make me go against the creation of a European army at all. Like many in France, I agree to be aligned with the US through NATO, but I do not want to depend on US protection
this is very easy to do. as a country, make your military strong, well funded, modern, and ready to act. pushing this to "federal" eu state will not solve anything.
While the United States has a national military, each State still retains their own armed forces. I know it’s probably an oxymoron, but the National Guard are supposed to be each State’s armed force. They kind of evolved from being each of the colonies (later on States) militia forces and even predated the founding of the United States but overtime were integrated into the overall structure of the US armed forces. So, yes, each State in the United States has their own militaries that the governors of each state can mobilize upon orders. The governors of each state have authority over their State National Guards and can issue orders and instructions to them. For instance, if the governor of california issues orders to invade texas, that’s quite possible to do. border disputes can occur between States, but they’re always settled in court and rarely force of arms. A perfect example of the independence of the militaries of each State and how each state’s armed forces could violently engage each other was exemplified during the US civil war (also known as the War Between the States) when the Union and Confederate forces mobilized their own State national guards/militias to fight, one side to carry out separation from the union and bring the confederacy to the seceding States, and one side to neutralize the confederacy and preserve the union. And there’s also an Air National Guard to serve as each State’s Air Force. But while there are no Navy National Guard, States under federal law are authorized to have a Navy Militia.
There's also the state guard separate from the national guard. However not every state has a state guard. Meanwhile Danill as someone who got out in august i'd say the actual military is a joke right now not the guard.
An additional item for consideration: Many states also maintain State Defense Forces (SDFs). The National Guard can have its command essentially taken over by the federal government during emergencies, at which point the respective state guard answers to the Pentagon / DoD. In addition to this, the National Guard is federally funded. This contrasts with an SDF, which is state funded, and which does not answer to the DoD (at least in any legal sense). Theoretically, they are legal military forces that can train and equip soldiers for combat at the discretion of the governor and legislature.* In actuality, SDFs really are not utilized as functional fighting forces. Best as I can tell they just tend to be used for natural disasters or the odd emergency the state's guard can't / won't handle. Now, if a state wanted to they could change that, pumping money and manpower into their SDF to make it a viable field army (after many years). But this would raise a ton of eyebrows, worry a ton of people, and cost an exorbitant amount - the kind of budget a state just really is not typically able to muster. So in short: you *could* get a situation where states raise their own militaries (in a legal, if suspicious, manner) for some sort of internal conflict that would be entirely independent of the federal government. In some kind of 1860s-style situation, you'd probably see state guards just ignore the Pentagon (again assuming some kind of 1860s-style situation, which is frankly very unlikely given modern political divisions being far less regional). * Well, within the bounds of constitutional law. States invading / attacking other states is really not something the Feds tolerate, and similarly I imagine the State Dept. would be pretty ticked off if a state got itself involved in a foreign war without their express consent. This further calls into question their exact purpose, especially when the National Guard is a thing.
A small correction here. The United States did not begin as a federation. It first organized as a confederation. The problems that occurred within the confederation are similar in some ways to the current EU. Analyzing the US issues under confederation and the transition to a federation as compared to the current situation in the EU would be an interesting video all on its own. Refer to the "Articles of Confederation"
What is clear for me: 1/ as it is right now the commission has a lot of power and because is not directly elected, I can't say it's all that democratic. Also the unanimity blocks pretty much everything 2/ europe needs to have its own defense if we don't want to continue to live at the expenses of the US. This comes at the expense of not having a soverign foreign policy. I'd rather pay money 3/ cultural differences need to be respected. As far as I'm concerned, this is perfectly possible to be achieved even within a federation 4/ I don' t thing people are ready to go fully on a federation and these things can't be imposed, so let's start with a confederation and grow from there, even if it takes another 50/60 years
People in general support the status quo. You only need to look at brexit to see it was primarily those who lived before we joined the EU who voted leave. I think the important thing is go slowly and when people threaten secession slow down and wait for a public mandate to proceed. The brexit victory was largely based of the lies of the removal of the veto and an EU army. If the EU tries to do that right now other countries may try to leave too. It is better to wait or follow the macron plan of multi speed Europe if you want to achieve greater integration faster. Parts of the USA already threaten secession over the differences in state politics.
cultural differences need to be respected. As far as I'm concerned, this is perfectly possible to be achieved even within a federation Most Serene Republic of Venice, Republic of Genoa, Catalonia Magna grecia (kingdom of Naples) Kingdom of Sicily, and many other wish to come back... this MUST BE the right thing to do.
@@Jay_Johnson wait for a public mandate is the name of the game. Since you mentioned it, I also found Macron proposal very interesting... only to find out that apparently nobody else did. Glad to hear that you also gave it a thought
@@Federico19871000 what do you mean by come back? became independent countries? have autonomy as a region? Let's not mix autonomy with independence, it's not the at all the same thing. My main argument against the fragmentation of europe (by cultural divide) is that we would lose all chances to have a say next to big countries like India, US, China, Canada even Brazil. Without a size (in economy and population) that allows a country to have a say in international politics, there is no chance it can defend their own interests.
I really think this is the best way for Europe to stay internationally relevant in coming decades. Europe has so much influence globally but does not use it the way it could. If we all bond together, Europe will climb back to old glory.
@@lokibau and a United Europe would be strong enough to tell America to leave. Higher population, higher population density, higher gdp, high quality of life. And that’s already. In 2-3 decades after unification it would be a superpower on par with America. A few more decades after parity? More than likely stronger. I don’t think the rest of the world would be too happy with a resurgent Europe though.
@@mariacheebandidos7183 and so? arent they a foreign superpower with a stable military presence in europe, influencing and steering our governements to fullfill american geopolitics even at our disadvantage?
@@General.Knowledge if europe can only be like china in unification, they could have the potential of being the most powerful country and civilization in the world at the same time and might be enough to counter defeat the US, but it's population still not enough compared to china to what europe have, because europe has only a population of around 700 million people while china have over 1.5 billion people so europe is divided and have smaller land area and size and also the amount of people europe has, while china have 2x more people and had a land area that is a little bigger compared to europe, the problem for this unification is that european people is divided by ethnicity identity and current culture they represent and every one of them is unwilling to give up their native languages and current cultures in favor of with one another to dominate, this is the main problem for the unification of entire europe to happen, unlike china they all share the same native language and current culture they represent so that is why they are united to one country only and not a scattered pieces like europe having so many countries despite being smaller than china in land area size
all european countries shares the same culture and root of civilization from one another as all of their cultures descended from the same cradle of civilization, european countries does not only have same culture and root of civilization but also the people, but also to people european countries all have the same looking people with one another, only the ethnicity and language they represent is the ones that is different
@@General.Knowledge I think you over looked some things about the European uunion like what about the terrioties like France or denmark because some of these territories in certain countries are considered to be apart of the EU and what about monarchs there's still countries that have monarchies and are in the EU and d have some kind of form of control over there countries even through there limited to certain ways
EU flag is the way it's for many reasons. First of all, all stars are equal, like countries are in Union so flag you proposed would not be viable, becuase you have two rings of stars, and one ring with 27 would be unreadable. Also number 12 have it's own symbolism standing for perfection, entirety, or cosmic order. If anything could be done to EU's flag to make it more personalised it would be Commonwealth style, addition of national icons etc. like it's done with euro coin, where one side is common to all states and second individual for countries it's from
@@imgreen2563 But all have veto rights, which nullifies how votes work (which are for people and not for nations btw, and when you think about it this way they are pretty much equally distributed, a little bit skewed towards micro states) Not even mentioning weak possition of parliment Eg. where nations make decision (council) they are are equal, having 1 vote and right to veto Where people make decisions (parliment elections) votes are distributed for population, not nation.
So Basically, It will look like India. A federal country with strong and Indipendent Military and Central Government. And Majority of States like in India are formed on the basis of languages and Cultures of different people.
Yes! I often use the counter-example of India with people who say it can't be done. India has such an incredible cultural and linguistic diversity that the comparison is not far-fetched IMO.
@@MrLeemurman I wouldn't say "Very" . But you're correct, it has issues. But I wouldn't put any of these down to "It's because they're a federation" .
I don't want my country to be reduced to a state or region. It would be humiliating. My country has existed for 1500 years. Before ANY other European country.
The 12 stars are for the 12 apostles. You should know this. The blue color stands for the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is all documented. The founders of the European Union were all practicing Catholics. I have a Masters in European Studies: Transnational and Global Perspectives from the KU Leuven (University of Leuven/Louvain) which is near Brussels, Belgium. The creators of the flag were Arsène Heitz and Paul M. G. Lévy. Heitz specifically said that a religious inspiration was behind the creation of the flag. He claimed that the circle of stars was based on the iconographic tradition of showing the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Woman of the Apocalypse, wearing a "crown of twelve stars". These are the flag creator's words which are well documented. In particular, Arsène Heitz himself, in 1987, laid claim to his own role in designing the flag and to its religious inspiration when he said that 'the flag of Europe is the flag of Our Lady' [Magnificat magazine, 1987]. Heitz also made a connection to the date of the flag's adoption, 8 December 1955, coinciding with the Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, if you don't like the Catholic Church that's fine and you have a right to your opinion. But these are facts which are impossible to deny.
I'm from the 80's, and I've always thought that the 12 stars on the EU flag were the 12 European countries that were members of the Union at the time. When the EU went to expand the flag never changed.
The 12 stars are for the 12 apostles. You should know this. The blue color stands for the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is all documented. The founders of the European Union were all practicing Catholics. I have a Masters in European Studies: Transnational and Global Perspectives from the KU Leuven (University of Leuven/Louvain) which is near Brussels, Belgium. The creators of the flag were Arsène Heitz and Paul M. G. Lévy. Heitz specifically said that a religious inspiration was behind the creation of the flag. He claimed that the circle of stars was based on the iconographic tradition of showing the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Woman of the Apocalypse, wearing a "crown of twelve stars". These are the flag creator's words which are well documented. In particular, Arsène Heitz himself, in 1987, laid claim to his own role in designing the flag and to its religious inspiration when he said that 'the flag of Europe is the flag of Our Lady' [Magnificat magazine, 1987]. Heitz also made a connection to the date of the flag's adoption, 8 December 1955, coinciding with the Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, if you don't like the Catholic Church that's fine and you have a right to your opinion. But these are facts which are impossible to deny.
@@michaeljcross87 Cool, I didn't know that. It seems to mean even more, though. From the European Consil's homepage: "Against the background of blue sky, the stars form a circle, symbolising union. The number of stars is fixed, twelve being the symbol of perfection and completeness and bringing to mind the apostles, the sons of Jacob, the labours of Hercules, the months in the year, etc." In an interview Paul M. G. Lévy also mentions the zodiac. It was only after his proposal of the flag someone mentioned that in the book of revelations there was a crown of 12 stars worn during the apocalypse. I wish my french was better - otherwise I could have written more.
I think the "States" could be Cantons carved out from existing Subnational divisions like Germany's Bundeslander or France's Departments, with the Nations existing between the Cantons and the Central Continental Government with powers given to them by their constituent Cantons.
I agree, bringing the elected representatives who essential exercise legislative power even closer to the electorate and giving the local authorities a more government - like facade is one good way to empower democracy
True when looking at the division of germany on that map there I was shaking my head madly. It's like what was done to the africans. There was no thought given of the division of the regions, just made some fancy lines... You know some of the Bundesländer have a history of almost 1000 years like saxony, bavaria or thuringia I think same goes for other states in europe
i'm from the newest EU member and i don't want to see the flag change, it represents me enough, don't need a special little star to know i'm part of it. also, even if EU moves toward federalisation, i'd be totally fine for it to keep its current name, it has a nice ring (and meaning) to it, european union/unity
Good point. If the EU was to become a country, bloody civil war and balkanization would be a real possibility later on. We are all very different from each other after all and sadly conflict is usually what happens when cultures are forced to mix.
I love the idea of a Federated Europe on. If that were to happen I would love to see a European Railway corp, which would build high-speed train lines (like TGV) everywhere. I know it's a little silly, but it be would so cool.
not silly at all, EU as it is pretty ok but we still are not as interconnected with trains as we could be. For example there is no direct train path if you for example wanted to go from one end of EU to the other or also very different quality of trains between regions as well. A lot of jumping between trains and waiting for said trains. We still have some soviet era wagons in circulation. Connecting all the capitals in EU with maglews for a start would be pretty great.
During the American Revolution the officers of the Continental Army would drink toasts declaring that they were "the hoops of the barrel", and aside from the Continental Congress itself, the army was the first common institution that the 13 states created in their struggle with Great Britain, with George Washington as its first commissioned officer. It was also the first institution where its members began to think of themselves as "Americans" as opposed to members of their respective colony. Its a good historical examples of your point about armies being essential to creating real states.
There are 13 stripes representing the 13 original British colonies on the American flag. They are red and white based on the St George cross from the English flag(England). The American flag was designed by Great Britain, and the music on the American national anthem is based off an English gentlemens club in London England😜 Great time🤣😂
Federalisation with 27 states cannot possibly happen at once, exactly like how it's taken over 50 years for the EU to reach 27 members and even then not all use the same currency and won't for some time. Federalisation would have to begin with its biggest members France and Germany foremost because I believe the reason these two in particular are so open to a federal Europe is that they both (individually) believe they would be the hegemon of the continent.
Could also start with smaller states, like Belgium and the Netherlands having a joint Admiral for both countries navy. And some other countries starting to pool together to have one country specialize in certain tech while others specialize in other tech and share those resources.
This is actually my favourite topic about the EU. I never really thought about the military, although that would be important with the current conflict. Your argument with not every country using the Euro is a key factor in this topic, which means all member states would need to establish their economy to a point that they can implement the Euro as their currency. Which means it's gonna take a long long long time, consideing that now Moldavia, Ukraine and Georgia are applicants. I don't know about you but depending on how it implements it from the US System I'm down for it, if itt also manages to establish an identity for each member state (like California and Texas are also known as something like a little country inside the US).
I think before we could even consider a federal Europe all states would need to use a single currency, have a single united army separate to their national ones, and a common foreign policy.
@@JoeDower101 I actually think federally collected taxes are required to make the Euro viable and the removal of debt sovereignty. The Eurozone enforces common fiscal and monetary policy. This is usually used to favour France and Germany economically due to population. Money and investment needs to be provided federally to those disadvantaged by the fiscal and monetary policy. Without it you could see a repeat of what happened under Margaret thatcher in the UK where regional industries were sacrificed for other regions. The Euro cannot be maintained without having to levy tax on the member states and as long as the member states can take on unlimited debt a greece style crisis can still happen
@@Jay_Johnson I never considered that aspect, I guess I just assumed members already contributed to some kind of common fund. I mean how is Brussels funded if not through a common fund? I'm sure Belgium is not footing the whole bill.
@@JoeDower101 there is but the aspects of control over the economy are still under national control. What I am suggesting is EU taxes to pay for EU monetary policy. Directly from people rather than the member states.
european countries interests are often overlapping and in perpetual competition. Who would lead the army? Who's interest will be guaranteed, and who will need to succumb? In my opinion europe would have been just fine with economic agreements, there is no need of central politics, no need of an omnipotent non elected council wich say whats right or not. We were just fine when it just was the cee, the eu its just another american tool for better controlling european satellites
I have to say again, I am so glad I found your channel, here in US we don't all hear about this. I love learning more and more about this world. I am definitely a follower.
A united Europe is the only way that we can defend against the anti democratic influences of Russia, China and even the Usa. My European brothers and sisters, let's settle aside our petty differences and stand up as equals in this fight against tyranny! Love - from Bulgaria♥
What it's called is not as important as actually forming the new superpower, having the ability to compete with the US, China and Russia at their levels is truly a incredible achievement. Not to mention it would be the first superpower that grows only through peaceful means, accepting neighbouring territories instead of conquering them.
@@darth3911 that is just one more important reason to create a United States of Europe or similar around the world. to unify with a equally powerful neighbour creates a better chance of defending yourself against a significantly more powerful neighbour.
As an American I always thought this sort of idea made a lot of sense for Europe. But of course, I'm biased and pretty uninformed in all the historical grievances European regions have with one another so perhaps its much too complicated a problem to fix. Like you said, each state in the US has a TON of autonomy so were a similar system setup in Europe it wouldn't necessarily mean the "destruction of sovereignty". I mean there are quite a lot of, I'd even say most, Americans that would first identify which state they are from before the country when asked "where are you from?" Some US states are DRAMATICALLY different in just about every way from other states (e.g. Washington vs. Alabama) while still existing under the US Federal umbrella. Side note, I'd foresee the current European prime ministers/presidents occupying a sort of Governorship (state executive seat) instead of a Senator in some new USE model. Basically the states have a carbon copy of the federal level institutions (with the exception of a unicameral state legislature vs. bicameral federal legislature) that exists below the federal government. So all the existing offices and institutions in European countries could pretty easily just be kept the same with the new federal European institutions existing one level above them.
i'm italian europe is not like united states. First you talk english in europe in italy we talk italian. In italy example who talks english so well the percentage is so low. Do you want to put english language ? In italy we have alot old people talking still slang of region different by italian language
The issue with rules made by a qualified majority is it will lead to brexit style secession. The US states if they had the right to secede would try to. The Texas GOP even put that in their policy paper. The process of uniting Europe has to be a slow one as new people grow up with the status quo and old memories of disunity die. Otherwise every political disagreement will lead to threats of secession as happened in the US civil war or currently.
I'm french and I would rather DIE then see MY COUNTRY be reduced to a state. It would be the ultimate humiliation. My country has existed for 1500 years and i will not see it disappear. I mean next people will stop speaking french in favor of English.
@@Jay_Johnson For now is impossible but in future next 20-30 years if we are survived and european union still exsisting why not ? But i have seen there are alot seccesionist moviment in usa the most important maybe california. In italy we have north italy indipendeance and south italy indipendeance
even that i live now in Switzerland, i would really like to see some European unity movement, i think seeing the federalism working here in Switzerland very fine it would suit Europe to. but the problem i see is i cannot see the 27 National Governments giving up their sovereignty and power, some definite not sovereignty and some others not their power looking to the east. Some of those who are unstable since i can remember, l looking to the south, could make big win... next problem, united european defense force, i cant see that sorry Portuguese or Spanish Soldiers standing in Finnland or North Romania at the Border and defend us. I also cant see some Hungarian "Coast Guard" are "Protecting" us from refugees at Spanish Coast. I cant see that German and French are willing to give up their sovereignty and i cant see how the future European Leader could be anything than a french or German politician cause of the Numbers... but hey if it would be easy it would have been already done...
Elections would have to change from personality such as macton or draghi to moderate right party or far left party to make it work, the soveranity part in the next big crisi can be exploited to get everyone to the german, I mean EU umbrella if wanted which I gess is better germany than USA or rusia
Funny enough there's already Frontex officers from Austria and Poland protecting the border between Greece and Turkiye and German soldiers in Estonia are ready to defend the Estonian border with Russia. Edit: all EU member states have signed an agreement of mutual assistance in case of a military attack against one of them. So factually if Turkiye should try to occupy a Greek island (which has been becoming more and more likely in the last 4 years), Finnish, Portuguese, Czech and Italian military would most likely be sent there to help.
Absolute nonsense. The missions at the border are very international, meaning that Portuguese soldiers are in Finland, Estonia, etc., just like Finnish and Polish soldiers are in Spain and Portugal. I don't know what kind of reality you live in, but European forces are very entangled. Look at the European borders to Russia and Ukraine -> You have soldiers from all over the EU.
@@kogoromori30 but these forces are still national forces... i can not see how 27 nations in europe giving up their national defense forces to a united defenses, entangled or not. yes frontex... smal units or e few people at a time... can you see a german gebirgsjägerbattailion mixed with some romanian soldiers standing guard in spain? i cant see, and most politican either... cause every state will say i will need here and there some extra protection...
@@SirHeinzbond It's already the reality. So what are you talking about? Stop defending your nonsense. Also, entanglement doesn't mean they must give up their national forces. I believe it's just tough for a Swiss to understand simple concepts like cooperation and everything that goes beyond neutrality. I don't know what your agenda against Germans in Spain or Spaniards in Finland is, but one thing is sure: It is nonsense because it already is the REALITY.
I think Europe has to become federal for it to be relevant in the future - it does not work in its current form and the individual countries aren't big or powerful enough to make a difference globally on their own.
My country will literally cease to exist if it is made part of a US of Europe. So then it would become irrelevant. It’s a terrible idea, true dystopia material.
