What Would A 'United States Of Europe' Look Like?
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 21. 07. 2022
- đ Get Exclusive NordVPN deal here âĄïž NordVPN.com/KNOWLEDGE
Itâs risk-free with Nordâs 30 day money-back guarantee! âïž
ⶠIn this video I talk about the hypothetical scenario of the European Union transforming into a Federal State.
ⶠFollow me on Twitter: / gkonyoutube
ⶠBecome a member on Patreon & get exclusive content! / generalknowledge
ⶠJoin the Discord Server: / discord
ⶠBusiness Contact: gilfamc@gmail.com
ⶠThanks for watching, remember to subscribe to catch future videos!
*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 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.
Thatâs just because âUnited Statesâ is meant to describe what type of country it is. Itâs the same as how most countries are âRepublic of Xâ or âState of X.â Itâs 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 disagree regarding the flag, having a star for each member state looks too cluttered. I think the current flag suits the EU well, you donât 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
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. đȘđș
We definitely should have live it like this, and not copy the USA.
We have the right amount of stars :D
@@eriktoth6002 đđđȘđș
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?đŻđ”
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.
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 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, thereâs no a specific lĂngua franca so I donât 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
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"
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
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 thereâs one thing I would not want the most itâs the electoral college. Itâs 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, arenât 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 doesnât guarantee that they wonât declare independence. Look at Yugoslavia. They had a shared military. Didnât 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 youâre 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?
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.
@@Hx728hx 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 thatâs 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 donât 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?
Very nice work dude. I think I'm gonna use some of your sources for my master's thesis
All these extraordinary ideas are why i love watching general knowledge.
Thanks! :)
The EU already exists, doofus.
â@@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
While the United States has a national military, each State still retains their own armed forces. I know itâs probably an oxymoron, but the National Guard are supposed to be each Stateâs 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, thatâs quite possible to do. border disputes can occur between States, but theyâre always settled in court and rarely force of arms. A perfect example of the independence of the militaries of each State and how each stateâs 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 thereâs also an Air National Guard to serve as each Stateâs 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.
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 Englandđ Great timeđ€Łđ
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.
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 isnât always accurate
â@@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.
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.
Really nice video and topic, well explained ! I agree for a federal state but to have it in several years, people aren't ready yet and we have other problems and more important steps before the state, starting with the military aspect for example
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
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.
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 ArsĂšne Heitz and Paul M. G. LĂ©vy. 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, ArsĂšne 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.
Cutting Poland into three pieces on the thumbnail was a wicked move mate
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.
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 BundeslÀnder have a history of almost 1000 years like saxony, bavaria or thuringia I think same goes for other states in europe
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.
3:50 the fact that he can understand single Churcill word is just amazing
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'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 ArsĂšne Heitz and Paul M. G. LĂ©vy. 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, ArsĂšne 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. LĂ©vy 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 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.
Itâs 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.
More importantly, who would be the Florida of Europe?
Would we have our own news articles about Serbia-man doing wild stuff?
Or the Ohio hahah
5:45 each U.S. State has it's on Militia the falls under the Governors directive. The active duty falls under the Federal directive, the National Guard needs a declaration to fall under Federal. Active Duty is restricted by Posse Comitatus.
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.
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?
Its a bit complicated, but in Czech republic, we do not have "our own currency", we have dual currency system, you can pay with Czech crown as well as with Euro. Companies are allowed to have their accounting and tax reports in CZK or EUR as well. Banks offer dual currency accounts (for free).
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 gebirgsjÀgerbattailion 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.
Iâd say keep the flag, keep the name but turn it into a single federal country.
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...
â@@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.
*United States of Europe*
Napoleonic France, Roman Empire, Nazi Germany : hey I've seen this before đ
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 đđ
Yep, they are probably the only 2 countries that want a Federal Europe.
As a Brit, I don't think the Republic of Ireland would like a foreign government ruling over them. Learned that the hard way.
Bulgaria is set to adopt the Euro from 2024. Also the Bulgarian currency was tied to the Deutsche Mark, therefore is tied to the Euro as well (no fluctuations as allowed, as the national bank buys and sells EUR bonds in order to maintain a stable economy). Originally we were set to accept the EUR along with Croatia, but COVID and Ukrainian war happened.
Why not just call it âThe European Federationâ? It sounds the best and easily the most badass
Maybe they donât want it to sound like The Russian Federation
@@tomsmithok thatâs 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
one of the most important changes will be the transfer of decision power from the current country entities, in both directions, to the large central governing entity (the head of EU), and to the small micro local unity, municipalities or counties.
