I am sorry, You were presented more than one argument.
IMHO, the issue is that You believe that there is only one definition of state, nation, country and that that sole definition (definition that is far from being singular and unanimously accepted ... ) can be interpreted in only one way (Your interpretation).
Another issue (again, is just my opinion) is that it seems You believe someone contesting or doubting Your definition and interpretation of the notion of state, country, nation, is necessarily doing it because its position in EU, moreover, "blindly" supporting EU. It's simply not true. I am more than convinced that Lindschoten's position on the mater ("nor fowl nor fish", which happens to concord with mine) isn't based on his pro-EU or anti-EU, but on his view on the concept of nation, country, nation, a POV that it happens to be similar with mine (tho our stances on EU are mostly divergent), and not with Yours (tho Your stances on EU are mostly convergent).
As far as I saw in this discussion, none involved in this discussion had pronounced it's opinion based on his stance over EU, but on his POV on the concept of state, country, nation. Except You.
Not sure if you are ignoring our posts on purpose or have genuinely forgotten. The last line suggests that you are willfully ignoring my previous posts and now trying to claim I’ve only posted opinions. This is not true, at all.
I provided some sources on what constitutes a state, these were initially discussed then dismissed with opinion. Page 41 has my 1st source, this was then supported by further sources in page 42. #439 I summaries these for another member.
Please go back to the discussion and note when you provide a source as a contribution, it’s all just opinions and “well, that can’t be defined you know” type arguments i.e. nothing; or to put it in a more pleasing way “neither fish nor fowl”.
By the way, that is not a desirable way to consider the EU, what impression would you have if I said that Spain is not a country, think of it as “neither fish nor fowl” – even more so if your Spanish and this is where the laws comes from that govern your life!
I can see just how scared the pro-EU members are at this argument that the EU is a state – which no one has been able to show otherwise, despite my proposals and sources – people dance around it, make excuses and try to ignore it by asking other questions. What’s everyone scared of?
I’ll reiterate my previous point as you just danced around it – Germany is not a country; prove me wrong….
If you hold that a state can’t be defined, then how do you explain the UN membership process? They have defined it for decades….
Glad we cleared up the value of having/loosing a net contributor to a union/partnership/corporation etc
Two reasons why budget contribution and political unity are always linked; loosing a net contributor means that 9 billion will be have to found elsewhere, you can raise other members payments or reduce spending/programs by the EU - either of these 2 outcomes will lead to decline in political unity as nations resent their payments going up and/or their benefits going down. It's quite a surprise to me that I need to explain why having less money is a bad thing lol
Whatever source You use, it's absurd to consider EU a state as US or Russia and France or UK or Bulgaria being "provinces".
US has one seat in UN. Not 51.
Russia's Central power is controlling the Russian national military forces, it's controlling the Russian nuclear arsenal. It's not Mordavian Republic controlling its own mordavian nuclear arsenal while maskovsy oblast is controlling its own one.
There's no Scottish or Welsh army, having its own Scottish or Welsh budget, Scottish or Welsh command, under the sole and exclusive control of Scottish or North-Irish representatives with His Majesty's PM May having no legal power (be it factual or theoretical) on the Scottish or English army.
One cannot apply for a Visa to visit Italy at the Tuscan embassy, or Calabrese embassy. Italian embassies aren't deprived of the possibility of giving Italian visas.
Quebeq cannot simply decide its national currency isn't the Canadian dollar but Le Franc Quebeqois.
Flanders hasn't the legal possibility to declare war or sign a peace treaty with Belgium having no legal possibility to declare war or sign a peace treaty.
By any modern definition of a state, EU lacks fundamental aspects that define the modern state.
If the EU is not a state, as you say, then you should have no hesitation in providing a concise and clear response. In the rest of this post you give many examples and equivalences of what can be considered a state or not, so I know you have already thought it over, now I’m asking you to share….