Small ethnic groups like Estonians and Slovenes would have no chance of surviving in a such gigantic country especially when the bigger EU members continue the policy of flooding Europe with illegal migrants.
@@augth if you aren’t part of United States of Europe then you will also be irrelevant - at least in a federal Europe, all Europeans have something to say in the world - the entire continent would be completely irrelevant if we don’t do it and so will France. Just look at the conflict in Ukraine - Russia and Ukraine didn’t listen to France - the line of communication is the USA, despite the war happening in Europe.
One huge issue toward federalism in Europe, and which people often overlook, is how many european countries are monarchia. Having a real federal state means knowing what to do with all those royal families which may or may not be in favor of lesser sovereinty (for example Spain in particular)
@@jascrandom9855 yeah! It wouldn’t be like the USA, where all states are garaunteed a republican form of governance, it would probably be alot of figurehead monarchies with limited or no power though
One thing I didn’t hear mentioned: what would this new Europe’s national identity be based on? You’ve got 27 different countries, EACH with their own national identities. What would keep the countries from wanting to go their own ways?
@@nunosantos485 the English language? How many people in Europe even SPEAK English (after Brexit)? As for European history, most countries in Europe have spent their histories fighting their neighbors (France/Germany, Denmark/Sweden to name the two biggest ones). Also, the others are great to have, but I don’t see how they can be used to form a national identity. One idea I had (when writing original comment) was for a constitutional monarchy, a’la Belgium (it’s largely held that the monarchy is the one thing holding their country together). The question of who to crown “Emperor of Europe,” however, is admittedly less certain.
@@jwil4286 the vast majority of Europeans know how to speak English, and if you only count people under 35 it’s basically 100% so that’s something that would unite us at least in order for us to be able to communicate comfortably in day to day life. And I don’t think we need an emperor of Europe just an elected president is enough.
@@barborasulcova9420 That’s why I think public schools should offer curriculums in English as well, so that students who wish to improve their language skills would be able to have classes and communicate with their friends in English. That’s already happening in the Netherlands and it’s been quite successful in terms of the students’ studies and careers. Especially since the main language of communication in Dutch universities is already English.🙂
5:29 this actually happened once, there was a piece of disputed land between Michigan and Ohio, called the toledo strip, and militia forces started fighting over over it Nobody was hurt that I know of, though And Michigan gave the strip to Ohio in exchange for the upper peninsula and statehood
There is a also the Swiss model with 26 Kantons which are some what sovereign. And there is also all the fine tuning for different languages and religions.
I don’t think internal borders would change for federal subjects because it would be too difficult and may also anger people, but it could be possible some region who seek more autonomy could gain a special autonomy statut inside a federal subject
One, single, european army to guarantee that no member state can leave, defend and wage war against each other is a single reason why it won't ever happen. It's just impossible for post soviets countires to let another, centralised government to have full military control over them. It's like USSR 2.0, the worst nightmare. It has to be last step, not the first one, and even then it's very unlikely.
Start by developing your own , I'm not sharing mine with you , it cost a lot to my people, we paid huge taxes for it . Once every european nations has done it's homework then we can create an additional european army . Until then , my country's army is here to defend my country. Gosh I hate the EU more and more each day.
Well, I dont think Euro would have to be mandatory, because you technically can use Euro everywhere. Not only because of credit/debit cards, which automatically changes the currency according to your bank's exchange rate (you dont even need multicurrency bank account), but also because almost everywhere they accept Euro and just give you back the leftover in local currency. Our (europe nation's) economics are not unified enough to have single currency, you can see it now, when Spain and Greece has exactly opposite demands on ECB then Germany and France.
The 12 stars are for the 12 apostles. You should know this. The blue color stands for the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is all documented. The founders of the European Union were all practicing Catholics. I have a Masters in European Studies: Transnational and Global Perspectives from the KU Leuven (University of Leuven/Louvain) which is near Brussels, Belgium. The creators of the flag were Arsène Heitz and Paul M. G. Lévy. Heitz specifically said that a religious inspiration was behind the creation of the flag. He claimed that the circle of stars was based on the iconographic tradition of showing the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Woman of the Apocalypse, wearing a "crown of twelve stars". These are the flag creator's words which are well documented. In particular, Arsène Heitz himself, in 1987, laid claim to his own role in designing the flag and to its religious inspiration when he said that 'the flag of Europe is the flag of Our Lady' [Magnificat magazine, 1987]. Heitz also made a connection to the date of the flag's adoption, 8 December 1955, coinciding with the Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, if you don't like the Catholic Church that's fine and you have a right to your opinion. But these are facts which are impossible to deny.
@@iankingsleys2818 lol just because the flag has Christian symbols (which include symbols used in the Protestant and Catholic churches), doesn't mean the EU is run by the Vatican. If anything, it's quite the opposite. The EU is a very secular entity. Btw, I dated a Protestant girl from Belfast. If anything, Protestants from NE are way more conservative than most Catholics and their churches are often more traditional. In any case, the similarities between Protestants and Catholics are the equivalent of Shia and Sunni Muslims.
One problem that I don't see being discussed enough is... What about language barriers, cultural values and history? Who's language will "USE" or "United States of Europe" speak? It sure will cause some disputes. What will the official language be since Britain is more likely going to remain independent? Therefore English although the main international language today, will not make much sense to be the official language of "USE" in the case. As it would make Europe an extension of USA or the birtish empire many including me would argue.
English is the only language that makes sense to be the official one of the EU. Majority of the population speak it and this could create less disputes, as basically no major country uses it as its official language (except Ireland, Malta)
The logic says English. But germans and french would probably try to enforce their own languages. Honestly, the language barrier is probably the main reason that this... can NEVER happen.
Every european language will be official and recognized by the union. Every state will still speak their own Language(s). We will communicate in english for business and politics between states like we already do!
they are none of that. There is nothing meaningful about the EU , just commercial treaties. No war fought, no revolution made, no ancestors dead on the battelfield, no history , no relevant political fight involving the people , no people , no language , and a constitution that the peoples voted against and was enforced. There is nothing to be celebrated, nothing that would bring tears to your eyes , nothing.
In Poland we learn more european history (unification of Italy, Germany, French Revolution, 1st WW) and world (old Egypt, old Rome, American Independent War) then us history (no one told you in school that in Warsaw Kingdom (Napoleon pupet) restored serfdom, but we sing about him in us anthem.
I am a German, and the peace in Europe lasted two generations now. My Grandfather was forced to fight on the territory, on which Russia is now fighting and invading Ukraine. If Europe had been united in its whole form there wouldn't be conflicts like this. The United States of Europe could be a step to show the world, how different nations can live together in peace, freedom and wealth.
It wouldn't end by peace but a huge civil war European countries can't live with each other as an independent nations so it would never worked as one big country
you are for this only because you are german and we know that germans would pull mist of the strings for the benefit of germany anyway. thank you but no, colonisation is bad thing right? you won't put things on the map like you did in 1940s.
Ngl, I'm convinced we would be Balkanized and end up quite heavily in uprisings and civil wars sooner or later. Such a goal as a peaceful, united Europe would be more than utopian
The reason that the EU flag has 12 stars is that when the EU was founded the Saarland wasn't already a part of Germany but (more or less) souvereign. So the first plan was actually to have the amount of stars equal to its members, but Germany didn't want to recognize the souvereignty of the Saarland and the membership of Germany was essential to stabilize freedom and peace in europe (because of history, WW1 and WW2).
@@MCKevin289 France tried to annex it twice, after both world wars, but instead the people of Saarland got to choose between France, Germany or sovereignty. They chose Germany. Twice.
There is also a religious reason for 12 stars on EU flag. It is about Blessed Virgin Mary as the Woman of the Apocalypse, wearing a "crown of twelve stars"
The European twelve-star flag represents the unity and perfection of the people upon an azure blue background of the western culture. I like the explanation that even if a perfect world cannot be achieved, it still exists as an idea we should chase and work towards. Having a symbol of people in the flag instead of region/country is the most beautiful thing designers could do. Because, in the perfect world, there are no borders, just people of the same kind living in harmony. We know it will never be achieved, but nobody can stop us from trying...
The 12 stars are for the 12 apostles. You should know this. The blue color stands for the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is all documented. The founders of the European Union were all practicing Catholics. I have a Masters in European Studies: Transnational and Global Perspectives from the KU Leuven (University of Leuven/Louvain) which is near Brussels, Belgium. The creators of the flag were Arsène Heitz and Paul M. G. Lévy. Heitz specifically said that a religious inspiration was behind the creation of the flag. He claimed that the circle of stars was based on the iconographic tradition of showing the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Woman of the Apocalypse, wearing a "crown of twelve stars". These are the flag creator's words which are well documented. In particular, Arsène Heitz himself, in 1987, laid claim to his own role in designing the flag and to its religious inspiration when he said that 'the flag of Europe is the flag of Our Lady' [Magnificat magazine, 1987]. Heitz also made a connection to the date of the flag's adoption, 8 December 1955, coinciding with the Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, if you don't like the Catholic Church that's fine and you have a right to your opinion. But these are facts which are impossible to deny.
@@ariearie3543 Read my full comment. No one is saying that EU countries are religious today. I'm referring to the intention of the creator's of the flag which is well documented. They specifically refer to the 12 apostles.
@@michaeljcross87 read my full comment. This is the definitie answer. The 12 Star flag is adopted(EU) in 1986, When Spain and Portugal where added als the 11th and 12th member state. But that was a coincidence. But it was surely was all about the number of members of the Council of Europe (which had 15(incl Saarland) members at 1953) 15 was not chosen because France demanded this(Would imply a independend Saarland) 14 was not chosen because Germany demanded this(Would imply a not independend Saarland) 13 was a universal unlucky number So 12 Was the Number too be. By which some marketing slogans where added such as unity, freedom, apostles etc.. To keep everyone pleased. So you could say Every member of the 1953 council of Europe has a Star on the Flag Except: Germany, France (and Saarland) 1. Belgium 2. Luxemburg 3. The Netherlands 4. Norway 5. Sweden 6. Greece 7. Italy 8. UK 9. Denmark 10. Ireland 11. Turkey 12. Iceland
@@ariearie3543 I read everything but this is not what the creators of the flag intended. You can make that argument for the meaning of the flag today. But the original intention of the creators was to invoke the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That was the intention whether they publicized it or not. The creators wanted to make sure that Europe would be under the mantle of the Mother of God and the 12 apostles. Today, the E.U. does not espouse this meaning. But one cannot deny the creators' intentions. It's the hidden message and hidden meaning behind the flag.
Thanks from Catalonia! 👍🏼 The idea of the United States of Europe sounds pretty interesting as this would allow for the (re)foundation of the State of Catalonia. 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Most of you didn't get the joke, so here's an explanation. As Polish I support the independence movements in Spain, Germany or France but I did not mention Silesia which is struggling to get independent from Poland. Joke being, as a good European I support the rebels everywhere in Europe, except for the one region in Poland.
Anyone thinking that uniting cannot be done. Remember that almost all countries which you stand in today, was created through merging of either smaller countries or tribes within tribes, who eventually united for whichever reason. Many still keep their traditions but celebrate diversity while also building new culture
Many of these countries had regional languages that are gone now. That means all of the existing languages will probably disappear and be replaced by English.
@@skurinski it already has happend multiple times throughout history. Its not an idea, its a natural progressional fact. Practically it makes a lot of sense. Why do you think its a terrible idea? Just curious, no hate
Já sigo o canal à bastante tempo e posso dizer que és o melhor canal Português que eu já vi! Muitos parabéns pelo trabalho incrível que tens feito! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
can you tell me which one Because I see many more minuses than pluses, which would sooner or later lead to the unified Europe becoming Balkanized. The language problem? Many would like to have English as the main language, but unfortunately in many countries not the majority of people (especially in the east) speak it and many people are proud of their language and the supreme leader would need to know the majority of languages in order to speak the people convince. traditions and culture? The different ethnic groups in a country would be a powder keg, we saw that in the multicultural state of Austria Hungary as a monarchy, and in the South Slavic multicultural state of Yugoslavia as a monarchy, communism and democracy disintegrate. Sorry if something came across funny, English is my 3rd language and for me personally it's quite difficult to compare it with the others.
The reason why so many people in northern countries dislike this federalist idea is because they are a minority of votes in parliament that pay for the majority of the costs of the EU.
1. Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Finland, Denmark have the majority of votes in the EU parliament. 2. Italy and Spain also pay for the majority of the costs of the EU budget. So it is not the northern countries, but mostly western countries (if one wants to put a geographical term on it) who pay for the EU budget. Poland is also a northern country, but it is the country with the most negative net contribution to the EU budget. Lithuania, Latvia and even Estonia as well. 3. Your country will be inhabited by less than 50% dutch people by the year 2050. That being said, is the EU budget really the biggest problem that the Netherands faces? Are 6€ a month that much, to make a better world for your children in 10, 20, 40 years? In 20 years, eastern Europe will have caught up with northwestern Europe, and you will need to pay less money for sustaining the EU. In every case, if many people believe that the money they pay for sustaining the institutions of the EU brings them back too little for that money, we can disolve the EU.
@@tomorrowneverdies567 1. The countries you name have 227 out of 705 votes. I don't even want to name Belgium in that list because they are a massive net beneficiary. 2. Spain gets more budget than it contributes. In addition the net contribution per capita by The Netherlands and Germany is double that of France and Italy. I have faith the Baltic states, the Czech Republic and maybe Slovenia will eventually pull through. The other countries who got added were not and still are not ready. They either are too economically weak and/or too corrupt. Romania, Bulgaria are nothing more than geographical token to keep them out of the influence of Russia. On the other hand Cyprus and Malta are being used as a corrupt gateway into the EU. 3. A federal monetary system is a major problem and at the same time a necessity for the existence of the Euro. Before the Euro "northern" countries were frugal with tight budgets and "southern" countries frequently devalued their coins to finance debt. The mixture of these two cultures leads to northern countries financing southern countries' debt and southern countries losing sovereignty. It makes the EU as a whole weaker. In an ideal scenario we would go back to the EEC, or at least not past the treaty of Maastricht.
@@FrietPiet 1. I forgot France indeed. Now they have a majority. But also include Italy, since they are net contributor. Also Cyprus. 2. Spain contributes about as much as it gets. In every case, if this is such a big problem, we can reform as every country pays the same amount of money. The southern countries, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece are meant to remain economically stagnant, for reasons that are not very obvious. But I can say that the governments of these countries make it as difficult for them as possible to grow. What I mean is, it is not a natural phenomenon, that these countries are (economically) like they are (corrupt, innefficient, etc.). It is not the """culture of the people there""" that cause this, like many people in northern Europe apparently believe. Nobody here wanted the government to borrow money it could later never repay. The political order who runs the world wants them to be like that. Just like they want northern countries like those you mentioned to grow wealhty. 3. I agree with you. The most important problem for me is, however, that even if we go back to the EEC, countries like the Netherlands, Germany, etc. will be inhabited by less than 50% dutch, german people (etc.) by the year 2050.
Concerning the flag and the 12 stars, I disagree, that the approach of changing it according the member states is a good alternative. And I have two reasons for that: The first is the cost. Every time you change a logo or a symbol, all the print material has to be renewed. That is a waste of time, material and money. The second is appearance from the view of optical harmony. The 12 stars are optically balanced. Adding stars not only makes them smaller, but also more untidy. It simply looks bad. I don't mind some romantic reasons to change a flag. The one in New Zealand should have change IMHO. But in the case of the EU, that would be just silly.
The 12 stars are for the 12 apostles. You should know this. The blue color stands for the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is all documented. The founders of the European Union were all practicing Catholics. I have a Masters in European Studies: Transnational and Global Perspectives from the KU Leuven (University of Leuven/Louvain) which is near Brussels, Belgium. The creators of the flag were Arsène Heitz and Paul M. G. Lévy. Heitz specifically said that a religious inspiration was behind the creation of the flag. He claimed that the circle of stars was based on the iconographic tradition of showing the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Woman of the Apocalypse, wearing a "crown of twelve stars". These are the flag creator's words which are well documented. In particular, Arsène Heitz himself, in 1987, laid claim to his own role in designing the flag and to its religious inspiration when he said that 'the flag of Europe is the flag of Our Lady' [Magnificat magazine, 1987]. Heitz also made a connection to the date of the flag's adoption, 8 December 1955, coinciding with the Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, if you don't like the Catholic Church that's fine and you have a right to your opinion. But these are facts which are impossible to deny.
@@michaeljcross87 Thank you. I didn't know that. I am not religious at all. I have to admit that I don't like religious organisations like churches. But I don't mind religion and religious practice. And I even don't mind religious connotations, if the main idea is peaceful. Anyways. I would argue that in a secular government (like the EU) this connotation is only an idea of the designer. It is not a motto of the EU (If I am wrong please tell me. I am eager to learn.). One could say Christianity is a cultural and hisorical basis for the EU and their founders thought this idea is special. One could also argue, that this particular idea was a way of the designer to sell his work to a society that was mainly Christians - especially after WW2, when everything was depressing. But one can also argue, that in the EU Christianity is not as important as it was centuries ago and that this idea is nothing fixed. At least not to me. I guess more conservative and traditional people see this differently. And that's OK. Also I said, I wouldn't change the flag. Since it's well designed - from an aesthetical standpoint.
@@terahlunah YES LMAO, and them leaving even enabled fostered that. The more Britain fails, the longer Boris Johnson and so would have reigned the better for the continent.
I am a proud European patriot. I served my country (Germany) in its armed forces, but I always didn't understand why Europe won't unite. We have one culture, one history, common values and our peoples are close to each other. I would gladly defend any European citizen, their freedom and well-being with my life. We are one. United States of Europe NOW!
another thing to talk about: What happens to the other territories countries like Denmark, Netherlands or France have? Do they get integrated, do they stay within the realm of their original country (e.g. The kingdom of netherlands) or become independent?
The territories of France are fully integrated to mainland France with some automomy due to their remote location or historical reasons. But all people there are french citizens with the same equal rights, they all can vote for french national elections, they all get the same passport, where it's mentionned "Union Européenne, République Française". These territories already are part of the European Union.
Very good and, as always, well explained video. Thank you. I am more for a confederation (to start with) and this would bring about needed changes in the EU. I am also a member of the Volt party, a pan-European political party dedicated to more integration.
Honestly I think it'll work like the U.S. before the civil war. Where, yeah it's a country but most of the times the states acted independently. To the point of people identifying with their state more than their country. The mentality only changed after the civil war to have a much more united country.
That was the biggest problem. If you aren't united, you end up having different states working against each other for their own good instead of the country, and as a result, they don't accomplish as much. An overall leader can look at the best outcome for both states and make the best decision
As a Portuguese I am proud of being European, and I’m even prouder that our fellow European Nations would completely reject this to the death, me included.
Exactly. Now let me ask you. Germany asked Mexico to join WW1, and the United States said okay Germany, you threaten Mexico with a good time, we are coming to boot stomp your face. Because in the Americas, we protect our own from bullcrap from Europe. Now. Who is protecting Ukraine (Europe) from Russia? Is Germany sending 1,000 tanks? Is the Iberians summoning up their European ancestry to defend their neighbors? Is France? No you are sitting back and watching the USA drop Hundreds of BIllions of dollars of equipment from 10 god damned time zones away from Ukraine, WHEN YOU CAN GET IN A CAR AND DRIVE TO THE WAR!!!!! This war is your problem and you aren't dealing with it. In fact, Europe is still buying oil and propping up russia's currency. Ukraine is your fault, and if Europe was United, this wouldn't be happening. Putin would be afraid of the EU.
China, india, japan, korea, are all slowly moving toward superpower status while Europeans like you are standing firmly against superpower status by keeping the EU apart. Who is going to tell the Chinese that they can't just take over as much land as they want? Every 10-15 years, they go grab new land that was once someone else's. Just like Russia does. and the portugese are proud of rejecting unity, and stepping up to confront actual global problems. Europe buys tons of stuff from China's manufacturing. Europe buys tons of oil and energy from Russia. You are literally sending Trillions of Euros to the people who are hardly democratic and every couple years start a war in order to build an empire. Has nobody told you how stupid this is? You are funding the modern day imperialists
I agree that the first step should be forming a united military. I’m sure this would be extremely complicated, but I’m sure there is a way of doing it without forcing those nations who would like to hesitste to take part in it. I’m sure eventually every nation would come to a common sense, we can’t even defend ourselves.
No y are all .ad wanting a united States of America what a put sport if y wa t this ehy do you cheat for your countrywide won't exist o ly a united States of Europe terrible idea
The status quo is the worst option. Now that the UK brake has been removed the EU is free to federalise over time. Countries not willing to federalise must get out of the way.