It is interesting that in this video was not even mentioned that all the countries in EU have different languages. If EU is focusing on becoming a federation, which language will be chosen for official? Every country will want their own and will not take the other. Yet again, some countries are Socialist's, some are Democratic and some are Republics(there might be more, sorry if I missed some), so that will be a big issue.
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.
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. Itâs a terrible idea, true dystopia material.
@@augth whatâs 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 arenât 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 donât do it and so will France. Just look at the conflict in Ukraine - Russia and Ukraine didnât listen to France - the line of communication is the USA, despite the war happening in Europe.
I heard there were originally 12 members when the flag was put together, so that explains it.
But yes, certain cultures were traditionally base-12 instead of base-10, also explains why we say eleven and twelve instead of one-teen and two-teen, and why some things like eggs are still sold by the "dozen."
it dont explain sheet
like why u say first ,second, third and then 4th 5th etc
There were 7 members when they made the flag, but the original flag had 7 stars, then later it had 12 members, and 12 stars. They decided to stop there, and not add any more starts after that.
According to the EU the amount of stars isn't referring a number of member states but rather to unity. The flag was adopted first by the council of Europe so that also speaks against it being a symbol of the amount of EU members
The 12 members are the council of Europe.
When talking about the economy, the euro is always mentioned but the most important measure is forgotten; the fiscal unit.
I donât 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
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.
Imagine watching Europe playing at the World Cup
In France no one would agree on that, French politics already said that they would never ask the French to vote on UE again because everyone know we would leave, French people hate the UE since Lisbonne treaty. Today there is only 2 political party that are pro-UE in France the center (Macron party, 27% in the last election) and EELV (green party, 5% at the last election), everyone else don't like UE at a certain degree, far right and far left (around 50% of the french people) are often speaking about FREXIT so more federalism isn't really a subject in France.
(Sorry i'm like every French : my English is terrible)
French politics sucks
Today, hundreds of millions dwell in freedom, from the Baltic to the Adriatic, from the Western Approaches to the Aegean. And while we must never take this for granted, the first purpose of the European Union - to secure peace - has been achieved and we should pay tribute to all those in the EU, alongside Nato, who made that happen.
David Cameron
>to the Aegean
Somobody seems to forget about Cyprus.
@@lordmapper2994 You don't agree NATO was a substantial threat to the Soviet & Eastern Blick military during the cold war?
That is why Sweden and Finland just joined for security and peace.
@@alexandrub8786 Cyprus is part of the Middle East.
@@husted5488 it is,it isn't,i don' care. I part of EU.
Is this excerpt from _the same_ speech where Cameron implied that Brexit would cause WW3? I remember watching his face closely what he was saying that, and it was clear to see that even _he himself_ was feeling uncomfortable saying such obvious BS.
JĂĄ sigo o canal Ă bastante tempo e posso dizer que Ă©s o melhor canal PortuguĂȘs que eu jĂĄ vi!
Muitos parabĂ©ns pelo trabalho incrĂvel que tens feito! đđ»đđ»đđ»
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.
Imagine natos membership list having the United States of America and The United States of Europa right next to each other, thatâs a future with many questions in the classroom.
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 wouldnât 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
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.
The visual work for this video is exceptionally good, very well built in overall and pleasure to watch. What comes to Europe as a country - would be a very good idea, and almost necessity for European countries to survive in the future. Europe has long been a chessboard for others - especially for US - and it should end already. That own army is needed to replace NATO, otherwise could work pretty close to how EU works now... however, in some issues, members should be restricted and ruled less. So uniting more, at the same reworking the current system.
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
đ
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...
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
@@davideghirelli5856 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!
how about a new federation within the EU focussing on the "core states" e.g. the initial members. it would be way easier to come up with an agreement and that new union can be be member of the EU along the other not-yet-incorporated countries
I was under the impression that the 12 stars represented the member of the then EEC at the time the flag was adopted.
I'm from Luxembourg and I consider myself primarily as a European. I support the idea of a federal european union. For me it has always been normal, that the borders don't have a big effect on our daily life as we cross the borders often to do our grocery shopping or have friends from across the border.
I would rather die then see my country reduced to a state.
that's dumb. Country before continent. Are you a communist or fascist?
@@HermitKing731 Yup fully agree
I am from Czechia and I see myself as European first. I would love to have a EU passport. As in not Czech but actually EU passport that would allow me to get all the rights and benefits in all the EU countries depending on where I live.
@@jerrychesan1936 but then Czech language would just disappear. Or you don't care.
One thing I didnât hear mentioned: what would this new Europeâs national identity be based on? Youâve 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 donât see how they can be used to form a national identity.
