Quote Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost View Post
I can entirely understand your valid qualms about political unions, but your thesis above is patently untrue. Real world examples of cultures (as diverse as any in Europe) that have been successfully fused include the United Kingdom. When peoples' economic and political aims align so that a union makes them stronger, richer and more peaceable, they tend to accede to the idea. This has happened from the first tribes onwards.

Your nation state concept is merely one of the more enduring plateau points.
The forging of the UK was something done by a narrow and privilaged elite, whom it would never directly advantage. You and I both know that all four countries suffered cultural persecution, economic trouble and bloody insurrection because of the Union.

So my question would be why certain Europhiles are trying to ramn the same thing through our individual governments, in order to cause the same pain? I though we had progressed beyond that.

Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
how much blood are you willing to spill in order to achieve this convergence?

certainly, there are peoples who exist under nation states to which they are very lightly commited, where they concept of the nation state is exactly that, and abstract concept, however there are many other nations where this is not the case.

i would argue that britain is one, among others.

in which case the amount of blood to be spilt in britain is going to be relatively greater than that of belgium for example, a nation with little commitment from its constituent peoples
To be fair, "Britishness" is really "Englishness, which is also adopted by anglicised peoples in the other two Kingdoms and the Principality. I don't think that, for example, the majority of the Welsh population feel the need to protect the "English" monarchy or what they see as the "English" parliament.