Nation States will not exist as we know them and we need to recognise that fact. The UK will implode as a nation. Scotland will join the EU and Northern Ireland will join the Republic within the next 10 maybe 15 years. England, with or without Cymru will become tied to rules made in New Delhi, Beijing, Brussels and Washington DC. Its sovereignty will be destroyed. There is no room for smaller countries to survive. Anyone trying to hold on to the 20th might as well hold a gun to their nations metaphorical head. I voted Brexit in full knowledge that England needed to lose sovereignty to a left wing leaning federal EU or lose sovereignty by signing trade deals. I believe there is more money in the latter. Pick a century .. EU federalists and the non racist Brexiteers are in the 21st.
A federated Europe is a terrible idea. The countries don't even speak the same language. They have rushed ahead with integration in every area; currency; trade; export tariffs, law, immigration, finance and are looking to military integration - but never agreed on a common language. Communication is the most basic human functon. One would have assumed this to be the FIRST thing they would do? A common language avoids all sorts of misunderstandings and disagreements over nuance......but no. One has to ask why.
@@ryuk7883 There's nothing common about Esperanto, a language with barely a couple thousand speakers. If you think a couple thousand speakers represents the ''common language'' for 447 million people, you're absolutely braindead.
we may just use english, if we even need one language... a lot of countries do have several official languages but not all of them have federal language...
As a european I don't recognize in the way the USA work even if i'm a european federalist. In a first time I don't think we should cut the countries in more equel size states like the USA. (tough i'm in favor of giving independantist their own regions like for corsica or catalogna if possible). I think that would do what the anti-eu people are afraid of wich is to be erased culturally. Maybe that could be done a century after the creation of the "European union of states" or what ev' it's called
@@HermitKing731 to whome? If you say to france I mean it's almost the leader of europe with germany. Plus yea I want europe to stay relevant in the futur as while we are divided it's the USA and China who take our international power.
@@angemalaurie6074 but what about language? More people will rather use English than European languages and then all European languages will disappear. But no one seems to care. Everyone loves English so much they would gladly abandoned the language of their ancestors. I swear I hate English so much. And don't tell me it won't happen. Yes it will.
@@HermitKing731 I speak english and french so no I don't think our languages will dissapear, sure they will evolve just like english is half composed of english and german words and english people don't deem their language to have dissapeared.
@@angemalaurie6074 Who am i to be angry over things that are out of control. i am only one man. i cannot change the course of history or how the world works today. all i can do is be stoic and try to find the strength to not be so emotional over these things.
And there's that disdain for the former Eastern Bloc countries again. Not once were they mentioned. Yet it is obvious that none of them would want any federalization. Along with the other smaller European countries who don't want to become colonies of the Germans, French, Italians and Spanish who would easily outvote them on any issue. The European Union is home to 27 culturally distinct nations, not some unprincipled jumble of immigrants from all over the world like America. Otherwise, there was already one big European federation that fell under the central decision-maker. It was the non-sovereign Warsaw Pact countries. As a Czech, I really don't want a common European army to be used to pacify disobedient countries, as the Russians did in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The current form of the Eurippe Union is fully sufficient.
There was only 6 first members; Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, East Germany, Italy & France. Portugal, Greece, Spain, UK, Ireland & Denmark only where added in later. 12 doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary number that means everything but nothing at the same time.
@@modmaker7617 it’s because they were the 12 first before the big influx of countries after the fall of the Soviet Union, and because the eu was created when they’re were 12 countries in the maastricht treaties and was truly created in 1993, before that it was the European community of coal and steal, then it became the European economic community and euratom. So before Maastricht in 92(came in effect 93) they’re were 12 members and those 12 founded the eu
Recently after a lot of pressure and debates, the politicians in Norway finally agreed that a free energy market is a risky entreprise when our water reserves are all time low before the winter. We can limit the export to Germany who screwed itself by decomissioning nuclear power and betting everything on Russian gas. Now imagine our situation if we were a federated Europe where the votes of Germany (83 million) would decide this in their favour against Norwegian votes (5 million). We would be a thrall state that has no say, no political sway and we would have blackouts. I understand that France and Germany want federation, because they will be running it, the rest of us will simply become the feeder bag for the "federation"
You wrote that being part of an overall union would be detrimental for small countries like Norway because they would suffer from the decisions of the larger countries. But your example that Norway would be left in the dark when water supplies dwindled if it didn't limit its exports to Germany is absurd. If the EU were a single state the Norwegians would be part of it and would receive all the energy they need in the same way as all other European citizens. Reflect: the citizens of Oslo are many more than those of (for example) Kongsberg but I don't think that in Kongsberg there are blackouts to give electricity to Oslo... and I don't think that the citizens of Kongsberg are enslaved by those of Oslo. In Italy Lombardy has 11 million inhabitants and Valle d'Aosta has 123,000 and yet they have schools, electricity and everything else... more or less like in Lombardy. All countries are made up of large regions and small regions: this is normal and no one is enslaved or left without electricity because of this. Otherwise there would be only nations made up of a single city...
@@pp38pp I don't think that you understend what oditeomnes said. It's not about that we would'nt have acces to basic need as electricity or so because of federalizaton, its ridiculous. Its about that German politicians was ignoring fact that they becoming addicted to Putin's gas (or maybe they become that by "donations" from russian company gazprom) and the point is that in this new state Germany and France would have lot to say about what this state will be looking if not the most, and what i see is they care only about their own interest. So basicly small countries could feel like pawn in bigger states and Russian-Ukrainian war case, you have a lot of countries take diffrent stance of what to do, Baltic countries or other countries bordering russia will be more affraid of war hitting their country then for example France or germany, they would let russia to take whole Ukraine to get cheep gas because of all this "buffor states" between their borders they can afford to not care at all. Other eu unification issues can be, big diffrences in incomes and wealth, look at the average western eu salary and eastern, as well as social security benefits and pension average between those two sides of europe, who's money you use to fill this gap?. Next, I dont see which Language can be "lingua franca" of EU, so a lot of countries will be pushing theirs or english and I assure you, there will be no compromise because no matter which you choose at least few countries will not agree on it. In starting of last decade I was really hype by federalization idea as a EU coutntry citizen but when you dig deeper you see that there countries put own intrest , over eu well being and I highly doubt it will change soon.
@@S1KOR3 Your way of conceiving unification is strange: it only takes into account your fears and not what has already happened in history. As I said, several large European countries are born from unification processes. Italy, Spain and Germany are nation states that arose from the unification of pre-existing states. And the current internal distribution of wealth is by no means a reflection of the wealth and strength that the original states had before unification. Even their foreign and economic policy does not seem to be affected too much by the fact that their pre-unification states had different interests. These are important historical precedents. Germany did very well to buy gas from Russia because FOR GERMANY it was the best thing to do. If a United Europe had already existed, Germany would NOT have bought gas from Russia because the political entity that would have decided who to buy gas from was not Germany, but Europe. Just as it was not Thuringia or Saxony that decided to buy gas from Russia, but the Federal Republic of Germany as a whole. The political subject that arises from unification IS DIFFERENT from the political subjects that precede unification. And in any case, if the countries of Northern and Eastern Europe don't agree, never mind, we'll gladly do without them. The fund are the latest arrivals and have created only problems. I hope that at least the large countries of Western Europe, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain decide to continue the process of unification on their own. It wouldn't be the first time that integration has proceeded in a non-uninimistic way: even the Euro does not concern all the countries of the Union. It is true that language is not a big problem as demonstrated by the fact that Spain for example has 4 official languages and still survives...
@@pp38pp You talk about unification countries which has the same language sometimes with diffrent dialect or similar like Castillian and Catalan in Spain. Even so they are one country, Catalonia as far as know want to be independent and a lot of people in southern regions of Italy feels neglected. If there will be enough bad blood between nation or ethnic group or just other reasons, things can go pessimistically like in yugoslavia or I always hope so optimistic like in Czechoslovakia. About Gas from Putin... Everybody was buying it from Putin, and I am not talking about that who buys and who not, it was beneficial for all of us. I said that Germany economy become addicted to it, there was not really big force of diversification energy sources, there was of course renewable energy, but its nothing for German economy needs . Poland wasnt that blind because everytime we said or did something wrong in eyes of Russian politics, the gas was cutted. So we just know trusting Putin was a play with fire and nobody was listening. Please don't say that really countries will be equal in this new EU country, its not gonna happen. There will be just fight for power between big or influencial countries, you really think that Croatia or Latvia will have the same influence like Belgium or France. Ok then i really admire idealism. About that Fund, You could elaborate more if you want, cause I dont know what fund we are talking about. Yes, you could integrate more in "old Eu" but I just feel there will be clashes, sometimes to difficult to overcome. especialy between countries like Spain, Italy vs Netherlands, Germany. About Euro, i just personaly consider this as a good idea, so nothing to argue here i think. About last one...So Imagine, eu has now 24 official languages, very very diffrent, not like 4 in spain from the same family tree (maybe Basque is more diffrent from others) , and everybody speak and knows Castilian. What we have in EU? Which language will be leading, will be known be everyone? Or at least which family? Romance, Germanic, Slavic or other? I personally don't see a winner.
@@S1KOR3 1. Things can always go wrong and there is always a good reason to go to war. In 1861 all states in the US spoke the same language and there was no real ethnic or religious difference between the northern states and the southern states. Yet the southern states wanted independence and the northern states did they invaded to prevent it. Even in unions between people, things can go well or badly. Should we be all alone forever? 2. Speaking of Putin's Gas... it was just an example to say that the decisions of a unified state follow different logics from those of individual states. in fact a hypothetical EU government would be made up of people from all over Europe according to the parties that win the European elections. 3. You reason as if in a unified state were the sum of the individual states. But that's not necessarily the case. It depends on the institutional architecture, on the political dynamics, on how the electoral law is structured. It is not certain that the contrasts will be like Belgium vs Latvia. It could be conservative versus progressive, Catholic versus Protestant… every community is divided into parties. It's physiological. In healthy communities, difference generates a fruitful debate, in sick ones it generates violence. 4. In my opinion, the ideal would be a federal state with 6 founders: Germany, Spain, France and Italy. Perhaps even a federal state with the 15 members of 1995 would be possible. In my opinion the current system with 27 members in which everyone does what they want cannot survive for long. 5. The many different languages are a difficulty. But not an insurmountable impediment.
I'd probably have been more pro EU if there was a democratic mandate. The Brexit vote in 2016 was the first time since the 70s that we actually got to vote on the changes made to the organisation, we've never had a vote for any new treaty or integration or change to sovereignty with the EU until 2016 which means it was forced on the country without a democratic mandate (apart from the Euro referendum, but imagine not being forced against your will to ditch your own currency, eh?). Our largest party in the parliament was UKIP and none of our pro EU parties wanted to actually negotiate the UK's position in the EU and were just a bunch of nodding heads agreeing to everything
@@maugaming490 Whatever happens in regards to the UK should be whatever the majority wants to happen, not what some brainwashed cultist like Tony Blair thinks.
1:27 "All of Europe, safe Belarus".... and Russia, the outlines of the European continent are even marked in colour on the map and still we refuse to see Russia as a European power, which it has been for centuries.
you have to remember that the US is mostly one nation, and speaks mostly one language. how would a german candidate for the presidential elections in hypothetical united europe even campaign in, lets say, greece?
I think if they were to federalize, it would have to be even more state sided than the US. The federal government’s job would be protecting rights, spending/raising money, and representing on an international stage. The rest is left to the regional governments.
@@deftermedia it would simplify geopolitics regarding Europe and force more radical states to tow the line while rn they are often able to yell very loud and make problems where problems dont need to be. The federal government would also have law enforcement power in states. For example, a court would declare Hungary’s election invalid and force a new election. In the US, if Texas declared that it’s election results were invalid even though they weren’t, the US DOJ would sue Texas. The case would likely go to the Supreme Court, where politics are largely set aside when it comes to cases regarding current election. They would side with the US, and make Texas either accept the election results, or make them do another election with the DOJ making sure there is no fraud, one way or another. From what I understand, the current EU can only threaten to withhold funding, they ultimately cannot intervene in a significant way. There have only been 3 times states/presidents have defied a ruling by the Supreme Court. Once was Andrew Jackson in the late 1820s, the Court ruled that because the US had a treaty with a Native American Nation in Georgia, the government could not force them out. He did it anyway. Another time was in the 1850s after the Dread Scott decision that declared that black people could not be citizens. Northern states ignored it and continued allowing black people to be citizens, and in some states vote. And the final time was in 1957 after the Court ruled that racial segregation was unconstitutional. Most famously, a school in Little Rock, Arkansas refused to follow the court’s order, so President Eisenhower sent US Marshals (a federal law enforcement agency) and US Army that school to enforce the court’s ruling. Basically, what im saying is that the ability for a state to actively enforce laws it makes is a major difference between a federalized EU and it’s current form.
@@deftermedia and i forgot to mention international affairs would be far easier with just one large Europe than having to try and get each individual country on board. The US would not be what it is today if you had to negotiate with each state to make deals or treaties, some states are absolute bitches. Texas and California would just be hell to make deals with because of their strict ideologies, but they don’t have an international voice thanks to the federal government representing them.
@@rorypaul153 thanks for the very detailed answer. I'm not totally sold, but these are quite valid arguments. I'll definitely keep these in mind while discussing the matter in the future.
The US has one of the most dysfunctional systems, this would be a terrible idea and awful for Europe if they adopted federalism based on it. Something different from the US that addresses the many flaws of that system could be great depending on the specifics.
Most of the flaws in the US's system comes from how we do elections, which Europe already does vastly differently than we do. The US really only has two parties, so it's easy for them to do whatever they want and not really be accountable for running the government, because there aren't any other options
@@zeldafan7457 The US system itself is flawed: 1). "Supreme" court that isn't accountable, doesn't have term limits, and doesn't have any minimum standards. 2). Congress isn't proportional to population. 3). Districts are way too politically motivated. 4). Money in politics. 5). No direct election for the president.
@@zeldafan7457 and tske for example the voting power for each state, wyoming votes are more than three and a half times stronger than a california vote
Also, you stated that it was easier for the US to form a federation as it was federal from the beginning. This is not true, the US started off as a confederation, the confederation of states under the articles of confederation. These states were basically like countries in the EU. They had their own armies, currencies etc... They gave up a tremendous amount of autonomy to form the USA.
Having a federal government in the style of the US will mean also federal police and other agencies that have authority over national/state agencies. Like the FBI can take over an investigation from the local police. Now imagine the scenario of German federal investigators (as Germany is the biggest country by population and budget in the EU) coming over to Romania for example. And taking over a local murder or corruption case and conducting their investigation in German. This will have very, very negative publicity and aftertaste. Unlike the US where there was little previous history between each state, in Europe most of the countries have over 1000 years of history, and some of them have made more than a few blunders (Austria-Hungary is also one of them).
6:14 , I think is impossible, see the difference between USA and EU is that the USA citizens are mostly same culture and speak the same language, meanwhile in EU is the opposite, you cannot make a big army from all countries and replace all armies with it because in that army soldiers will speak the various language and maybe even create a mass confusion (this really happened when Austro Hungary had a war with ottoman empire because soldiers were speaking 7 different languages it made the generals and other soldiers believe that ottoman army have infiltrated in Austro-Hungarian army and killed each other in mass) also, each country will vote for different governs and parties and it will be unfair that the parties from countries with over 100 million of peoples will rule over another country with 5 million or 15 million peoples (just because this will be minority countries), each country will vote for its own parties and u cannot apply the same ideology in all countries And also a unified army can break apart when will be internal conflicts, the soldiers from a country will become separate from others and depend on their country's citizens and ideology in an internal fight.
You do know that basically all Europeans speak English. I’ve traveled a lot across this Union and so far everyone I’ve spoken speaks English if not fluently at least to a degree.
@@nunosantos485 I met several people with zero knowledge of English, especially outside of touristic regions. I even met some scandinavians who weren't able to speak English and those are usually known for their perfect English skills, especially as films/videos or mostly not translated into their languages.
Don't you mix sth up? Austro-Hungarian Empire vs Ottoman Empire? In ww1 they were allies, and they never went to war against each other. Its predecessor, namley the Empire of Austria, fought in the turkish wars, but only some small piece of Hungary was part of Austria back then, the rest was completly annexed and/or demolished by the Ottoman Empire, the same goes for most slavic regions, like modern Slovakia and Croatia. Bohemia and what is today Slovenia had German or Bavarian speakers back then (e.g. more than 1/3 of the bohemian population were native Germans or Bavarians), so most people spoke German and also multiple other languages anyway.
@@Leo-uu8du There are people who don’t speak English, but these days that is an exception. The odds that you’ll find someone that understands nothing of English today are almost zero.
@@Leo-uu8du The Austro-Hungary empire was the predecessor of the Habsburg Empire, and yes between the 16century to 18 century, they had a lot of wars against each other, and Austro-Hungary first time was ruled by the House of Habsburg, so both things are the same shit with a different name, even had the almost same land area
Here's the problem with a top-heavy federalist state in Europe: Working-class people are more comfortable (and empowered) when political power is on the LOCAL LEVEL. An aggressive federal government of Europe will crush all working-class hopes and dreams. The EU and the UN are already forcing its citizens into submission and slavery.
Well it would include all countries of Asia such as France, Germany, China, Sweden, Japan, Korea, Russia etc. and would definitely be the most powerful and by far the most populous.
It is impossible to create an full functional "Federal Europe". Too much different languages, cultures, heritage etc... The US was not confronted with that problem. Most of them were english, they all adopted to that language, created an new "culture" and had an whole "new continent" to form their ideas how they wanted. It is good to get along very well and intensify the relationship between the european countries and an united military would be great, but everything beyond that seems impossible at least in my mind.
;) look at Belgium a bit closer... its a Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy to be specific, with 3 different cultural/language regions. but still one country. So it might be difficult, but different cultures or different languages aren't the problems specifically. (not to say it will still be difficult because every country has it's nationalist parties that will try to convince it's a bad idea. And nobody knows for sure unless it happens if that would be the case)
Wrong, the US did have that problem, they solved it by being fascists and banning German language. Maybe you don't know this, but English wasn't always the most spoken language in the US, it was German. The US had quite a few languages, they just decided to eradicate them in favor of English.
@@jorisderijck1779 wasnt belgium supported by britain since like day one? Even if one of the parts wanted to revolt, UK just wouldnt allow their valuable little buffer state to fall apart
i'm italian, i live between Rome and Milan, i would be very happy if eu becomes a "united states of europe" but it is almost impossible, due to the micronations, to the cultural differences and due to the language differences. It would really be "eutopia" because i think that it is almost impossible, i can see all the differences even between Rome and Milan, i have also some friends in Munich, some in Barcelona, some in Athens, a cousin in Aalborg and a part of the family in Helsinki, another part in Naples, another in Catania (Sicily) also a friend in Lugano (italian switzerland), for every place you can completelly see the differences, it is almost a "united states of eu" we are on the right path, but more than that? Italians and French are like cat and dog, the same for portuguese and spanish, greeks and turkish... but with the right amount of independence for each region it would be more practical, there would be the "states of appartenence" and the "communities" like: Piedmont, Lombardy, Tirol, Nice, Catalunya, Corse, Sardinia, Sicily, Calabria, Puglia, Scotland, Ireland, Andalusia, Bavaria, Baden-Wuttenberg, ECC ECC, everyone with the possibility of doing what they want as it is in the usa like sardinia wants free weed? Sardinia will get it, Catalunya wants the same? Its ok, regional decisional power, with some borders to stay in like "no death penalty, no sovereign things, no regional racism, ecc ecc", wich are already a thing here (due to some standards that i havent still understood), then there would be litterally "free immigration" between all the regions and it could be bad for some areas (southern italy, romania outside the big cities, the same for all the balcanic nations, because they could go "without any problem" wherever they want, i can think of Milan, a city wich is growing A LOT, they are building a lot of skyscrapers because they dont have the space to fit people in, even if its one of europe's costlyest cities in terms of purchasing a house, and people still go there and in the metropolitan area wich is also growing a lot and it is getting a sort of "parisization" with a lot of banlieue and things. So for me it is possible only if some boundary would be set in the right way, with the right amount of freedom for each territory, but it would be a lot more than 50 😂.
There are 1 billion Chinese. There are 1 billion Indians. There are 2 billion Muslims. There are 1 billion sub-saharan Africans. There are half a billion central and couth Americans. People of European descent are roughly 1 billion all together spread between North America and Europe. The only logical course of action is to decrease division between them if they want to survive the 21st century.
