The Case for a European Federation

The first 1000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare:
skl.sh/adamsomething09211
Vaush's channel: / @vaush
Articles of interest:
www.politico.eu/article/miche...
www.politico.eu/article/franc...
www.politico.eu/article/eu-ba...
europa.eu/eurobarometer/surve...
www.politico.eu/article/engli...
www.pewresearch.org/global/20...

[@AdamSomething]

Big thanks for Skillshare for sponsoring today's video! Don't forget, the first 1000 people clicking the link get one month free: skl.sh/adamsomething09211

[@ok8052]

O k

[@arsnrhmn]

@@ok8052 o k

[@tilengasparic6765]

@@arsnrhmn o k

[@kratos6135]

@@arsnrhmn ok

[@behindyou666]

No

[@maxthiel2170]

Adam: Military should unite *Luxemburg who shares a helicopter with Belgium*: I’m 4 parallel universes ahead of you

[@OHOE1]

We shall invade the swiss

[@golubayaakula1685]

Hardest I laughed today, thank you

[@romxxii]

@@OHOE1 Good luck, the Swiss are all out practicing their long-distance sharpshooting at the gun range

[@loturzelrestaurant]

@@OHOE1 Man, i really like Adam but theres just better Social Commentary and Politic-News out there than him. Like Some More News (especially his 'obvious solutions to obvious world-problems'-videos) and Hbomberguy.

[@imatsoup2186]

"The Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers says its my turn as pilot"

[@H0m0f1rST]

Still cant get over the fact that the european anti corruption force is called Olaf

[@TheYrthenarc]

Originally they wanted to go with Steve, but that didn't sound right :)

[@poopbuDDiesfan]

I’d like to think there’s just a guy named Olaf in a sparsely furnished office, all by himself,l. Deciding what hat is and is not corrupt like Santa Claus.

[@kamisama7522]

I cant stop laughing at 3am

[@DerEchteBabo]

The funniest thing about it is that people who refer to it never see the funny thing about it and take it completely serious

[@gsiya4023]

😂😂

[@tomendruweit9386]

You know the whole "Russia war on european soil" truly aged well on this one

[@twojstarypijany3182]

In Eastern Europe, wispers of war were constantly present since 2014. They didn't stop after the media got bored with it.

[@YeahButCanISniffUrPantsFist]

Right? Glad the crisis was already on someones radar already

[@tomendruweit9386]

@@YeahButCanISniffUrPantsFist I disagree with you name cause I am sniffing yours already

[@prplt]

well it's been happening since 2014 🙄

[@Megalomaniakaal]

@@prplt word

[@felipeneves7260]

Imagine going back 200 years and showing this video to an European. They would either laugh in your face or have an aneurysm on the spot

[@Levitiy]

All of them, except one. Napoleon.

[@riverman6462]

@@Levitiy Napoleon didn't want a European federation. He wanted a French dominated Europe. Which is a wildly nationalistic viewpoint , than what has been said in the video.

[@Lancor84]

Eh... don't underestimate the politicians/nobles of the late 18. and early 19. century. There were lots of huge ideas going around, not only Napoleon. Of course the common folk would have reacted like you said in many cases. Although back then many rural folks didn't care about politics at all and wouldn't have said no to anything as long as they can live on in peace.

[@brandonspencer7093]

I'll laugh in your face now this is a stupid idea. Concentration of power is always a bad thing

[@felipeneves7260]

@@brandonspencer7093 Well said comrade, abolish the government! ANARCO SINDICALISM NOW!1!!

[@VictorSneller]

It’s too ironic that Ireland is the only native English-speaking country in the European Union.

[@williamadams7136]

You forgot Malta.

[@krombopulos_michael]

@@williamadams7136 Malta speaks Maltese first and English second. Only 10% speak English as their first language, it just has very high levels of English as a second language. Ireland speaks English as the primary native language. The Irish language is only spoken the home by a small minority of the population.

[@Piromanofeliz]

It's a Lingua Franca. No one's tongue, everyone's tongue. I's a compromise. It's fine.

[@TSGC16]

English would be a good lingua franca yes. But if we wanna speak about relative stuff like culture, i am very much against it. As a Dutchman ive grown tired of speaking English my whole life. I live in a city that looks no different from an ugly American city and the fact that everyone speaks English here and dresses in an American way is just ugly. Obviously i do the same, but we as Europeans have already become way too over-Americanized and ruled by American corporations and their ideologies. Making English the official language of the federal EU would just make it a mini-USA. Boring and dull. Devoid of identity. Hell i'd prefer bringing Latin back as the lingua franca of Europe. Lol.

[@georgecatton]

@@TSGC16 whilst making Latin the official language would be cool it could be problematic in the message it sends and would annoy the Slavic and Germanic countries that don't have as much of a historical connection

[@piccolo917]

* finger gets pointed at Ireland as being a taxhaven * Luxembourg and the Netherlands: Innocent whistle

[@Illlium]

I'd add to that Cyprus and Malta, but there's always Monaco and Liechtenstein. Or you know, any other tax haven in the world, most money is digital anyway.

[@stylis666]

@@morriganbermejo4042 And it's your right to be a stupid asshole. Is it a smart way to progress as a nation though?

[@stylis666]

@@morriganbermejo4042 Cutting your head of works for me. I guess that's good too then. Your logic seems to have some small flaws in its fundamentals.

[@jdivision79]

America is the second biggest tax Haven in the world. Pandora papers opened a lot of eyes

[@JC_Cali]

And Switzerland too, no?

[@benharris7358]

i find it somewhat ironic and hilarious that the entire EU is learning English while the UK has essentially left the chat.

[@massafelipe8063]

Yep, but we're learning it because of the US not UK. In my country hardly anyone knew english prior to ww2, many people knew german, italian and some french and russian. Since US is by far single most important country and influence we' re just taking that into account. Prior to WW2 german had "lingua franca" role for most of central Europe.

[@MormixIngmar]

No it’s because the whole world is learning it right now and a lot of countries people speak English so that’s why

[@benharris7358]

@@MormixIngmar, the fact remains that English used to be only spoken in England. How the world has changed.

[@MormixIngmar]

@@benharris7358 yes since the colonisation of the americas the british had a huge population growth and thats why there are a lot more english speakers and it is also set as a international language so that everyone learns one so that everybody can understand

[@benharris7358]

@@MormixIngmar, I dont need a history lesson mate. I know that. Im saying there is a certain amount of irony in the situation.

[@nickklavdianos5136]

My biggest fear is that larger 'states' like France and Germany that already have more power and influence would be able to overrule smaller countries, making decisions that benefit those regions and disadvantage smaller ones. This already happened with the EU. We really don't want things to get worse. Now, I'm from Greece, and as you can see in the charts people here don't really trust EU institutions since we had a pretty bad run with them. (Of course part of it is the fault of Greece, but not entirely. And when people can't take their money out of the bank, lose their jobs and see their wages and pensions getting halved because of the EU, you can't really blame them for being distrustful.)

[@PeachDragon_]

The Whole point is that there won't be such inequality anymore, no state has more power than the others because there is only the European state. It's like in the US, does texas overrule stuff from other states?

[@crucialsword432]

The title: the case for a federal europe The video: the case for why the Hungarian government is incompetent and corrupt

[@todortodorov1263]

What better case for federalization, than pointing out inefficiency and corruption on local level?

[@gitgut4977]

its ok. Everyone of us knows the failures of his goverment best :)

[@lucam1926]

@@todortodorov1263 everywhere isn't Hungary?

[@feonor26]

@@todortodorov1263 Wanna check out the corruption and ineffiecny on a federal level? Brussels is full of it even tho the EU thinks they're the shining city on the hill.

[@hankcyrus9776]

@@todortodorov1263 It also points out how big the differences are between member states, that the east is corrupt and incompetent and that south is also non functioning. Why would a functioning country relegate power to non functioning ones?

[@EconomicsExplained]

Your federation is going to have a giant Switzerland shaped hole in it tho :(

[@ThePooper3000]

Easy solution: stop recognizing the existence of Switzerland. Now you have a map with a weird country-shaped sea in the middle of Europe

[@Inaf1987]

Would you please make a video on what the Westerosi economy would perform after season 8?

[@ivandyptan1582]

Hey! Another my favorite channel shows up:)

[@sirwolfnsuch]

Undiscovered, probably uninhabited

[@tommasomarini7339]

@Adolf Hitler what’s your take on this?

[@joshuabaker6452]

I feel like you really handwaved over a lot of the arguments you were addressing. The sovereignty argument is not just a ploy by evil dictators. This federation plan will need to address that somehow otherwise the tiny nations are actually giving up their sovereignty due to their citizens not being numerous enough to have any impact on the federal government. When the US formed this problem was addressed by having the bicameral legislature and in today's world that is fairly controversial due to the "tyranny of the minority" perception. What concessions are you willing to make to give these tiny nations an outsized level of influence due to them not being willing to give up any noticeable control over the top levels of government. Your tax haven argument seems similarly hand wavy. The reason Ireland is a safe haven now is because it greatly benefits Ireland. Taking that away means you have to give something tangible in return so what concessions would be made to entice them to join this federation? Language: Teaching everyone English seems like a reasonable solution but I do think you would need to enforce it everywhere. If you want to be a united force you need to actually be united from the top down. These multi-lingual countries work fairly well on a small scale and as long as they don't need a united military. Multi-lingual forces are historically proven to be unsustainable in any form of legit war due to the breakdown of communication between units as casualties mount. Money: You hand wave away the vast wealth differences by saying you are going to pay minimum wages to key sectors. Why would the small wealthy powers sign up to increase their taxes to directly pay other countries? This is a direct transfer of wealth away from one set of countries to another and all of those millions of individuals will likely talk a big game until they actually have to write a check. The overall problem seems that the EU already exists and can't solve some of these problems. If you want these nations to fully cede certain powers to this federal body you would need to sort out these issues first otherwise the nations won't agree to join. Just because something could be a great thing doesn't mean people will actually do it or that it would actually be a good thing in reality.

[@Carrottime]

I think the biggest issue atm regarding a federation is that the EU's current government structure is defective and non-democratic. If the EU Commission had more of it's power delegated down to the EU Parliament, I imagine that a EU Federation would be viable and good, but as it stands, the EU Parliament needs to be able to propose legislature, not just vote on it.

[@victor95pc]

EU Commission just sucks

[@MARKALB97]

Agreed, we got stuck half way the European integration and federalism. The EU is taking on many more responsibilities because it actually does make sense to act EU-wise on a lot of things, but when it comes to giving more powers and a consequent new EU political structure national governments start screaming. Giving more power to the parliament would make the council go beserk, so we're stuck. We need to break the gridlock and continue on our unification process or perish, a bridge won't hold until the last brick's in!

[@MrMarinus18]

Though that is a relative thing. If you compare it to the structure of the Netherlands or Adam's own Hungary it's far more democratic. Which is why Hungary, Poland and the Netherlands have very high EU support while Sweden, Finland and Italy have much less.

[@catman2157]

In simple terms, Monke strong together, weak alone

[@kralle98]

I dont like this terminology as mussolini used it

[@imShlievenhien]

History tells us that always works out, it has never gone wrong :)

[@tednicholas4719]

too much concentration of power...corruption would be 10x worse in a federal europe. will never happen anyway. its more likely the EU will disintigrate.

[@imShlievenhien]

@@tednicholas4719 Corruption never happens when you have big government, according to Adam Something when you have BIG GOVERMENT you also have BIG MONEY, so it must be good right?

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

Exactly, this was all about how china and russia are our enemies. We need a bigger army and to be scared. Sounds like Trumps "china".

[@G3RIG4M3R]

Step 1# Federalise Eu Step 2# Become global super power Step 3# Build orbital battle station capable of destructing planets Step 4# Become galactic super power

[@uninspiredname4445]

You play Stellaris too, i see

[@jackiedepopee2314]

Rise of the empire lol

[@Strettger]

Step 5 : colonise the neighbouring Continental world's Step 6 : first contact, defend the borders Step 7 : create a galactic federation Step 8 : get roflstomped by the endgame crisis because we were too busy trying to fix the euro

[@anticlaassic]

*laughts in grand moff Tarkin*

[@jackiedepopee2314]

Declare war to all galactic power and win

[@turwaith]

Also, as reply to the Language argument: I live in Switzerland. Switzerland has 4 official languages (And we have only live 8 Million people), these being German(in many many different dialects), French, Italien and Rumantsch (which is slowly but surely extincting). I am from the german speaking part, and I speak neither Italien, nor French nor Rumantsch. I personally also have very little interaction with the parts of Switzerland speaking other languages. And this on an area of 41,285 km² for the whole of Switzerland. And it works. So the language argument in my opinion pretty much falls apart when looking at Switzerland today alone.

[@riverman6462]

How do you speak to someone from Italien parts of Switzerland? Just very curious

[@turwaith]

@@riverman6462 If I do, I speak english. Or maybe they can speak German. But I rarely speak to people from the Italian or french speaking part, simce all my family and friends are in the german speaking part.

[@riverman6462]

@@turwaith What about the time when English wasn't well known by the Swiss? How did you guys get over the language barrier?

[@turwaith]

@@riverman6462 I'm not 100% sure actually. But people from different part used to not like each other that much in the past. Also, people from German speaking part learn french at school (literally everybody hates it though) and people from the other parts learn german. So there is like at least very little knowledge of the other persons language. But it was certainly more complicated in the past.

