"Alberta could join EFTA." Not a realistic example when half the reason so many Albertans signed the secession referendum petition is the abusive relationship they had with Trudeau, who is politically allied with globalist Europe. The more boring half of the reason is all about the money, yes?
Of course, neither is what a lot of eager beavers in the U.S. new media suggest: joining the U.S.. Putting aside ever changing political winds, it seems to entirely miss the point of secession. Out of the fry pan.
Now for your rule. A constructive suggestion. Of course: not joining the EFTA. But can you think of an oppositely aligned organization to slot in here?
EFTA is just a free trade agreement. Are you saying Alberta wouldn’t want Free Trade with European Countries? And whether they do or not, these are deals they could reach independently.
Well thinking again, you must be mostly right after all:
1. They are economically on the "right", and right wingers historically love their free trade;
2. half their reason for leaving is sharing the Albertan oil money with the rest of Canada to the extent of making them poor (stand alone, they are oil rich (though with cold fusion already being produced commercially, don't know that matters)), so they must be looking to export that oil, and the EU is energy hungry, haven closed their coal plants down in the lead up to their Ukraine War, et cetera.
"These are deals they could reach independently."
It wasn't a denial of concept! Just of chosen example.
(Alberta and the EU are political opposites: the hated Trudeau was a globalist/Europhile, whereas Albertans are Populists).
I'm not sure how this works when countries that support your model have to deal with aggression from ones that don't. Use Ukraine as an example perhaps. Let's say they were part of the EU's mutual defense clause. I don't understand the caveats that neutral states like Ireland have, but does this mean they would not support Ukraine? Or provide funds but not soldiers?
What if Germany had joined a eastern European energy pact and were very dependent on Russia for oil leading to a lot of internal mixed motivations. Hungary has been very pro-Russia for its own reasons
My point is just that this very federated model seems like it could lead to a lot of conflicting interests that could become a fatal difficulty when suddenly facing a very focused aggressor.
Could you not get a lot of the benefits through treaties? Or similar mutual benefit agreements?
Treaties and mutual benefit agreements are very similar in scope to what I'm talking about here. The idea is that multiple countries agree to participate in some way, or help in some way. If Ukraine was part of NATO or the EU's mutual defense clause, Russia might not have even attacked. They'd be up against a lot of countries. And in return, Ukraine would also have to come to Poland's aid, if it came to that. Instead, we're kind of funneling weapons and other support into them to try to help, without being able to help directly.
As far as your energy example, Europe did get a lot of energy from the east, and have been trying to undo that in the wake of Russia's attack. So the federations already exist as they would—states might agree to participate in something that makes sense for all parties, but then go a different direction if one of the countries wrongs everyone. This is actually the kind of thing that could hold countries even more accountable for their behavior.
As I mention in the article, all of these federations and agreements already exist. The only limitations are that they aren't as available to North America, South America, or Africa to the extent that they could be. There are certainly trade agreements and visa agreements and even social safety net transfers, but we could create a lot more of them, and more that aren't limited to certain geographies.
"but then go a different direction if one of the countries wrongs everyone."
Not if like Norway in its EU arrangements is stuck in by a treaty that has no easy provisions for it to get out, like it'd like to, but can't, because the treaty has no easy back out provisions that aren't harder than staying put. And makes matters worse, Norway has no vote in the abusive relationship that is the EU.
--a summary of a Tube vid or something I saw maybe twenty years ago, so you'd better fat check me before quoting me.
Ah, I just read your rules. "Make a better idea, don't dismantle someone else's (here, yours). So my contribution, is that in your next idea, you build in democratic processes to these arrangements.
Yes, I'm not advocating for more EUs (consolidated power), I'm advocating for broken up versions of it. More Schengen's and EFTAs (decentralized power).
The article I cited about whichever one Norway is stuck into, is that because the withdrawal arrangements of that treaty are difficult, and the Schengen or EFTA rules are arbitrarily decided unilaterally, that it is actually a form of power centralization--a warning that the next step in exploring the concept is incorporating democratic safeguards into international arrangements.
Again, not a denial of concept, just an exploration of the details of implementation (conceptual phase 2?).
No, just no. Britain broke away from the EU in order to gain their freedom back.
The EU has a long history of forcing member states to open their borders to third worlders who don't follow their laws, who rape their women, and traffic their children.
Of course Germany would want to export their misery to other countries.
Why would I want to throw off the shackles of our imperfect, but free, government and bind myself to a foreign power where I would have no say?
I'd rather throw off the shackles and have my state go it's own way.
This is, for sure, the way. Let those who do not want to join "federal" or supranational entities choose not to participate. From my understanding, citizens of the Faroe Islands can choose to "turn on" their EU citizenship or not. I have not verified this claim, and I suspect it likely requires them to move to mainland Denmark, but I do like the concept and the idea.