Questions of having a "the United or the Federal States" or "the Kingdom" depends on the traditions of each dominion!!!! If one State or a group of states' traditions are bounded by Unionism the United States of such could work, case in point USE or FSE but if certain states don't see themselves traditionally link to those states and strong traditions in their own right it wouldn't make much sense. The same would be said about Monarchy vs Republic, if a state has strong republican traditions like most in the Americas they will reject Monarchy while nations like the UK with Rich history with their Monarchy will go the other way!!!! It all depends on the Traditions of each Sovereign or semi-Sovereign State!!!!
This is exactly why we chose to leave. This was and remains always the end goal of the project. In Britain, we have an obvious different political and cultural history in which the concept of European federalism send shivers down our spines. Drahgi's comments highlight the enormous difference in outlooks between the EU elites and everyday UK citizens. We wish you well but in the near, medium and long term we won't be joining you 🇬🇧
It seems that the UK goal is now to be a colony/state of the USA... I don't know how that is a step forward. The UK is too small on its own to be relevant in the world. But of course the choice is yours.
Yeah, you prefer to be governed by U.K. Elites, that continue to ruin your country just like Boris „The Clown“ Johnson did. I even wouldnt be so sure about the UK existing in the near future, since there are so many parts that want to break away from it. I wish you the best ,too, but currently i dont see any good possible outcome from your island isolationsim.
I appreciate your 4 types of opinions to break down how some Europeans may think. However number 1 is not accurate as Brexit voters can't be claimed to want the EU to dissolve and not exist. Brexit was complex and made more difficult by the EU stance to not reform, meaning it left some wanting to not be part of something that required change, while others accepted that it is what it is and want to be part of the EU. Others (as you pointed out) not wanting an EU, with others believing in the EU and finally the anti-establishment voters. The later felt unheard and wanted an opportunity to rock the boat. Simply we were given 2 choices and peoples reasons are not black and white. P.S Not all countries are able to join the EU because of sovereignty, political leanings and alliances. Enjoyed the video 👍
Brexit was complex and made more difficult by the EU stance to not reform this is correct. personally i hate the eu and would love it dissolved but the eu probably wouldnt have lost the uk if they had taken uk threats seriously and had actually negotiated in good faith like actual grown ups. but the ideologues that run the eu will never accept that not everyone wants to be on the same trajectory as them and their attitude to democracy and the views of the people they govern and tax and wish to conscript etc etc is, as is shown pretty regularly, pretty dismissive...
The EU is too weak, its member states too strong, for the EU to work well. America started with a similar structure, defined in the Articles of Confederation, with very little power at the center. This failed so badly that America replaced the Articles with the current Constitution a decade after declaring independence.
Not quite the U.S. constitution had been edited and expanded upon, some parts have even been removed. Just know if the old version was followed every politician that proposed any form of gun restrictions would receive the death sentence.
Well, there is an easy explanation for that. There is a constant push and pull between Unionists and Federalists, so we got ideas from both sides, and being a mixture. But the EU is very young. Time will tell who wins. Once one party wins we will either be a union or a federalist state. For now, the federalists are winning. Why? Because geopolitics pressures us. with the Russian invasion obviously directly we have to work together. To rival China we have to work together. To secure resources in Africa and to beat China in Africa we have to work together. The pandemic also put an end to austerity politics. The states could take on endless debt guaranteed by the ECB, that starts resembling the FED. The list goes on, we need to work together to join the space race. One major thing will be 2024, should Trump return, that would push the continent even more together because Trump will instate American egoism. The irony is europe will be united by outsiders LOL. The more crisis are coming the more we get pushed together. Should world peace return and the world would slow down, I would think the unionists would win.
no, america resulted from the colonization of the land by a bunch of different people that needed to be united at some point. The EU is made of countries and people who've always been there have rich and meaningfull histories , historical events that shaped their own constitutions, different belief systems and cultures . Why don't you get that it is important to us? That it has value?
@@ionbrad6753 we're not flavors and culture,s we are constitutions, revolutions , laws and national sovereigneties, you are being border line racist. THe very fact that you can't grasp this illustrates how you'll push it so much that the EU will be entirely gone way before it's united.
Good video but rather a science fiction than a real possibility. A unified europe would require more solidarity trust and cooperation. - ex1:Western manufacturers in Eastern Europe would lose their competitiveness ex2: Could be that Serbian soldiers protecting Croatia and Croatian soldiers Belgium. ex3: Small countries would be underrepresnted compared to their high GDP. Romania would be 3x higher influence than Denmark or Netherland but not accepted by the rich countries. Would be great but wont be accepted if the should give up from their wealth, autonomy or national pride
I think there should be a limited scope federation that just encompasses Benelux, France, Germany, Austria, Italy and Spain and then maybe Slovakia, Slovenia and least likely Czechia and just have the EU remain a loose coalition with the other 16-19 members
I think Austria is also not likely to join that federation, at least in the first round. Federalisation would have to begin with its biggest members France and Germany foremost because I believe the reason these two in particular are so open to a federal Europe is that they both (individually) believe they would be the hegemon of the continent.
So the answer is to make thé integration a processus, beginning just by economical agreements, then politicals, then..., then integration. With no obligation to progress if not wanted.
That doesn't make sense tbh, you mentioned the largest countries plus some of the medium sized countries and left out the smallest countries and all of the Nordic countries, which all have a strong economic power and contributes to the union more than they receive. One of the core principles of the EU is that all member states are equal, so why would the countries you left out want to be part of a union and still have to follow all the EU regulations, but not be fully in the club?
@@rosavoxa3828 I think you don't understand fully what Federalisation is about. We're not talking about being in a union "as part of a club" but about fully integrating multiple countries militaries, foreign policies, financial policies. Of the Nordic countries you were just so happy to bring up: 1 isn't even in the EU, 3 don't use the Euro, 1 has laxer immigration laws, and 3 are constitutional monarchies. With that in mind I think we can see why the OP did not include them as potential federal candidates, but it doesn't exclude them from being part of the European Union.
1:25 save Belarus and Russia. Russia is a European country and has always been and will always be. I find it hilarious how people argue Turkey is a European country while simultaneously say Russia is not.
What would consider a state? For example , would Denmark or Sweden as a whole be consider a state ? where would the soldiers loyalty lie? Would for example French soldiers go to war for German interests and die for it? ( Sorry for my bad English, hope you understand my thought process)
It would be like the early U.S. Most soldiers in the early U.S. were more loyal to there states this meant when the civil war broke out most soldiers joined the south solely because thats what the state government decided on doing.
@@darth3911 yes but that's becasue the us had no history before that. Scandinavian people or main land Europe have huge history, not likely they would go to war for examples Spain. Why would they, just becasue they goverment saying so? The us fought for completely something else . . It's nothing like that
If you are a united country then german interests would be french interests. Like in the U.S. states cannot start wars. Maine cannot start a war with canada over the Niagra falls. Although the states are united, they have their own interests and pursue them. U.S. states have pretty good autonomy and can follow their own paths. They can develop how they want. In the U.S., the soldiers loyalty lies with the constitution. Not the president or any state. This is to prevent a leader or state from trying to usurp power. So no one state would go to war, if war was declared then all states within the union fight. In the U.S. only congress can declare war, so Congress would gather the representatives from each state and vote on it.
@@yaasinm Scandinavia is mainland Europe, British Isles are not mainland Europe. Other than that, you're right, and it seems like it would be mostly just for French and German interests.
There is quite a lot of history of alliances, shared military and strategic objectives and European countries going to war on behalf of others because of perceived common interests. Ironically in the light of Brexit, the closest military alliance in Europe, outside NATO, is currently the Combined Joint Expeditionary Force - a jointly commanded and manned all-services force of 10,000 drawn from France and the U.K.. It was established in 2010 and both countries have reaffirmed their commitment to it since Brexit and have emphasised that it is unaffected.
Without any disrespect for the Balkan Sates, I personally can’t imagine them as members of the potential «United States of Europe» or, more likely, «Federal States of Europe». The same applies to states like Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltic States and probably Finland, as some of them would cause civil wars (Balkan) and the others are former members of the Ussr (Baltics), and we have already seen what the consequences can be when the West ventures to Russia‘s border (ex. Ukraine-War). Therefore, I believe that the following countries would be the most likely members: - Austria - Belgium - Cyprus - Czechia - Denmark - France - Germany - Greece - Ireland - Italy - Luxemburg - Malta - Netherlands - Norway - Poland - Portugal - Slovakia - Spain - Sweden
As someone from Switzerland, i don't like this idea at all and i think this idea would get shut down if there would be a democratic vote in the respective countries but sadly it seems like the political elites in Europe pursue this goal nonetheless. It's a slap in the face to our ancestors who in their mind have fought for the freedom of their countries and it will erode European cultures and democracy.
I think it could work. One of the main factor would need to be that each country gets one vote, no matter it's size. Croatia has same political weight as Germany or France. If this isn't done then it can't work, because large country would get far more weight than small ones and crush any national interest of it's smaller members. Equal representation is a must, no matter if a country is poor or has little population. If this would get into the "New EU", it would work. Speaking as a Canadian, if 2 provinces (Quebec and Ontario) would settle their differences and vote in a united voice for something the rest of the country COMBINED can't overrule it and would be stuck with whatever was voted, even if they hate it. Thankfully, the feud between Ontario and Québec is still there, we rarely see eye to eye, on anything. That's why western provinces are utterly fed-up and secession has been mentioned once or twice of late. So EU needs equal political votes to prevent such a thing to prevail. In the US they have the electoral college (I think?) that balances low-population states with large ones.
No it doesn't, do you seriously believe Croatia has the same weight? M y god you're ignorant, Croatia and all the other smaller states literally just do what's told to them, our representatives are minions of Brussels. This is already a problem, full federation just buries any idea of autonomy. Germany and France already dictate politics and condition rules, blackmail certain member countries. You have no understanding of how EU works, we most definitely don't have the same political weight.
Europe *must* unite and stay united or we won‘t be able to remain dominant in a world where both China and India are fully industrialized, the Russian bear still scratches on our door and the USA is focusing on their own goals. We Europeans have a history filled with thousands of years of war and conflict, but in the last decades we have worked together and proved that we can exist without war. I know that it‘s not all sunshine and rainbows and that there are manny different problems in Europe as well as recent events that haven’t made it easier, but it also showed that if we pull ourselves together and cooperate, we can do this and much more. One day, in the (near) future, i hope we can pull this off and become united. If not, then i hope we‘ll have better times or we‘re done.
I hope the European and North American peoples will be friendly relatives of a long past. The 19th and 20th century was for nationalism the 21st will be for the pan nationalists.
@@bulkierwriter2772 Yeah i think we‘ll remain friends and allies but their an ocean away and recently have focused on Asia (China) as it will be the next theater.
@@bulkierwriter2772 maybe someday there is a North American Union consisting of US, Canada and Mexico Yeah we will still be friends but like europe, North America has a ton of problems and things of their ow to take care of
@@HermitKing731 It wouldn’t have the same capacity as a unified military… and i don’t think you would want a unified military without a federal union. Who would the military answer to? As for a European NATO… I think that would be politically difficult to do with actual NATO around.
The fact is, one doesn't have to be completely federal because Europeans can decide what they want the European Union to look like in the future. Will they need to adopt more federalist integration, such as an expansion of military and economic integration, yes but they could still remain quite confederalist or quasi federal. Unfortunately my country won't be able to join in because old people in the british country don't like the EU but really, the sky is the limit for you guys.
@@tankadar Hi. Young person from Britain who voted Brexit here. Yes, lots of us do exist. You're looking forward to the elderly dying off to swing a vote? Jesus.. That's a horrible thing to say and it drives me away from your otherwise perfectly valid movement. None of us will be alive forever, so try not to gloat for too long because we'll all be in that position eventually. And before anyone comes along with a refutation to Brexit, etc, don't bother. That's a completely different yet valid debate but that's not the reason for my comment; My comment is simply addressing the inhumanity of these specific people, who claim to support a peaceful EU federal system with high-minded progressive policies, but whom also look forward to old people kicking the bucket so that it happens sooner through changing demographics. Thinking like that is inhuman and no retort can make it less inhuman. People of all ages have equal value and worth. That's literally written into the EU's highest laws/treaties. Stop it. "Old people won't be alive forever, so there's that ;)" I don't think you know how ageing works: *Everyone won't be alive forever.* I'm sorry that in your search for humanity's better ideals and progress, you've stopped caring about some actual humans you politically disagree with. To be honest though, millions of people probably support that mindset, which is both frightening and sad.
*Would you want a United States of Europe to happen?*
Yes, because it will benefit us all, although I already know it will be incredibly unpopular with many people.
Ideally it should be somewhat like the USA, but with each nation having more rights.
Yes I hate USA and Russia if we did this we could kick them both out
Absolutely. Some problems need to be solved at the supranational level.
No; we didn't fight two World Wars in order to prevent Germany from taking over the continent, just so that they can do so with this.
As a non european it doesn't affect me much but a more unified eu would be a good way to maybe stop Russian beligerenge and return peace to europe since this war affected everyone.
I disagree regarding the flag, having a star for each member state looks too cluttered. I think the current flag suits the EU well, you don’t literally need an icon for each state on the flag.
I see a lot of these flag-redesign arguments always boil down do "we need one star for each subdivision of this region." There are some places doing it, like USA, Brazil, Australia, but this isn't the only way of doing it.
EU has 12 stars with 27 members. China has 5 stars with 31 provinces. New Zealand has 4 stars and 16 regions.
Eh it's better IMO this real one is nearly meaningless
@@Liggliluff Australia has 6 states and 2 territories (dependent overseas territories are usually not counted as they're uninhabited). The Southern Cross has 5 stars and in addition the Australian flag has the Federation Star, a seven pointed star where each state and the federation is represented as a spike in it. It's not like the US.
Hope Europe won't descend down this silly flag obsession like the US.
I dont think the current one fits for something as grand as a state emcompassing all of europe
I mean even if it was called United States of Europe, it may just adapt Europe or EU as the most common name anyway. Look at Mexico, officially it's called the United Mexican States, but it's really just referred to by it's most common name.
That’s just because “United States” is meant to describe what type of country it is. It’s the same as how most countries are “Republic of X” or “State of X.” It’s like a title in a way.
the only country that uses united states in there name is america and that because we don't wanna confuse with the continent
That's a good point!
Well, I dont think it would call its self the United States of Europe. That sounds like it is just trying to be like the US.
@@blackfalcon1324 Yea, we just call it HRE
I like the European flag. It's nice looking, simple enough, and yet unique enough and very recognisable. There doesn't need to be a lot of deep meaning behind it. Tradition & style is enough.
I agree, adding more stars would ruin it in my opinion.
@@Espiritu_de_Obiwon Flag maker: How many stars would you like?
EU: 12 is well enough.
USA: Add 52 more.
EU: Are you compensating for something you land eating troglodyte?
USA: Screw you, you're not my dad!
Tradition and style, something we know really well in EU, I'd say
I completely agree. It's simple with 12 stars. And the symbolism is nice.
I hate it.
If you google the meaning of the European flag, you will get this: The European flag symbolizes both the European Union and the unity and identity of Europe in general. The European flag is made up of a circle of 12 gold stars on a blue background. The stars represent the ideals of unity, solidarity and harmony among the peoples of Europe. In my opinion we must leave it like this. 🇪🇺
We definitely should have live it like this, and not copy the USA.
We have the right amount of stars :D
@@eriktoth6002 👍👍🇪🇺
Because logical flag design is an American invention lol we'll definitely run with that if the Europeans insist.
To me it makes so little sense, why does 12 stars represent unity, solidarity and harmony? There is no link between those two things - the flag looks good but the whole symbolism is a bit of a made up afterthought in my opinion. Its a blue flag with 12 stars the end
@@Bager_Wisdoms it seems obvious to me that all flags have an invented meaning such as the Japanese one. Tell me what meaning should a white flag with a red dot in the center have without first knowing the history of the people and the territory?🇯🇵
If the EU moves towards a more federal or even unitary system, it will be absolutely crucial to maintain cultural and linguistic sovereignty. Trying to stamp down cultural secession movements by basically gerrymandering the regions in question is a recipe for disaster.
I think that by cutting the current national states into smaller states you would actually be able to much better conserve cultural and linguistic diversity. For example, in a Bavarian state as a part of a European Federation Bavarians would have it much easier to keep unique features of their culture than inside Germany which being a national state has historically mostly assimilated local cultures. Also, in places like the South of France or Northern Germany it would be much easier to have programmes aimed at reviving languages which 100 years ago were thriving but were sacrificed on the altar of the national state like Occitan or Low German. Also, more thriving languages like Basque or Catalan could be further protected, and so-called Italian "dialects" would be able to gain more of an official status and re-gain their proeminence in their respective regions.
The current nations would gerrymander themselves, then you can exclude nations for example.
In the case of EU, all documents are in each nation language, there’s no a specific língua franca so I don’t believe any culture could be under threat. In the past many languages were oppressed and overridden by imperialism, but it is a natural phenomenon that some languages and cultures get shaded by others until become eventually in disuse and remain history, forcing people to practice it is futile I think, since is no longer organic.
Being from Northern England, the idea of a separate entity as part of a European whole is quite appealing. I am definitely European, also British (more then English) but I'm also sick of the London-centric attitude that prevails in the UK.
They will try to ban a lot of traditions
I would hope the EU could look at the history of the US and see both what's working and what's NOT working, and come up with a better alternative to what it is now vs more like the US. Some things in the US definitely are not working...
If there’s one thing I would not want the most it’s the electoral college. It’s overcomplicated, stupid and unnecessary.
@@Ballin4Vengeance The electoral college was established as a mechanism to prevent big coastal cities from dictating all US policies and to share political power evenly across the country. So the electoral college is actually very necessary for maintaining political stability and proper functioning of democracy in US.
@@hendriktonisson2915 unfortunately, population density means that the votes in some states, aren’t as important as others, as in, for example, in the 2016 election, Trump won the electoral college vote despite losing the popular vote by close to two million.
@@S-Fan2006 Electoral college is still a better system than letting a small part of the country decide everything while majority of the country is basically excluded from decision making.
@@hendriktonisson2915 That's a load of BS! Cities like Los Angeles and New York are big, but they are not big enough to decide a POTUS election on their own. Every so called advantage of the Electoral College is covered by the equal representation in the Senate. The Electoral College is an anachronistic institution and no other country that has a Presidential system has copied it. The US is the ONLY one that uses an electoral college, and it needs to go.
Not having a military doesn’t guarantee that they won’t declare independence. Look at Yugoslavia. They had a shared military. Didn’t stop them breaking up.
What started the breakup was censorship.
@@darth3911 The Yugoslavian born Serb that lies here next to me has no idea what you’re talking about.
Can you elaborate?
@@billdexhart5179 Basically a Slovenian news organization reported on a story that made the then governments agenda look bad.
So the government tried to censor it. This made Slovenia declare independence and thus started the downfall of Yugoslavia.
Yea the federal soldiers will just run off and start their own army.
@@belstar1128 And take all their gear with them too. What kind of paint are these unelected chimps huffing? Are they seriously so out of touch that they can't even open a history book?
6:15 As a European and as French citizen, the current events do not make me go against the creation of a European army at all.
Like many in France, I agree to be aligned with the US through NATO, but I do not want to depend on US protection
Yeah, however for some small UE states, it would kinda feel like being dependant of France/Germany for protection ig.
@@oqo3310 they are anyway as they are too small to defend themselves if something happened.
Sounds like each Euro state needs its own national guard as well as a European army
@@hackman669 exactly
this is very easy to do. as a country, make your military strong, well funded, modern, and ready to act. pushing this to "federal" eu state will not solve anything.
While the United States has a national military, each State still retains their own armed forces. I know it’s probably an oxymoron, but the National Guard are supposed to be each State’s armed force. They kind of evolved from being each of the colonies (later on States) militia forces and even predated the founding of the United States but overtime were integrated into the overall structure of the US armed forces. So, yes, each State in the United States has their own militaries that the governors of each state can mobilize upon orders. The governors of each state have authority over their State National Guards and can issue orders and instructions to them. For instance, if the governor of california issues orders to invade texas, that’s quite possible to do. border disputes can occur between States, but they’re always settled in court and rarely force of arms. A perfect example of the independence of the militaries of each State and how each state’s armed forces could violently engage each other was exemplified during the US civil war (also known as the War Between the States) when the Union and Confederate forces mobilized their own State national guards/militias to fight, one side to carry out separation from the union and bring the confederacy to the seceding States, and one side to neutralize the confederacy and preserve the union. And there’s also an Air National Guard to serve as each State’s Air Force. But while there are no Navy National Guard, States under federal law are authorized to have a Navy Militia.