[@riverman6462]

@@turwaith I see. Do you think the distrust back then was fueled by Nationalism from the Three Superpowers that surrounds Switzerland on all sides?

[@Mrmallett1919]

Damn I miss being an EU citizen. Hopefully one day soon my fellow countrymen will truly understand what a absolutely idiotic idea it was to leave the EU. Dreaming of the day I can call myself both an UK and EU citizen.

[@chronicallyboredenby]

You guys will rejoin, don’t worry. A second referendum is going to be enacted after the conservatives lose next election.

[@thejuiceking2219]

but if we do go back how will we get rid of the 'pesky immigrants'?

[@wta1518]

@@thejuiceking2219 Just continue what you're doing. You won't have any more immigrants because no one will want to move there.

[@belltopcone]

Nothing stopping you from going to live and work in France etc, I`ll even give you a ride to the Airport for free.

[@mrcuddlebuns1000]

EU federalism is why a lot of us voted leave. How and you Call us your fellow countrymen when you want destroy our country?

[@KairoStark]

"federal anti-corruption court" you'd see half of Spain pushing to get out of the EU ASAP

[@Ivanfpcs]

Mediteranian countries have a huge corruption problem, we need to fix this together, hopefully with the help from the EU 🇵🇹🤝🇪🇸🤝🇮🇹🤝🇬🇷

[@juanitoalcachofa1183]

I perceive the Judicial System in Spain as one of the most corrupt in Western Europe. Sad to see my country not living up to international standards.

[@KairoStark]

@@juanitoalcachofa1183 the judicial system, our forces, most of our political corps... thats what happens when a dictator dies on his bed and leaves his retinue as the rulers. The only reason we're still in the EU is that nobody gives a fuck about us. If Europe knew half of the shit we're up to we'd be kicked out in a couple days.

[@KairoStark]

@@Ivanfpcs the EU looks the other way for a reason, though. Nothing short of a technocratic government imposed from above (which carries its own lot of problems) would fix our corruption issues, mostly because our education reinforces them and because we tend to be too meek and passive to fight that corruption.

[@cakeisyummy5755]

All of Eastern and Southern Europe, Really.

[@Sebisajiminstan]

I’m at the language section, and I gotta say, I would pay actual money to see someone tell the french they need to learn and speak english en masse. It would make my fcking year

[@yurironoue5888]

I think that the rest of Europe should become Francophone.

[@xify4315]

@@yurironoue5888 ouai

[@stefanvos29]

@@yurironoue5888 Haha, yeah, no!

[@rippspeck]

@@yurironoue5888 Get outta here, Napoleon. 😉

[@josephbenadam]

I totally agree

[@Nighthunter006]

You know, Russia "currently engaging in active warfare on European soil" was true then and hasn't exactly gotten better. On the EU front, I absolutely think the 2022 invasion of Ukraine may be the thing that pushes Europe into creating an EU army. Germany, long a holdout on especially where the money would come from, has done a complete about-face on military spending, and the EU has stepped into the driver's seat on Europe's response, both in terms of sanctions and even on supplying arms to Ukraine. The EU has this tendency to whenever it faces a crisis or a potential breaking point, it simply refuses to give up and fights like hell. So far it has come out of every existential crisis just a little bit closer to a federation.

[@Marth667]

Like many others have said Nato and by extension the EU now have a purpose again. Russia's insanity in Ukraine has left them reeling but to everyone's surprise including EU member states they acted like a homogeneous entity to bring down sanctions on putins head. I would agree that these turbulent times now promote the EU to become one block country and form a European front to combat russian aggression.

[@Am0nknight1234]

Crises often forces slow institutions to innovate and move forward quickly. It's not guaranteed per se, but this war could mean we move closer to federalisation.

[@biggiecheese6103]

Doubt it since Finland and sweden will join Nato also

[@ihatetheantichrist7207]

@Nighthunter you obviously don't know anything about Germany

[@sharkquark6252]

@@ihatetheantichrist7207 he seems to do, because everything he said was right

[@AliothAncalagon]

Personally I would be very careful with the "English is already a very common language in the EU"-argument. The way those statistics emerge is unreliable at best. They seem to count everyone who had English in school, but 90% of those could hardly order a sandwich. In Germany, where I come from, you are lucky if 10% are actually capable of more than just stuttering a few words. But your main point still stands. Not every citizen needs to be able to perfectly communicate with every other citizen to form a federation.

[@AliothAncalagon]

@@therealdave06 I would say it has an inherent value if as many people within a federation can communicate with each other. And since your name seems to be crafted from Esperanto I would not be surprised if you would agree about that ^^ But thats obviously a bonus point and not a necessity.

[@realtimestatic]

As a German I would think way more than 10% can speak English

[@AliothAncalagon]

@@realtimestatic Depending on where you live thats absolutely possible. Especially if your reference group is young, more urban and more educated the chances are good to get it beyond 10%. But 30% of the German population is above the age of 60. An age group that is more likely be able to speak Turkish than English. Its very easy to overestimate how common something is, just because it seems common in your own frame of reference. When I achieved my higher education entrance qualification 15% of the graduates could have seriously be considered "fluent" in English at best. When I visited trade school, where every single pupil already had a history of seriously being taught English for at least 6 years, I was literally the only one who understood what the teacher was saying in English class, which forced our teacher to always repeat everything in German. Nobody ever bothered to really measure how many Germans can speak actual useful English. So I cannot tell weither its 3%, 15% or 30%. But I can guarantee that the 50%-79% the source in the video came up with is a fantasy number that has nothing to do with reality.

[@JordanJLyon]

In Britain most southerners can’t understand northerners and the Scottish, and we seem to dis-function just fine 🇬🇧

[@rsmlinar1720]

Haha i agree. Im from SLO and thought the English here is not the best, but in Austria and Germany and especially Italy the situation with English is terrible

[@carterl369]

13:30 I really wanted you to finish “Poland for example is extremely anti Russian” with “whilst Russia is extremely pro Russia”

[@seekingabsolution1907]

Russia probably wouldn't be part of a federal europe tbf.

[@HolyknightVader999]

Most of Eastern Europe hates Russia's guts. Which would be great if the new EU doesn't include Russia, but horrible if it does.

[@bertrecht913]

A better relationship with Russia is so much more important for us than the whole shitty EU and especially the east of EU.... the EU is shit and a fail project. Better a different European Federation with Russia and each state has his own currency and more autonomy than this actual shit.

[@tomaszsotysik9438]

@@HolyknightVader999 Are seriously considering it as a possibility? LOL It couldn't include Russia, that would be completly improbable, ridiculous, I mean even the NATO, which has most of Europe as members, was created as a defense organization against Russia, they don't have real democracy, and are constantly getting embargoed by EU. The only context here is foreign relations.

[@HolyknightVader999]

@@tomaszsotysik9438 A lot of European countries also still hate Germany. Can you expect Poles and Frenchmen to share the same bunk with the Germans?

[@85aksiznarf]

1:13 Being from Switzerland, I would recommend to have not just one president. Make an executive council with several members (five to nine people) who all come from different countries. You could make rule, that they have to represent the regions somewhat proportional (east, west, Scandinavia, Mediterranean) so no-one feels completely left out. They have all the same power but for some representive tasks one person out of that group is a kind of president (that rotates every year and brings no additional power). That way they need to work together and you have continuation over many years.

[@jacksonayres6326]

As an American, please.

[@sebastianzeitblom4668]

The maker of the video certainly does not have in mind a democracy like Switzerland for his creation of the United States of Europe. EU proponents hate direct democracy (as usually, people tend to reject their plans) and have a strong belief in a benevolent rule of the elite. This is how the EEC and the EU have been built from the beginning.

[@araterstepanian8196]

If EU becomes more federalized, I think it would still the same system with a council (with 27 members states) that already exist. It would just have more responsabilities that have been federalized

[@jh5kl]

@@sebastianzeitblom4668 nice completely biased hateful blind delusions you got there buddy, victor orban, putin, etc are anti EU and it shows who are the democracy haters

[@abnormaalz]

I am not sure how I fould feel about the top-level executive force to be split up among multiple people. In the Netherlands we basically do this with EVERYTHING (we call it the poldermodel) and generally it works out really well. A decision is not pushed through until every party has atleast something going for them, and the compromise made is mostly in everyone's favor in some way. The problem arises in times of crisis. During the pandemic, the Netherlands has been lagging behind the events every single time. Lockdowns take too long to be implemented, then take too long to raised. It has caused our country to be in a political divide it has never seen before.

[@hara2009]

As a Pole I must say that apparently bashing our own government is something we have in common haha

[@pep-qew1977]

I to nasza wielka wada

[@hara2009]

@@pep-qew1977 No tak, zachowujmy się jak Rosjanie, wtedy będzie lepiej

[@pep-qew1977]

@@hara2009 nie oto mi chodziło

[@midnightflare9879]

Fun fact: European countries never had a single language. There were a million ethnic groups in each kingdom, and migration was way more common between them. This was partially the reason why so many monarchies used latin as the language of administration.

[@lemon8944]

Use Latin for symbolic things, English when you can't have all the official languages

[@DeathKillingFile]

​@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Than you should learn more about history. The period between late antiquity and the early Middle Ages is also known as the Migration Period.

[@Levitiy]

@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Migration periods are typically armed hordes. Commoners and peasants could not travel, which are lots of millions of people.

[@Lancor84]

Yeah it really depends on which "country" you are looking at, and at what time. In the 1400s the Kingdom of Navarra certainly had a unified language. The Kingdom of France did not.

[@AmazePaulz]

so latin WAS IN FACT a centralized language... so.... it CAN BE DONE

[@NurMars]

*In order to ensure the continuing growth of Adam Something, the European Union will be reorganized into the first European Empire!*

[@PlatinumAltaria]

The first?

[@heartache5742]

@@PlatinumAltaria reference

[@NurMars]

@Dar Rin Zee It's a fucking prequels joke

[@mikek9297]

For safe and secure society !

[@boomboy8104]

So this is how Democracy does. With 100 likes on KZbin

[@cameron9665]

The Netherlands: Not unless everybody get real cool about a whole lotta stuff real fast.

[@ebbeb9827]

same in Scandinavia

[@KarlSnarks]

To be fair, we're already ruining our country by ourselves. We might've been progressive in the 90's, but damn people are becoming xenophobic and concervative af. I mean, the FvD is literally a crypto-fascist party at this point and has 8 seats, and VVD has masterfully helped the country naar de klote in the last decade.

[@bogdanvcd8401]

@@KarlSnarks The magic of an aging society

[@robertjonker8131]

@@KarlSnarks there are always people exaggerating things how things are going, like you. We are fine in the netherlands and compared to the rest of europe we are actually doing quite good. Low unemployement, economic growth, wage growth, good quality of life, good education, our healthcare is fine etc.

[@rubens2004]

@@KarlSnarks Fvd is goed

[@banditbread1098]

As an American, a Federated Europe would likely see US spend less on military since it wouldn't be in the Union's best interest to have a fuckton of bases there anymore, and then we can actually have the US fix some domestic issues with the budget

[@catherinewolfe3740]

We'd also need to fix our elections, corruption and a 250 year old rigging by the south (The Electoral Collage) is what is mainly screwing over america.

[@_human_1946]

Not really. The US spends a lot of military money in places that European countries don't care about as much (Southeast/East Asia, Middle East), and in ways that European countries won't care to have (the US has a ton of nukes, but I think a united EU would be fine with taking over France's arsenal). Also, US military spending isn't as efficient as say, France's military spending (they do mostly-successful military interventions in Africa even though they spend barely more than 2% GDP on their military). Besides, US military spending doesn't actually cost the *full* 700 billion, because a lot of their military budget effectively subsidises their arms industry, which increases arms exports and therefore tax revenue. I got the last two points Perun's video on comparing military budgets; he explains it better there.

[@proph7543]

@@_human_1946 Not to mention the fact that the US already has a lot of money and it's frankly just not using it efficiently.

[@thelonewanderer2550]

​@@_human_1946 they got kicked out of africa

[@torum6448]

Unfortunately, a European Federation would 100% spark a cold war with the US

[@christianknuchel]

I'm Swiss. Once the EU adopts the plebiscite, I'll vote yes on the next initiative (or no if it's a referendum against) to join the EU.

[@itchyandscratching1434]

So we're two, at least.

[@captain-chair]

I don't know why but I find it funny that English would be become the common administrative language, especially when the English are the only people to have left the EU. That is very ironic.

[@MrAlepedroza]

Modified Esperanto should be EU's common language. Change my mind 😬😬

[@starry_lis]

Wait till you hear about Latin in Mediaeval and Renaissance Europe

[@starry_lis]

@@MrAlepedroza well, Esperanto is a terrible conlang. You're welcome.

[@550077]

It would not. Such a country wouldn’t need one common administrative language, it would continue the current language policy in the EU: "every national language is official, but only 3 of them are working languages".

[@LCTesla]

its tragic and iconic for the EUs greatest flaw Europe's only basis for a unified identity is in its self-hatred It shapes itself into the very thing it initially was not: linguistically diverse, social and a counter-balance to the Anglo-American world... rejecting all of these things for the sake of being "united" all the EU then has to offer is more neoliberal anglo-centrism. You might as well declare yourself an American colony.

