CiG
Harbinger of Metal
Well that's another thing, these hate crime stats are probably swollen with loosely defined incidents.
Do you think the introduction of FPTP would skew the political scene to the right?
Please define necessary in this context. Why would siphoning power of individual nations to one body in one nation be necessary and why would that super state find it necessary to create it's own military?
There is no evidence to suggest that without the EU doing (in what you imply as) the job of a mediator the members would become hostile towards each other. Though you may be correct once Turkey becomes a member, the rest show no signs of doing what you claim.
The Swiss and the Norwegians have perfectly respectable deals with EU member states, there is no reason why England can't also work something out.
The problem is that you perceive the EU as siphoning power, as though it absorbs the magical sovereignty of individual nations to increase its own "super state" existence. This is kind of funny, to be honest.
the 28 Member States have relinquished part of their sovereignty to EU institutions
As per the official EU page oriented towards US info seekers:
http://www.euintheus.org/who-we-are/what-is-the-european-union/
Of course it also says it "isn't a government". This is kind of funny, to be honest.
You know what I think is funny? That you feel my own theoretical understanding of what the EU is/does would line up with the purported claims of those who are part of it. They even use the word sovereignty - obviously I feel no desire to substantiate their claims. My analysis is my own, not the borrowed explanation(s) of a bunch of sentimental humanitarians.
Well private analyses are fine. But when an organization describes itself as requiring the surrender of sovereignty, and certain groups decide they wish to keep such sovereignty, there's something being described here - some sort of exchange, transmission, etc. You can't deride only the one side for not coming to a contractual agreement because of agreed upon terms/terminology between those potentially contracting sides.
I don't see the need for EU-like supra-states. It isn't really abstract as it has physical locations, a parliament, central bank, etc.
Regional non-aggression pacts don't need a standing parliament and central bank. The Euro trade bloc has served to enrich a couple of countries at the expense of several of the others, so I don't see where putting them all under a single currency is a necessity.
The US has signed several multination trade deals which, regardless of how you view their necessity or success in terms of economic benefit, have functionee successfully without a suprastate organization overseeing them (aside from the UN).
Obama is a better speaker. Blair is better. There are loads that are better.