"Alberta could join EFTA." Not a realistic example when half the reason so many Albertans signed the secession referendum petition is the abusive relationship they had with Trudeau, who is politically allied with globalist Europe. The more boring half of the reason is all about the money, yes?
Of course, neither is what a lot of eager beavers in the U.S. new media suggest: joining the U.S.. Putting aside ever changing political winds, it seems to entirely miss the point of secession. Out of the fry pan.
Now for your rule. A constructive suggestion. Of course: not joining the EFTA. But can you think of an oppositely aligned organization to slot in here?
EFTA is just a free trade agreement. Are you saying Alberta wouldn’t want Free Trade with European Countries? And whether they do or not, these are deals they could reach independently.
Well thinking again, you must be mostly right after all:
1. They are economically on the "right", and right wingers historically love their free trade;
2. half their reason for leaving is sharing the Albertan oil money with the rest of Canada to the extent of making them poor (stand alone, they are oil rich (though with cold fusion already being produced commercially, don't know that matters)), so they must be looking to export that oil, and the EU is energy hungry, haven closed their coal plants down in the lead up to their Ukraine War, et cetera.
"These are deals they could reach independently."
It wasn't a denial of concept! Just of chosen example.
(Alberta and the EU are political opposites: the hated Trudeau was a globalist/Europhile, whereas Albertans are Populists).
Fascinating concept.
I'm not sure how this works when countries that support your model have to deal with aggression from ones that don't. Use Ukraine as an example perhaps. Let's say they were part of the EU's mutual defense clause. I don't understand the caveats that neutral states like Ireland have, but does this mean they would not support Ukraine? Or provide funds but not soldiers?
What if Germany had joined a eastern European energy pact and were very dependent on Russia for oil leading to a lot of internal mixed motivations. Hungary has been very pro-Russia for its own reasons
My point is just that this very federated model seems like it could lead to a lot of conflicting interests that could become a fatal difficulty when suddenly facing a very focused aggressor.
Could you not get a lot of the benefits through treaties? Or similar mutual benefit agreements?
Treaties and mutual benefit agreements are very similar in scope to what I'm talking about here. The idea is that multiple countries agree to participate in some way, or help in some way. If Ukraine was part of NATO or the EU's mutual defense clause, Russia might not have even attacked. They'd be up against a lot of countries. And in return, Ukraine would also have to come to Poland's aid, if it came to that. Instead, we're kind of funneling weapons and other support into them to try to help, without being able to help directly.
As far as your energy example, Europe did get a lot of energy from the east, and have been trying to undo that in the wake of Russia's attack. So the federations already exist as they would—states might agree to participate in something that makes sense for all parties, but then go a different direction if one of the countries wrongs everyone. This is actually the kind of thing that could hold countries even more accountable for their behavior.
As I mention in the article, all of these federations and agreements already exist. The only limitations are that they aren't as available to North America, South America, or Africa to the extent that they could be. There are certainly trade agreements and visa agreements and even social safety net transfers, but we could create a lot more of them, and more that aren't limited to certain geographies.
"but then go a different direction if one of the countries wrongs everyone."
Not if like Norway in its EU arrangements is stuck in by a treaty that has no easy provisions for it to get out, like it'd like to, but can't, because the treaty has no easy back out provisions that aren't harder than staying put. And makes matters worse, Norway has no vote in the abusive relationship that is the EU.
--a summary of a Tube vid or something I saw maybe twenty years ago, so you'd better fat check me before quoting me.
Ah, I just read your rules. "Make a better idea, don't dismantle someone else's (here, yours). So my contribution, is that in your next idea, you build in democratic processes to these arrangements.
Yes, I'm not advocating for more EUs (consolidated power), I'm advocating for broken up versions of it. More Schengen's and EFTAs (decentralized power).
The article I cited about whichever one Norway is stuck into, is that because the withdrawal arrangements of that treaty are difficult, and the Schengen or EFTA rules are arbitrarily decided unilaterally, that it is actually a form of power centralization--a warning that the next step in exploring the concept is incorporating democratic safeguards into international arrangements.
Again, not a denial of concept, just an exploration of the details of implementation (conceptual phase 2?).
No, just no. Britain broke away from the EU in order to gain their freedom back.
The EU has a long history of forcing member states to open their borders to third worlders who don't follow their laws, who rape their women, and traffic their children.
Of course Germany would want to export their misery to other countries.
Why would I want to throw off the shackles of our imperfect, but free, government and bind myself to a foreign power where I would have no say?
I'd rather throw off the shackles and have my state go it's own way.
How is it not freedom to be able to only participate in the international agreements you want to?
This is, for sure, the way. Let those who do not want to join "federal" or supranational entities choose not to participate. From my understanding, citizens of the Faroe Islands can choose to "turn on" their EU citizenship or not. I have not verified this claim, and I suspect it likely requires them to move to mainland Denmark, but I do like the concept and the idea.
Reading my mind? https://underthrow.substack.com/p/subscription-government