The early modern state developed in ways designed to feed a centre – Paris, Moscow, Stockholm, wherever. Effectively they developed as a kind of vampiric function of the centre. If lucky over time they reformed away from that, to allow redistribution and regional development. Though France (Paris-focused) is more centralised than Sweden (Stockholm-focused), while Russia still has moved the least from the original (Moscow-focused).
Frankly Brussels doesn't work like that in relation to the EU. (Though fantasies about it persist.)
It's somewhere to keep the joint luggage. And it does the agreed redistribution of funds.
Pardon me for the late reply, but I “unwatched” this thread, since I don’t think that anything of valour can come from here. and the posts succeeded in a quick rhythm, difficult to track. This is in a loop for some time. But I also consider that is a lack of courtesy not to answer to a post that was directly addressed to me. I think that here I am addressing the unanswered ones.
If I come across as rude it is because I’m incredibly frustrated in this discussion. I presented a simple argument, the EU is state according to common understandings of a state – there is nothing I’m putting against the EU that I would not any other country. This has been met with complete bemusement by the pro-EU lobby, followed by distractions, opinions and other similar tactics.
By that line of reasoning I could also be rude with you when you, simply to prove your point, called the “CPLP” a “linguistic organization”, showing lack of knowledge about the organization, or when you quote sources that don’t sustain your statements, showing that you didn’t read them. Because that is frustrating. I understood clearly your perspective, since the first post that I changed with you in this thread and tried to show to you other perspectives, widely accepted. If you give a wide definition of a state, yes, you will have many states around the globe, many that usually aren’t consider and seen as states, such as regions and municipalities, and the EU.
I posted a source (the geo. Site) then the UN and used these as supporting evidence….how long did it take for those countering me to do the same, go back and take a look if you like. All I got was an instant reaction of opinion and disbelief that I could even suggest the EU is a state.
I didn’t posted sources in the following post you posted yours mentioned here (made that latter, see the dictionary and the encyclopaedia post) because your sources don’t sustain your perspective. So I didn’t need to search for supporting evidence of the contrary since you did provide it.
As for the last sentence in the paragraph surely isn’t addressed to me.
I have a typo in the quoted posts where we read “ I we exclude…” should be read “If we exclude…” the “f” is missing and changes completely the sentence. My fault. My apologies. The sentence was built since the wide definition give in the dictionary is short, as in any dictionary, and in adding “one that is sovereign” excludes non sovereign states of the definition (Such as Florida, Scotland, Zacatecas, São Paulo…). I didn’t edited anything. For reasoning I separated the two parts of the sentence. For the record that separation helps your perspective, since it even opens more the definition of state and in that way helps to put the EU under the wide umbrella definition.
Ok, you already stated some or even all the attributes mentioned here in some previous posts.
But I also need to state, again, that point 4 is incorrect as it is written since in the international treaties with other states the EU is never mentioned as a state (As far as I know). I already mentioned this and even posted a link. But if there is any international treaty that the EU is mentioned as a state please post it.
The point 8 is also incorrect. As we already said that the EU anthem is not an “national anthem” the EU flag is not a national flag.
About the Flag the EU states: “The European flag symbolises both the European Union and, more broadly, the identity and unity of Europe.” and “It features a circle of 12 gold stars on a blue background. They stand for the ideals of unity, solidarity and harmony among the peoples of Europe.”
About the Anthem the EU states: “The melody used to symbolize the EU comes from…”, “The anthem symbolises not only the European Union but also Europe in a wider sense.” and “The European anthem is not intended to replace the national anthems of the EU countries but rather to celebrate the values they share. The anthem is played at official ceremonies involving the European Union and generally at all sorts of events with a European character.”
Not that the question of symbols like the anthem and flag are entirety necessary to the concept of state. Usually they are products of states and other organizations, either political, cultural, sport, economic…
In the previous paragraph you mentioned that EU is a state. Now you are mentioning that is a country. In the link that you provided to us a few posts back you explained to us the differences between a nation and a country. Now you seem to confuse both.