[@lilpold9192]

Strongest argument: The EU flag looks sick

[@g.f.martianshipyards9328]

We should officially call it the "Stargate"

[@shongueesha7875]

I get why people from some countries in the EU are desperate for this change, but what about those of us whose countries doesn't suck? No thank you.

[@maean7410]

@@shongueesha7875 whicj countries in eu have a better flag than eu? i couldnt name one

[@user-nz8rv8ft5q]

TOTALY AGREE, needs some red color, sick, hammer and don't forget about stars- comrades gonna like it.

[@bofostudio]

And the European anthem is straight up glorious!

[@frank_9128]

As an American you can’t model a European federation after our government, the states were all formed as administrative subdivisions, near culturally identical. I have no real issue having my president being from Delaware. But I wouldn’t expect an Irishman to ever accept a Greek as his leader anymore than I would accept a Brazilian. I would follow the Swiss model to have any hope of a sustainable system.

[@Osterochse]

@dihvocfoscocudvyvdd actually it was the opposite in the more distant past. The kings and queens and high statemen often didn't even come from the country they ruled and didn't use the local language in administration. Kind of fascinating that the idea that the ruler must be from your country only game about with nationalism.

[@masterjunky863]

You can say the same about a Sardinian ruling over a Venetian's land. I know many of you think we are are like a big Sicily but in reality Italy is really diverse with many regional languages and cultures. In the past a Sardinian president ruling northern Italy would have been madness, now it's totally normal.

[@TheSmart-CasualGamer]

I've been looking for a video like this for years, thank you so much! The two things I would say however, would be that there should be no President in the US sense of the word. I believe we should have a Council of Representatives instead of just having one person with the power like the US (I know that's not actually how the US Presidency works, but it does feel like it's still a bit much). It would be fine to have one dedicated person from this council represent the Federation when it comes to International Geopolitical Meetups like at G20 summits and stuff like that, as long as they don't hold political power above any of the others. I also think that as long as the "United in Diversity" aim remains a priority, we'll do fine as a Federation.

[@TheWoollyFrog]

Should have looked no further than your local libertarian political party. They've been pushing this crap for years.

[@nokiaarabicringtone1418]

I mean a president in the, say, Italian model (a head of state without all of the actual powers of the president of France or the US) doesn't seem too bad of an idea

[@definitlynotbenlente7671]

Prime minister ??

[@sluin]

It would be be to have a government decided on by the Parlament and a president as a representative with maybe a few powers. It would make sense to have the people elect him although this could result in the president being german or french most of the time.

[@andrewbecker1013]

My idea would be to have two Consuls and one Tribune, each one with six-year terms but elections that are staggered and held every two years. No candidate is eligible to run if a citizen of their nation holds one of the three offices currently. That way there is small change every election cycle but also continuity, while preventing big countries from ever monopolizing the offices. Say a German, French, and Italian are currently in office...even if one of them is retiring, all competitors in the upcoming election would have to be from a different country. Similar to how (indirectly, via another rule, but not technically) the US President and Vice President can't really be from the same state. One Consul is elected to serve as the Head of State and oversee all foreign relations, external trade, and military affairs, while one Consul is elected to serve as the Head of Government and oversee all domestic governance. The Tribune chairs the EU Senate while in session, and is empowered with vetoing national laws or staying court decisions that infringe on the rights of EU Citizenship-which may be overruled by the EU Court of Justice. The Consuls can veto each other, the Tribune can veto anybody (and can veto vetoes). The Senate replaces the Commission and is elected from 7 different multi-member districts that are roughly equal in population without dividing countries (1: Germany; 2: France; 3: Romania, Greece, Hungary, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, and Cyprus; 4: Italy and Malta; 5: Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia; and 6: Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, and Luxembourg). This would slightly de-value the votes of a very large country (likely to be frequently represented in the 3 executive offices) like Germany, which would have a population deviation of 4.5% compared to the other Districts, to help achieve balance.

[@linerider195]

"[...] When the next capitol riot eventually succeeds" Damn, Adam.

[@beanlentil]

@@zUJ7EjVD it did, but not for long the "liberal" warmongering "democrats" with billionaires backing them "won back" the government edit: republicans are still shit tho, the democrats did deserve the billionaire backing

[@5Chaor]

@@beanlentil Still rather have them then. Then the warmongering billionaire back Republicans who are either religious Fundamentalist, political opportunist, or fascist

[@timseguine2]

@@beanlentil How original, the pot is calling the kettle black.

[@beanlentil]

@@5Chaor true, republicans are nothing but Victor Orbans speaking bastardised English

[@BeirutBallin]

I mean, it’s inevitable at this point

[@Cri_Jackal]

Unrelated to the video topic, but I would just like to point out that Adam gained 360,000 subscribers in August according to Social Blade, going from 26,000 to 386,000 in one month is complete insanity!

[@tjarkschweizer]

Soon he will have half a million. I consider this as an absolute win.

[@vladoshka9014]

His Dubai video made him popular

[@Petr_Kraus]

It's people from Hasan

[@sternleiche]

Yes but his last video on the statue topic kinda corroded his integrity.

[@tjarkschweizer]

@@sternleiche how so?

[@bluebeluga2929]

An comparison to India, the only miltilingual, multicultural, multireligious federation, that spans across a whole (sub-)continent is also interesring. A lot can be learned from this federation, about how we can form a European Federation. We can learn good and also make stuff better.

[@infinix2003]

English is the official language in India

[@reubennelson4086]

@@infinix2003 India has 22 official languages with English and Hindi being one of them

[@infinix2003]

@@reubennelson4086 yeah, mainly English and little bit of Hindi is used in official documents in India

[@SKAOG21]

@@infinix2003 It doesn't matter too much that English is the official language when most people have it at a basic level since their mother tongue takes priority and probably do not study in an English Medium School.

[@jonathantan2469]

India also had a violent episode in its history where the nation separated into another state on religious & ethnic grounds... Pakistan (including East Pakistan which again separated into Bangladesh after a violent civil war in the 1970s). There were also violent incidents by Sikh separatists & from the government to suppress it.

[@bruhmoment2312]

When I heard that you compared Poland to Taliban of Europe it made my blood boil. i understand what you meant by it, but even I as a left leaning person in Poland, would't go as far as calling the right wing that.

[@scorpionking2580]

he say that????

[@eliasheinze6160]

@@scorpionking2580 yes in the first minutes of the Video

[@jakebeaudry3888]

An authentic bruh moment right here lol.

[@Ceberox]

Religious fundamentalists, no?

[@irishdc9523]

"The federalisation of Europe won't be the founding of the Galactic Empire" You do know your video's meant to say why Europe SHOULD federalize, right?

[@totalwar1793]

*Novum Imperium Romanum

[@user-jv3mm6vt6e]

It actually shouldn't. No matter how the American left cringes and cries about that, it shouldn't and It won't happen.

[@fukyoutubestupidfuckinghandles]

@@user-jv3mm6vt6e What's America got to do with Europe?

[@absoluteaficionado515]

@@fukyoutubestupidfuckinghandles Clearly a lot of Americans think that America is as important as it gets in every topic

[@fukyoutubestupidfuckinghandles]

@@absoluteaficionado515 I just thought it was weird how this person with cyrillic letters in their name, replying on a person with Irish in their name, commenting on a video about a European Federation by someone who's said they're European several times, is talking about the American left. And now I, a Scottish person, is replying to them as well.

[@LazyZeus]

Man, as a Ukrainian I appreciate the: "war on a European soil" statement about Donbas. Thanks. 😉

[@Overlord734]

@@lukabajic9729 you know, extensive drug use is harmful. Keep yourself safe and healthy.

[@robertgudd7196]

@@lukabajic9729 mmm yes russia isnt fascist I see yes very informed very smart take that only the most intelligent individual could make

[@robertgudd7196]

@@paiosfranen uhuh and being gay is super easy in russia right? You definitely dont have an autocratic dictator in power right? I've not once denied that the Ukraine could be fascist, i have no idea if it is or not. Doesnt mean russia gets to wage war on it under the guise of fighting fascism. Because russia is also fascist and just wants to annex it

[@Noone-rl8db]

@@Overlord734 its factual that significant sections of the ukranian military were recruited from fascist paramilitary groups like the Azov Batallion

[@LazyZeus]

@@lukabajic9729 nice try, mr. Orban

[@Yutaro-Yoshii]

7:33 This is something I've been experiencing as well. I find it easier to relate to my foreign friends than friends back home or people who are native to the land. I think knowing other cultures and people's ways of thinking makes them more reasonable to talk with and open to new ideas.

[@Arcaryon]

That’s a common phenomenon. It’s the same reason why cities close to the sea or near important trade routes are usually more liberal - the influence of traveler’s and merchants introduces them to new concepts naturally and reduces the fear of the unknown so many people have.

[@januszkurahenowski2860]

It's really weird to me that Americans or even western Europeans think of Poland as an unilaterally conservative country when it's divided almost exactly like the US is, it's liberal cities versus conservative rural areas. In the recent presidential election the liberal pro LGBT candidate lost by around 1,5% despite our ruling government doing everything in their power to undercut him. It was almost exactly 50/50 with a slight edge for conservatives, why then are we all seen as anti LGBT conservatives when progressive Americans would never see their own country that way when Trump won the election? The huge city/rural area divide is seen with the mayoral elections, a conservative candidate from the ruling party hasn't won the mayoral election in a single big city, liberal candidates almost always win the mayoral elections. And the country is divided between the largely urbanized and wealthier western Poland and poorer and rural eastern Poland, it's almost exactly like the North/South divide in the US. So it's upsetting to me that we're all seen as anti LGBT conservatives because the conservative party has been ruling for 7 years. Also in our senate the liberal senators are the slight majority, sadly our senate doesn't even come close to how politically influential it is compared to the US senate. Nobody likes to be generalized just because they live in a certain country, please don't assume that we're all like that because that's how our government is. We didn't do that for you with Trump and we'd like to be treated the same, with democracy sometimes idiots get elected and they make the whole country look stupid and backwards but if they didn't get like 90% of the vote then there is no reason to assume that it reflects the ideology of everyone in said country.

[@michelhenning9311]

good point - but thats exactly what adam mentioned in his video, the fact, that there is not a seperation of countries but rather a seperation within countries, and pretty much the same one everywhere, so scaling it up wouldnt change a thing

[@januszkurahenowski2860]

@@michelhenning9311 Yep, I absolutely agree both with Adam and you. I just reiterated it because I absolutely hate when people from the US say that Polish people are racist, xenophobic, homophobic etc instead of saying that there are quite a lot of those people, around 40%. I'm not racist, homophobic etc so why am I classified as a racist just for the fact I was born in Poland? I think it's a pretty bigoted thing in itself

[@danielevans8910]

Except you couldn’t be more wrong. The general feeling about Poland from the American population is that you are a pull between the eastern bloc and Western Europe, and the current political status of your country is affected by that past. Hey, maybe it’s wrong, but nobody really considers Poland ultra nationalist. Maybe it has something to do with an extensive amount of polish nationalists online? Who are very vocal about their ideas and opinions? But it has little to no effect on the American population. Also, the entirety of the left leaning progressives in the US believed we were going to become a fascist country when trump swore in. In fact, many still believe we are. Most of Europe is regarded as pro-LGBT & anti-racist to us.

[@jayayerson8819]

In the 24th Century, a number of worlds, and all of Earth, are united under the Federation... Except England, which is still negotiating Brexit. This is why the Picard family moved back to France.

[@markwtal9453]

Lol. True

[@janmelantu7490]

Isn’t it Trek canon that Ireland reunited in like 2024? I’m not saying they predicted the effects of Brexit buuutttttt

[@nannite]

first step: "Are you from the sovereign EU Federation or the sovereign AUKUS Federation?"

[@destdest9858]

Brits hate French so much, they refuse to coexist within the same federation

[@jayayerson8819]

@@janmelantu7490 Sadly, due to the lack of the Eugenics wars, I believe we are in the mirror (Terran Empire) universe.

[@briainholmes1147]

Fun fact: The Irish govement is trying to introduce a 4 day work week, with the same pay, holidays benefits etc as a 5 day one

[@semikolondev]

Are they "really doing" a 4 days 8 hours? Or a Canadian 4 days 10hours?

[@briainholmes1147]

@@semikolondev 4 day 8 hours and possibly a half day on Friday

[@briainholmes1147]

@@semikolondev it will be for public and private sectors

[@Jotari]

More time to dedicate to drinking.

[@justinmoore5096]

I wonder if this will become a global thing. With estimates of 40% of all current jobs being lost to automation, there will defiantly need to be a shift away from the 40 hour work week. I honestly lose sleep when thinking about what the transition will look like.

[@ayde92829]

I'm not completely sold on the federalization of Europe, given the caution that would need to be taken in order to balance power. Something you didn't touch on is just that: the imbalance of political power distribution among European countries (with the power both economically and militarily of France and Germany I would question in particular). I would be interested in hearing people's thought on this question. Another point I would like to touch on, is that while conservative political tendencies are often framed as the ones who would oppose further cooperation, In France, at least, where I live, certain popular liberal political ideologies have also been in opposition to the EU. For example, the public vote on whether to accept the EU constitution In 2005, was polled in favor by the general population; yet after a huge campaign lead by BOTH conservative and liberal parties, this public opinion completely changed. even with the unreliability of polling as an accurate guage of public opinion, the statistical difference observed is too significant to reduce the impact of their actions. Meanwhile, a presidential condidate who won 22 percent of votes in the first round has stated that if he was elected, and if his demands of the EU were not met "we would have to resort to plan B": a thinly veiled insinuation that not only would he opt out of many EU agreements, but he might have resorted, or planned to leave the EU all together. Is this observable in other parts of Europe? Do the progressive parties also stand in opposition to EU cooperation?

