Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It is a fact, every old person who lived in the Soviet Union knows it.Apart from this, the Soviet Union had internal district based visa processes for travel, and no such thing as a temporary address. So if you lived in like Minsk and went to college in Moscow, it was like changing your entire identity and you needed an internal visa to go home.
Where did you get it from? It isn’t true.
First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two. For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain. So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country? This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too. The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership. Discriminative, yes. This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago. The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission. This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time. Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
So how will people get back their stolen land then?
Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
It is a fact, every old person who lived in the Soviet Union knows it.Apart from this, the Soviet Union had internal district based visa processes for travel, and no such thing as a temporary address. So if you lived in like Minsk and went to college in Moscow, it was like changing your entire identity and you needed an internal visa to go home.
Where did you get it from? It isn’t true.
There was even a running joke about it here in France, which went like Russian tourists doing city hopping in France and go to the police station ... . I forgot the end of the joke though.
The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two. For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain. So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country? This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too. The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership. Discriminative, yes. This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago. The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission. This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time. Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
So how will people get back their stolen land then?
Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
What do you mean saying ‘stolen land’?
Again, what do you mean saying ‘checks and balances’? If you are talking about guarantees that there will be no war between European states, then no one can give you these guarantees. And the EU won’t give them either, because when big multinational states disintegrate it is not uncommon to see conflicts between the nations.
In my opinion, the EU should be a trade association without internal barriers concerning goods, services, and capitals. There should be a free travel area which allows people to move between countries without visas and stay freely through say 90 days for tourism purposes. Rules for other visas should be up to national governments. Brussels shouldn’t have any significant role, it is possible to create some body to oversee free trade area and settle disputes.
Main advantages of such system – deep economic ties between the countries make it more profitable to be engaged in trade rather than in war; there won’t be huge bureaucratic body which serves its own purposes.
It is a fact, every old person who lived in the Soviet Union knows it.Apart from this, the Soviet Union had internal district based visa processes for travel, and no such thing as a temporary address. So if you lived in like Minsk and went to college in Moscow, it was like changing your entire identity and you needed an internal visa to go home.
Where did you get it from? It isn’t true.
There was even a running joke about it here in France, which went like Russian tourists doing city hopping in France and go to the police station ... . I forgot the end of the joke though.
Again, you are mistaken. The joke was only a joke and nothing more.
There were a certain amount of so-called closed cities in the USSR and you would have to receive a permit to get there, but it has nothing to do with internal visas.
Also, in the Stalin times the peasants didn’t have passports and were not allowed to get out of their village without a permit. But in the late 40-s (if I remember correctly) this system began to be scrapped.
I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country? This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too. The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership. Discriminative, yes. This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago. The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission. This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time. Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
So how will people get back their stolen land then?
Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
What do you mean saying ‘stolen land’?
Again, what do you mean saying ‘checks and balances’? If you are talking about guarantees that there will be no war between European states, then no one can give you these guarantees. And the EU won’t give them either, because when big multinational states disintegrate it is not uncommon to see conflicts between the nations.
In my opinion, the EU should be a trade association without internal barriers concerning goods, services, and capitals. There should be a free travel area which allows people to move between countries without visas and stay freely through say 90 days for tourism purposes. Rules for other visas should be up to national governments. Brussels shouldn’t have any significant role, it is possible to create some body to oversee free trade area and settle disputes.
Main advantages of such system – deep economic ties between the countries make it more profitable to be engaged in trade rather than in war; there won’t be huge bureaucratic body which serves its own purposes.
Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
It is a fact, every old person who lived in the Soviet Union knows it.Apart from this, the Soviet Union had internal district based visa processes for travel, and no such thing as a temporary address. So if you lived in like Minsk and went to college in Moscow, it was like changing your entire identity and you needed an internal visa to go home.
Where did you get it from? It isn’t true.
There was even a running joke about it here in France, which went like Russian tourists doing city hopping in France and go to the police station ... . I forgot the end of the joke though.
Again, you are mistaken. The joke was only a joke and nothing more.
There were a certain amount of so-called closed cities in the USSR and you would have to receive a permit to get there, but it has nothing to do with internal visas.
Also, in the Stalin times the peasants didn’t have passports and were not allowed to get out of their village without a permit. But in the late 40-s (if I remember correctly) this system began to be scrapped.
For example, the grandmother of my Belorussian friend had to register herself as Ukrainian when she went to Kiev to study. Movement was closely controlled in the Soviet Union. She had to report to the police at both ends of her travels both to school and back home at the end of the semester. There was no state visa department, it was handled by the police, but worked just like a cross border visa program that your international model describes.