Already explained and further explanations will follow in this post. For the record the fact that some pro-European supporters, like me, don’t see the EU as a state (or a country) is because they want that the EU become one and feel that a long path needs to be done. I will elaborate on this.
Now the answer to a second post that was also addressed to me.
I have presented the side I am arguing, and seem to be either be ignored or dismissed rather than try to provide an evidence based counter argument. At the best, when such is presented and I provide my response the debate is quickly diverted back to personal opinions and admission that the EU exists in a grey zone. I just can’t understand what’s holding people back from saying the EU is a nation – when all evidence and arguments show that it is.
No doubt the pro-EU supporters, fearful of the admission that they live in a province of the EU (not the country they were told exists) will continue to hide and conflate the argument, continue to avoid any confrontation of this fact and will seek to use phrases or metaphors to provide a sense of safety and righteousness, much more comfortable than recognizing the real flag you live under.
Now, since apparently I was still unable to provide Baldtastic, and eventually to others, the reason because I, and probably many others, don’t consider the EU a state, even if has some of its characteristics, is as I already mentioned in some of my earlier posts, the lack of three attributes:
* The monopoly of force in its territory – this monopoly still belongs to the members;
* The international community doesn’t see or recognize the EU as a state;
“At the core of the EU are the 28 Member States* that belong to the Union, and their citizens. The unique feature of the EU is that, although the Member States all remain sovereign and independent states, they have decided to pool some of their ‘sovereignty’ in areas where it makes sense to work together.
In practice, this means that the Member States delegate some of their decision-making powers to the shared institutions they have created, so that decisions on specific matters of common interest can be made democratically at EU level.” (p. 7. The asterisk is the obvious reference to the Brexit and the UK notification to leave the EU).
In the preamble (the document has 479 pages, we will not analyse it all here), on page 19, states the following:
“RESOLVED to mark a new stage in the process of European integration undertaken with the establishment of the European Communities,”
So basically we can understand from this is that the EU is in an ongoing process of “integration”. Idea further established in the following page: “RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,”
“When applied in the context of the European Union, the principle of subsidiarity serves to regulate the exercise of the Union’s non-exclusive powers. It rules out Union intervention when an issue can be dealt with effectively by Member States at central, regional or local level and means that the Union is justified in exercising its powers when Member States are unable to achieve the objectives of a proposed action satisfactorily and added value can be provided if the action is carried out at Union level.”
As far as I am aware, I must confess that I never fully read or analysed all the text, my reading on it has always been quite light, in all the text the EU never claims to be a state. I consider the wording “political system”, as used by the Carlton university link, or “State under construction” already used by me, more accurate to definite the EU. Since “International Organization” is also already quite vague. It is a new project. As far as I am aware it is the first time that so many sovereign states give big steps to achieve common goals. As it is a new project, old definitions sometimes are not enough to describe what is new.
Now after all this, and even being a critic of many developments in the EU, most especially since my fellow countryman Durão Barroso assumed the EU presidency in the far year of 2004, I can claim myself as pro-EU because I still agree with the principles of the Union:
“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.
These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.”
Article 2. Check. Agreed.
“The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.”
Article 3. Check. Agreed.
“The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.”
Article 3. Check. Agreed.
“The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.
It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.
It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.
It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.”
Article 3. Check. Agreed.
“The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.”
Article 3. Check. Agreed.
In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.
Article 3. Check. Agreed.
“The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.”
Article 5. Check. Agreed.
It is not useful to carry on in all the 479 pages. I just quoted parts that I checked and I fully agree. This parts are seen by me, and I believe that by many of the EU supporters, as from its “founding fathers” as essential to the spirit of the Union. Wrong moves were done. By the Union and by many of its state members, but for now those errors are still not enough to dismiss the organization with so many ideals that I consider positive, not only to the development of the state members but also to the development of the world and the humanity as a all.