[@trapical]

Regarding the language thing, it's actually kind of a blessing that the UK left the union. English can now be the official language of the whole EU without any sense of it being seen as "favoritism" towards the UK. It's a second language to everyone, and it doesn't play favorites to any one nation. (other than Ireland, but no one is worried that they are getting too much sway over the EU)

[@callumturner5586]

And what would be the biggest source of English teachers do you think...?

[@vinniechan]

@@callumturner5586 would be funny if they import English teacher from US to spite the UK

[@klo4880]

@@callumturner5586 umm no idea how that is relevant but seeing as a large portion of the EU is fluent, probably a lot of people could teach English?

[@somethingelse9535]

It is the most spoken language in the world, 1.132 billion speakers, just ahead of Mandarin. Double that of Spanish, 4 times that of French..

[@pygmalion8952]

@@callumturner5586 everyone. everyone can be a english teacher. whether or not it is your native language doesn't matter. if you are qualified you are qualified.

[@adamwnt]

As a Pole I am glad you mentioned the political divide within ours countries and as of PIS, they’re slowly, but surely losing ground.

[@shikkithefirst5393]

I always giggle when i read the party's name! They named themselves accuratly

[@luminiche710]

Give them a couple of years and all of their voters will die of old age :>

[@Psztyk236]

​@@luminiche710 You'd think that but it's not that easy. I know a lot of students that don't have an issue with voting for PiS and I'm from western (progressive) city in Poland. Granted, mostly older people are attracted towards conservatism but it's more complicated than just age.

[@amaya9845]

@@luminiche710 They are losing power, but the damage they have done in recent years will be repaired after decades :')

[@Silver_Prussian]

@@Psztyk236 what your problem with conservatism, it doesnt restrict progress its actualy a substantual part of it

[@SKy_the_Thunder]

My main concern about the process is that federal systems tend to be slow as dirt. If done well, they work well - but done poorly they actively slow down everything. Bureaucratism is already crippling the German federal system and because every point of every decision is argued between federal government and states, you tend to end up with an extremely watered down version of a solution, way after it was needed. Plus, you have to actively tackle the redundancies between nations to make use of a unified system. And those benefiting from the localized version would fight you all the way. As a small example, the ARD - Germany's public-service broadcasting network - was established as a collection of the individual state broadcasting agencies. However, despite being unified and sharing resources, information and often programming, it ends up very expensive because lots of redundant (and frankly unnecessary) structures still remain. Like 16 fully stocked TV orchestras on their payroll, despite classical concerts barely being part of the lineup these days. Same for religious services: Every sunday (possibly more often) they rent out 16 different churches to transmit the service for people who can't attend in person. Sure, that's a nice thing to do - but it's expensive and one would accomplish that just fine. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I imagine unifying stuff across Europe would be a hell of a task and can easily end up on half measures like that, bleeding resources into lesser known aspects like that. Out of sight, out of mind... Of course these aren't arguments against the concept of a federal Europe itself. However, it has to be done right or it will play directly into the hands of those against it.

[@adisaikkonen]

Not only do federal systems slow down everything, it's borderline impossible to reach the politicians. This might differ by country, but living in Finland I feel like i have a pretty good access to the state politicians, excellent access to the county politicians, and literally zero access to the politicians in the European parliament. It's not viable for regular people to raise issues they find important because they don't ever get to talk, or even have their e-mail read, by the europarlaementary politicians. And even if they do, there's too many coalitions with stringent rules on what they stand for so individual opinions of even the politicians themselves do not matter. Especially politicians from the smaller countries have no actual role but to assign themselves to a larger coalition and vote everything exactly like the coalition tells them to. On the other hand, lobbying is much more extreme. Large multinational companies are completely capable of spending enough money to lobby for their interests in the European Parliament. This has already happened in the US, and will happen in a federalized EU: The government constantly voting against what the popular vote would be because of lobbyists paying their campaigning payroll. Representative democracy simply is not a viable model beyond a certain scale.

[@lucafaithfull7397]

@@adisaikkonen do you mean scale of complexity (such a language, geopolitical interest) or scale of number of people, or scale of landmass?

[@adisaikkonen]

@@lucafaithfull7397 Number of people, primarily. I'm sure the other factors contribute.

[@lucafaithfull7397]

@@adisaikkonen i'd disagree with you there as some of the largest nations on earth by population are Representative democracy such as the USA, India, Indonesia, Brazil. not the most efficient system i'll give you but definitely viable

[@adisaikkonen]

@@lucafaithfull7397 All of these countries are full of corruption and lobbying, with the government repeatedly deciding things against the common interest. That is definitely a failure of the system to be democratic.

[@jmaitland5709]

Speaking from a British perspective, I think a lot of my reasons for supporting Brexit would still be relevant as problems that a federal Europe would have, since I personally see European Federalisation as inevitable and voted with that context in mind. I'll try and lay out all my points here as best I can so if anyones having a kneejerk reaction to just dismiss me because I supported Brexit, please don't, I really encourage you to actually consider each point, because for a federal Europe to succeed they would be problems that need solving. A federal Europe isn't something I'm opposed to after all, I just don't think the UK has a place in it. Anyways Problem 1 The first one is the administrative one, namely the severe differences in how existing political structures are organised within each country. Germany for example is a decentralised federal republic, while it's neighbour France is a very centralised unitary republic. To have both of these nations exist as states within a single federation, these administrative differences would either need to be reconciled or simply exempted. For a practical example of how this may cause growing pains, healthcare is a good one to call on. In Germany (and Austria I believe) a public healthcare system is mandated federally, however the creation, running, and funding of the systems within each state, are left to those states, whereas in France it is entirely run by the central government. Trying to not only make a single healthcare system for the entirety of Europe but also one that integrates different systems such as these would be a challenge to say the least. On the first possible solution, namely reconciliation, one of them, or perhaps both, would need to reform their system to meet the new homogeneous European standard, which would already come with considerable growing pains lets say, but the new system could also bring with it the chance of being less effective than some of the existing ones. Effectiveness and funding not necessarily going hand in hand. An example from here in the UK this time, England and Scotland each run their own independent branch of the NHS, during Tony Blair's tenure as PM his NHS reforms turned out to be completely disastrous which the NHS is still struggling to recover from today, but since Scotland was free to create its own system it managed to both avoid this disaster while also creating an efficient and effective healthcare system. This would be a problem in a federalised Europe in this route, as a single bad policy decision such as that would have severe consequences for the entire federation, while in the EU's current state with multiple systems existing independently, a single bad politician's actions are more limited in their reach, and it allows an observer to see how many different systems operate and can compare their effectiveness, which may inform future policy decisions. On the second solution, namely exemption, whereby the 'national' systems are not covered by the new federal system and continue to co-exist, while it would be the simplest solution, it at best undermines the federal system and at worst calls the whole project into question, i.e, why federalise when the federation would effectively be the same as the European Union in it's current form. That may seem hyperbolic but remember, it's not just healthcare this applies to, but every single institution that the new European federal government would possess. If - practically - there's only a handful of institutions that will actually be federalised, then it may be better to simply create these institutions as a new arm of the current European Union. This is especially important in the context of my Brexit vote, as the UK would completely cease to exist within such a federation. Either the entire current UK would need to be unified as a single state, thus ending the freedoms of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as England would completely dominate the politics and economics of this new state, or each of the 4 nations would be integrated as 4 separate states, thus completely ending the Union anyway, and a 3 tier system where both the UK and the nations exist within a federal system would call to question why a transition from the Union to a Federation was necessary. Problem 2 I've seen this raised in other comments already so I won't spend as much time on it, but it's the problem of democracy and accountability. The EU as it currently stands has serious problems with it's democracy (and yes I know that national governments do as well and in some cases are worse, but there being problems elsewhere does not magically mean the EU's problems don't exist) and this would need serious reforms to be a fully functioning democratic federation. However it seems as though the current leadership of the EU is more focused on creating a meritocratic technocracy rather than a true democracy, which speaks to the larger problem. All of the flaws of local national governments that the federal europe would supposedly hold to account, such as corrupt politicians and interest groups, liars swaying support for their power using cheap talking points instead of facts, etc, would all still exist, just one level up in the federal government, this time without any higher office to oversee them like in the current EU. Problem 3 Last point, but its more of a criticism of how you answered the national-cultural question than a new problem. I think you're not giving enough credence to the differences that exist between people of different nations; the example you gave of getting along with 'foreign' students better than people back home is one I can relate to a lot actually. When I was in university I connected far better with my friends that were American, German, Pakistani, and Filipino, far better than I do with most people from my hometown, but that speaks more to the character of the sorts of people that become international university students, rather than speaking to the wider culture. A European Federation would need to be a federation for everyone in Europe, including those rural small town people that we find it hard to connect to, not just cosmopolitan university-educated young adults like us. All in all, while I do think it's possible, inevitable even, I do still see significant problems that will need to be addressed which also mean that a federalised Europe wouldn't just be a purely beneficial move in all areas. Rather it is just a changing of forms. The EU in its current form has flaws and it has benefits, a Europe of independent nations has different flaws and different benefits, a European Federation would be the same as well, many benefits for sure, but also many new flaws. I think if a European Federation is to be pursued seriously, it needs to be approached that way, with the conversation being about how the new benefits are worth the new flaws, rather than only describing the benefits.

[@octopusspaghetti3955]

I agree with you completely

[@pygmalion8952]

first two is easily solvable if you think about it more than 1 minute. third one is too but i would like to especially answer that. "cultural differences" argument is wrong because at a certain education level, it becomes irrevelant. adam tried to explain this tho as i see, unsucessfully. the only people who would make a fuss about this is uneducated and ignorant people and every single country has them. if the fact that those people exist block to a way of federation, it should also block the formation of a state. but it doesn't. i live in turkey. there are a lot of ignorant (and also bigotted) people here and frankly, i do not have anything in common with them. but they are everywhere to some extend. you think germany do not have these people? they have. but once you have a proper democracy (like in germany or some nordic countries) and an educated nation these problematic people's existence becomes irrevelant. turkey has issues because not many people are educated (at least not properly) and democratic structures is not that functional. so you have guys like erdogan who fucks up 80 million people. but i must laso say, there is a problem with majority of the turkish people as well. you see, turkish people fought for *independence* not democracy, rights or something. they fought for national sovereignty. democracy was given to turkey by big figures like Ataturk. So majority of the Turkish people are really oblivious about democracy and democratic rights. they think protesting something is "rioting against the state" and the government perpetuates this view for it's own survival and stuck fear among the citizens that "the state will collapse" when you have a population like that, you can't do shit. but i don't think majority of europe is this way. so a federation is absolutely possible and based.

[@normaaliihminen722]

@@pygmalion8952 Sure We Europeans have common cultural foundations such as Christian framework on morals and Ethic with Roman law based legal system and with greek philosophy. But thats it . Cultural differences can be seen on so many ways such as how goverments are formulated and operated on from capital and from local municipal , how we conduct everyday business, how we treat eachother that does not include business. From example Germans stares a lot while Fins only speak with few words.

[@contrapunctusmammalia3993]

i dont see dissolving the Uk to really be a problem at this point

[@contrapunctusmammalia3993]

@@normaaliihminen722 i dont see how these cultural points are really relevant, a federated europe doesn't mean you're gonna get randomly relocated across europe

[@lilium724]

There's one big counter-argument that's missing from your video: the fact that the EU is first an foremost an economical union. This is like, the one thing where everyone agrees : the EU should focus on protecting it's economical interests. As a result of that, the global political orientation of EU structures have always leaned towards liberalism and free market ideology. They have signed several Free Trade Agreements, they have often prevented their member states from introducing more market regulation laws (and in some cases even forced them to roll back on some of them). In 2012, they imposed a lot of austerity measures upon Spain, which did nothing to help them recover from their economical crisis, but had devastating social consequences. If a European Federation were to form, what could realistically be done to prevent an over-representation of this political ideology ? In all likelihood, not much. So, in summary, in an ideal world where everyone agreed that solidarity is the most important value in our society, sure, a European Federation would be pretty neat. But as things stand now, it would be a terrible idea.

[@NeedForMadnessSVK]

My fellow countrymen: "But, EU federation would take away power from Slovaks" Me: "Good"

[@tylerwhaley4872]

slovakian nationalism is extremely strange to me for some reason

[@FerdaMravenecPVD]

@@tylerwhaley4872 haha yea. Janosik was Hungarian anyway

[@markpozsar5785]

@@FerdaMravenecPVD Hungarian here I am pretty sure many of our far right is of Slavic origin. They are incredibly stupid everywhere.

[@AB-zl4nh]

EU is a Semi-Presidential parliamentary system like France. - EU Council/French President. - EU Commission/French Cabinet. - Council (of Ministers)/French Senate. - EU Parliament/French National Assembly. - EU Court of Justice/French Supreme Court.