One idea I had (when writing original comment) was for a constitutional monarchy, aâla Belgium (itâs largely held that the monarchy is the one thing holding their country together). The question of who to crown âEmperor of Europe,â however, is admittedly less certain.
@@jwil4286 the vast majority of Europeans know how to speak English, and if you only count people under 35 itâs basically 100% so thatâs something that would unite us at least in order for us to be able to communicate comfortably in day to day life. And I donât think we need an emperor of Europe just an elected president is enough.
It will be based on happiness and peaceful good feelings.
@@barborasulcova9420 Thatâs 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. Thatâs already happening in the Netherlands and itâs been quite successful in terms of the studentsâ studies and careers. Especially since the main language of communication in Dutch universities is already English.đ
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 governmentâs 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 Hungaryâs election invalid and force a new election. In the US, if Texas declared that itâs election results were invalid even though they werenât, 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 courtâs order, so President Eisenhower sent US Marshals (a federal law enforcement agency) and US Army that school to enforce the courtâs 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 itâs 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 donât 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.
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.
In the US each state has it's own military. The states pay for it, equip it , and it answers to the state not the federal government. Though their are times in which it can be subsumed into the federal military.
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.
I think it would be good if it didnt have a president but just a senate like you mentioned, with the leader of each nation being part of it and still all having a regional government
czcams.com/video/x_RKjuNBnt8/video.html What happened to the thousands of Greek Islands in the Aegean sea???? Also where's the other half of Cyprus?????
I agree that the first step should be forming a united military. Iâm sure this would be extremely complicated, but Iâm sure there is a way of doing it without forcing those nations who would like to hesitste to take part in it. Iâm sure eventually every nation would come to a common sense, we canât 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 balance of power would ultimately we can Europe like that and more independent countries would just set the balance off even more
One thing that is clear is that the name would not be "United States of Europe" but something in french like "Federacion International de Europa", because that is important to the french for some reason
I smell George Orwell's geopolitical scenario in 1984 arising with an inspiration of ancient Rome forming here
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 Italyđ
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 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.
1:27 "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.
if there would be a european federation i feel it would be the final level of the european unions zone where nations (or states) could join/leave upon vote
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.
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!!!!
The twelve stars are those of the founding member states. It was decided to keep this number to avoid cluttering the flag.
1:31 The names are not the only things that get confused. The blue flag with twelve stars is originally the European Councilâs flag, and the EU simply stole it. So the European Council has now had to add a red lowercase âeâ to its logotype to differentiate itself from the EU.
O orgulho que eu tenho deste canal aumenta quando sei que o criador Ă© portuguĂȘs. Os teus vĂdeos tĂȘm muita qualidade!!! ParabĂ©ns
Obrigado! :)
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
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 Bulgariaâ„
For every madness Europe ever did to the world you will pay. Not China or Russia is your enemy, but yourselves
Imagine a United Europe where a man running for the Presidency has to do a speech in 27 different languanges. đ
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.
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 ArsĂšne Heitz and Paul M. G. LĂ©vy. 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, ArsĂšne 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.
I can't see a United Europe with an elected leader. We've not got through our differences with each other yet. Would a French person vote for a German? I think having a shared identity is fine. You're Italian and European, Polish and European, this is what bonds us but also gives you your unique identity.
For me European is enough of an identity. I'm not a person who's obsessed with identities :)
@@nylixneylix8785 I consider myself Welsh European and I'm technically not even in Europe anymore, at least the union anyway.
Today there are 27 members, it's cube of 3 :3x3x3. 3 is also a mirror image of E, as Europa
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.
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 ââin 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.
"united states of" are really hard even when you have a relatively common culture throughout. Trying to combining dozens of cultures with thousands of years of history, most of which was spent at each others throats, without the threat of brutal force, is even harder. And you have to remember that even states are not monolithic political entities. By far the largest cultural divide these days is between urbanites and nonurbanites. Self-determination means that one does not get to tell the other how to live, and it is oh so tempting for an urban majority to use democracy as a weapon against everyone else. That's why the United States was established as a Federal Republic, made up of sovereign states, to try to keep the power as local as possible, and why there are so many efforts to undermine it in the name of "our democracy". While the idea of a European Federation is a sound one on many levels, particularly on the defense, foreign, and monetary policy stage, it would have to be even more careful not to step on local sovereignty. It supposedly has the concept of subsidiarity baked right in, but from this side of the pond there little evidence of it.
The best official name would be 'European Federation', called 'Europe' in short. Just like people say 'America' when they mean the 'United States of America'.
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 ArsĂšne Heitz and Paul M. G. LĂ©vy. 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, ArsĂšne 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! đ