National guard is a joke compared to our actual army
There's also the state guard separate from the national guard. However not every state has a state guard. Meanwhile Danill as someone who got out in august i'd say the actual military is a joke right now not the guard.
An additional item for consideration:
Many states also maintain State Defense Forces (SDFs). The National Guard can have its command essentially taken over by the federal government during emergencies, at which point the respective state guard answers to the Pentagon / DoD. In addition to this, the National Guard is federally funded. This contrasts with an SDF, which is state funded, and which does not answer to the DoD (at least in any legal sense). Theoretically, they are legal military forces that can train and equip soldiers for combat at the discretion of the governor and legislature.*
In actuality, SDFs really are not utilized as functional fighting forces. Best as I can tell they just tend to be used for natural disasters or the odd emergency the state's guard can't / won't handle. Now, if a state wanted to they could change that, pumping money and manpower into their SDF to make it a viable field army (after many years). But this would raise a ton of eyebrows, worry a ton of people, and cost an exorbitant amount - the kind of budget a state just really is not typically able to muster.
So in short: you *could* get a situation where states raise their own militaries (in a legal, if suspicious, manner) for some sort of internal conflict that would be entirely independent of the federal government. In some kind of 1860s-style situation, you'd probably see state guards just ignore the Pentagon (again assuming some kind of 1860s-style situation, which is frankly very unlikely given modern political divisions being far less regional).
* Well, within the bounds of constitutional law. States invading / attacking other states is really not something the Feds tolerate, and similarly I imagine the State Dept. would be pretty ticked off if a state got itself involved in a foreign war without their express consent. This further calls into question their exact purpose, especially when the National Guard is a thing.
@@ReekyCheeks i know right, not as well funded as the standing army
@@daddysds1 Yes! Forgot all about the State guards. State civil defense. Etc. so many components.
A small correction here. The United States did not begin as a federation. It first organized as a confederation. The problems that occurred within the confederation are similar in some ways to the current EU. Analyzing the US issues under confederation and the transition to a federation as compared to the current situation in the EU would be an interesting video all on its own. Refer to the "Articles of Confederation"
What is clear for me:
1/ as it is right now the commission has a lot of power and because is not directly elected, I can't say it's all that democratic. Also the unanimity blocks pretty much everything
2/ europe needs to have its own defense if we don't want to continue to live at the expenses of the US. This comes at the expense of not having a soverign foreign policy. I'd rather pay money
3/ cultural differences need to be respected. As far as I'm concerned, this is perfectly possible to be achieved even within a federation
4/ I don' t thing people are ready to go fully on a federation and these things can't be imposed, so let's start with a confederation and grow from there, even if it takes another 50/60 years
I agree!
People in general support the status quo. You only need to look at brexit to see it was primarily those who lived before we joined the EU who voted leave. I think the important thing is go slowly and when people threaten secession slow down and wait for a public mandate to proceed. The brexit victory was largely based of the lies of the removal of the veto and an EU army. If the EU tries to do that right now other countries may try to leave too. It is better to wait or follow the macron plan of multi speed Europe if you want to achieve greater integration faster. Parts of the USA already threaten secession over the differences in state politics.
cultural differences need to be respected. As far as I'm concerned, this is perfectly possible to be achieved even within a federation
Most Serene Republic of Venice, Republic of Genoa, Catalonia Magna grecia (kingdom of Naples) Kingdom of Sicily, and many other wish to come back... this MUST BE the right thing to do.
@@Jay_Johnson wait for a public mandate is the name of the game. Since you mentioned it, I also found Macron proposal very interesting... only to find out that apparently nobody else did. Glad to hear that you also gave it a thought
@@Federico19871000 what do you mean by come back? became independent countries? have autonomy as a region? Let's not mix autonomy with independence, it's not the at all the same thing. My main argument against the fragmentation of europe (by cultural divide) is that we would lose all chances to have a say next to big countries like India, US, China, Canada even Brazil. Without a size (in economy and population) that allows a country to have a say in international politics, there is no chance it can defend their own interests.
I really think this is the best way for Europe to stay internationally relevant in coming decades. Europe has so much influence globally but does not use it the way it could. If we all bond together, Europe will climb back to old glory.
@ErfiLlll Germany with irish roots
no climb to "old glory" is possible until usa military is expelled from the continent; it cannot be any indipendence when you are a satellite.
@@lokibau and a United Europe would be strong enough to tell America to leave. Higher population, higher population density, higher gdp, high quality of life. And that’s already. In 2-3 decades after unification it would be a superpower on par with America. A few more decades after parity? More than likely stronger. I don’t think the rest of the world would be too happy with a resurgent Europe though.
@@lokibau you know the US was created by and is mostly european, right?
@@mariacheebandidos7183 and so? arent they a foreign superpower with a stable military presence in europe, influencing and steering our governements to fullfill american geopolitics even at our disadvantage?
All these extraordinary ideas are why i love watching general knowledge.
Thanks! :)
The EU already exists, doofus.
@@General.Knowledge if europe can only be like china in unification, they could have the potential of being the most powerful country and civilization in the world at the same time and might be enough to counter defeat the US, but it's population still not enough compared to china to what europe have, because europe has only a population of around 700 million people while china have over 1.5 billion people so europe is divided and have smaller land area and size and also the amount of people europe has, while china have 2x more people and had a land area that is a little bigger compared to europe, the problem for this unification is that european people is divided by ethnicity identity and current culture they represent and every one of them is unwilling to give up their native languages and current cultures in favor of with one another to dominate, this is the main problem for the unification of entire europe to happen, unlike china they all share the same native language and current culture they represent so that is why they are united to one country only and not a scattered pieces like europe having so many countries despite being smaller than china in land area size
all european countries shares the same culture and root of civilization from one another as all of their cultures descended from the same cradle of civilization, european countries does not only have same culture and root of civilization but also the people, but also to people european countries all have the same looking people with one another, only the ethnicity and language they represent is the ones that is different
@@General.Knowledge I think you over looked some things about the European uunion like what about the terrioties like France or denmark because some of these territories in certain countries are considered to be apart of the EU and what about monarchs there's still countries that have monarchies and are in the EU and d have some kind of form of control over there countries even through there limited to certain ways
EU flag is the way it's for many reasons. First of all, all stars are equal, like countries are in Union so flag you proposed would not be viable, becuase you have two rings of stars, and one ring with 27 would be unreadable. Also number 12 have it's own symbolism standing for perfection, entirety, or cosmic order.
If anything could be done to EU's flag to make it more personalised it would be Commonwealth style, addition of national icons etc. like it's done with euro coin, where one side is common to all states and second individual for countries it's from
I like the EU flag, it's easily recognizable and iconic, I wouldn't mind keeping it simply out of tradition.
But all the stars (members) are not equal? Certain states get more votes than others in the European Parliaments
@@imgreen2563 But all have veto rights, which nullifies how votes work (which are for people and not for nations btw, and when you think about it this way they are pretty much equally distributed, a little bit skewed towards micro states)
Not even mentioning weak possition of parliment
Eg. where nations make decision (council) they are are equal, having 1 vote and right to veto
Where people make decisions (parliment elections) votes are distributed for population, not nation.
You could have a reverse side to the flag… but, just like in the US, each country can retain their national flag.
Stop being superstitious, 12 doesn't really symbolise some "cosmic order", as with all symbols they're all relative.
So Basically, It will look like India. A federal country with strong and Indipendent Military and Central Government. And Majority of States like in India are formed on the basis of languages and Cultures of different people.
Yes! I often use the counter-example of India with people who say it can't be done. India has such an incredible cultural and linguistic diversity that the comparison is not far-fetched IMO.
@@albevanhanoy India is very unstable, however.
Wow i never thought of that analogy but it makes perfect sense, i always compare to the US which isn’t always accurate
@@MrLeemurman I wouldn't say "Very" . But you're correct, it has issues. But I wouldn't put any of these down to "It's because they're a federation" .
I don't want my country to be reduced to a state or region. It would be humiliating. My country has existed for 1500 years. Before ANY other European country.
Cutting Poland into three pieces on the thumbnail was a wicked move mate
After 230 years, these borders are still relevant
It's actually quite ironic that they picked 12 stars to represent unity, because the number 12 is well known for being easily divided.
Honestly I think the reasoning is a bunch of baloney. They chose 12 stars cuz it looks nice lol
In mathematics, it's called highly composite number or anti-prime of which has more divisors than numbers below has. 12 is anti prime
or scrambled as a dozen (12) eggs are.
@@gytoser801 It's not just any highly composite number. 12 is a _superior_ highly composite number.
The 12 stars are for the 12 apostles. You should know this. The blue color stands for the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is all documented. The founders of the European Union were all practicing Catholics. I have a Masters in European Studies: Transnational and Global Perspectives from the KU Leuven (University of Leuven/Louvain) which is near Brussels, Belgium. The creators of the flag were Arsène Heitz and Paul M. G. Lévy. Heitz specifically said that a religious inspiration was behind the creation of the flag. He claimed that the circle of stars was based on the iconographic tradition of showing the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Woman of the Apocalypse, wearing a "crown of twelve stars". These are the flag creator's words which are well documented. In particular, Arsène Heitz himself, in 1987, laid claim to his own role in designing the flag and to its religious inspiration when he said that 'the flag of Europe is the flag of Our Lady' [Magnificat magazine, 1987]. Heitz also made a connection to the date of the flag's adoption, 8 December 1955, coinciding with the Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, if you don't like the Catholic Church that's fine and you have a right to your opinion. But these are facts which are impossible to deny.
I'm from the 80's, and I've always thought that the 12 stars on the EU flag were the 12 European countries that were members of the Union at the time. When the EU went to expand the flag never changed.
Yeah, that's absolutely right!
The 12 stars are for the 12 apostles. You should know this. The blue color stands for the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is all documented. The founders of the European Union were all practicing Catholics. I have a Masters in European Studies: Transnational and Global Perspectives from the KU Leuven (University of Leuven/Louvain) which is near Brussels, Belgium. The creators of the flag were Arsène Heitz and Paul M. G. Lévy. Heitz specifically said that a religious inspiration was behind the creation of the flag. He claimed that the circle of stars was based on the iconographic tradition of showing the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Woman of the Apocalypse, wearing a "crown of twelve stars". These are the flag creator's words which are well documented. In particular, Arsène Heitz himself, in 1987, laid claim to his own role in designing the flag and to its religious inspiration when he said that 'the flag of Europe is the flag of Our Lady' [Magnificat magazine, 1987]. Heitz also made a connection to the date of the flag's adoption, 8 December 1955, coinciding with the Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, if you don't like the Catholic Church that's fine and you have a right to your opinion. But these are facts which are impossible to deny.
@@michaeljcross87 Cool, I didn't know that. It seems to mean even more, though. From the European Consil's homepage: "Against the background of blue sky, the stars form a circle, symbolising union. The number of stars is fixed, twelve being the symbol of perfection and completeness and bringing to mind the apostles, the sons of Jacob, the labours of Hercules, the months in the year, etc." In an interview Paul M. G. Lévy also mentions the zodiac. It was only after his proposal of the flag someone mentioned that in the book of revelations there was a crown of 12 stars worn during the apocalypse. I wish my french was better - otherwise I could have written more.
The flag was designed in 1955, EU (EEC) was formed in 1957 and had 6 members. So nope, its not about the number of members
You Are correct! Founding members like Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Germany, France etc have a star.
I think the "States" could be Cantons carved out from existing Subnational divisions like Germany's Bundeslander or France's Departments, with the Nations existing between the Cantons and the Central Continental Government with powers given to them by their constituent Cantons.
Maybe not France's departments, that would be too many, but France's regions would make senses
@@terahlunah lol yes, they have like a hundred departments
@@terahlunah That works too
I agree, bringing the elected representatives who essential exercise legislative power even closer to the electorate and giving the local authorities a more government - like facade is one good way to empower democracy
True when looking at the division of germany on that map there I was shaking my head madly. It's like what was done to the africans. There was no thought given of the division of the regions, just made some fancy lines... You know some of the Bundesländer have a history of almost 1000 years like saxony, bavaria or thuringia I think same goes for other states in europe
i'm from the newest EU member and i don't want to see the flag change, it represents me enough, don't need a special little star to know i'm part of it.
also, even if EU moves toward federalisation, i'd be totally fine for it to keep its current name, it has a nice ring (and meaning) to it, european union/unity
How many countries would you like to balkanize
General Knowledge: Yes
i hate thet term D: it cuts deep
Good point. If the EU was to become a country, bloody civil war and balkanization would be a real possibility later on. We are all very different from each other after all and sadly conflict is usually what happens when cultures are forced to mix.
I love the idea of a Federated Europe on. If that were to happen I would love to see a European Railway corp, which would build high-speed train lines (like TGV) everywhere.
I know it's a little silly, but it be would so cool.
It’s not silly, trains are great!
too much nationalism in many european countries.. Europe will burn if they attempt something like that.
Needs AT LEAST 100 more years.
Maglev trains ftw! Over 500 km/h (310 mph).
You mean we could get rid of Deutsche Bahn? Can we do it now?
not silly at all, EU as it is pretty ok but we still are not as interconnected with trains as we could be. For example there is no direct train path if you for example wanted to go from one end of EU to the other or also very different quality of trains between regions as well. A lot of jumping between trains and waiting for said trains. We still have some soviet era wagons in circulation.
Connecting all the capitals in EU with maglews for a start would be pretty great.
*United States of Europe*
Napoleonic France, Roman Empire, Nazi Germany : hey I've seen this before 👀
During the American Revolution the officers of the Continental Army would drink toasts declaring that they were "the hoops of the barrel", and aside from the Continental Congress itself, the army was the first common institution that the 13 states created in their struggle with Great Britain, with George Washington as its first commissioned officer. It was also the first institution where its members began to think of themselves as "Americans" as opposed to members of their respective colony. Its a good historical examples of your point about armies being essential to creating real states.
There are 13 stripes representing the 13 original British colonies on the American flag. They are red and white based on the St George cross from the English flag(England). The American flag was designed by Great Britain, and the music on the American national anthem is based off an English gentlemens club in London England😜 Great time🤣😂
Federalisation with 27 states cannot possibly happen at once, exactly like how it's taken over 50 years for the EU to reach 27 members and even then not all use the same currency and won't for some time. Federalisation would have to begin with its biggest members France and Germany foremost because I believe the reason these two in particular are so open to a federal Europe is that they both (individually) believe they would be the hegemon of the continent.
Germans are at it again. I don't want to become german , how may times will we have to fight this one?
Perfectly said, the question is ultimately "who benefits"? Definitely won't be the average Greek or Fin.
Could also start with smaller states, like Belgium and the Netherlands having a joint Admiral for both countries navy. And some other countries starting to pool together to have one country specialize in certain tech while others specialize in other tech and share those resources.
@@jorisderijck1779 they already do, it's called the European Union 😂😂
Yep, they are probably the only 2 countries that want a Federal Europe.
This is actually my favourite topic about the EU.
I never really thought about the military, although that would be important with the current conflict.
Your argument with not every country using the Euro is a key factor in this topic, which means all member states would need to establish their economy to a point that they can implement the Euro as their currency. Which means it's gonna take a long long long time, consideing that now Moldavia, Ukraine and Georgia are applicants.
I don't know about you but depending on how it implements it from the US System I'm down for it, if itt also manages to establish an identity for each member state (like California and Texas are also known as something like a little country inside the US).
I think before we could even consider a federal Europe all states would need to use a single currency, have a single united army separate to their national ones, and a common foreign policy.
@@JoeDower101 I actually think federally collected taxes are required to make the Euro viable and the removal of debt sovereignty. The Eurozone enforces common fiscal and monetary policy. This is usually used to favour France and Germany economically due to population. Money and investment needs to be provided federally to those disadvantaged by the fiscal and monetary policy. Without it you could see a repeat of what happened under Margaret thatcher in the UK where regional industries were sacrificed for other regions. The Euro cannot be maintained without having to levy tax on the member states and as long as the member states can take on unlimited debt a greece style crisis can still happen
@@Jay_Johnson I never considered that aspect, I guess I just assumed members already contributed to some kind of common fund. I mean how is Brussels funded if not through a common fund? I'm sure Belgium is not footing the whole bill.
@@JoeDower101 there is but the aspects of control over the economy are still under national control. What I am suggesting is EU taxes to pay for EU monetary policy. Directly from people rather than the member states.
european countries interests are often overlapping and in perpetual competition. Who would lead the army? Who's interest will be guaranteed, and who will need to succumb? In my opinion europe would have been just fine with economic agreements, there is no need of central politics, no need of an omnipotent non elected council wich say whats right or not. We were just fine when it just was the cee, the eu its just another american tool for better controlling european satellites
I have to say again, I am so glad I found your channel, here in US we don't all hear about this. I love learning more and more about this world. I am definitely a follower.
A united Europe is the only way that we can defend against the anti democratic influences of Russia, China and even the Usa. My European brothers and sisters, let's settle aside our petty differences and stand up as equals in this fight against tyranny! Love - from Bulgaria♥
For every madness Europe ever did to the world you will pay. Not China or Russia is your enemy, but yourselves
Why not just call it “The European Federation”? It sounds the best and easily the most badass
Maybe they don’t want it to sound like The Russian Federation
@@tomsmithok that’s lame as fuck lmao
What it's called is not as important as actually forming the new superpower, having the ability to compete with the US, China and Russia at their levels is truly a incredible achievement.
Not to mention it would be the first superpower that grows only through peaceful means, accepting neighbouring territories instead of conquering them.
@@chrisgriffin698 It would not be the first, there was others problem was even greater powers came later and annexed them.
@@darth3911 that is just one more important reason to create a United States of Europe or similar around the world.
to unify with a equally powerful neighbour creates a better chance of defending yourself against a significantly more powerful neighbour.
As an American I always thought this sort of idea made a lot of sense for Europe. But of course, I'm biased and pretty uninformed in all the historical grievances European regions have with one another so perhaps its much too complicated a problem to fix. Like you said, each state in the US has a TON of autonomy so were a similar system setup in Europe it wouldn't necessarily mean the "destruction of sovereignty". I mean there are quite a lot of, I'd even say most, Americans that would first identify which state they are from before the country when asked "where are you from?" Some US states are DRAMATICALLY different in just about every way from other states (e.g. Washington vs. Alabama) while still existing under the US Federal umbrella.
Side note, I'd foresee the current European prime ministers/presidents occupying a sort of Governorship (state executive seat) instead of a Senator in some new USE model. Basically the states have a carbon copy of the federal level institutions (with the exception of a unicameral state legislature vs. bicameral federal legislature) that exists below the federal government. So all the existing offices and institutions in European countries could pretty easily just be kept the same with the new federal European institutions existing one level above them.
i'm italian europe is not like united states. First you talk english in europe in italy we talk italian. In italy example who talks english so well the percentage is so low. Do you want to put english language ? In italy we have alot old people talking still slang of region different by italian language
The issue with rules made by a qualified majority is it will lead to brexit style secession. The US states if they had the right to secede would try to. The Texas GOP even put that in their policy paper. The process of uniting Europe has to be a slow one as new people grow up with the status quo and old memories of disunity die. Otherwise every political disagreement will lead to threats of secession as happened in the US civil war or currently.
I'm french and I would rather DIE then see MY COUNTRY be reduced to a state. It would be the ultimate humiliation. My country has existed for 1500 years and i will not see it disappear. I mean next people will stop speaking french in favor of English.
@@Jay_Johnson For now is impossible but in future next 20-30 years if we are survived and european union still exsisting why not ? But i have seen there are alot seccesionist moviment in usa the most important maybe california. In italy we have north italy indipendeance and south italy indipendeance
its a terrible idea for Europe
even that i live now in Switzerland, i would really like to see some European unity movement, i think seeing the federalism working here in Switzerland very fine it would suit Europe to.
but the problem i see is i cannot see the 27 National Governments giving up their sovereignty and power, some definite not sovereignty and some others not their power looking to the east.
Some of those who are unstable since i can remember, l looking to the south, could make big win... next problem, united european defense force, i cant see that sorry Portuguese or Spanish Soldiers standing in Finnland or North Romania at the Border and defend us. I also cant see some Hungarian "Coast Guard" are "Protecting" us from refugees at Spanish Coast. I cant see that German and French are willing to give up their sovereignty and i cant see how the future European Leader could be anything than a french or German politician cause of the Numbers...
but hey if it would be easy it would have been already done...
