Euro Area

[Tellos Athenaios]

Which is exactly what "that" tells you. As relative power is removed from the "English" but they still remain on the hook for the bulk of the taxes and incurred debts, to the English "Britain" increasingly means "you pay for us to ignore our demands".

[SoFarSoGood]

Means I have more in common with a Cornish person than I do with French person; we can both accept being 'British', we speak the language, have a generaly shared history for the last 1,700 yrs etc, both recognise the Queen as Head of State.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which is exactly what "that" tells you. As relative power is removed from the "English" but they still remain on the hook for the bulk of the taxes and incurred debts, to the English "Britain" increasingly means "you pay for us to ignore our demands".

"Spending without representation".

It's fairly clear the UK is coming part at the seems - and I can no longer summon the energy to care.

Means I have more in common with a Cornish person than I do with French person; we can both accept being 'British', we speak the language, have a generaly shared history for the last 1,700 yrs etc, both recognise the Queen as Head of State.

What does it mean to the Cornish though?

Go find 10 Cornishmen in Penzance who agree with you.

[Beskar]

Part of why Regionalism within a European Framework would work the best. It would give the autonomy needed to allow areas to truly prosper on their own two-feet.

[SoFarSoGood]

Part of why Regionalism within a European Framework would work the best. It would give the autonomy needed to allow areas to truly prosper on their own two-feet.

Except that neither the majority of Cornishmen or Men of Kent/Kentish Yeomen (depends which side of the Medway you were born) regard themselves as 'European'.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Part of why Regionalism within a European Framework would work the best. It would give the autonomy needed to allow areas to truly prosper on their own two-feet.

How's that working out for the Greeks?

They haven't been "standing on their own two feet" they've been even more propped up by EU money than the Welsh and Cornish are by English money - and they're still spiraling into poverty now.

I applaud you ideals Beskar, but you have no plan to implement them. Remember when you tried dividing England into regions and EVERY Englishman here complained about the divisions?

I'm sorry - but your ideas justd lack any grounding in political reality.

[Beskar]

I applaud you ideals Beskar, but you have no plan to implement them. Remember when you tried dividing England into regions and EVERY Englishman here complained about the divisions?

I'm sorry - but your ideas justd lack any grounding in political reality.

You mean these? Regions of England
They already exist, just ran by unelected quangos. Unfortunately, the concept was scrapped after the failure of the North-East vote.

They already exist for other countries.
Germany France (so on)

It would simply be regional divisions based around NUTS1-NUTS2 depending on historical context and already implemented status quo.

It would be removing a middle layer of government, that being, the "nation state" into the already existing component parts which make up the area. With these powers diverting mainly to the regions themselves, with Europe playing a limited role, it would create a far stable Europe giving greater decentralisation to the areas that require it.

So political reality as in tomorrow morning? That would be entirely foolish to think that. But Political Reality as in something achievable? Then I think so.

[Beskar]

The lesson of modern Europe is obvious: In a globalized world, you all have to pool your resources to compete. That much is 100% obvious to everyone, I think. The question is how, and under what kind of structure.

Whilst I agree, others don't. That is the issue. The problem is the 'nation states' looking out for themselves, at the expense of others. Ranging from Greece to Germany. In a way, think of them as "power-blocs" within an union, and like it or not, people underneath those power blocs have to toe that party-line, even if they agree with someone else on how to deal with the issues.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You mean these? Regions of England
They already exist, just ran by unelected quangos. Unfortunately, the concept was scrapped after the failure of the North-East vote.

They already exist for other countries.
Germany France (so on)

It would simply be regional divisions based around NUTS1-NUTS2 depending on historical context and already implemented status quo.

It would be removing a middle layer of government, that being, the "nation state" into the already existing component parts which make up the area. With these powers diverting mainly to the regions themselves, with Europe playing a limited role, it would create a far stable Europe giving greater decentralisation to the areas that require it.

So political reality as in tomorrow morning? That would be entirely foolish to think that. But Political Reality as in something achievable? Then I think so.

Yeah, try getting government going in those "regions".

Why abolish the Nation-State? Why not abolish regionalism instead? Either way, every piece of evidence points to the Central Government trying to accrue more power, and the EU ALREADY does this with every treaty.

Actual alliances would serve everyone better, rather than this hamfisted attempt to bolt the Roman Empire back together.

The lesson of modern Europe is obvious: In a globalized world, you all have to pool your resources to compete. That much is 100% obvious to everyone, I think. The question is how, and under what kind of structure.

When was the world economy not globalised?

Norway traded with Byzantium and Viking merchants when as far as the Black Sea.

Competition is a matter of Power, Power requires the imposition of one group's will upon another's.

Like the British Empire - the most powerful government and economic bloc ever.