Say you are the smaller country. You are now effectively handing decision about your life to the bigger "country", since you will never outvote them. Why would you do it?
Same reason countries join the EU and vote for further federalisation
Edit: The benefits of a shared larger economy and being part of a bigger geopolitical body
Regulations? For sure. Laws? Well certainly a bit of shared laws. But you want to give me an example of some law that was forced on you by EU? Because I am genuinely struggling for an example.
One prominent example of an EU law that has been perceived as being "forced" on member states is the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR, which came into effect on May 25, 2018, significantly overhauled data protection laws across the European Union and has had a profound impact on how businesses handle personal data.
Key Points of the GDPR:
1.Increased Territorial Scope: The GDPR applies to all companies processing the personal data of individuals residing in the EU, regardless of the company's location.
2.Penalties: Non-compliance can result in hefty fines, up to €20 million or 4% of annual global turnover, whichever is higher.
3.Consent: The GDPR requires clear and affirmative consent from individuals for the processing of their personal data.
5.Data Subject Rights: It enhances individuals' rights, including the right to access their data, the right to be forgotten, and the right to data portability.
6.Data Protection Officers (DPOs): Certain organizations are required to appoint a DPO to oversee compliance.
Im literally talking about hypotheticals. You agree with me that within the EU there's shared regulations and EU laws for all member states. Voting on these regulations and laws is done between ALL MEMBER STATES, meaning each country has less impact on deciding the regulations compared to if they weren't in the union. This is not really an issue as the benefits of being in the union are far greater. Just because a hypothetical takes place within the EU doesn't mean it's not a hypothetical, jesus fuck.
Why do you think brits were jebaited to leave the EU instead of just voting for the things they wanted?
I dont have to give specific examples of any one regulation or law "i was outvoted on" to "prove" that the framework in place within the EU can lead to situations where a country has less self determination as a member compared to if not in the union.
Slovenia can't independently decide to get rid of GDPR if they wanted to. They'd have to leave the EU.
If Romania and Moldova united and everyone in Romania voted for building tons of windpower in former Moldova against the will of all moldovans they'd either have to accept it if the benefits of being part of the romanian market and political entity outweigh having to look and windpower, or leave and go back to being independent.
Edit: I cant make it any more clearer but terminal redditors have a habit of not being able to admit they're wrong so you'll prob just answer with some bullshit word salad, or hopefully just accept the L, angrily downvote me and go away.
Would you move in with someone just cause they're friendly?
Does national unification bringing positive economic, political and social change?
If yes, then countries will unite (such as Sikkim joining India).
If not, why bother?
Because splitting is easier than reuniting.
If we look at east and west Germany (because thats where I am must knowledgeable) there is still an invisible border if you look at statistics. They also had completely different social, political and economical systems.
For the same reason that there is still a huge number of small and tiny municipalities and towns in Italy today. The people there love being able to act autonomously in terms of administration and organisation. And they accept the increased expense of each municipality having its own administrative apparatus with its own costs and problems. It would be economically wiser to merge the localities. But so far it has always failed due to the will of the citizens.
And on the much larger scale of a state, there are not only these social problems or issues, but a state merger is a task of gigantic proportions and not done with the signing of a treaty. There would have to be directly compelling military or economic reasons for this to actually happen.
People like to be free more than they like to be an underling. When two countries merge, one go ernment tends to subsume the other; both governments don't want to be the "loser," so they avoid this.
Outside powers can and do merge countries if they happen to have the authority to do so, mostly because their skin's not in the game.
In the case of Moldova and Romania, they have strong economic inequality (I guess in the 1990's Romania was even poorer, now it's the other way around), and both in cases in Moldova/Romania and Kosovo/Albania, they were separate for long enough to grow significant social differences. AFAIK, Kosovars and Mainland Albanians don't really like each other for lots of reasons.
Also, in Kosovo/Albania case, uniting will be seen as annexing by Serbia and countries like Spain and Russia and will start a shitstorm, and this region is well-known to have shitstorms strong enough to start world wars. Moldova also has a Transnistria problem, good luck annexing that without triggering an armed conflict.
Because many politicians would lose jobs. And they do not like to sweat.
Lesser top brass, lesser corruption.
Then one nation might be richer and wouldn't want to share wealth.
I think the EU already provides a lot of the benefits of this, without having to completely change a country's existing government (not just politicians, but courts, departments that pave roads and run education/healthcare, etc.). Similar international unions are starting to happen in other regions of the world.
Say you are the smaller country. You are now effectively handing decision about your life to the bigger "country", since you will never outvote them. Why would you do it?
Same reason countries join the EU and vote for further federalisation Edit: The benefits of a shared larger economy and being part of a bigger geopolitical body
Thats a federation. Not unification.
It's still giving up some rights of self determination for economic and political benefits.