Elections would have to change from personality such as macton or draghi to moderate right party or far left party to make it work, the soveranity part in the next big crisi can be exploited to get everyone to the german, I mean EU umbrella if wanted which I gess is better germany than USA or rusia
Funny enough there's already Frontex officers from Austria and Poland protecting the border between Greece and Turkiye and German soldiers in Estonia are ready to defend the Estonian border with Russia.
Edit: all EU member states have signed an agreement of mutual assistance in case of a military attack against one of them. So factually if Turkiye should try to occupy a Greek island (which has been becoming more and more likely in the last 4 years), Finnish, Portuguese, Czech and Italian military would most likely be sent there to help.
Absolute nonsense. The missions at the border are very international, meaning that Portuguese soldiers are in Finland, Estonia, etc., just like Finnish and Polish soldiers are in Spain and Portugal. I don't know what kind of reality you live in, but European forces are very entangled. Look at the European borders to Russia and Ukraine -> You have soldiers from all over the EU.
@@kogoromori30 but these forces are still national forces... i can not see how 27 nations in europe giving up their national defense forces to a united defenses, entangled or not.
yes frontex... smal units or e few people at a time... can you see a german gebirgsjägerbattailion mixed with some romanian soldiers standing guard in spain? i cant see, and most politican either... cause every state will say i will need here and there some extra protection...
@@SirHeinzbond It's already the reality. So what are you talking about? Stop defending your nonsense. Also, entanglement doesn't mean they must give up their national forces. I believe it's just tough for a Swiss to understand simple concepts like cooperation and everything that goes beyond neutrality. I don't know what your agenda against Germans in Spain or Spaniards in Finland is, but one thing is sure: It is nonsense because it already is the REALITY.
I‘d say keep the flag, keep the name but turn it into a single federal country.
I think Europe has to become federal for it to be relevant in the future - it does not work in its current form and the individual countries aren't big or powerful enough to make a difference globally on their own.
My country will literally cease to exist if it is made part of a US of Europe. So then it would become irrelevant. It’s a terrible idea, true dystopia material.
@@augth what’s your country?
Small ethnic groups like Estonians and Slovenes would have no chance of surviving in a such gigantic country especially when the bigger EU members continue the policy of flooding Europe with illegal migrants.
@@pollutingpenguin2146 France
@@augth if you aren’t part of United States of Europe then you will also be irrelevant - at least in a federal Europe, all Europeans have something to say in the world - the entire continent would be completely irrelevant if we don’t do it and so will France. Just look at the conflict in Ukraine - Russia and Ukraine didn’t listen to France - the line of communication is the USA, despite the war happening in Europe.
One huge issue toward federalism in Europe, and which people often overlook, is how many european countries are monarchia. Having a real federal state means knowing what to do with all those royal families which may or may not be in favor of lesser sovereinty (for example Spain in particular)
You can use the example of the German Empire, where the Kingdom of Bavaria didn't disappeared, but gave more Power to the Emperor.
I imagine that Monarchies would be prohibited in the Federal/Continental government but allowed at the Local/State level.
@@jascrandom9855 yeah! It wouldn’t be like the USA, where all states are garaunteed a republican form of governance, it would probably be alot of figurehead monarchies with limited or no power though
@@OrolesMagnus so the solution is a european emperor?
@@correctionguy7632 one step closer for the emperor of man kind
One thing I didn’t hear mentioned: what would this new Europe’s national identity be based on? You’ve got 27 different countries, EACH with their own national identities. What would keep the countries from wanting to go their own ways?
Unity, Liberty, Democracy, rule of law, European history and geography, and the English language would all unite us
@@nunosantos485 the English language? How many people in Europe even SPEAK English (after Brexit)?
As for European history, most countries in Europe have spent their histories fighting their neighbors (France/Germany, Denmark/Sweden to name the two biggest ones).
Also, the others are great to have, but I don’t see how they can be used to form a national identity.
One idea I had (when writing original comment) was for a constitutional monarchy, a’la Belgium (it’s largely held that the monarchy is the one thing holding their country together). The question of who to crown “Emperor of Europe,” however, is admittedly less certain.
@@jwil4286 the vast majority of Europeans know how to speak English, and if you only count people under 35 it’s basically 100% so that’s something that would unite us at least in order for us to be able to communicate comfortably in day to day life. And I don’t think we need an emperor of Europe just an elected president is enough.
It will be based on happiness and peaceful good feelings.
@@barborasulcova9420 That’s why I think public schools should offer curriculums in English as well, so that students who wish to improve their language skills would be able to have classes and communicate with their friends in English. That’s already happening in the Netherlands and it’s been quite successful in terms of the students’ studies and careers. Especially since the main language of communication in Dutch universities is already English.🙂
5:29 this actually happened once, there was a piece of disputed land between Michigan and Ohio, called the toledo strip, and militia forces started fighting over over it
Nobody was hurt that I know of, though
And Michigan gave the strip to Ohio in exchange for the upper peninsula and statehood
There is a also the Swiss model with 26 Kantons which are some what sovereign. And there is also all the fine tuning for different languages and religions.
I don’t think internal borders would change for federal subjects because it would be too difficult and may also anger people, but it could be possible some region who seek more autonomy could gain a special autonomy statut inside a federal subject
One, single, european army to guarantee that no member state can leave, defend and wage war against each other is a single reason why it won't ever happen. It's just impossible for post soviets countires to let another, centralised government to have full military control over them. It's like USSR 2.0, the worst nightmare. It has to be last step, not the first one, and even then it's very unlikely.
Exactly!
Start by developing your own , I'm not sharing mine with you , it cost a lot to my people, we paid huge taxes for it . Once every european nations has done it's homework then we can create an additional european army . Until then , my country's army is here to defend my country. Gosh I hate the EU more and more each day.
nah
uhhhhhh they are in the EU by their own choice, they werent absorbed due to occupation
@@Helperbot-2000 They signed a threaty at the exact time. With exact conditions. So no. Nobody agreed to make any form of federation.
Well, I dont think Euro would have to be mandatory, because you technically can use Euro everywhere. Not only because of credit/debit cards, which automatically changes the currency according to your bank's exchange rate (you dont even need multicurrency bank account), but also because almost everywhere they accept Euro and just give you back the leftover in local currency. Our (europe nation's) economics are not unified enough to have single currency, you can see it now, when Spain and Greece has exactly opposite demands on ECB then Germany and France.
The 12 stars are for the 12 apostles. You should know this. The blue color stands for the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is all documented. The founders of the European Union were all practicing Catholics. I have a Masters in European Studies: Transnational and Global Perspectives from the KU Leuven (University of Leuven/Louvain) which is near Brussels, Belgium. The creators of the flag were Arsène Heitz and Paul M. G. Lévy. Heitz specifically said that a religious inspiration was behind the creation of the flag. He claimed that the circle of stars was based on the iconographic tradition of showing the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Woman of the Apocalypse, wearing a "crown of twelve stars". These are the flag creator's words which are well documented. In particular, Arsène Heitz himself, in 1987, laid claim to his own role in designing the flag and to its religious inspiration when he said that 'the flag of Europe is the flag of Our Lady' [Magnificat magazine, 1987]. Heitz also made a connection to the date of the flag's adoption, 8 December 1955, coinciding with the Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, if you don't like the Catholic Church that's fine and you have a right to your opinion. But these are facts which are impossible to deny.
correct
Amazing insight, thanks!
No wonder the Protestant population of Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly to leave. Not keen on being ran by the Vatican myself
@@iankingsleys2818 lol just because the flag has Christian symbols (which include symbols used in the Protestant and Catholic churches), doesn't mean the EU is run by the Vatican. If anything, it's quite the opposite. The EU is a very secular entity. Btw, I dated a Protestant girl from Belfast. If anything, Protestants from NE are way more conservative than most Catholics and their churches are often more traditional. In any case, the similarities between Protestants and Catholics are the equivalent of Shia and Sunni Muslims.
One problem that I don't see being discussed enough is... What about language barriers, cultural values and history? Who's language will "USE" or "United States of Europe" speak? It sure will cause some disputes. What will the official language be since Britain is more likely going to remain independent? Therefore English although the main international language today, will not make much sense to be the official language of "USE" in the case. As it would make Europe an extension of USA or the birtish empire many including me would argue.
latin
@@DG_5856 Greek
English is the only language that makes sense to be the official one of the EU. Majority of the population speak it and this could create less disputes, as basically no major country uses it as its official language (except Ireland, Malta)
The logic says English.
But germans and french would probably try to enforce their own languages.
Honestly, the language barrier is probably the main reason that this... can NEVER happen.
Every european language will be official and recognized by the union. Every state will still speak their own Language(s). We will communicate in english for business and politics between states like we already do!
I can only imagine what a history class would be like in a United Europe. You would have state history, national history, and world history.
Beautiful
they are none of that. There is nothing meaningful about the EU , just commercial treaties. No war fought, no revolution made, no ancestors dead on the battelfield, no history , no relevant political fight involving the people , no people , no language , and a constitution that the peoples voted against and was enforced. There is nothing to be celebrated, nothing that would bring tears to your eyes , nothing.
You described a history class in Italy😅
In Poland we learn more european history (unification of Italy, Germany, French Revolution, 1st WW) and world (old Egypt, old Rome, American Independent War) then us history (no one told you in school that in Warsaw Kingdom (Napoleon pupet) restored serfdom, but we sing about him in us anthem.
It already happens.
We learn national history, European history, and world history.
I am a German, and the peace in Europe lasted two generations now. My Grandfather was forced to fight on the territory, on which Russia is now fighting and invading Ukraine. If Europe had been united in its whole form there wouldn't be conflicts like this. The United States of Europe could be a step to show the world, how different nations can live together in peace, freedom and wealth.
It wouldn't end by peace but a huge civil war
European countries can't live with each other as an independent nations so it would never worked as one big country
you are for this only because you are german and we know that germans would pull mist of the strings for the benefit of germany anyway. thank you but no, colonisation is bad thing right? you won't put things on the map like you did in 1940s.
Ngl, I'm convinced we would be Balkanized and end up quite heavily in uprisings and civil wars sooner or later. Such a goal as a peaceful, united Europe would be more than utopian
The reason that the EU flag has 12 stars is that when the EU was founded the Saarland wasn't already a part of Germany but (more or less) souvereign. So the first plan was actually to have the amount of stars equal to its members, but Germany didn't want to recognize the souvereignty of the Saarland and the membership of Germany was essential to stabilize freedom and peace in europe (because of history, WW1 and WW2).
France tried to annex it after the war, if I remember correctly
I got told that the reason it has twelve stars was because 12 was the number of perfection
@@MCKevin289 France tried to annex it twice, after both world wars, but instead the people of Saarland got to choose between France, Germany or sovereignty.
They chose Germany. Twice.
@@TheZett
I remember my grandma telling me about it because she had relatives living there at the time. They voted for Germany in the referendum.
There is also a religious reason for 12 stars on EU flag.
It is about Blessed Virgin Mary as the Woman of the Apocalypse, wearing a "crown of twelve stars"
The European twelve-star flag represents the unity and perfection of the people upon an azure blue background of the western culture. I like the explanation that even if a perfect world cannot be achieved, it still exists as an idea we should chase and work towards. Having a symbol of people in the flag instead of region/country is the most beautiful thing designers could do. Because, in the perfect world, there are no borders, just people of the same kind living in harmony. We know it will never be achieved, but nobody can stop us from trying...
The 12 stars are for the 12 apostles. You should know this. The blue color stands for the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is all documented. The founders of the European Union were all practicing Catholics. I have a Masters in European Studies: Transnational and Global Perspectives from the KU Leuven (University of Leuven/Louvain) which is near Brussels, Belgium. The creators of the flag were Arsène Heitz and Paul M. G. Lévy. Heitz specifically said that a religious inspiration was behind the creation of the flag. He claimed that the circle of stars was based on the iconographic tradition of showing the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Woman of the Apocalypse, wearing a "crown of twelve stars". These are the flag creator's words which are well documented. In particular, Arsène Heitz himself, in 1987, laid claim to his own role in designing the flag and to its religious inspiration when he said that 'the flag of Europe is the flag of Our Lady' [Magnificat magazine, 1987]. Heitz also made a connection to the date of the flag's adoption, 8 December 1955, coinciding with the Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, if you don't like the Catholic Church that's fine and you have a right to your opinion. But these are facts which are impossible to deny.
@@michaeljcross87 Most Europeans are not religous. So no nothing to do with apostles.
@@ariearie3543 Read my full comment. No one is saying that EU countries are religious today. I'm referring to the intention of the creator's of the flag which is well documented. They specifically refer to the 12 apostles.
@@michaeljcross87 read my full comment. This is the definitie answer.
The 12 Star flag is adopted(EU) in 1986, When Spain and Portugal where added als the 11th and 12th member state.
But that was a coincidence.
But it was surely was all about the number of members of the Council of Europe (which had 15(incl Saarland) members at 1953)
15 was not chosen because France demanded this(Would imply a independend Saarland)
14 was not chosen because Germany demanded this(Would imply a not independend Saarland)
13 was a universal unlucky number
So 12 Was the Number too be.
By which some marketing slogans where added such as unity, freedom, apostles etc.. To keep everyone pleased.
So you could say Every member of the 1953 council of Europe has a Star on the Flag Except: Germany, France (and Saarland)
1. Belgium
2. Luxemburg
3. The Netherlands
4. Norway
5. Sweden
6. Greece
7. Italy
8. UK
9. Denmark
10. Ireland
11. Turkey
12. Iceland
@@ariearie3543 I read everything but this is not what the creators of the flag intended. You can make that argument for the meaning of the flag today. But the original intention of the creators was to invoke the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That was the intention whether they publicized it or not. The creators wanted to make sure that Europe would be under the mantle of the Mother of God and the 12 apostles. Today, the E.U. does not espouse this meaning. But one cannot deny the creators' intentions. It's the hidden message and hidden meaning behind the flag.
As Polish, I fully support independence of Bavaria, Catalonia and other regions.
Lol, exact opposite direction of the topic of this video. Monke together strong!
Thanks from Catalonia! 👍🏼 The idea of the United States of Europe sounds pretty interesting as this would allow for the (re)foundation of the State of Catalonia. 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
not spanish, no opinion
Most of you didn't get the joke, so here's an explanation. As Polish I support the independence movements in Spain, Germany or France but I did not mention Silesia which is struggling to get independent from Poland. Joke being, as a good European I support the rebels everywhere in Europe, except for the one region in Poland.
@@baird5682 ok now we support the independent movevement from Silesia, thank you for the explanation.
Very nice work dude. I think I'm gonna use some of your sources for my master's thesis
Anyone thinking that uniting cannot be done. Remember that almost all countries which you stand in today, was created through merging of either smaller countries or tribes within tribes, who eventually united for whichever reason. Many still keep their traditions but celebrate diversity while also building new culture
Many of these countries had regional languages that are gone now. That means all of the existing languages will probably disappear and be replaced by English.
no thanks, this this a terrible idea
@@skurinski it already has happend multiple times throughout history. Its not an idea, its a natural progressional fact.
Practically it makes a lot of sense. Why do you think its a terrible idea? Just curious, no hate
Já sigo o canal à bastante tempo e posso dizer que és o melhor canal Português que eu já vi!
Muitos parabéns pelo trabalho incrível que tens feito! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
As an American the idea of a Federal European state is pretty good. I think it'd have more pluses than minuses.
can you tell me which one Because I see many more minuses than pluses, which would sooner or later lead to the unified Europe becoming Balkanized. The language problem? Many would like to have English as the main language, but unfortunately in many countries not the majority of people (especially in the east) speak it and many people are proud of their language and the supreme leader would need to know the majority of languages in order to speak the people convince.
traditions and culture? The different ethnic groups in a country would be a powder keg, we saw that in the multicultural state of Austria Hungary as a monarchy, and in the South Slavic multicultural state of Yugoslavia as a monarchy, communism and democracy disintegrate.
Sorry if something came across funny, English is my 3rd language and for me personally it's quite difficult to compare it with the others.
The reason why so many people in northern countries dislike this federalist idea is because they are a minority of votes in parliament that pay for the majority of the costs of the EU.
1. Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Finland, Denmark have the majority of votes in the EU parliament.
2. Italy and Spain also pay for the majority of the costs of the EU budget. So it is not the northern countries, but mostly western countries (if one wants to put a geographical term on it) who pay for the EU budget. Poland is also a northern country, but it is the country with the most negative net contribution to the EU budget. Lithuania, Latvia and even Estonia as well.
3. Your country will be inhabited by less than 50% dutch people by the year 2050. That being said, is the EU budget really the biggest problem that the Netherands faces? Are 6€ a month that much, to make a better world for your children in 10, 20, 40 years? In 20 years, eastern Europe will have caught up with northwestern Europe, and you will need to pay less money for sustaining the EU. In every case, if many people believe that the money they pay for sustaining the institutions of the EU brings them back too little for that money, we can disolve the EU.
@@tomorrowneverdies567 1. The countries you name have 227 out of 705 votes. I don't even want to name Belgium in that list because they are a massive net beneficiary.
2. Spain gets more budget than it contributes. In addition the net contribution per capita by The Netherlands and Germany is double that of France and Italy. I have faith the Baltic states, the Czech Republic and maybe Slovenia will eventually pull through. The other countries who got added were not and still are not ready. They either are too economically weak and/or too corrupt. Romania, Bulgaria are nothing more than geographical token to keep them out of the influence of Russia. On the other hand Cyprus and Malta are being used as a corrupt gateway into the EU.
3. A federal monetary system is a major problem and at the same time a necessity for the existence of the Euro. Before the Euro "northern" countries were frugal with tight budgets and "southern" countries frequently devalued their coins to finance debt. The mixture of these two cultures leads to northern countries financing southern countries' debt and southern countries losing sovereignty. It makes the EU as a whole weaker. In an ideal scenario we would go back to the EEC, or at least not past the treaty of Maastricht.
@@FrietPiet
1. I forgot France indeed. Now they have a majority. But also include Italy, since they are net contributor. Also Cyprus.
2. Spain contributes about as much as it gets. In every case, if this is such a big problem, we can reform as every country pays the same amount of money. The southern countries, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece are meant to remain economically stagnant, for reasons that are not very obvious. But I can say that the governments of these countries make it as difficult for them as possible to grow. What I mean is, it is not a natural phenomenon, that these countries are (economically) like they are (corrupt, innefficient, etc.). It is not the """culture of the people there""" that cause this, like many people in northern Europe apparently believe. Nobody here wanted the government to borrow money it could later never repay. The political order who runs the world wants them to be like that. Just like they want northern countries like those you mentioned to grow wealhty.
3. I agree with you. The most important problem for me is, however, that even if we go back to the EEC, countries like the Netherlands, Germany, etc. will be inhabited by less than 50% dutch, german people (etc.) by the year 2050.
I support a federal European idea and by the way you should make one about the African union
Concerning the flag and the 12 stars, I disagree, that the approach of changing it according the member states is a good alternative. And I have two reasons for that:
The first is the cost. Every time you change a logo or a symbol, all the print material has to be renewed. That is a waste of time, material and money.
The second is appearance from the view of optical harmony. The 12 stars are optically balanced. Adding stars not only makes them smaller, but also more untidy. It simply looks bad.
I don't mind some romantic reasons to change a flag. The one in New Zealand should have change IMHO. But in the case of the EU, that would be just silly.
The 12 stars are for the 12 apostles. You should know this. The blue color stands for the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is all documented. The founders of the European Union were all practicing Catholics. I have a Masters in European Studies: Transnational and Global Perspectives from the KU Leuven (University of Leuven/Louvain) which is near Brussels, Belgium. The creators of the flag were Arsène Heitz and Paul M. G. Lévy. Heitz specifically said that a religious inspiration was behind the creation of the flag. He claimed that the circle of stars was based on the iconographic tradition of showing the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Woman of the Apocalypse, wearing a "crown of twelve stars". These are the flag creator's words which are well documented. In particular, Arsène Heitz himself, in 1987, laid claim to his own role in designing the flag and to its religious inspiration when he said that 'the flag of Europe is the flag of Our Lady' [Magnificat magazine, 1987]. Heitz also made a connection to the date of the flag's adoption, 8 December 1955, coinciding with the Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, if you don't like the Catholic Church that's fine and you have a right to your opinion. But these are facts which are impossible to deny.
@@michaeljcross87 Thank you. I didn't know that. I am not religious at all. I have to admit that I don't like religious organisations like churches. But I don't mind religion and religious practice. And I even don't mind religious connotations, if the main idea is peaceful. Anyways.