[@tylerwhaley4872]

@@AB-zl4nh interesting

[@cizlerable]

Straight off: the EC is the Executive, so that would be the cabinet, not the Senate. The Council is the Senate.

[@NickShvelidze]

I am the Senate

[@iansutcliffe7003]

@@NickShvelidze Not yet.

[@blob7963]

@@iansutcliffe7003 *Does a flip and kills 3 Jedi Masters*

[@Venom96930]

Yup, adam is ignorant...

[@d.b.4671]

Wouldn't the Council be more akin to the National Governors Association?

[@DavidBarkland]

When I first saw this, I thought the points were good but still wanted the EU structure to remain mostly the same as today, at least for the nordic countries, since we in the north have significant diplomatic, political, and humanitarian pull in regions across the world, which we would risk losing. Now with NATO membership imminent and seemingly necessary, I've changed my mind - if we lose our global influence, stature, and geopolitical (mostly humanitarian and egalitarian) interests by joining NATO then we won't lose it by becoming part of a European federation; while if we manage to maintain our seeming neutrality, prestige, and respect despite joining NATO then federalizing Europe will very likely not change that either, except maybe putting even more economic and political weight behind the peacekeeping, democracy-encouragement, foreign aid, and treaty negotiations we do. If "...or the UN will send the Irish, Austrians, Swedes, and Finns to _make you_ stop committing human rights violations" can already keep developing countries from collapsing into civil war and dictators from the most egregious crimes against humanity, then being able to mobilize the political and economic might of Europe (even if it is still only our forces actually doing anything) would be a huge asset if the air of legitimacy and justice can be retained. And by now NATO membership is both inevitable and necessary, so we already have to face this question.

[@communistpropagandachannel6787]

I just want to say I would STRONGLY DISCOURAGE modeling a federated Europe after the US Government. Lol.

[@michaelsinclair8018]

Australia federated in 1901 - it could have ended up as 6 countries - and even back then we knew to avoid the American model. Its failures are pretty evident!

[@gobshat3769]

As an Irish person, I was always hesitant to deeper European Integration as previous unions that we have been part of didn’t work out very well for us… I too went on the Erasmus program and met wonderful likeminded people I am still in contact with years later. My biggest criticism would be the neoliberal trend the EU is heading towards. I think with a leftward shift I would support federalisation and more integration programmes like Erasmus would be helpful in reaching this goal Once Erasmus, always Erasmus 🇪🇺💙💛

[@MrAlepedroza]

Define "neoliberal". I hear that buzzword way too much and so far and don't think it even means what people think it is. People love to use that term to describe folks like Reagan , Tatcher, Bush...and even guys like Ben Shapiro try to call themselves liberal-something. I think we can agree none of those folks are true liberals. All of them were conservative authoritarians in the social side and somewhat liberal on the economic side...this one being doubtful considering how they had no qualms on big corps allying with the government to capture the markets. True liberalism endorses none of these tenets. Neo-con is probably a better term to describe this.

[@gabrielcuratolo7162]

I did an Erasmus. Meh. Just staying with other Erasmus students all talking English staying between themselves and never really getting into the life of their new country nor bounding with local students. Meh.

[@wavyy]

Many Neoliberal parties support a federalized Europe. These parties are your allies in this case. Only relying on leftist parties won’t achieve majorities

[@jmiquelmb]

@@MrAlepedroza Neoliberal favours a small state, reducing safety nets and social programs, free market policies, privatization of public companies, and other laissez faire policies. It's seen as a right wing ideology since it benefits large multinational corporations and rich people, while it often harms workers and the middle/lower class. Now I don't feel like having an eternal discussion about how great or terrible is neoliberalism, so I'll leave it here.

[@groetjesuitdehel]

@@MrAlepedroza Neoliberalism is basically the currently practiced ideology in many (western) country's. I'm not gonna type out all of the reasons I dislike it, there's more than enough pieces about it to form your own opinion. And yeah, it's kind of a buzzword but it can be a helpful one

[@curious-relics]

Your cultural argument is very anecdotal, and boils down to "I'm young, urban, progressive, educated, worldly, and I hang out with others like me, ergo cultural differences: solved"

[@designtechdk]

Yep, pretty much

[@alicedeligny9240]

He's saying that while showing how big cultural differences can exist within one country and within members of the same family.

[@durshurrikun150]

Yes, he's a social fascist.

[@baum8981]

Honestly, living in germany there is a number of noticeable cultural differences between north, south, east and west Same in other countries Countries are not a monolith Even people within the same area have vastly different values and traditions and so on Differences in culture do not only occur exclusively at imaginary lines

[@t00194]

The anecdote has merit. It's saying that there's a greater divide in a nation itself, than between nations.

[@redrevolver11]

India has more linguistic, cultural and economic diversity than entire continental europe yet we exist as one country with far less regional autonomy For a country/federation to be together you need the leadership i.e. Politicians at top to propagate that idea plus some good marketing via media

[@cakeisyummy5755]

India is United by Extreme Economic Intrests and Global Ambitions.

[@guillaumemasclet9315]

@@cakeisyummy5755 and europe is affected by the same economical and geopolitical challenges. The EF is as necessary in the eu today as it is for india

[@redrevolver11]

@Snorri Modern Indian state has managed to keep a region which will most likely classify as a continent in terms of human diversity together with next to nil regional conflict India has more regional diversity compared to Europe but while India is a country Europe is divided on linguistic lines

[@redrevolver11]

@@snuurferalangur4357 it's not European magic that had resulted in India staying together its the success of Indian leadership and people.. Other European colonies where they forced diverse people to stay together have all failed in middle east and Africa European themselves can't stay along if they are slightly diverse... Yugoslavia is a good example... Croats, Bosnians and Serbs have less diversity than an average colony in India yet they started killing each other as soon commie block collapsed 2 world wars and several conflict later Europeans now preaching how well they work together is a joke

[@redrevolver11]

@@snuurferalangur4357 even after that partition India remains a massive country and didn't get disintegrated further Since 1947 no civil wars and almost all major secessionist movements put down peacefully, India is a successful federation of diverse nation states There are states in India with size and population greater than European countries and speak languages which don't even sound alike

[@riverman6462]

"When the next Capitol riot actually succeeds , the Free world needs to led by someone else" Holy fucking shit, you killed it!

[@normaaliihminen722]

It should not be called riot because that is not accurate description of what happened.

[@riverman6462]

@@normaaliihminen722 Should I call it "coup d'etat" then?

[@normaaliihminen722]

@@riverman6462 Thats (literally as well as figuretively) opposite of what I aimed for.

[@riverman6462]

@@normaaliihminen722 Are you sure? Because the way I see it, it was definitely an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government m

[@normaaliihminen722]

@@riverman6462 Then definition of "coup d'etat" has suffered great amount of inflation if we consider that one as a attempt to overthrow goverment. Seriously How can you take that guy with Bull horns hat and with face paint to be to be sophisticated enough to make the effort? Give me a break.

[@Nander___]

Does the "borer security" (shown at 1:25 ) have anything to do with Elon Musk's tunneling business? What dangers do they face, that warrant a the creation of a European Federation?

[@SereneAncalime]

Typo. In the video they said border security

[@AdamSomething]

No, it's security that fights smugglers by boring them to death, a variation on "The Funniest Joke in the World" by Monty Python.

[@beanlentil]

@@AdamSomething ah yes, the joke: Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!

[@anthonygaiman4815]

@@AdamSomething that was one off the most subtle references I have ever heard

[@Deschutron]

It's because once those tunnels are bored across Europe, transport will be so revolutionised that Europe will need a federal government to handle the great masses of people travelling through them daily.

[@fluoroproilne]

You know a person lives in Germany when they start talking about federal Europe 😅

[@PlatinumAltaria]

There was even a politician in the 40s who tried to make Europe into a federation, he got into power and everything but those god damn Brexiteers stopped him.

[@george1621996]

I live in Romania and I think it would be a good thing.

[@fluoroproilne]

@@PlatinumAltaria I would rather root this idea to one Sicilian politician from 13th century, or to one Corsican politician from the beginning of the 19th century. I'm referring to the idea of the Holy Roman Empire, for which Frederick II (mind the "e" or get your fingers off!) was emperor, and Napoleon almost became one.

[@PlatinumAltaria]

@@peterpathos4313 That only applies when you compare your opponent to the angry Austrian, I'm pointing out that people have had the idea of uniting Europe in the past, and that it hasn't gone well. See also Caesar, Napoleon, Attila...

[@fluoroproilne]

@@PlatinumAltaria depending how you understand "gone well". Some of them have gone pretty well, starting somewhat around Roman empire.

[@hughjass1044]

In listening to the arguments presented here in favor of such a union, I'm hearing the word "could" used an awful lot. That tells me that 1) you're basing your suppositions on absolute best case scenarios where everyone agrees but even worse, 2) the assumption of a staggering level of benevolence and good will from a legislative class that has proven time and again that it possesses neither. Has the word "corruption" ever entered your lexicon? Has anyone ever tipped you off that the bigger and more omnipotent and powerful the government and its bureaucracy is, the more broad ranging and deep rooted the corruption is, the easier it is to hide and the harder it is to root out? Yes, it's true that there "could" be many benefits to such an arrangement but those of us who've been around a while and have seen this movie and heard this soundtrack a hundred times before know damned well where the road paved with good intentions leads. What "could" happen is almost never what does happen. The reason we have small, local and national governments is because they and the bureaucracies that grow up around them, are a whole lot easier to keep in line and ultimately get rid of when they get out of control..... and they ALL get out of control eventually. Power corrupts. Perhaps you've heard one of those old fogies you so contemptuously dismiss use that phrase. Efficiency is a great thing and all but it's not the only thing. You could make all the very same arguments for why we don't all just live in communal barracks and eat in communal dining halls or better yet, why not go all in, swing for the fences and just implement that ultimate wet dream of every socialist who ever lived... one world government. Think of how efficient that would be..... but more importantly, how easy it would be to quash dissent.

[@guym6093]

Your last comment "When the next capital riot actually succeeds" Is golden. From a US citizen. All good points though.

[@normaaliihminen722]

Thats more like adult people being childish rather than actual ''riot''. I would be more worried about how many rioting has been there.

[@realGBx64]

To be super frank here: Federalized Europe is our only shot at the reunification of Hungary with Transylvania.

[@andybogdan4380]

Never going to happen. It would also mean Romania and Hungary become one in Europe. Ethnic tensions would go sky high.

[@lucasharvey8990]

​@@andybogdan4380 There is a chance that under a federal system certain populations would wind up winning elections while minorities would form and not get much, like the Hungarians being outvoted by the Germans or what have you. Then again, globalization is taking place, and people across all countries in the EU have found that 90% of the time they can agree pretty easily. So I don't think that ethnic tensions will be that high, though I recognize that it may pose a significant problem nonetheless.

[@stadtrepublikmulhausen4121]

Congratulations you have convinced the whole pro orban electorate to support european federalism .

[@ianrastoski3346]

Now here me out, there is a chance with Federalised Europe to restore the Roman Empire.

[@ibecomhaire8724]

And it might be the way regions like Catalonia and Flanders can get the level of independence from their current countries they want. If the federal europe is based on linguistic boundaries instead of previous geopolitical ones, you could have a European federal government and a sort of state government, based on language and possibly cultural borders. I'd just abolish or significantly reduce current national governments.

