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 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.
Glad we cleared up the value of having/loosing a net contributor to a union/partnership/corporation etcTo repeat myself, the case seems to be that the EU values its political unity more than our budget contribution. That’s all really.
I already told You, it's not about pro-EU.I can see just how scared the pro-EU members are at this argument that the EU is a state –
Ok then, define the modern stateEU lacks fundamental aspects that define the modern state.
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.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.
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.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 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.You can’t just exclude a word (“sovereign”) from your own source/definition and then forum your argument around this new – edited – definition you gave yourself.
Ok, you already stated some or even all the attributes mentioned here in some previous posts.I will reiterate – again – the EU meets all functions and definitions of being a state, as well as common attributes of a state that we can all recognize:
Recognition on international treaties alongside other states
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.How can I be any clearer, how many more pages must we go through - the EU IS A COUNTRY - YOU LIVE IN A COUNTRY CALLED THE EU.
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.Why can't the pro-EU supporters just admit this? Whats holding you back?
Already addressed. See above.@deaf tuner @Grimald @Tulius @GogLais
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.
See your, I mean *your source*, already linked in this post: Explore What Defines a State, Sovereign State, Country, and NationLet’s take another route in this debate; Germany is not a country, never has been and can’t be considered one. Who agrees? If you disagree then please explain why I should consider Germany a country….
These are your personal considerations and opinions. Don’t have much to say here. We are all entitled to have personal considerations and opinions.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.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|AMA Presidential Elections from 1789 to 1968||North American History|
|Who would you have supported in all US presidential elections up to 1988?||North American History|
|Who Would Win Historical US Presidential Run-off Elections?||Speculative History|
|Why had the ethnic minorities dominace over the Hungarians in the parliamentary elections in the 1867-1918 period?||European History|
|Similar History Discussions|
|AMA Presidential Elections from 1789 to 1968|
|Who would you have supported in all US presidential elections up to 1988?|
|Who Would Win Historical US Presidential Run-off Elections?|
|Why had the ethnic minorities dominace over the Hungarians in the parliamentary elections in the 1867-1918 period?|