I would argue that in a secular government (like the EU) this connotation is only an idea of the designer. It is not a motto of the EU (If I am wrong please tell me. I am eager to learn.). One could say Christianity is a cultural and hisorical basis for the EU and their founders thought this idea is special. One could also argue, that this particular idea was a way of the designer to sell his work to a society that was mainly Christians - especially after WW2, when everything was depressing. But one can also argue, that in the EU Christianity is not as important as it was centuries ago and that this idea is nothing fixed. At least not to me. I guess more conservative and traditional people see this differently. And that's OK. Also I said, I wouldn't change the flag. Since it's well designed - from an aesthetical standpoint.
@@kleckerklotz9620 you are correct. This was the idea of the flag's creator and not of the EU today which is a completely sexual institution.
@@michaeljcross87 Yes, it's a bureaucratic strip club. SCNR. I guess, you meant secular, right?
@@kleckerklotz9620 ahaha yes I meant to write secular! 😂
I'm not from Europe, so...
But that said, I do think it'd be interesting to see a real life continental federation.
Australia,USA,Canada,Brazil already exist
Isn't that the British nightmare they tried to avoid during the last centuries?
@@terahlunah YES LMAO, and them leaving even enabled fostered that. The more Britain fails, the longer Boris Johnson and so would have reigned the better for the continent.
I am a proud European patriot. I served my country (Germany) in its armed forces, but I always didn't understand why Europe won't unite. We have one culture, one history, common values and our peoples are close to each other. I would gladly defend any European citizen, their freedom and well-being with my life. We are one. United States of Europe NOW!
another thing to talk about: What happens to the other territories countries like Denmark, Netherlands or France have? Do they get integrated, do they stay within the realm of their original country (e.g. The kingdom of netherlands) or become independent?
probably a dependent territory
The territories of France are fully integrated to mainland France with some automomy due to their remote location or historical reasons. But all people there are french citizens with the same equal rights, they all can vote for french national elections, they all get the same passport, where it's mentionned "Union Européenne, République Française". These territories already are part of the European Union.
Very good and, as always, well explained video. Thank you.
I am more for a confederation (to start with) and this would bring about needed changes in the EU.
I am also a member of the Volt party, a pan-European political party dedicated to more integration.
Honestly I think it'll work like the U.S. before the civil war. Where, yeah it's a country but most of the times the states acted independently. To the point of people identifying with their state more than their country. The mentality only changed after the civil war to have a much more united country.
That was the biggest problem. If you aren't united, you end up having different states working against each other for their own good instead of the country, and as a result, they don't accomplish as much. An overall leader can look at the best outcome for both states and make the best decision
As a Portuguese I am proud of being European, and I’m even prouder that our fellow European Nations would completely reject this to the death, me included.
Exactly. Now let me ask you. Germany asked Mexico to join WW1, and the United States said okay Germany, you threaten Mexico with a good time, we are coming to boot stomp your face. Because in the Americas, we protect our own from bullcrap from Europe. Now. Who is protecting Ukraine (Europe) from Russia? Is Germany sending 1,000 tanks? Is the Iberians summoning up their European ancestry to defend their neighbors? Is France? No you are sitting back and watching the USA drop Hundreds of BIllions of dollars of equipment from 10 god damned time zones away from Ukraine, WHEN YOU CAN GET IN A CAR AND DRIVE TO THE WAR!!!!! This war is your problem and you aren't dealing with it. In fact, Europe is still buying oil and propping up russia's currency. Ukraine is your fault, and if Europe was United, this wouldn't be happening. Putin would be afraid of the EU.
China, india, japan, korea, are all slowly moving toward superpower status while Europeans like you are standing firmly against superpower status by keeping the EU apart. Who is going to tell the Chinese that they can't just take over as much land as they want? Every 10-15 years, they go grab new land that was once someone else's. Just like Russia does. and the portugese are proud of rejecting unity, and stepping up to confront actual global problems. Europe buys tons of stuff from China's manufacturing. Europe buys tons of oil and energy from Russia. You are literally sending Trillions of Euros to the people who are hardly democratic and every couple years start a war in order to build an empire. Has nobody told you how stupid this is? You are funding the modern day imperialists
I agree that the first step should be forming a united military. I’m sure this would be extremely complicated, but I’m sure there is a way of doing it without forcing those nations who would like to hesitste to take part in it. I’m sure eventually every nation would come to a common sense, we can’t even defend ourselves.
No y are all .ad wanting a united States of America what a put sport if y wa t this ehy do you cheat for your countrywide won't exist o ly a united States of Europe terrible idea
The status quo is the worst option.
Now that the UK brake has been removed the EU is free to federalise over time.
Countries not willing to federalise must get out of the way.
The only countries left would be germany and france then seeing as everyone else wants out or at least status quo.
no it's not, they are people in Eu countries. We matter.
Nation States will not exist as we know them and we need to recognise that fact. The UK will implode as a nation. Scotland will join the EU and Northern Ireland will join the Republic within the next 10 maybe 15 years. England, with or without Cymru will become tied to rules made in New Delhi, Beijing, Brussels and Washington DC. Its sovereignty will be destroyed.
There is no room for smaller countries to survive. Anyone trying to hold on to the 20th might as well hold a gun to their nations metaphorical head.
I voted Brexit in full knowledge that England needed to lose sovereignty to a left wing leaning federal EU or lose sovereignty by signing trade deals.
I believe there is more money in the latter.
Pick a century .. EU federalists and the non racist Brexiteers are in the 21st.
Federalism is catastrophic.
Unitary is way better.
A federated Europe is a terrible idea. The countries don't even speak the same language.
They have rushed ahead with integration in every area; currency; trade; export tariffs, law, immigration, finance and are looking to military integration - but never agreed on a common language.
Communication is the most basic human functon. One would have assumed this to be the FIRST thing they would do? A common language avoids all sorts of misunderstandings and disagreements over nuance......but no. One has to ask why.
There's a common EU language, it's called Esperanto, it exists, it just need to be taught
@@ryuk7883 There's nothing common about Esperanto, a language with barely a couple thousand speakers.
If you think a couple thousand speakers represents the ''common language'' for 447 million people, you're absolutely braindead.
we may just use english, if we even need one language... a lot of countries do have several official languages but not all of them have federal language...
There are no countries. There are only people.
As a european I don't recognize in the way the USA work even if i'm a european federalist. In a first time I don't think we should cut the countries in more equel size states like the USA. (tough i'm in favor of giving independantist their own regions like for corsica or catalogna if possible). I think that would do what the anti-eu people are afraid of wich is to be erased culturally. Maybe that could be done a century after the creation of the "European union of states" or what ev' it's called
Traitor.
@@HermitKing731 to whome? If you say to france I mean it's almost the leader of europe with germany. Plus yea I want europe to stay relevant in the futur as while we are divided it's the USA and China who take our international power.
@@angemalaurie6074 but what about language? More people will rather use English than European languages and then all European languages will disappear. But no one seems to care. Everyone loves English so much they would gladly abandoned the language of their ancestors. I swear I hate English so much. And don't tell me it won't happen. Yes it will.
@@HermitKing731 I speak english and french so no I don't think our languages will dissapear, sure they will evolve just like english is half composed of english and german words and english people don't deem their language to have dissapeared.
@@angemalaurie6074 Who am i to be angry over things that are out of control. i am only one man. i cannot change the course of history or how the world works today. all i can do is be stoic and try to find the strength to not be so emotional over these things.
And there's that disdain for the former Eastern Bloc countries again. Not once were they mentioned. Yet it is obvious that none of them would want any federalization. Along with the other smaller European countries who don't want to become colonies of the Germans, French, Italians and Spanish who would easily outvote them on any issue. The European Union is home to 27 culturally distinct nations, not some unprincipled jumble of immigrants from all over the world like America.
Otherwise, there was already one big European federation that fell under the central decision-maker. It was the non-sovereign Warsaw Pact countries. As a Czech, I really don't want a common European army to be used to pacify disobedient countries, as the Russians did in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The current form of the Eurippe Union is fully sufficient.
Why do you asume that the germans,french, italians, spanish MEPs will vote the same thing?
12 stars for the first 12 countries (before the fall of the Soviet Union, but east Germany doesn’t count as a star)
France,Germany,Italy,Belgium,Luxembourg,netherlands,Portugal ,Greece,Spain,uk,Ireland and Denmark
There was only 6 first members;
Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, East Germany, Italy & France.
Portugal, Greece, Spain, UK, Ireland & Denmark only where added in later.
12 doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary number that means everything but nothing at the same time.
@@modmaker7617 you mother
@@allhouse9226
Non. 😕
@@modmaker7617 it’s because they were the 12 first before the big influx of countries after the fall of the Soviet Union, and because the eu was created when they’re were 12 countries in the maastricht treaties and was truly created in 1993, before that it was the European community of coal and steal, then it became the European economic community and euratom. So before Maastricht in 92(came in effect 93) they’re were 12 members and those 12 founded the eu
As a Brit, I don't think the Republic of Ireland would like a foreign government ruling over them. Learned that the hard way.
The balance of power would ultimately we can Europe like that and more independent countries would just set the balance off even more
Recently after a lot of pressure and debates, the politicians in Norway finally agreed that a free energy market is a risky entreprise when our water reserves are all time low before the winter. We can limit the export to Germany who screwed itself by decomissioning nuclear power and betting everything on Russian gas. Now imagine our situation if we were a federated Europe where the votes of Germany (83 million) would decide this in their favour against Norwegian votes (5 million). We would be a thrall state that has no say, no political sway and we would have blackouts.
I understand that France and Germany want federation, because they will be running it, the rest of us will simply become the feeder bag for the "federation"
You wrote that being part of an overall union would be detrimental for small countries like Norway because they would suffer from the decisions of the larger countries. But your example that Norway would be left in the dark when water supplies dwindled if it didn't limit its exports to Germany is absurd. If the EU were a single state the Norwegians would be part of it and would receive all the energy they need in the same way as all other European citizens. Reflect: the citizens of Oslo are many more than those of (for example) Kongsberg but I don't think that in Kongsberg there are blackouts to give electricity to Oslo... and I don't think that the citizens of Kongsberg are enslaved by those of Oslo.
In Italy Lombardy has 11 million inhabitants and Valle d'Aosta has 123,000 and yet they have schools, electricity and everything else... more or less like in Lombardy.
All countries are made up of large regions and small regions: this is normal and no one is enslaved or left without electricity because of this. Otherwise there would be only nations made up of a single city...
@@pp38pp I don't think that you understend what oditeomnes said. It's not about that we would'nt have acces to basic need as electricity or so because of federalizaton, its ridiculous. Its about that German politicians was ignoring fact that they becoming addicted to Putin's gas (or maybe they become that by "donations" from russian company gazprom) and the point is that in this new state Germany and France would have lot to say about what this state will be looking if not the most, and what i see is they care only about their own interest. So basicly small countries could feel like pawn in bigger states and Russian-Ukrainian war case, you have a lot of countries take diffrent stance of what to do, Baltic countries or other countries bordering russia will be more affraid of war hitting their country then for example France or germany, they would let russia to take whole Ukraine to get cheep gas because of all this "buffor states" between their borders they can afford to not care at all. Other eu unification issues can be, big diffrences in incomes and wealth, look at the average western eu salary and eastern, as well as social security benefits and pension average between those two sides of europe, who's money you use to fill this gap?. Next, I dont see which Language can be "lingua franca" of EU, so a lot of countries will be pushing theirs or english and I assure you, there will be no compromise because no matter which you choose at least few countries will not agree on it. In starting of last decade I was really hype by federalization idea as a EU coutntry citizen but when you dig deeper you see that there countries put own intrest , over eu well being and I highly doubt it will change soon.
@@S1KOR3 Your way of conceiving unification is strange: it only takes into account your fears and not what has already happened in history. As I said, several large European countries are born from unification processes. Italy, Spain and Germany are nation states that arose from the unification of pre-existing states. And the current internal distribution of wealth is by no means a reflection of the wealth and strength that the original states had before unification. Even their foreign and economic policy does not seem to be affected too much by the fact that their pre-unification states had different interests. These are important historical precedents.
Germany did very well to buy gas from Russia because FOR GERMANY it was the best thing to do.
If a United Europe had already existed, Germany would NOT have bought gas from Russia because the political entity that would have decided who to buy gas from was not Germany, but Europe. Just as it was not Thuringia or Saxony that decided to buy gas from Russia, but the Federal Republic of Germany as a whole.
The political subject that arises from unification IS DIFFERENT from the political subjects that precede unification.
And in any case, if the countries of Northern and Eastern Europe don't agree, never mind, we'll gladly do without them. The fund are the latest arrivals and have created only problems.
I hope that at least the large countries of Western Europe, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain decide to continue the process of unification on their own. It wouldn't be the first time that integration has proceeded in a non-uninimistic way: even the Euro does not concern all the countries of the Union.
It is true that language is not a big problem as demonstrated by the fact that Spain for example has 4 official languages and still survives...
@@pp38pp You talk about unification countries which has the same language sometimes with diffrent dialect or similar like Castillian and Catalan in Spain. Even so they are one country, Catalonia as far as know want to be independent and a lot of people in southern regions of Italy feels neglected. If there will be enough bad blood between nation or ethnic group or just other reasons, things can go pessimistically like in yugoslavia or I always hope so optimistic like in Czechoslovakia.
About Gas from Putin... Everybody was buying it from Putin, and I am not talking about that who buys and who not, it was beneficial for all of us. I said that Germany economy become addicted to it, there was not really big force of diversification energy sources, there was of course renewable energy, but its nothing for German economy needs . Poland wasnt that blind because everytime we said or did something wrong in eyes of Russian politics, the gas was cutted. So we just know trusting Putin was a play with fire and nobody was listening.
Please don't say that really countries will be equal in this new EU country, its not gonna happen.
There will be just fight for power between big or influencial countries, you really think that Croatia or Latvia will have the same influence like Belgium or France. Ok then i really admire idealism.
About that Fund, You could elaborate more if you want, cause I dont know what fund we are talking about.
Yes, you could integrate more in "old Eu" but I just feel there will be clashes, sometimes to difficult to overcome. especialy between countries like Spain, Italy vs Netherlands, Germany.
About Euro, i just personaly consider this as a good idea, so nothing to argue here i think.
About last one...So Imagine, eu has now 24 official languages, very very diffrent, not like 4 in spain from the same family tree (maybe Basque is more diffrent from others) , and everybody speak and knows Castilian. What we have in EU? Which language will be leading, will be known be everyone? Or at least which family? Romance, Germanic, Slavic or other? I personally don't see a winner.
@@S1KOR3 1. Things can always go wrong and there is always a good reason to go to war. In 1861 all states in the US spoke the same language and there was no real ethnic or religious difference between the northern states and the southern states. Yet the southern states wanted independence and the northern states did they invaded to prevent it. Even in unions between people, things can go well or badly. Should we be all alone forever?
2. Speaking of Putin's Gas... it was just an example to say that the decisions of a unified state follow different logics from those of individual states. in fact a hypothetical EU government would be made up of people from all over Europe according to the parties that win the European elections.
3. You reason as if in a unified state were the sum of the individual states. But that's not necessarily the case. It depends on the institutional architecture, on the political dynamics, on how the electoral law is structured. It is not certain that the contrasts will be like Belgium vs Latvia. It could be conservative versus progressive, Catholic versus Protestant… every community is divided into parties. It's physiological. In healthy communities, difference generates a fruitful debate, in sick ones it generates violence.
4. In my opinion, the ideal would be a federal state with 6 founders: Germany, Spain, France and Italy. Perhaps even a federal state with the 15 members of 1995 would be possible. In my opinion the current system with 27 members in which everyone does what they want cannot survive for long.
5. The many different languages are a difficulty. But not an insurmountable impediment.
I'd probably have been more pro EU if there was a democratic mandate. The Brexit vote in 2016 was the first time since the 70s that we actually got to vote on the changes made to the organisation, we've never had a vote for any new treaty or integration or change to sovereignty with the EU until 2016 which means it was forced on the country without a democratic mandate (apart from the Euro referendum, but imagine not being forced against your will to ditch your own currency, eh?). Our largest party in the parliament was UKIP and none of our pro EU parties wanted to actually negotiate the UK's position in the EU and were just a bunch of nodding heads agreeing to everything
Brexit didn't work out so great 😂
The EU is a representative democracy so you shouldn't vote on treatys
@@maugaming490 Whatever happens in regards to the UK should be whatever the majority wants to happen, not what some brainwashed cultist like Tony Blair thinks.
@@maugaming490 So how do we get rid of the vermin and scum in Brussels and Strasburg?
@@iankingsleys2818 Reform in the EU, i mean you saw what you got from leaving
1:27 "All of Europe, safe Belarus".... and Russia, the outlines of the European continent are even marked in colour on the map and still we refuse to see Russia as a European power, which it has been for centuries.
you have to remember that the US is mostly one nation, and speaks mostly one language. how would a german candidate for the presidential elections in hypothetical united europe even campaign in, lets say, greece?
I think if they were to federalize, it would have to be even more state sided than the US. The federal government’s job would be protecting rights, spending/raising money, and representing on an international stage. The rest is left to the regional governments.
@@rorypaul153 and how is that different than the current EU?
@@deftermedia it would simplify geopolitics regarding Europe and force more radical states to tow the line while rn they are often able to yell very loud and make problems where problems dont need to be. The federal government would also have law enforcement power in states. For example, a court would declare Hungary’s election invalid and force a new election. In the US, if Texas declared that it’s election results were invalid even though they weren’t, the US DOJ would sue Texas. The case would likely go to the Supreme Court, where politics are largely set aside when it comes to cases regarding current election. They would side with the US, and make Texas either accept the election results, or make them do another election with the DOJ making sure there is no fraud, one way or another.
From what I understand, the current EU can only threaten to withhold funding, they ultimately cannot intervene in a significant way. There have only been 3 times states/presidents have defied a ruling by the Supreme Court. Once was Andrew Jackson in the late 1820s, the Court ruled that because the US had a treaty with a Native American Nation in Georgia, the government could not force them out. He did it anyway. Another time was in the 1850s after the Dread Scott decision that declared that black people could not be citizens. Northern states ignored it and continued allowing black people to be citizens, and in some states vote. And the final time was in 1957 after the Court ruled that racial segregation was unconstitutional. Most famously, a school in Little Rock, Arkansas refused to follow the court’s order, so President Eisenhower sent US Marshals (a federal law enforcement agency) and US Army that school to enforce the court’s ruling.
Basically, what im saying is that the ability for a state to actively enforce laws it makes is a major difference between a federalized EU and it’s current form.
@@deftermedia and i forgot to mention international affairs would be far easier with just one large Europe than having to try and get each individual country on board. The US would not be what it is today if you had to negotiate with each state to make deals or treaties, some states are absolute bitches. Texas and California would just be hell to make deals with because of their strict ideologies, but they don’t have an international voice thanks to the federal government representing them.
@@rorypaul153 thanks for the very detailed answer. I'm not totally sold, but these are quite valid arguments. I'll definitely keep these in mind while discussing the matter in the future.
O orgulho que eu tenho deste canal aumenta quando sei que o criador é português. Os teus vídeos têm muita qualidade!!! Parabéns
Obrigado! :)
The US has one of the most dysfunctional systems, this would be a terrible idea and awful for Europe if they adopted federalism based on it. Something different from the US that addresses the many flaws of that system could be great depending on the specifics.
Most of the flaws in the US's system comes from how we do elections, which Europe already does vastly differently than we do. The US really only has two parties, so it's easy for them to do whatever they want and not really be accountable for running the government, because there aren't any other options
@@zeldafan7457
The US system itself is flawed:
1). "Supreme" court that isn't accountable, doesn't have term limits, and doesn't have any minimum standards.
2). Congress isn't proportional to population.
3). Districts are way too politically motivated.
4). Money in politics.
5). No direct election for the president.
@@zeldafan7457 and tske for example the voting power for each state, wyoming votes are more than three and a half times stronger than a california vote
I mean Europe can't pass anything with their unanimous threshold, but meh USA bad.
@@franknwogu4911 yeah they cant pass anything, ignoring everything they pass
3:50 the fact that he can understand single Churcill word is just amazing
Also, you stated that it was easier for the US to form a federation as it was federal from the beginning. This is not true, the US started off as a confederation, the confederation of states under the articles of confederation. These states were basically like countries in the EU. They had their own armies, currencies etc... They gave up a tremendous amount of autonomy to form the USA.
