I don't like this idea at all. This would make all current Risk boards obsolete. What's next Siam becoming a part of Australia.

Technically speaking, Europe, Asia and Africa are one continent. Since humans are territorial and tribal apes, they have divided up this huge land mass into countries, regions and subregions, in accordance with the tribal nature of the species and the resources available.

That being said, I think the citizens of each country should be allowed to directly vote if they want to be in the EU, or not.
Let all those join who want to and let all those opt out who don't want to be in the EU.

The result will be very funny (in a cynical way) and very predictable. It will show that the EU is 100% about control of resources (money, mainly) and the idea of Europe as a cultural entity is irrelevant in this context. The have-nots will want to have what the haves have, and the haves will feel threatened and leave because they don't want to share with the have-nots. And those within the "have" countries who want to stay will demand that only those in their country who have more than they personally have must be generous and pay up. You know what that leads to and why it never really seems to work.

But even if - in an alternate reality - the EU had from the get-go only included solid efficient economies (Germany, England, Benelux countries, Scandinavian countries, Finland, Austria and Switzerland), it would have been no good due to its undemocratic organisation, overregulating nature and lack of accountability. It wouldn't have failed as fast as the current EU has failed but it still wouldn't be anything its member states would benefit from on the long run, least of all you as a regular citizen.

You know what ? Yes. The "E" of EU borderlines on scam. It implies some sort of cultural unity which borders are completely arbitrary and founded on nothing at all. Is Australia that different from Great Britain, more than, say, Finland and Spain ? As for the question of proximity and circulation, it's a bit moot given that France alone still has its colonies (departements outre-mer) closer to Australia than to itself...

But this is even more ridiculous in the case of Turkey, with the lack of objective geographic boundaries. Europe's limits are nothing but a historical caprice, with no objective grounds. It's a toy idea. A representation. Thunk of Russia. Is it "European" ? Is it "Asian" ? What does make sense ?

What you decide does, according to a vague feeling, in a given context of discusion. These "continental" units are pure hot air.

Well the Latvians voted for the government who brought them into EU so one could say they brought it onto themselves.

I tried to find some independent sources for your statements and was only partially successful. Latvian inflation rate was 5-10% in 2004-2006 went up to 20% in 2009 (well known great depression all over the world starting in the US, not EU), then negative at -5% in 2010 and now for a year around 0%.GDP per Capita PPP (money earned per person divided by prices (normalized to purchase power)) has risen from 2005 to a peak in 2008 by 10-20%, then took a 20% dip in the great recession, then went upward again in the last 3 years and is at the level of 2008 again. Unemployment rate went down from 10% to 5% between 2004 and 2008, then went up very big to 20% in 2010 and then slowly down to 12% to the level of 2002. Exports on an all time high in 2013.
Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/latvia/unemployment-rate (and other indicators on the right side)

To summarize: If the sugar and the fishing industry were starving then there must be other industries in Latvia that have also grown, otherwise the industrial output would not be that stable. To be fair one should mention them too. Latvia was hit by the great crisis that started in the US and took over Europe and partly also Asia and South America really very severe. It seemed like the Latvian banking system was playing it's part in the big bubble and therefore made a huge loss. In the following especially people who lost their job were hit hard.

Would the loss have been smaller without joining the EU, or even harder? I don't know.

About the subsidies. Well, I would be the last not to complain about this. It's unfair and a good example what people should hate the EU. Germany btw. is a netto-payer, so we get less out of it than we pay. Just have a look at the Brits. They pay only half of what they should and still they complain. I'm all for distribution the subsidiaries as fair as possible (and to cut it to a much smaller height).

Thanks for responding. I hope you accept I wasn't provoking you so much as keen on discussion on this. You raised an interesting point. If Europe is not geographically constrained, then where might it stop? Is it an ideological crusade? should it in fact be attracting Hong Kong into it's fold? HK was part of the UK for a long time, it's surely got a lot of Europe in it.

I feel real question is - if you take that attitude, where does it stop?

Yes, full agreement, although saying just to a solution that offered the hope of long lasting peace after so many bloody wars may not make enough justice to the value of the EU. It has an economic part but you never get that without anything political as well. You must have similar aims and similar core values like Freedom of speech, of religion, democracy, separation of powers, secularization, participation, equality. Teamwork just works better when everyone involved is kind of similar. And I also think that geographical proximity is important for having such similar values.

So while it would be possible to form a bond between Chile, South Africa, Korea and Finnland for example on the ground of common values, just because of the huge geographical distance the thought would be strange. One would say that cooperation would be much more difficult. In short: geography matters even if culture doesn't.

Turkey would be a much more likely next candidate but it depends on the future development. I don't really understand the discontent between Greece and Turkey and why it cannot be solved peacefully and for good. If this would be kind of impossible how could France and Germany ever work together?

Btw. I could also imagine Tunesia as a candidate. The new constitution of Tunisia is extremely modern. At least I wish there would be more economical cooperation with Tunisia which isn't that far away from Italy.

Switzerland and Norway are living an exclusive life due to extreme wealth. They just don't need to member of any club.

I don't know how Turkey will develop but I guess joining the EU might be possible and I would like it but it won't happen probably within the next 10 year, but it may happen in the next 20.

Hong Kong was never "Britain's". We (sort of forced the Chinese to) rented it for 150 years, then returned it to the rightful proprietors.

What was surprising ( at least to me) was that they didn't immediately send their military in and revert it to Chi-Com oppressive rule, and let the relaxed tradition of British/western culture carry on (and thereby earning them a LOT of money)

I can't see that happening again, let alone them allowing any part of themselves become a part of any other "club"

Typo, not a lack of knowledge.

I know - it was a joke.

I know, didn't mean mine to come off as curt but I see now it did. Whoopsie.

Oh I thought he meant THIS guy... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUrWYv2vtU

That also occurred to me. My thanks for allowing that extra reference. It's an awesome film.

Based on my understanding on the European Union and some of these so-called "trade organizations," joining the EU doesn't seem to offer enough benefit to outweigh the negatives. It comes across as another layer of regulatory bureaucracy, undermines national sovereignty, and inflicted issues concerning currency changes. There are benefits I'll admit like having greater international travel freedoms and I heard from a Lithuanian that some countries have benefited from having greater competition in terms of internet providers (this is based off of his words, not my knowledge). Other than that, there doesn't seem to be that much more benefit and it comes across as sacrificing the interests of one's own countrymen in favor of the interests of a bunch of foreigners.

There is good reason why patriotic/nationalist groups have been gaining popularity and I support many of them to certain extents. I don't even like the way NAFTA is setup here in North America especially since most of it has nothing to do with "free trade" despite it having the misnomer in its name.

You live in a country that has the extent of 20 countries here. Can you imagine how it is then when you drive for 5 hours in any direction and you are in another country or maybe even two countries away? States in Europe are more like federal states in the US from their geographical extent. Everything is so small. I'm actually happy that I don't have to change currency every 200 miles or show my passport. And for the economic benefits I guess they are quite high. Again, in the US you just make a car, make all the necessary official tests and then you sell it to 300 million people. Can you imagine what happens if you have 20 different requirements. The outcome is that here each car in each country is slightly different, even if it is the same type and brand. There is just so much friction involved here. And then somebody asks why google and facebook and apple developed somewhere else..

Asked for giving up the wealth that comes from cooperation not many people would like to do this either.

I totally understand that starting with the size of the US there is not much sense in getting even bigger, but starting on much smaller scales there is. The EU can be a nice experiment trying to combine the best of nationalism and internationalism, but maybe it doesn't work or maybe the worst of nationalism destroys it again, who knows.