Would a northern European Union be a stronger union?

No.

Both economically and politically.For the following reasons:

  • Numbers.

Even though we have a few weaker brethren and here and there a sick man.The strength of the EU as a common market is in the numbers. With more than half a billion consumers, the EU has a great deal of weight when it comes to negotiating trade treaties or things like American Chlorchicken or ratting Chinese cars.

  • Shared dependency. One of the basic principles on which the EU is built is the idea of shared dependence.
  • No one is going to piss in the pit where we all have to drink.

  • Politics. The Netherlands is only a small country.
  • In a northern European Union, a Netherlands would soon be under-cut between France and Germany. The place that the Netherlands now occupies on the European stage is one that is guaranteed by the smaller countries and the UK.

  • Peace. The EU’s only mission is ‘ peace in Europe ‘, the EU’s only task is ‘ peace in Europe ‘.
  • Not trade. Trade is a tool for that mission, not one with high priority (see: Shared Dependence). After all, Europe is a continent that consists of many countries, even more cultures and peoples that are left or right all each other’s inheritors. The moment that you are going to think in “AN EU for the Northerners” and “The Peripheriale satellite states” is the moment when one of those peripheriale satellite states is going to look at the rifle in the closet again.Very likely there will be war faster than you can speak out the word “Lebensraum” . In A comparison you always have to give up two alrernatives.Would a northern European Union be a stronger union than what? NATO? Fifa? And then of course there is the question of where the border between northern and southern Europe lies.

    Certainly, much stronger than the EU, but it is smaller and that is a problem.

    If I may choose, we will make it the Western European Union.It is not at all so bad to have a few less strong countries like Spain and Portugal, or the Gezanik with Italy. Also within the Netherlands we have regions where a lot of money is earned, and regions where a lot of money has to be pumped. This is called solidarity and there is nothing wrong with that.

    There is a clear historical cultural dividing line through Europe.Everything to the east of East Germany and Austria does not share the same important historical development to a large extent and has developed very different values than Western Europe, which if you ask me to be incompatible with the West European values . And I am thinking in particular of the values of enlightenment: individual freedom, democracy, separation of church and state and separation of powers.

    That is, as far as I am concerned, an important aspect of the power of Europe.Few people realise that Europe provides a large proportion of the legislation in which the abovementioned values are defended-so that even in the Netherlands we are more free and more equal than what the Dutch law offers us.

    You see in Europe that the reactionary forces from Eastern Europe-currently Poland and Hungary are really wrong-a counter-movement that we in Europe can hardly tackle due to the enormous dilution that has taken place.

    Economically, the power block is in Western Europe anyway, as long as we can keep Germany, France and the Benelux, we are well.

    It would be a lot clearer if the EU were to divide into regions, instead of throwing everyone together.

    In my opinion, whether one region would be stronger than the other would depend on the extent to which the regions need each other.

    For example, grapes grow mainly in southern countries, but also in Germany, the Netherlands and even England.We have, if production in a region would cover the heap, then those other regions, where grapes grow, are no longer so desperately needed. This also applies to other products.

    And yet that idea is not going to succeed.For someone, who has been drinking wine from French grapes all his life, is not going to be happy if this suddenly cannot be more, because the regions are no longer cooperating.

    And what to do, if a product is available in one region, but not in the other?Then a union can still be so strong, but you have to admit that another union is coming in.

    Although it too quickly became too big, the European Union is still a union.Countries want to say the same. If they could put aside that, and for the great good to put their own interests aside, it was already much better to do.

    Hi Cornelis, I personally think not, because we need Germany and France without France and Germany we lose strength not only economically but also on the basis of defence.I may be wrong but think that these two countries are crucial for a strong unity. In a northern Europe as a union alone, you will therefore be dependent on Denmark, Ireland, Norway and Sweden, because that could be the most strong countries and do not personally think that these countries will be able to represent a strong union within the EU Only.

    You would still be stuck with Belgium…

    The USA are a country, a conglomerate of 50 countries.

    The EU is a conglomerate between 27/28 countries.

    The difference is in the person’s head.

    An American, as “Yankee” as a soldier, will help his fellow soldier with a life hazard, whether he comes from Alabamah or California.He will also respect his commander, does not matter who that is.

    A European does not exist.We have Dutch, Greeks, Poland and others, all of whom live in the EU.

    That’s the difference why it’s going so badly with the EU (BREXIT!!!!!)

    Leave a Reply