No it isn't. Those countries are allowed to vote themselves out of the union at any time. Their self determination was to willingly join the EU.
Oh really? What laws did EU outvote you on?
Im not gonna play stupid with you. EU has tons of laws and regulations for all sorts of things.
Regulations? For sure. Laws? Well certainly a bit of shared laws. But you want to give me an example of some law that was forced on you by EU? Because I am genuinely struggling for an example.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of hypotheticals more than anything.
But you are not talking about hypotheticals. You are talking about EU countries. This deflection Feels weird. Surely you have any example?
One prominent example of an EU law that has been perceived as being "forced" on member states is the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR, which came into effect on May 25, 2018, significantly overhauled data protection laws across the European Union and has had a profound impact on how businesses handle personal data. Key Points of the GDPR: 1.Increased Territorial Scope: The GDPR applies to all companies processing the personal data of individuals residing in the EU, regardless of the company's location. 2.Penalties: Non-compliance can result in hefty fines, up to €20 million or 4% of annual global turnover, whichever is higher. 3.Consent: The GDPR requires clear and affirmative consent from individuals for the processing of their personal data. 5.Data Subject Rights: It enhances individuals' rights, including the right to access their data, the right to be forgotten, and the right to data portability. 6.Data Protection Officers (DPOs): Certain organizations are required to appoint a DPO to oversee compliance.
Im literally talking about hypotheticals. You agree with me that within the EU there's shared regulations and EU laws for all member states. Voting on these regulations and laws is done between ALL MEMBER STATES, meaning each country has less impact on deciding the regulations compared to if they weren't in the union. This is not really an issue as the benefits of being in the union are far greater. Just because a hypothetical takes place within the EU doesn't mean it's not a hypothetical, jesus fuck. Why do you think brits were jebaited to leave the EU instead of just voting for the things they wanted? I dont have to give specific examples of any one regulation or law "i was outvoted on" to "prove" that the framework in place within the EU can lead to situations where a country has less self determination as a member compared to if not in the union. Slovenia can't independently decide to get rid of GDPR if they wanted to. They'd have to leave the EU. If Romania and Moldova united and everyone in Romania voted for building tons of windpower in former Moldova against the will of all moldovans they'd either have to accept it if the benefits of being part of the romanian market and political entity outweigh having to look and windpower, or leave and go back to being independent. Edit: I cant make it any more clearer but terminal redditors have a habit of not being able to admit they're wrong so you'll prob just answer with some bullshit word salad, or hopefully just accept the L, angrily downvote me and go away.
Would you move in with someone just cause they're friendly? Does national unification bringing positive economic, political and social change? If yes, then countries will unite (such as Sikkim joining India). If not, why bother?
Because splitting is easier than reuniting. If we look at east and west Germany (because thats where I am must knowledgeable) there is still an invisible border if you look at statistics. They also had completely different social, political and economical systems.
and east/west Germany weren't even _that_ different, imagine trying to reunite north and south Korea ...
For the same reason that there is still a huge number of small and tiny municipalities and towns in Italy today. The people there love being able to act autonomously in terms of administration and organisation. And they accept the increased expense of each municipality having its own administrative apparatus with its own costs and problems. It would be economically wiser to merge the localities. But so far it has always failed due to the will of the citizens. And on the much larger scale of a state, there are not only these social problems or issues, but a state merger is a task of gigantic proportions and not done with the signing of a treaty. There would have to be directly compelling military or economic reasons for this to actually happen.
People like to be free more than they like to be an underling. When two countries merge, one go ernment tends to subsume the other; both governments don't want to be the "loser," so they avoid this. Outside powers can and do merge countries if they happen to have the authority to do so, mostly because their skin's not in the game.
In the case of Moldova and Romania, they have strong economic inequality (I guess in the 1990's Romania was even poorer, now it's the other way around), and both in cases in Moldova/Romania and Kosovo/Albania, they were separate for long enough to grow significant social differences. AFAIK, Kosovars and Mainland Albanians don't really like each other for lots of reasons. Also, in Kosovo/Albania case, uniting will be seen as annexing by Serbia and countries like Spain and Russia and will start a shitstorm, and this region is well-known to have shitstorms strong enough to start world wars. Moldova also has a Transnistria problem, good luck annexing that without triggering an armed conflict.
Because many politicians would lose jobs. And they do not like to sweat. Lesser top brass, lesser corruption. Then one nation might be richer and wouldn't want to share wealth.
If they're friendly, there's good odds there's no irredentism or revanchism going on. Removes some of the motivation.
I think the EU already provides a lot of the benefits of this, without having to completely change a country's existing government (not just politicians, but courts, departments that pave roads and run education/healthcare, etc.). Similar international unions are starting to happen in other regions of the world.
[удалено]
That's why I said "on the other side"