[@Maximmuss_]

Now, Let's take this apart... 1. The rich-poor divide. Your solution is basicly - give everyone the Euro, and make standardised wages for certain jobs all the same across europe - First of all - the Euro part won't work, because eastern countries have to weak economies to transfer safely into the euro, and as Greece has shown us, forced transfer isn't a good idea. 2nd - countries with a less valued currency would be fucked. Let's say I live in Poland. 1 Euro = ~4 Polish Złoty. Let's say, that I have 10k złoty as my life savings. If the currency changes suddenly to the euro, my savings are basicly cut by 3/4, because the prices will go signifficantly up, while the money I currently have stays the same. - Standardised wages all across Europe. This is very idealistic. It's no secret, that western countries thrive on the brain drain from the east. No sane German or French politician will close off the flood of eastern european slave labour. I mean - during corona many polish season workers stayed home, and the german economy took a hit. This is too idealised to come true, as long as "the old europe" get's benefits out of eastern migrants, nothing will realisticly change. 2. National sovereignty You said it yourself - "certain branches of government are transfered to the federal government". Those would be: -Commom Military - As for now, people advocating for an european army want it to fight for example in north africa, but holy shit - why. I don't want young men from my country dying in Africa, because France has a geopollitical game over there, I don't want my fellow countrymen, and possibly even me fighting for other countries. Poland did this already in WWII, Afghanistan and Iraq, and from each of those conflicts we've got nothing, or we even got screwed over. I'd rather have my army securing the interests of my country, and not fighting for example in Libya. -Foreign affairs. Why wouldn't this work? France fights currently againts Turkey in Africa for geopollitical reasons, but why, wasn't Turkey an EU candidate? Germany is currently making moves together with Russia, although most of eastern europe is againt it. And even within the east, hungary does its own thing with Russia, wich is against the interests of its biggest european partner - Poland. To many conflicting interests. If Europe was to federalise - what interests would we pursuit? Africa? But 3/4 of Europe has no interests in Africa, if anything the constant wars there have caused the refugee crisis in the first place. Russia? But Eastern Europe is against it. And don't get me started with the Balkans... Inevitably we would follow the interests of Germany and France, ignoring the others, because let's face it - those are the 2 big bosses of europe, and the rest aren't on the same level of privilege in europe. -Finances. So basicly an european parliment, wich majority is from other countries than mine will decide about taxes in my country. Very empowering for the people indeed. And common finances mean common debt. So basicly my taxes will also go towards fixing mistakes made in the past by Greece, Spain, etc. Why should I pay for someone else's mistakes? I'd rather my taxes go towards hospitals, schools and public transport in my own country. -Border security and Asylum system. So about that... It's so funny, that politicians always say "refugees are our responsibility, we have to help them", but think for a second... Why are those refugees or migrants or whoever in this situation in the first place? Colonies and wars. Western Europe has for centuries colonised Africa, making the continent one big mess. All those tribal civil wars, ruined economies, failed states are a result of colonialism. Why do countries from northern and eastern europe, who never had significant or long-lasting colonies have to pay for the mess that western europe made. They destroyed those countries and made their life a misery (even more so, since even right now there is a fricking war fought in Libya by France - a western country) so let them pay the consequences for their actions, and not put another burden on the shoulders of eastern europe, because all those communism years in the east were also because of Nazi Germany, and Britains lack of care for it's supposed "allies" in ww2. 3. Cultural Differences. You've just shown one demographic - young, middle class student. Go to a boomer and ask him how much he identifies with a guy on the other side on te continent. And you might say "Oh, they will die out" - that's true, but as for now they're the majority, and that won't change any time soon. And you only basicly said "we are all the same, because he have the same beliefs, interests, topics of interests, etc". Moreover, you said "scholarship" - so of course on one of these you will find only people with common interests, beliefs and topics to talk about as you - you're on a scholarship with similar people - that's how this works. And I bet that even among all those students most of them had different views on what the word "liberal" means. I mean - I live in Poland, and as crazy as it may sound, our "sjw" are advocating for a more freedom in the market, meanwhile our conservatives cite Marx and communist time politicians. An unique feature that developed because of the unique culture and history of Poland. What you said isn't an argument, that we are basicly all the same, and there are no differences. And aren't those what makes us unique? Shouldn't we preserve those differences and remain diverse, instead of becomming one bland same looking people? I thought diversity was our strenght? 4. Language - English. But why English? The UK isn't even a part of the EU anymore, and I thought, that a federalised Europe is meant to be a counterballance for China and... the USA. So we would have a bunch of countries, who 1. Never been in the "anglosphere", yet they adopted English anyways 2. Are screaming "We don't need american protection"... in english 3. Have culturally no connections to english whatsoever 4. Haven't even the native country for the english language in its borders Sounds kinda dumb if you ask me. English is so popular mostly because of Pax Americana, and because western europe was under american protection during the cold war. Similarly in the east most boomers for example speak Russian for the same reasons. So no matter how loud the EU screams "We are now an independent block", as long as they do it in english, it will just sound funny. Why not adopt one of the european languages. But wich one? Return to the early modern period and choose french? Or maybe german, since its the biggest economy, but wouldn't that be an insult to basicly all countries who fought against germany not so long ago? So what else? I'd say the only neutral option would be Latin, but... good luck learning that... 5. Geopolitics. So a European Federation would eliminate all geopolitical conflicts, because common good would reign supreme. That's outright hilarious, and here's why: France is right now fighting a war in Libya. If we'd create a common european army, people from fricking Finland, Bulgaria, Ireland, etc, who have literally no interests in Libya whatsoever would fight and die basicly for France in their war. And don't say that wouldn't happen, because the main advocates for an european army said that we need it, mainly because of ongoing conflicts, and that means basicly only Libya, because Ukraine isn't a member of the EU, and last time I checked there isn't any european regiment in Donbas. Why don't stay with local armies, and insted create an alliance, to remove the argument of the US, that "do as we say, because only we can defend you". The european good wouldn't be the common good. A good thing for Poland, Sweden, Finland and Ukraine would be a poor, distant Russia, but from the german perspective Russia is an important ally, to make germany an energetic hub for gas. So wich one do we pick? The common asylum system - I've already described that. What are the chances for a unified Europe? Preety good as it seems - I agree with you, but it wont be as idealistic as you proposed. It would be more like a post WWI "Kaiserreich" economically speaking, with a germany, that is the economic powerhouse, and small puppet states, who work for the Kaiserreich, with a little "Meditteranean Alliance" lead by France. In a united Europe scenario Eastern Europe becommes one big german colony and Southern Europe becomes a debt slave that can only conform with the big bosses, because if they don't, the debt bailout won't come. Please read about the conzept of "Mittleeuropa" formulated by Friedrich Naumann. This will be an united europe - Germano and Franco - centric. Realisticly speaking Bulgaria or Slovakia will never be equal to Germany or France. The strong rule over the weak, it's just how things are. Your proposition is a highly idealistic one. In reality the already rich areas of western europe will only get richer, while the east and south depopulates, and get's treated worse. We already had a state, that was comprised of many ethnicities, where one people group was treated above others, that also had a rich core, and poor outskirts, and that even had basicly one language - Yugoslavia. We know how that turned out. The nationalities treated worse rebelled. The same would happen to a united europe, unless all nationalities really become equal, Sofia and Bukarest will become as significant as Paris or Berlin, but as we all know from history - chasing a utopia usually ends in a catasrophy. If you managed to read all this, you are a legend, kudos tou you :D

[@durshurrikun150]

It's exactly that: a federal EU is simply a tool to exploit eastern and southern europe more effectively, it's about being a more efficient imperialist organization.

[@skeleyold5991]

Nice to see that I wasn't the only one that thought of Greece and was like didnt we already try that?

[@dominikjanus396]

I was stopping the video after each section trying to make an argument why its a bad idea for federelised Europe and you have literally summarized everything I thought about. GJ and good to know im not alone realising how important even the language and cultural differences are as an argument against fed EU (totaly downplayed in the video).

[@aapee565]

A very good list of reasons why Denmark, Sweden and Finland are at the bottom of the "More decisions should be taken at EU level" graph, though we can add the fear that our public institutions, such as education, would be downgraded to central European levels, even if public services in central Europe are still very good. A new Kalmar Union would be more likely to happen, than us welcoming our new French and German overlords.

[@IluvPancakes21]

A european army would basically boil down to (at least if the wages are anything like in the richer countries) the military being composed of eastern block privates and officers from countries like germany, france. And with every army being made up, at least primarily, from people that lean right this would create a hilarious divide. Like, I am sorry, but even if I got to send hungarian homophobes to die senselessly in deserts I have no interest in fighting in, in the first place, I find that an awfully crass situation. Not to mention, you are basically asking federal employees, that may have joined for specifically nationalistic reasons into the ranks of their army to "choose" between joblessnes and joining up with a military force of a federation they might oppose. Not to mention, that might not work everywhere. In my country you can't this easily "fire" federal employees, meaning if they for ideological reasons opposed the EU they would still be entitled to keep their job as this wasn't the job they initially signed up for. Government jobs are seen secure here, because, while they usually pay less than the open market, they give you a 'job for life'. Good luck convincing those employees to give up their job willingly. What would probably end up happening is that the country is stuck employing them but can't use them in the EU, which would literally result in a transition period wherein twice the troops would have to be maintained financially. And this is just my personal opinion as someone in this line of work. I wouldn't die for europe. Why the hell would I offer up my life for the idea of a hungarians opinion having a sway in my living situation when I currently don't have to. I joined up because I want to preserve our constitutional values. The EU doesn't have a constitution and if it did I somehow doubt it'd both feature the same ideas that ours protects and the same interpretations of those ideas in its judicial branch.

[@FandangoJepZ]

Bonus points: Americans would actually be right in calling all of us Europeans and nothing else

[@donaldmcronald2331]

It feels like this video was uploaded after Russia started its full-scale invasion. As a young German I've been thinking about this idea for a while now. I do identity more as a German than a European but I think a capable EU can create such identity. The current developments on the global stage create serious threats for the EU: Russia's imperialism, China's growing geopolitical ambitions (especially in Africa and central Asia) and a declining democracy across the Atlantic. I believe that these threats and uncertainties may be the glue that can stick the EU even closer together. I don't personally believe that the EU will chose the path the US took. The EU needs solutions that suit its problems. So I guess there will be more European integration but I'm pretty sure that we won't see such a drastic change on new maps...

[@vallraffs]

The section on self-determination feels very glossed over here and not really handles the central issues. What you can't get around simply by pointing to the self-interest and deception of the national political classes is the tension between national self-determination and transnational democracy across the whole of Europe. This is something that must be handled for an idea like this, and you basically have to come down on one side or the other: If you have a democratic vote in Europe, and one side wins the democratic vote, what happens if there are nations where it did not? Say if the whole European population voted 60/40 in favour of introducing some policy, put in a country like the Czech republic the people voted 30/70 against it. In any issue where there is a democratic decision to be made, this tension is unmistakably at play, even if not in such sharp focus as in this example. Either you side with the people's decision and have a majoritarian democratic system wherein the citizens of the federation are able to have control over the government and popular sovereignty. Alternatively, you side with the nation's decision, say that Czechia cannot be compelled into such a policy or can exercise some kind of veto whenever it doesn't want to abide by the majority decision. In that case, you have a system where democracy is limited by national self-determination, where people who do not see a decision that was made by the majority of the people as legitimate unless it also had support in the area where they live do not have to accept it, and so you don't have a democratic system anymore in the sense of one-person-one-vote where everybody's vote counts equally. You either require total unanimity or a supermajority, which fails democratically along the same lines as FPTP, electoral colleges, or other such rules that constrain democracy and which are overwhelmingly of benefit to conservatives and against the interests of the masses.

[@arroys8345]

this is a very interesting comment

[@ThisChangeIsAwful]

In America we just kind of deal with it and realize the benefits of being unified out weigh those times when a population center is unhappy with policy. It's even worse for us because our votes aren't worth the same, a person voting for president in ohio effects the electoral college more than a person voting for president in california. How about that for regional inequality? And we're still a super power that could destroy any european country one on one in just about any competition that doesn't involve social justice. Because we pool our resources. Together ape strong.

[@vallraffs]

​@@ThisChangeIsAwful I think the difference is about nationalities. In the context of the European Union, the divisions between people are about nationalism. Not in the sense of "my nation good, your nation bad", but rather the politically neutral identification of one cohesive nation as distinct from other cohesive nations. This leads to a situation where some people cannot accept even a democratic decision if it falls outside the borders of national democracy. In the United States the differences between a voter in one place vs another are usually regional. Of course you have national minorities and immigrants as well, but for the majority of people they do not experience any challenge to the rather strong national identifier of being Americans. The idea of one nation being forced into abiding by a decision made by another nation is like the American perception of "people in rural areas being forced to do what people in cities vote for", but with the added multiplier of not perceiving the other voters as being at all part of the same demos. It is simply politically unacceptable to a great many people that a decision which is made over the head of their entire nation can be legitimate or valid from a democratic standpoint. It would take a great deal of change in national identity and political identification, through experience with things like Europe-wide referendums, for people to accept the entire European population as being a single demos. Today, the nearly universally shared understanding is that it is nations voting, some voting one way and others another, like how americans talk about the electoral college being necesary to keep "big states" or cities from having all the voting power, ignoring that in a one-person-one-vote system it is people who vote, not territory (i.e. pieces of dirt). In Europe this is how the EU is perceived, in large part because that's how elections actually work for the EU-parliament. Even if there were elections which didn't take national borders into account though, that would not change the deep-seated understanding among people that their vote is cast as part of their nation, and that it is the votes of nations that matter, not the individual human voters that make those nations up.

[@domingoiocco8183]

Im glad you hammer this point, if the autonomy and representation of nations is handled poorly it could lead to a crisis and perhaps even civil war in the future due to a powerful group pushing there politics in the federation.

[@sotch2271]

@@ThisChangeIsAwful until civil war happen

[@fyu1945]

"Now sweden is a progressive heaven and Poland is a European Taliban". Me, watching from Poland: ayyyy fair enough

[@designtechdk]

Yeah, Sweden is a real nice place nowadays… /s

[@TSGC16]

@@designtechdk No-go zones intensify

[@Silver_Prussian]

Ahh yes sweden nowdays a nice place, sure buddy

[@coobk373]

you live better in swedish prisons than on US minimum wage....

[@wai828]

@@designtechdk Sweden is unironically a nice place to live on average, way better than Poland.

[@rolloxra670]

“No but that wouldn’t work we’re different” 😭 Meanwhile India with hundreds of different languages being a single country…

[@oscarandreas1431]

I see someone have not seen what happend to austria hungary and how many hindus there Are in comparison to the rest also we europeans Are very pride full Ask a Norwegian if he wants to be in a union with Danmark and hes gonna give you a cold shoulder Ask him to need to learn danish and hes gonna punch you we like the danes and swedes but not that much

[@krushnaji4940]

@@oscarandreas1431 yes I Hindu I can see my people are humble people

[@oscarandreas1431]

@@krushnaji4940 ok i might need to rethink my life

[@krushnaji4940]

@@oscarandreas1431 people is my region take pride in learning different languages and the love to talk about their skills in other languages yes there is a pride about our own native languages but we don't scream about it on daily basis.