First of all I want to say that it is pointless to scrap the free movement completely. There should be a free travel area for tourist visits inside the EU. If you want to stay for say 90 days in a certain country, you should be free in doing so. If you want to stay longer or live there permanently or get a job, you should get a visa. If you buy a property in the EU country, you will be able to get a long-term visa which allows you to live here, but without a right to get a job.
The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two. For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain. So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country? This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too. The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership. Discriminative, yes. This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago. The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission. This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time. Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
So how will people get back their stolen land then?
Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country? This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too. The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership. Discriminative, yes. This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago. The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission. This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time. Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
So how will people get back their stolen land then?
Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
What do you mean saying ‘stolen land’?
Again, what do you mean saying ‘checks and balances’? If you are talking about guarantees that there will be no war between European states, then no one can give you these guarantees. And the EU won’t give them either, because when big multinational states disintegrate it is not uncommon to see conflicts between the nations.
In my opinion, the EU should be a trade association without internal barriers concerning goods, services, and capitals. There should be a free travel area which allows people to move between countries without visas and stay freely through say 90 days for tourism purposes. Rules for other visas should be up to national governments. Brussels shouldn’t have any significant role, it is possible to create some body to oversee free trade area and settle disputes.
Main advantages of such system – deep economic ties between the countries make it more profitable to be engaged in trade rather than in war; there won’t be huge bureaucratic body which serves its own purposes.
Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
The property buying idea in your post is more advanced than what many of the EU members have even today, for example if you are German and want to buy a house in the Czech Republic then you are not allowed to do that, but if you are Slovakian then you are.
For the job thing, this is very tricky, because half of the EU countries have only pretend job markets, and the few that have real ones, have it only in one city or two. For example the only real job market in France is Paris and nothing in Spain. So if the Spanis would now suddenly need a work visa to work in France, then Spain would destabilize.
I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country? This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too. The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership. Discriminative, yes. This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago. The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission. This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time. Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
So how will people get back their stolen land then?
Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
What stolen land is that, be precise as to when and by whom it was stolen
I have some doubts that the Germans are not allowed to do so. Are you sure? I know that the Czech Rep, especially Karlovy Vary, was very popular among the Russians to buy a property (among those who wanted to buy a property abroad, of course). I don’t think that Germans have worse conditions than Russians.
First of all, every country should think of its own citizens in the first turn. Also, every country should have a right to sign deals with other countries about work permits concerning their citizens or about visa-free jobs or something like that. My point is that every EU member state should have a right to conduct its own policy about immigration, residency, and other similar things.
So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country? This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too. The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership. Discriminative, yes. This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago. The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission. This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time. Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
So how will people get back their stolen land then?
Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
What stolen land is that, be precise as to when and by whom it was stolen
You forgot the grin emoticon from your post.
The bible has already informed the entire planet 6000 years ago, that moving border stones is theft. And you are arguing for national borders?
But okay, let's play by your angle and consider the current map of Europe, just to keep it simple. It is entirely a single handed French design, adapted by the entente for ww1-2. Is there even one border the same as before ww1-2? Or even better, has the number of national borders ever been as high as it is since ww1-2? This is a dirty invention, and an integral part of the nation state ideology that came to dominate the world with ww1-2. Nobody knows this better and profits more from it than the communist.
Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
So how will people get back their stolen land then?
Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
What do you mean saying ‘stolen land’?
Again, what do you mean saying ‘checks and balances’? If you are talking about guarantees that there will be no war between European states, then no one can give you these guarantees. And the EU won’t give them either, because when big multinational states disintegrate it is not uncommon to see conflicts between the nations.
In my opinion, the EU should be a trade association without internal barriers concerning goods, services, and capitals. There should be a free travel area which allows people to move between countries without visas and stay freely through say 90 days for tourism purposes. Rules for other visas should be up to national governments. Brussels shouldn’t have any significant role, it is possible to create some body to oversee free trade area and settle disputes.
Main advantages of such system – deep economic ties between the countries make it more profitable to be engaged in trade rather than in war; there won’t be huge bureaucratic body which serves its own purposes.
Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day. Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation. They call them national minorities. This is a robbery ploy. But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people? I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem. The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition. If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve. Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled. This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
So what do you do when half of your own land is taken by another country? This is relevant to Carlovy Vary too. The Czech laws prohibit German ownership but permit Russian ownership, or other Slavonic ownership. Discriminative, yes. This is because Carlovy Vary (Karlsburg?) was a German town, and the Russians financed that the Czechs deport all Germans out of it - 60 years ago. The European Union if not only an economic deal needs to address such things as its primary mission. This means, that the evil of nation states must be confronted head on, and only the EU can stand up against nation states at this time. Even in the UK, the Welsh would not have language rights now, had it not been for Britain's EU membership.
Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
So how will people get back their stolen land then?
Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
What stolen land is that, be precise as to when and by whom it was stolen
You forgot the grin emoticon from your post.
The bible has already informed the entire planet 6000 years ago, that moving border stones is theft. And you are arguing for national borders?
But okay, let's play by your angle and consider the current map of Europe, just to keep it simple. It is entirely a single handed French design, adapted by the entente for ww1-2. Is there even one border the same as before ww1-2? Or even better, has the number of national borders ever been as high as it is since ww1-2? This is a dirty invention, and an integral part of the nation state ideology that came to dominate the world with ww1-2. Nobody knows this better and profits more from it than the communist.
what are you rambling about the borders are defined in international law, it is the neo marxists that want to use these to control the people. They draw a line on the earth and say this side is pollution free, that side is where we pollute to provide for this side. So they partition it into industrial and urban areas. True relaxation of borders would see heavy industry in the heartlands of France and Germany and farms in the big cities. As they want it the nuclear power would by in the former soviet bloc nations, then the heavy polluters next to them until finally you reach Germany which will be picture postcard perfect for the affluent champagne socialist to live in
So how will people get back their stolen land then?
Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
What do you mean saying ‘stolen land’?
Again, what do you mean saying ‘checks and balances’? If you are talking about guarantees that there will be no war between European states, then no one can give you these guarantees. And the EU won’t give them either, because when big multinational states disintegrate it is not uncommon to see conflicts between the nations.
In my opinion, the EU should be a trade association without internal barriers concerning goods, services, and capitals. There should be a free travel area which allows people to move between countries without visas and stay freely through say 90 days for tourism purposes. Rules for other visas should be up to national governments. Brussels shouldn’t have any significant role, it is possible to create some body to oversee free trade area and settle disputes.
Main advantages of such system – deep economic ties between the countries make it more profitable to be engaged in trade rather than in war; there won’t be huge bureaucratic body which serves its own purposes.
Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day. Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation. They call them national minorities. This is a robbery ploy. But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people? I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem. The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition. If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve. Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled. This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
What do you mean saying ‘stolen land’?
Again, what do you mean saying ‘checks and balances’? If you are talking about guarantees that there will be no war between European states, then no one can give you these guarantees. And the EU won’t give them either, because when big multinational states disintegrate it is not uncommon to see conflicts between the nations.
In my opinion, the EU should be a trade association without internal barriers concerning goods, services, and capitals. There should be a free travel area which allows people to move between countries without visas and stay freely through say 90 days for tourism purposes. Rules for other visas should be up to national governments. Brussels shouldn’t have any significant role, it is possible to create some body to oversee free trade area and settle disputes.
Main advantages of such system – deep economic ties between the countries make it more profitable to be engaged in trade rather than in war; there won’t be huge bureaucratic body which serves its own purposes.
Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day. Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation. They call them national minorities. This is a robbery ploy. But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people? I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem. The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition. If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve. Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled. This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's. This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't. For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them. The French are assimilative too. But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
I meant that globalization corners away assets. Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions. The people move to the capital then. But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere. In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day. Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation. They call them national minorities. This is a robbery ploy. But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people? I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem. The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition. If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve. Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled. This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's. This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't. For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them. The French are assimilative too. But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
I meant that globalization corners away assets. Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions. The people move to the capital then. But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere. In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
Why should it be taken by another country? If a citizen of Germany buys a property in say France it doesn’t automatically means that this property gets to be owned by the German state. It is hilarious.
Also, there may be certain restrictions put in place concerning the size of property, the amount of properties a foreigner may own, and so on. But then again, it should be up to a certain country to impose such rules rather than up to Brussels; if the government decides to forbid selling land to foreigners then it is up to it to do so.
Our main differences with you lie on the perception of what the role of the EU should be. For me it is primarily a common market with preserving national governments’ right to decide the bulk of their internal and external affairs on their own. For you, as I can understand, the EU is a federation without internal borders and with a federal body which will have primacy over national bodies. I don’t think that this super-federation will succeed in a long run. All multinational big states are doomed to failure, as history has shown not once.
So how will people get back their stolen land then?
Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
What stolen land is that, be precise as to when and by whom it was stolen
You forgot the grin emoticon from your post.
The bible has already informed the entire planet 6000 years ago, that moving border stones is theft. And you are arguing for national borders?
But okay, let's play by your angle and consider the current map of Europe, just to keep it simple. It is entirely a single handed French design, adapted by the entente for ww1-2. Is there even one border the same as before ww1-2? Or even better, has the number of national borders ever been as high as it is since ww1-2? This is a dirty invention, and an integral part of the nation state ideology that came to dominate the world with ww1-2. Nobody knows this better and profits more from it than the communist.
what are you rambling about the borders are defined in international law, it is the neo marxists that want to use these to control the people. They draw a line on the earth and say this side is pollution free, that side is where we pollute to provide for this side. So they partition it into industrial and urban areas. True relaxation of borders would see heavy industry in the heartlands of France and Germany and farms in the big cities. As they want it the nuclear power would by in the former soviet bloc nations, then the heavy polluters next to them until finally you reach Germany which will be picture postcard perfect for the affluent champagne socialist to live in
I was talking about national borders. And international law defines them only as much as the number of people that they can kill for them. Has it ever occurred to you why international law always starts with the latest winning aggressor and never earlier? Hehe.
What do you mean saying ‘stolen land’?
Again, what do you mean saying ‘checks and balances’? If you are talking about guarantees that there will be no war between European states, then no one can give you these guarantees. And the EU won’t give them either, because when big multinational states disintegrate it is not uncommon to see conflicts between the nations.
In my opinion, the EU should be a trade association without internal barriers concerning goods, services, and capitals. There should be a free travel area which allows people to move between countries without visas and stay freely through say 90 days for tourism purposes. Rules for other visas should be up to national governments. Brussels shouldn’t have any significant role, it is possible to create some body to oversee free trade area and settle disputes.
Main advantages of such system – deep economic ties between the countries make it more profitable to be engaged in trade rather than in war; there won’t be huge bureaucratic body which serves its own purposes.
Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day. Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation. They call them national minorities. This is a robbery ploy. But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people? I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem. The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition. If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve. Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled. This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's. This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't. For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them. The French are assimilative too. But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
I meant that globalization corners away assets. Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions. The people move to the capital then. But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere. In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day. Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation. They call them national minorities. This is a robbery ploy. But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people? I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem. The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition. If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve. Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled. This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's. This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't. For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them. The French are assimilative too. But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
I meant that globalization corners away assets. Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions. The people move to the capital then. But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere. In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court. So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court. This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe? The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is. How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
So how will people get back their stolen land then?
Asking national governments to legislate land deals is like asking the Maffia to conduct a high street revitalization program and a restaurant management deal.
What other checks and balances can you design then other than a US stile overbearing federation?
And even if it fails like Yugoslavia, at least it resets the land theft border cycle, like Yugoslavia did. (Although Yugoslavia failed to reset the theft against the stolen Hungarian and Italian lands.)
What stolen land is that, be precise as to when and by whom it was stolen
You forgot the grin emoticon from your post.
The bible has already informed the entire planet 6000 years ago, that moving border stones is theft. And you are arguing for national borders?
But okay, let's play by your angle and consider the current map of Europe, just to keep it simple. It is entirely a single handed French design, adapted by the entente for ww1-2. Is there even one border the same as before ww1-2? Or even better, has the number of national borders ever been as high as it is since ww1-2? This is a dirty invention, and an integral part of the nation state ideology that came to dominate the world with ww1-2. Nobody knows this better and profits more from it than the communist.
what are you rambling about the borders are defined in international law, it is the neo marxists that want to use these to control the people. They draw a line on the earth and say this side is pollution free, that side is where we pollute to provide for this side. So they partition it into industrial and urban areas. True relaxation of borders would see heavy industry in the heartlands of France and Germany and farms in the big cities. As they want it the nuclear power would by in the former soviet bloc nations, then the heavy polluters next to them until finally you reach Germany which will be picture postcard perfect for the affluent champagne socialist to live in
I was talking about national borders. And international law defines them only as much as the number of people that they can kill for them. Has it ever occurred to you why international law always starts with the latest winning aggressor and never earlier? Hehe.
Because that is how international laws are formulated, so the lessons leared wont be repeated again. International laws define national borders because they are what all the other nations recognise as the borders of adjacent nations. If the nations cant agree on what is their border then the other nations step in and saw these have stood for decades and are recognised so these are your borders. Most are defined by cease fire or armistice lines