They pretty much all spoke English and had the same culture though
@@SaladeDeFruitt Exactly... and they also didn't have deep rooted nationalism, tied to a 2.500 years of history.. like many european countries.
Having a federal government in the style of the US will mean also federal police and other agencies that have authority over national/state agencies. Like the FBI can take over an investigation from the local police. Now imagine the scenario of German federal investigators (as Germany is the biggest country by population and budget in the EU) coming over to Romania for example. And taking over a local murder or corruption case and conducting their investigation in German.
This will have very, very negative publicity and aftertaste. Unlike the US where there was little previous history between each state, in Europe most of the countries have over 1000 years of history, and some of them have made more than a few blunders (Austria-Hungary is also one of them).
I think that the EU version of the FBI would be a much larger version of Europol, based in the Netherlands.
6:14 , I think is impossible, see the difference between USA and EU is that the USA citizens are mostly same culture and speak the same language, meanwhile in EU is the opposite, you cannot make a big army from all countries and replace all armies with it because in that army soldiers will speak the various language and maybe even create a mass confusion (this really happened when Austro Hungary had a war with ottoman empire because soldiers were speaking 7 different languages it made the generals and other soldiers believe that ottoman army have infiltrated in Austro-Hungarian army and killed each other in mass) also, each country will vote for different governs and parties and it will be unfair that the parties from countries with over 100 million of peoples will rule over another country with 5 million or 15 million peoples (just because this will be minority countries), each country will vote for its own parties and u cannot apply the same ideology in all countries
And also a unified army can break apart when will be internal conflicts, the soldiers from a country will become separate from others and depend on their country's citizens and ideology in an internal fight.
You do know that basically all Europeans speak English. I’ve traveled a lot across this Union and so far everyone I’ve spoken speaks English if not fluently at least to a degree.
@@nunosantos485 I met several people with zero knowledge of English, especially outside of touristic regions. I even met some scandinavians who weren't able to speak English and those are usually known for their perfect English skills, especially as films/videos or mostly not translated into their languages.
Don't you mix sth up? Austro-Hungarian Empire vs Ottoman Empire? In ww1 they were allies, and they never went to war against each other. Its predecessor, namley the Empire of Austria, fought in the turkish wars, but only some small piece of Hungary was part of Austria back then, the rest was completly annexed and/or demolished by the Ottoman Empire, the same goes for most slavic regions, like modern Slovakia and Croatia.
Bohemia and what is today Slovenia had German or Bavarian speakers back then (e.g. more than 1/3 of the bohemian population were native Germans or Bavarians), so most people spoke German and also multiple other languages anyway.
@@Leo-uu8du There are people who don’t speak English, but these days that is an exception. The odds that you’ll find someone that understands nothing of English today are almost zero.
@@Leo-uu8du The Austro-Hungary empire was the predecessor of the Habsburg Empire, and yes between the 16century to 18 century, they had a lot of wars against each other, and Austro-Hungary first time was ruled by the House of Habsburg, so both things are the same shit with a different name, even had the almost same land area
Here's the problem with a top-heavy federalist state in Europe: Working-class people are more comfortable (and empowered) when political power is on the LOCAL LEVEL. An aggressive federal government of Europe will crush all working-class hopes and dreams. The EU and the UN are already forcing its citizens into submission and slavery.
What would a "United States of Asia" look like?
What would happen if Russia created:
„United States of Russia“/ „Russia, Belarus, Ukraine“
overpowered
@@miraculous_tetris They'll have some problems incorporating the last one
Well it would include all countries of Asia such as France, Germany, China, Sweden, Japan, Korea, Russia etc. and would definitely be the most powerful and by far the most populous.
@@furn6341 Asia≠Eurasia
It is impossible to create an full functional "Federal Europe". Too much different languages, cultures, heritage etc... The US was not confronted with that problem. Most of them were english, they all adopted to that language, created an new "culture" and had an whole "new continent" to form their ideas how they wanted. It is good to get along very well and intensify the relationship between the european countries and an united military would be great, but everything beyond that seems impossible at least in my mind.
;) look at Belgium a bit closer... its a Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy to be specific, with 3 different cultural/language regions. but still one country.
So it might be difficult, but different cultures or different languages aren't the problems specifically. (not to say it will still be difficult because every country has it's nationalist parties that will try to convince it's a bad idea. And nobody knows for sure unless it happens if that would be the case)
Language is not a problem. Pretty much everybody knows English by now. Knowing more then one language is pretty common in Europe.
@@jorisderijck1779 Or Switzerland.
Wrong, the US did have that problem, they solved it by being fascists and banning German language. Maybe you don't know this, but English wasn't always the most spoken language in the US, it was German. The US had quite a few languages, they just decided to eradicate them in favor of English.
@@jorisderijck1779 wasnt belgium supported by britain since like day one? Even if one of the parts wanted to revolt, UK just wouldnt allow their valuable little buffer state to fall apart
i'm italian, i live between Rome and Milan, i would be very happy if eu becomes a "united states of europe" but it is almost impossible, due to the micronations, to the cultural differences and due to the language differences.
It would really be "eutopia" because i think that it is almost impossible, i can see all the differences even between Rome and Milan, i have also some friends in Munich, some in Barcelona, some in Athens, a cousin in Aalborg and a part of the family in Helsinki, another part in Naples, another in Catania (Sicily) also a friend in Lugano (italian switzerland), for every place you can completelly see the differences, it is almost a "united states of eu" we are on the right path, but more than that? Italians and French are like cat and dog, the same for portuguese and spanish, greeks and turkish... but with the right amount of independence for each region it would be more practical, there would be the "states of appartenence" and the "communities" like: Piedmont, Lombardy, Tirol, Nice, Catalunya, Corse, Sardinia, Sicily, Calabria, Puglia, Scotland, Ireland, Andalusia, Bavaria, Baden-Wuttenberg, ECC ECC, everyone with the possibility of doing what they want as it is in the usa like sardinia wants free weed? Sardinia will get it, Catalunya wants the same? Its ok, regional decisional power, with some borders to stay in like "no death penalty, no sovereign things, no regional racism, ecc ecc", wich are already a thing here (due to some standards that i havent still understood), then there would be litterally "free immigration" between all the regions and it could be bad for some areas (southern italy, romania outside the big cities, the same for all the balcanic nations, because they could go "without any problem" wherever they want, i can think of Milan, a city wich is growing A LOT, they are building a lot of skyscrapers because they dont have the space to fit people in, even if its one of europe's costlyest cities in terms of purchasing a house, and people still go there and in the metropolitan area wich is also growing a lot and it is getting a sort of "parisization" with a lot of banlieue and things.
So for me it is possible only if some boundary would be set in the right way, with the right amount of freedom for each territory, but it would be a lot more than 50 😂.
There are 1 billion Chinese.
There are 1 billion Indians.
There are 2 billion Muslims.
There are 1 billion sub-saharan Africans.
There are half a billion central and couth Americans.
People of European descent are roughly 1 billion all together spread between North America and Europe. The only logical course of action is to decrease division between them if they want to survive the 21st century.
Questions of having a "the United or the Federal States" or "the Kingdom" depends on the traditions of each dominion!!!! If one State or a group of states' traditions are bounded by Unionism the United States of such could work, case in point USE or FSE but if certain states don't see themselves traditionally link to those states and strong traditions in their own right it wouldn't make much sense. The same would be said about Monarchy vs Republic, if a state has strong republican traditions like most in the Americas they will reject Monarchy while nations like the UK with Rich history with their Monarchy will go the other way!!!! It all depends on the Traditions of each Sovereign or semi-Sovereign State!!!!
This is exactly why we chose to leave. This was and remains always the end goal of the project. In Britain, we have an obvious different political and cultural history in which the concept of European federalism send shivers down our spines. Drahgi's comments highlight the enormous difference in outlooks between the EU elites and everyday UK citizens. We wish you well but in the near, medium and long term we won't be joining you 🇬🇧
It seems that the UK goal is now to be a colony/state of the USA... I don't know how that is a step forward. The UK is too small on its own to be relevant in the world. But of course the choice is yours.
My thoughts exactly
Your choice, just let's hope you won't regret, expecially in the long term... World is changing and getting more complicate, day by day
Long live iIndependent Scotland, Walles, Unified Ireland , Cornwall and others
Yeah, you prefer to be governed by U.K. Elites, that continue to ruin your country just like Boris „The Clown“ Johnson did. I even wouldnt be so sure about the UK existing in the near future, since there are so many parts that want to break away from it.
I wish you the best ,too, but currently i dont see any good possible outcome from your island isolationsim.
I appreciate your 4 types of opinions to break down how some Europeans may think. However number 1 is not accurate as Brexit voters can't be claimed to want the EU to dissolve and not exist. Brexit was complex and made more difficult by the EU stance to not reform, meaning it left some wanting to not be part of something that required change, while others accepted that it is what it is and want to be part of the EU. Others (as you pointed out) not wanting an EU, with others believing in the EU and finally the anti-establishment voters. The later felt unheard and wanted an opportunity to rock the boat.
Simply we were given 2 choices and peoples reasons are not black and white.
P.S Not all countries are able to join the EU because of sovereignty, political leanings and alliances.
Enjoyed the video
👍
Brexit was complex and made more difficult by the EU stance to not reform
this is correct. personally i hate the eu and would love it dissolved but the eu probably wouldnt have lost the uk if they had taken uk threats seriously and had actually negotiated in good faith like actual grown ups. but the ideologues that run the eu will never accept that not everyone wants to be on the same trajectory as them and their attitude to democracy and the views of the people they govern and tax and wish to conscript etc etc is, as is shown pretty regularly, pretty dismissive...
Most of Eastern European countries would not like Federalization yet. They like to keep separate language, currency, army, tax policy, etc.
The EU is too weak, its member states too strong, for the EU to work well. America started with a similar structure, defined in the Articles of Confederation, with very little power at the center. This failed so badly that America replaced the Articles with the current Constitution a decade after declaring independence.
Not quite the U.S. constitution had been edited and expanded upon, some parts have even been removed.
Just know if the old version was followed every politician that proposed any form of gun restrictions would receive the death sentence.
Well, there is an easy explanation for that. There is a constant push and pull between Unionists and Federalists, so we got ideas from both sides, and being a mixture.
But the EU is very young. Time will tell who wins. Once one party wins we will either be a union or a federalist state.
For now, the federalists are winning. Why? Because geopolitics pressures us. with the Russian invasion obviously directly we have to work together. To rival China we have to work together. To secure resources in Africa and to beat China in Africa we have to work together. The pandemic also put an end to austerity politics. The states could take on endless debt guaranteed by the ECB, that starts resembling the FED. The list goes on, we need to work together to join the space race.
One major thing will be 2024, should Trump return, that would push the continent even more together because Trump will instate American egoism. The irony is europe will be united by outsiders LOL. The more crisis are coming the more we get pushed together.
Should world peace return and the world would slow down, I would think the unionists would win.
no, america resulted from the colonization of the land by a bunch of different people that needed to be united at some point. The EU is made of countries and people who've always been there have rich and meaningfull histories , historical events that shaped their own constitutions, different belief systems and cultures . Why don't you get that it is important to us? That it has value?
@@backintimealwyn5736 Creating a stronger Union does not necessarily mean abandoning the local flavors / cultures.
@@ionbrad6753 we're not flavors and culture,s we are constitutions, revolutions , laws and national sovereigneties, you are being border line racist. THe very fact that you can't grasp this illustrates how you'll push it so much that the EU will be entirely gone way before it's united.
Good video but rather a science fiction than a real possibility. A unified europe would require more solidarity trust and cooperation. - ex1:Western manufacturers in Eastern Europe would lose their competitiveness
ex2: Could be that Serbian soldiers protecting Croatia and Croatian soldiers Belgium.
ex3: Small countries would be underrepresnted compared to their high GDP. Romania would be 3x higher influence than Denmark or Netherland but not accepted by the rich countries.
Would be great but wont be accepted if the should give up from their wealth, autonomy or national pride
I think there should be a limited scope federation that just encompasses Benelux, France, Germany, Austria, Italy and Spain and then maybe Slovakia, Slovenia and least likely Czechia and just have the EU remain a loose coalition with the other 16-19 members
I think Austria is also not likely to join that federation, at least in the first round. Federalisation would have to begin with its biggest members France and Germany foremost because I believe the reason these two in particular are so open to a federal Europe is that they both (individually) believe they would be the hegemon of the continent.
So the answer is to make thé integration a processus, beginning just by economical agreements, then politicals, then..., then integration. With no obligation to progress if not wanted.
That doesn't make sense tbh, you mentioned the largest countries plus some of the medium sized countries and left out the smallest countries and all of the Nordic countries, which all have a strong economic power and contributes to the union more than they receive. One of the core principles of the EU is that all member states are equal, so why would the countries you left out want to be part of a union and still have to follow all the EU regulations, but not be fully in the club?
@@rosavoxa3828 I think you don't understand fully what Federalisation is about. We're not talking about being in a union "as part of a club" but about fully integrating multiple countries militaries, foreign policies, financial policies. Of the Nordic countries you were just so happy to bring up: 1 isn't even in the EU, 3 don't use the Euro, 1 has laxer immigration laws, and 3 are constitutional monarchies. With that in mind I think we can see why the OP did not include them as potential federal candidates, but it doesn't exclude them from being part of the European Union.
1:25 save Belarus and Russia. Russia is a European country and has always been and will always be.
I find it hilarious how people argue Turkey is a European country while simultaneously say Russia is not.
What would consider a state? For example , would Denmark or Sweden as a whole be consider a state ?
where would the soldiers loyalty lie? Would for example French soldiers go to war for German interests and die for it?
( Sorry for my bad English, hope you understand my thought process)
It would be like the early U.S.
Most soldiers in the early U.S. were more loyal to there states this meant when the civil war broke out most soldiers joined the south solely because thats what the state government decided on doing.
@@darth3911 yes but that's becasue the us had no history before that. Scandinavian people or main land Europe have huge history, not likely they would go to war for examples Spain. Why would they, just becasue they goverment saying so? The us fought for completely something else . . It's nothing like that
If you are a united country then german interests would be french interests. Like in the U.S. states cannot start wars. Maine cannot start a war with canada over the Niagra falls. Although the states are united, they have their own interests and pursue them. U.S. states have pretty good autonomy and can follow their own paths. They can develop how they want. In the U.S., the soldiers loyalty lies with the constitution. Not the president or any state. This is to prevent a leader or state from trying to usurp power. So no one state would go to war, if war was declared then all states within the union fight. In the U.S. only congress can declare war, so Congress would gather the representatives from each state and vote on it.
@@yaasinm Scandinavia is mainland Europe, British Isles are not mainland Europe. Other than that, you're right, and it seems like it would be mostly just for French and German interests.
There is quite a lot of history of alliances, shared military and strategic objectives and European countries going to war on behalf of others because of perceived common interests. Ironically in the light of Brexit, the closest military alliance in Europe, outside NATO, is currently the Combined Joint Expeditionary Force - a jointly commanded and manned all-services force of 10,000 drawn from France and the U.K.. It was established in 2010 and both countries have reaffirmed their commitment to it since Brexit and have emphasised that it is unaffected.
Without any disrespect for the Balkan Sates, I personally can’t imagine them as members of the potential «United States of Europe» or, more likely, «Federal States of Europe». The same applies to states like Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltic States and probably Finland, as some of them would cause civil wars (Balkan) and the others are former members of the Ussr (Baltics), and we have already seen what the consequences can be when the West ventures to Russia‘s border (ex. Ukraine-War). Therefore, I believe that the following countries would be the most likely members:
- Austria
- Belgium
- Cyprus
- Czechia
- Denmark
- France
- Germany
- Greece
- Ireland
- Italy
- Luxemburg
- Malta
- Netherlands
- Norway
- Poland
- Portugal
- Slovakia
- Spain
- Sweden
As someone from Switzerland, i don't like this idea at all and i think this idea would get shut down if there would be a democratic vote in the respective countries but sadly it seems like the political elites in Europe pursue this goal nonetheless. It's a slap in the face to our ancestors who in their mind have fought for the freedom of their countries and it will erode European cultures and democracy.
These fights precisely is what eu is supposed to avoid
@@sarantis1995 Sure, you don't have to fight for your freedom anymore, if you give up that freedom. But that's a highly questionable decision.
I think it could work. One of the main factor would need to be that each country gets one vote, no matter it's size. Croatia has same political weight as Germany or France. If this isn't done then it can't work, because large country would get far more weight than small ones and crush any national interest of it's smaller members. Equal representation is a must, no matter if a country is poor or has little population. If this would get into the "New EU", it would work.
Speaking as a Canadian, if 2 provinces (Quebec and Ontario) would settle their differences and vote in a united voice for something the rest of the country COMBINED can't overrule it and would be stuck with whatever was voted, even if they hate it. Thankfully, the feud between Ontario and Québec is still there, we rarely see eye to eye, on anything. That's why western provinces are utterly fed-up and secession has been mentioned once or twice of late. So EU needs equal political votes to prevent such a thing to prevail. In the US they have the electoral college (I think?) that balances low-population states with large ones.
No it doesn't, do you seriously believe Croatia has the same weight? M y god you're ignorant, Croatia and all the other smaller states literally just do what's told to them, our representatives are minions of Brussels. This is already a problem, full federation just buries any idea of autonomy. Germany and France already dictate politics and condition rules, blackmail certain member countries.
You have no understanding of how EU works, we most definitely don't have the same political weight.
Europe *must* unite and stay united or we won‘t be able to remain dominant in a world where both China and India are fully industrialized, the Russian bear still scratches on our door and the USA is focusing on their own goals.
We Europeans have a history filled with thousands of years of war and conflict, but in the last decades we have worked together and proved that we can exist without war. I know that it‘s not all sunshine and rainbows and that there are manny different problems in Europe as well as recent events that haven’t made it easier, but it also showed that if we pull ourselves together and cooperate, we can do this and much more.
One day, in the (near) future, i hope we can pull this off and become united. If not, then i hope we‘ll have better times or we‘re done.
I hope the European and North American peoples will be friendly relatives of a long past.
The 19th and 20th century was for nationalism the 21st will be for the pan nationalists.
@@bulkierwriter2772 Yeah i think we‘ll remain friends and allies but their an ocean away and recently have focused on Asia (China) as it will be the next theater.
@@bierdasbaum0911 I as a North American think that we will still be friends.
@@bulkierwriter2772 maybe someday there is a North American Union consisting of US, Canada and Mexico
Yeah we will still be friends but like europe, North America has a ton of problems and things of their ow to take care of
@@bierdasbaum0911 we will have problems, especially in pushing/consolidating pan nationalism but great North America and Europe can handle all.
If Europe did this, they would immediately jump to world superpower. Just in a military sense this would be huge.
We can create a European NATO without becoming one country thought can't we?
@@HermitKing731 It wouldn’t have the same capacity as a unified military… and i don’t think you would want a unified military without a federal union. Who would the military answer to? As for a European NATO… I think that would be politically difficult to do with actual NATO around.
The fact is, one doesn't have to be completely federal because Europeans can decide what they want the European Union to look like in the future. Will they need to adopt more federalist integration, such as an expansion of military and economic integration, yes but they could still remain quite confederalist or quasi federal. Unfortunately my country won't be able to join in because old people in the british country don't like the EU but really, the sky is the limit for you guys.
Old people won't be alive forever, so there's that ;)
@@tankadar the beauty of nature.
@@Espiritu_de_Obiwon You can always join us in the future my friend :)
@@ikad5229 💙💯💯
@@tankadar Hi. Young person from Britain who voted Brexit here. Yes, lots of us do exist. You're looking forward to the elderly dying off to swing a vote? Jesus.. That's a horrible thing to say and it drives me away from your otherwise perfectly valid movement. None of us will be alive forever, so try not to gloat for too long because we'll all be in that position eventually. And before anyone comes along with a refutation to Brexit, etc, don't bother. That's a completely different yet valid debate but that's not the reason for my comment; My comment is simply addressing the inhumanity of these specific people, who claim to support a peaceful EU federal system with high-minded progressive policies, but whom also look forward to old people kicking the bucket so that it happens sooner through changing demographics. Thinking like that is inhuman and no retort can make it less inhuman. People of all ages have equal value and worth. That's literally written into the EU's highest laws/treaties. Stop it.
"Old people won't be alive forever, so there's that ;)"
I don't think you know how ageing works: *Everyone won't be alive forever.*
I'm sorry that in your search for humanity's better ideals and progress, you've stopped caring about some actual humans you politically disagree with. To be honest though, millions of people probably support that mindset, which is both frightening and sad.