[@oscarandreas1431]

@@krushnaji4940 sounds nice to know people respect each other thanks for telling me that you made my day better

[@stanislawstefanow6093]

I think the biggest argument against federalized Europe is the economically weaker Eastern Europe which would be swallowed. And taking into account the economic differences, I can't see the western politicians treat Eastern Europeans the same way they treat their people. In a federalized Europe, i can see most Eastern Nations being given the status of territory, rather than a State "until they catch up"

[@henrikhumle7255]

It's extremely disappointing to see this debate being reduced to: "Well, any form of criticism of the EU is just a reactionary far-right distraction from domestic issues." Especially as a somewhat skeptical left-leaning person.

[@entitledOne]

Because most of the time it is. I'm from Bosnia and basically all anti-EU talk is done by incompetent, corrupt, far right politicians blaming Germany for everything, despite us being just a EU candidate, not even affected by all the EU regulations.

[@doliague2590]

I noticed that too, and not all criticism is from some politician or some crazy guy asking for it to be dissolved completely

[@mathieushifera135]

@@doliague2590 Do you have examples?

[@mathieushifera135]

Most of it is. But even the exceptions, that is to say the more rational arguments, are based in flawed premises

[@cakeisyummy5755]

@@entitledOne Bosnia isn't an EU Candidate, though. We're literally too Horrifying shitty to even be CONSIDERED for Membership.

[@PlatinumAltaria]

Let's just look at a union between Germany and Denmark. Let's imagine that Denmark becomes extremely anti-military, and doesn't want to have an army. But Germany really likes war, so in our 2-country federation Denmark is forced to send troops to fight. It's so small by comparison that it has no say even in a democratic system. This is obviously just a weird form of imperialism: Denmark in this system is just a satellite state of Germany. Germany would have near-total control, and would therefore have the direct interest to take even more power. This isn't some conspiracy to keep Orbán in power, it's just that people understand how these systems work. The only countries whose governments would go in for this are the countries in western Europe that are currently the core of the EU: in other words rich nations that would benefit immensely from all this imperial expans- I mean "federation". We don't need bigger, more powerful countries. We need smaller ones that can better represent their constituents.

[@yannickfuhrmann7907]

But what hinders us from giving each country the same one vote? We shouldnt differentiate from importance or wealth. Do we even have too? Democracy is by the people,for the people. Not by ressources and militarys.

[@PlatinumAltaria]

@@yannickfuhrmann7907 If you give each country one vote then you get the opposite problem: groups of smaller countries with shared interests can co-opt democracy for their own gain. What was Yugoslavia would now have 7 votes, Germany would have 1. That senate system doesn't work in the US, so it's obviously not going to work here. Idk why we're replicating the US government, it's a terrible institution even without being run by Americans. And no, because it turns out that you can lie to people to get them to vote against their own interests. Idk why anyone thinks that would be different if you combined a bunch of countries into one.

[@yannickfuhrmann7907]

@@PlatinumAltaria well. Thats just how it is supposed to go then. It is still democracy. And every human also works for their own self interest so yeah. Its reflecting.

[@PlatinumAltaria]

@@yannickfuhrmann7907 Uh no, people DON'T work for their own interests, otherwise no one would be voting for the right. If you don't understand that then it's no wonder that you support European self-imperialism.

[@yannickfuhrmann7907]

@@PlatinumAltaria people are voting for the right because THEY are concerned for the safety and traditions of their own people. You can follow a religion based trough a community but its still your decision to join the community and be apart of it. Be it for the feeling of being together with like minded people or just the joy of praying from YOUR point of you because YOU think uts right.

[@hawk0485]

When things start going bad, people will start looking out for themselves. Let's see how many sacrifices the french people are willing to make for the hungarians and vice versa. There is no national sentiment and therefore no solid foundation. People will not submit to a government they do not believe in.

[@eftbro9963]

Not true

[@Anonymous-zu7dh]

I'd like to see an European office of standards. Make sure that you can run a train from Helsinki to Lisbon without changing locomotive or entire train. Electrification standards vary wildly but gauges are mostly standardized. Signaling also needs to be standardized

[@chairmakerPete]

Helsinki to Lisbon is a flight, not a train journey.

[@Anonymous-zu7dh]

@@chairmakerPete perhaps. But to make it physically possible

[@eggrollsoup]

@@Anonymous-zu7dh yes

[@lol-ih1tl]

​@@chairmakerPetethere are train lines in Russia and China that are way longer than that.

[@chairmakerPete]

@@lol-ih1tl I'm so happy I'll never have to experience that misery. Try flying. It's great!

[@ANTSEMUT1]

Not if it fall for the same neoliberalist pitfalls that the EU has gone into.

[@DyslexicMitochondria]

Man eu is a mess

[@tomhappening]

@@DyslexicMitochondria hey bro I watch your videos. Love your channel

[@AsbestosMuffins]

@@DyslexicMitochondria ya except when compared to any other large federation like the US

[@neodym5809]

What would that be? Banning credit card charges? Banning rooming charges? Workers rights? Environmental rights? Putting multi billion fees on Google/Apple/Facebook?

[@ANTSEMUT1]

@@neodym5809 no? Those are kinda the opposite of neoliberalism.

[@hughfergusson9544]

Getting to net zero would be much easier under a more centralised Europe.

[@adisaikkonen]

Are you sure? EU's track record is pretty terrible. In Finland it was, for the longest time, financially incentivized to take your cows and drive them to lapland to be butchered, then drive them back. Why? Because EU wanted to more evenly spready agriculture, and as such incentivized doing it in the northernmost parts. It's still more profitable to ship large amounts of laundry over to Estonia, have them wash it there, and ship it back. Both of these are offspring of the EU regulations and incentives, and neither of them looks very net zero. At the same time it's full of hypocrites. Rural and less developed regions are kept from developing or even doing sustained forestry, meanwhile France, Germany, Spain etc that have converted all of their area to productive farmland resist any attempts at rewilding or diversifying their land use. And since these are the big countries, they have more power and therefore their interests come first. Federalized EU's "sustainable" "net zero" future would just involve massively unsustainable central Europe that shafts the more remote regions to underdevelopment in hopes that they make up for the rich center.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

The problem is, centralization doesn't guarantee coordination. A more coordinated Europe will definitely make a lot of things easier. Only if those two were identical.

[@ebbeb9827]

no it wouldn't, Germany and Eastern countries almost always water down any climate agreements

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

@Dar Rin Zee What makes you think that I'm an Indian? Beside this has nothing to do, like at all.

[@marcingolab6227]

It's simply impossible to slow down climate change without supra-national coordination. It's a global fubar situation. Whatever issues might have prevented successful EU programs in the past, they will be ironed out or we are fucked (a recent study estimated that the effects of climate change actions taken or not taken today will be personally experienced by people under the tender age of 40, which, I assume, is pretty much everyone in this comment section).

[@16randomcharacters]

All these counter arguments, have you SEEN the US? We literally have all these problems, and still manage to do ok. And yes, that includes the language things.

[@MrBebopChamploo]

Being from the US, the one thing I would recommend not doing in a hypothetical European Federation would be modeling it off of the US lol. I've been entertaining the hypothetical in my head of replacing elected representatives (in the US) with randomly selected citizens who are re-selected on a rolling basis every year or two, with rules constraining that selection to ensure equitable representation across geographical, political, racial, ethnic, gender, and religious lines demographics, and with all committees formed required to consult experts in their respective fields when making policy and decisions. I've seen enough bs in the US to convince me that the average citizen would do just as well at governing as our elected officials.

[@normaaliihminen722]

I'm in favor of that Where member countries have own constitutional freedoms which is separe but equal to federal level. Lottery based system sounds great on paper but ethical and moral questions eventually rises.

[@LeSatan]

@@normaaliihminen722 samaa mieltä. Harmi, että Suomesta löytyy niin vähäisesti tukea USE:lle. Tuntuu kovin tabu-maiselta aiheelta.

[@gabetalks9275]

Have you seen the videos of American citizens being asked the most basic of common sense questions, and still not knowing the answer? Putting power in the hands of just any random person is an incredibly dangerous thing to do. Few people have the knowledge, expertise, and character required for such a position. Especially since power changes people. Good luck when you're next randomly appointed citizen turns out to be a psychopath.

[@tmarritt]

I'm just looking forward to the French being told the official language is going to be English.

[@adenrius]

As a French, I won't mind. A lot of clueless old french will, though.

[@benoitg6933]

@@gabrielcuratolo7162 Rien empêche de continuer à parler français et à défendre son "héritage"

[@denatural9418]

@@adenrius have you played any online game with French people? i can tell you that even the young people would be very angry about it. I think its better that they speak their own language, at least you can immediately distinguish when you are dealing with the cancer of the internet.

[@benoitg6933]

Of course english would need to be the "official" language for the administration and the government, just like it is today for the pparliamant or the council. What's striking with people working there is how many language they know and their general interest for european culture. It's really inspiring tbh PS: I'm french

[@xonram1637]

As a 19 year old french person, I really wouldn't care at all, since I use english almost more than french nowadays, although, and responses above me have shown, that older people definitly won't be happy about it

[@user-nf9xc7ww7m]

I think a swiss system would be great, allowing for referendums and initiatives, along with a 7-member coequal cabinet (federal council) that cannot fire one another and rotates every year the figurehead presidency. Instead of country, let regions, linguistic areas, and parties fill the council proportionally. Further, let the capital cities of the EU be federal cities (ie directly federalised with the union rather than their country).

[@josecipriano3048]

You can't do referenda with a population of over 500 million people. It's imposible to have a meaningful debate like that.

[@10Tabris01]

Federalising Strasbourg would work (although the French would probably get a stroke) but Brussels is *also* the capital of Belgium.

[@derektorres3092]

@@josecipriano3048 But you can with a population of several million, Switzerland has about 8 million people? This argument is a classic against direct democracy, but it has fallen apart every time. Why? One word, localities. The debate always occurs at the small scale and then once all that is done, the votes are cast for the national referendum. If you think it’s too many people to reach then may I present you the Indian election and the US Census two systems which collect information on massive scales. Europe with its better infrastructure should be able to easily mimic this. Side Note: Switzerland itself isn’t a city state where organizing would be easy. It stretches the same distance between New York and Washing, DC

[@jh5kl]

@@josecipriano3048 complete nonsense, india is a functioning democracy and it has more people

[@MonquSurtonpif]

Everytime a referendum has been held in a member country the "bad" result was rejected or they just make people vote again until the result is good.

[@prashraymishra8009]

Well as far as cultural diversity, linguistic diversity as well as religious and ethnic diversity, India outclasses europe in every way, not to mention that the population of India (1.412 billion) is massive compared to Europe's (748,557,063 mln), and India is holding up under a centralized government so Europe should as well.

[@sisjsjwjwjsjsmjsjssj6285]

Was going to write something like this. Completly true, here in India we have WAY more linguistic diversity than Europe and we’ve been functioning as a country. Europe could at the very least become a federation, more centralized than it currently is.

[@Daddyclive]

Only if the majority of the people agree to it in an honest election.

[@Jasmixd]

As a Pole, I am absolutely horrified of the idea of even stronger European integration. How *dare* they give us even more money?!

[@ricardogens9834]

Yes, but where does all that money come from? All they're doing is bleeding dry the German and French workers and middle-class, to subsidise every other country in Europe.

[@fabiandanesti1497]

@@ricardogens9834 yeahh oh poor German innocent hard workers, Basically europe is stealing from their pockets! hahahahahahahhah sure thing bro. As if "Europe" didn´t mean France And Germany ONLY , Meaning that THEY have the biggest populations AND Influence and Power. hahahahhahhaah bro tf

[@ricardogens9834]

@@fabiandanesti1497 Go look at net contributors vs net beneficiaries to the EU instead of trying and failing to be funny... Yes, the EU is a way for the German and French economy to have a guaranteed market that is bigger than their own domestic markets,but the ones who net benefit the most from the EU's policies is definitely not the French and German lower class, its their elites.

[@marksmadhousemetaphysicalm2938]

Right here these statements demonstrate why it wouldn't work...

[@arsenicuu]

@@marksmadhousemetaphysicalm2938 wouldn't work if imbeciles like these were the ones put in charge of it- thats why we have politicians, who are usually more educated and know better

[@TheCrazyFreak]

Adam: for the sake of perspective, Slovenia has a population of 2 million Me: he mentioned my country 👁️👄👁️

[@anonimusus4306]

I love Slovenia, it's a beautiful country! Greetings from Italy!

[@TheCrazyFreak]

@@anonimusus4306 Thank you. x3 So is Italy! ❤️

[@jirislavicek9954]

Slovenia with 2M voters would become completely irrelevant in elections in federalised Europe. The EU doesn't have any mechanism to make small countries more relevant (like for example electoral college in the US.) You would still be able to vote but it wouldn't change anything. Compare 2M Slovenians to 68M Germans.

[@TheCrazyFreak]

@@jirislavicek9954 You say "the EU doesn't have any mechanism to make small countries more relevant" as if a system that would make it fair could _never_ be implemented. I'm aware of everything you said, which is why I wouldn't want a federalised Europe if the system was unfair like that. However, if a fair system is ever proposed, that's a different story.

[@jirislavicek9954]

@@TheCrazyFreak It doesn't have it at the moment. And I don't see any political will to change it. It surely won't come from the big countries. Possibly in future.

[@JMJfat]

From the language "issue" you could have mentioned that Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg and Ireland for instance already have multiple official languages and they still manage to not break appart.

[@jonas4419]

Are you being ironic? Belgium and Spain are really bad examples and Ireland also kind of has a history regarding breaking apart. If Luxemburg was to break apart, there wouldnt be much left in the successor states

[@goncalodias6402]

spain had its last civil war less than 100 years ago and there are countries still trying to separate.

[@ArrobaMov]

@@goncalodias6402 By countries you mean Catalonia?

[@thomasfplm]

On the lack of a common language being a problem, I'd like to add another argument on how it isn't: Índia exists.

[@ngaugeblading9690]

When you showed the graph for the EU member states views on a federalised EU, I was trying to find where the UK was and it took me a while to realise we wouldn't be on that 💔

[@Mike-gd4zd]

Thank God too.

[@corruptedcola393]

@@Mike-gd4zd Nah, leaving held no economic/political sense. The current HGV shortage is evidence of this.

[@Mike-gd4zd]

@@corruptedcola393 HGV shortages have been accelerating for years. I have a best friend who was one for 20+ years, quit it and is currently a middle aged PhD student finally discovering his potential. HGV is high pay for unethical conditions and abuse… which have nothing to do with Britain’s exiting of the European Union. The same shortages are happening in the US too, and highway automation will probably happen within my lifetime. Brexit is making a lot of political sense too, when you see Austria and Germany flirt with mandatory health procedures... and a run away border crisis in Belarus. Enjoy you’re delusional of an economic union pretending it’s a nation - cute.

[@hansgruber788]

@@corruptedcola393 Ok but in all seriousness, have you or anyone you know felt worse off for leaving? Our economy unlike what literally everyone said has remained the second strongest in Europe and has even extended its lead over France. Please tell me that at the very least, you think Brexit wasn't as bad as all the commentators made it out to be?

[@hansgruber788]

Thank fuck for that

[@izimsi]

"Poland is the European taliban" xDDD You just offended my whole nation, but yes.

[@Lucas_Simoni]

Hahahah I can spot a polish kilometers away with their laugh. "xDD" hahahah I use it when writing to my polish friend.

[@izimsi]

@@Lucas_Simoni it's a very popular emoticon here, a de facto standard for a hard laugh amongst young people

[@mikek9297]

It is accurate tho. Half of our country are just taliban without headgear...

[@kosa9662]

@@mikek9297 Almost all of Poland is conservative only big cities are not "taliban"

[@bondziu]

@@kosa9662 Not really. The west and north are much more liberal, including rural areas. The south east is a conservative hellhole though.

[@pfoster1666]

The US should dread a truly united EU. The dollar is the only valuable thing the US exports, and if the Euro replaces it...

[@yatokuwastaken]

Poland is European taliban 💀 I’m ded

[@MrRedseth]

My best case against the federalization of Europe would be that at the moment Europe is not very democratic. The European parliament hardly has any power and it is the only elected body of the EU. To sell a European Federation you would need to greatly overhaul the democratic organization of Europe (and that includes having a strong legislative power)

[@burt792]

That's simply not true. The european commission is elected by the european council which consists of the elected governments of all member states. The EU is as democratic as all of its member states only that in the EU there is not one but 27 governments who have to agree on the most important things.

[@Alertacobra12]

@@burt792 what happens when countries in the EU aren't so democratic. There are a lot of governments in the EU these days that didn't win by votes but by political games

[@burt792]

@@Alertacobra12 that's true for any democracy. They were all elected though.

[@Fiffelito]

@@burt792 yes... elected... with only pre-approved canditates if we are lucky, only 1 candidate if unlucky.

[@burt792]

@@Fiffelito no they are not pre approved

[@IAmTheAce5]

There's something else a federalized Europe will need as well- a voting system that accurately represents voters' political distribution. CGP Grey talked about this extensively. The US has a federal system where representation is heavily skewed into a political duopoly upheld by an electoral college that uses first-past-the-post, allowing a political minority to be over-represented. As advice for federalizing Europe, I'd recommend that voting-ranges encompass populations such that each votes for multiple representatives instead of one, allowing for multiple parties and candidates to compete, and that voters use ranked-choice or approval voting systems to choose the candidate(s) they prefer. Hopefully this would avoid political duopoly that can be captured by elite and corporate money.

[@panstacker8393]

I think that an mmp system using single transferable vote for each range would be better, as it is more proportionate when it comes to smaller parties, or you could have an even higher amount of reps per range

[@superraegun2649]

The European Parliament works using proportional representation.

[@alphamikeomega5728]

The UK used to use FPTP in the European Parliament, till the EU mandated that something resembling PR be used. Labour, being a large party that was winning under FPTP, chose the most similar system they could: splitting the country into constituencies with as few as three members, and translating votes to seats using the d'Hondt method (which favours larger parties, particularly in constituencies with few members). Ironically, the major parties are so unpopular that this voting system let UKIP (and later the Liberal Democrats and Greens) climb to the top, so that Labour and the Conservatives became, in the European Parliament, the small parties which their choice of system discriminated against.

[@alphamikeomega5728]

Personally, I'd favour proportional representation with one multi-member constituency for each country (like how Germany fills its European Parliamentary seats), and an EU-wide Condorcet vote for the President of the Commission.

[@superraegun2649]

@@alphamikeomega5728 I'd support a system where, after a parliamentary election, the political parties decide one or more commission candidate teams to endorse, and then the people vote on which commission they prefer using party endorsement as a heuristic. A commission team can be endorsed by multiple parties, and parties can endorse multiple commission teams.

[@mozeus8322]

6:15 the problem here is that the populations of smaller European countries would lose in power to the ones with bigger populations. The Norwegian/Dutch/Belgian/etc population is considerably smaller than the population of say Germany, France or Italy. It would mean that Germans/French/Italians would have a lot more say over how Europe is run than populations of smaller nations. National identity does matter. Sure it's a democratic framework if you see yourself as a European, but you're leaving out a lot of people who don't see themselves as primarily European. You would at the very least need a system like the American senate where every state has an equal number of representatives. The way he just completely glosses over national sovereignty by just saying it's a ploy by Orban-types to preserve their own power is just poor form.

[@PAcifisti]

I'm pro EU but not sure if I want a full federation. For example, EU mandated us (Finns) to reduce our electricity consumption by 20-25% in the next ~15 years. How exactly are we supposed to do this while also doing the green transfer to renewables? With the energy "budget" allocated to us our only option is to become a border colony with resource extraction industry and nothing else. We'll have barely enough energy available for heating our homes, let alone transport. Apparently EU dictated that we're not allowed to have industry. Now imagine how much fun this would be if EU had even more power over us.

[@katfed8861]

17:55 but what if i want a galactic European Federal Empire? there already is the Moon Europa, we have naming rigths on that one

[@destdest9858]

French will get to do just that, they know a thing or two about empires

[@valky5318]

You can't solve corrupt governments by installing something even more powerful above them.

[@matteopellegrini98]

you simply shift corruption up and then apply more scrutiny on the new institution to reduce it drastically.

[@oliveroconnor5983]

I mean, you can. There’s historical precedence. Corrupt governors in the US found it a lot harder to be corrupt when federal power grew

[@Neion8]

@@oliveroconnor5983 Good example, because corruption and criminality is so rare in the US federal government; it's not like we've ever seen multiple presidents/presidential candidates of the United states involved in acts of criminality, criminal negligence or being paid off by lobbyists or federal institutions that have acted against the interests of the U.S population by say, doing 239 tests of biological and chemical weapons in highly populated cities from releasing clouds of highly cancerous chemcials in St Louis and Minneapolis to releasing harmful bacteria in the subways of New York.

[@sylviethetg7598]

@@oliveroconnor5983 Bruh America has legalized corruption on the federal level, it's called lobbying

[@chrisenby9729]

rewatching now, think this should be the obvious solution for europe

[@definitlynotbenlente7671]

European federation now

[@samukis272]

I guess that case just got an order of magnitude stronger, eh?

[@alperena1675]

Its so interesting how much you focused on corruption, understandably, as a Hungarian. From the perspective of a Dane, the greater unifying dilemma would be that of wage negotiations. From the Italians, about regional autonomy and state decentralisation. So on and so forth until most Europeans who are concerned with a federal idea would return to you a different priority. All in all, very intriguing to see all of the different volksgeists of Europe talking past each other as, other than COVID, no more than 3 nations care about any one topic.

[@RagingGoblin]

I think the biggest obstacle will be each country's subliminal identity issue. The divide may be smaller on some borders like maybe Austria, Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg, Netherlands, and Scandinavia -- where historical grievances are slowly, happily, becoming increasingly obsolete. But there are some countries, my prime example would be the UK, where post-imperialistic tendencies, views, and stereotypes still linger in the common consciousness of the people, ready to rear. All in all, I think the younger generations of those under 40 are a lot more integrated and connected through shared media, games, news, work, school exchange, etc. The generation of 40-60 is mostly neutral but tends to hold the subconscious views of their parents. The biggest obstacle might be the generation that lived in a (post) war Europe.

[@somethingforsenro]

@@RagingGoblin Building upon this, it seems like increased international integration and federation in Europe (and all over the world, really) is likely to become easier and easier as the Internet becomes a more societally entrenched thing. It's like a reversal of the trend towards nationalism in the 19th and 20th centuries.

[@hakes98]

The "national sovergeinty" argument was incredibly crudely dismissed, despite being arguably the biggest problem. The fact is that EU member sovergeinty and EU federalisation are in direct opposition to each other. You cannot have a federalised European union without the reduction of national sovergeinty and vice versa. Regardless of how you put it. The interests of each nation will not disappear if EU became a federation. Sweden would still have a military industrial block looking to preserve its interests. Finland would still have a massive wood and forestry export industry etc. If there wouldn't be a nation looking to preserve its interests and economy, the people would do it. You'd have 5.5 million Finns and 10.5 million swedes voting against 83 million Germans and 67 million french. The system would be incredibly flawed without some sort of electoral college system, and oh god what a shitstorm that would be. I'm not saying this problem would be totally unovercomable, but that the video did a pretty shitty job at honestly looking at the issue, pretty much dismissing it outright. It would be an issue for every EU member state, but mostly for the countries on the fringes of the union, and the members with smaller populations, not just for Hungary and whatever country's political system the author seems to dislike. It is an issue currently, so to say that it wouldn't be an issue if the co-operation was tightened to a federal level is lunacy. Also "just merge militaries" is super reductionist, and also would hugely strip away a lot of sovergeinty. Most northern european armed forces are constitutionally constructed as defence forces. Their duties mandated by law, are to protect the countries borders and national sovergeinty only. Would the EU federation force these Defence forces to merge together with the rest of the EU army and be pontentially sent to Greece to fight against Turkey in an escalating border conflict, against that countrys constitution? Not to mention what an undending moneypit the merging process of not only the command and rank structures would be, but also the equipment and doctrine. In ten years, and with 10 trillion euros, the EU could not create a functioning EU armed forces.

[@lebensmann6528]

To the point of the eu needing an electoral college system: As you can already see in the US, that system is incredibly flawed and strips rights away from the population. Many people in the USA dont have a vote that really matters, just because of the region they live in. In my opinion the way to solve that would be a system like in germany: The parliament is elected in a simple election, while there is also a council of member states, represented by the state's local government, which preserves each members interests.

[@doliague2590]

He wouldn't listen it seems as in his video he just outlined criticism to the idea from this angle as nothing more than EU bashing and not making sense

[@seekingabsolution1907]

That's not quite right though, the people of a single nation don't actually all share the same economic and political interests (except in the sense of class interests I guess) what you're describing is regional interests, which already exist within the nations in question. As a Canadian citizen we get by despite the vastly disparate interests of different provinces and different regions within provinces. I live in Alberta and I fucking hate the provincial governments obsession with the oil industry as it actually only benefits a small portion of the rural land owning population and the wealth isn't even redistributed enough to keep the roads functional to drive on. Good heavens Alberta's roads are appalling. You can literally tell when you've passed through the border with BC by the frequency of bumps. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's really easy to get people to go against their own interests if they're invested in a common identity.

[@michaelransom5841]

Living in Canada here, if the system works anything like what we have here, then your national sovereignty remains intact. There will be some restrictions of course, certain federal laws required for unification, but each province is mostly in control of it's own economy, has it's own government and has the protected right to self governance, right down to the individual municipalities. There are massive differences between BC, Alberta, Saskatewan, Manitoba, Ontoria, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI, Newfoundland and Labrador, plus the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut.. (felt like i jerk if i didn't include them all... lol) but it works (for the most part, but i mean this is politics, you'll never get everyone to agree). The overarching consensus here is that the benefits of being a federation are well worth the small amount of control each province has to concede. I mean, a good comparison would be how you mentioned finland's wood and forestry industry. That's not really any different here, with BC accounting for a vast majority of canada's forestry industry and it's the provincial government that oversees that industry, not the federal government.

[@jh5kl]

you re right, FREE SCOTLAND

[@stephankoenig6116]

To add to the language point: as a person from switzerland i can just vouch for a working government even without having a governmental standard language. To be honest I don't know how its handled in reality but because our education system forces us to study two national languaged in addition to english, it kinda works i guess