given the political winds in France and Italy are favoring "Exit" parties and the UK is on its way out. that accounts for 2/3 of the Eu's net contributors, and about 70% of the budget.

and germany are on the brink of recession

spain, greece and italy... are fucked

interestingly the other major net contributor (the Netherlands) is not listed on any of the graphs.

it is also euroskeptic

and growing

i believe

if it were to hit the magic 50 and exit with the other 3 that would mean that 90% of the EU's funding would come from one country. Germany. Who at this moment would not be able to meet the poland and greece combined yet alone the other 14 net loss countries in the EU

they would have to lose the 5-6 biggest net takers from the EU just to break even again.

meaning betwean 9-10 of the 28 countries would be gone. atleast if they wanted to stay net positive.

the EU is on shaky ground

and thats good

it needs to die

a trade union is a trade union. a super national governing body is a super national governing body. One is a valuable tool, the other a bureaucratic nightmare. Do not allow one to become another, and should you find yourself in one, promptly dismantle it.

the problem is globalists see both as on a ladder, a trade union is quite literally one step away from a super national union

so if you have a trade union, you're not too far from an actual union

Bring me the glorious EU empire

no thanks

I'll stick with not having a bloated byzantine mess of a union

The last glorious eu empire didn't fare so well

The one before that neither

I think it just doesn't work <:smugon:512048583806025739>

Well, Empires rise and fall, that's nothing new.

But the Roman Empire lasted quite a while.

The Roman Empire was built on conquest and unopposed oppression.

Functionally speaking the Roman Empire worked. Morally speaking, eh.

<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898> <:pepegun:588019479401726001>

@ "Functionally speaking the Roman Empire worked. Morally speaking, eh."


To which :

"Roman taxes varied over time, but was generally a couple of percent on wealth, and sometimes also on sales. However, in the provinces they could not reliably tax in this way, and instead they put a levy on the whole province payable by the governor of the province, who in return got pretty much free reign in the province. So what he taxed and how much, was up to him.

In general Roman government was run as personal fiefs. Even armies were funded and run by the generals with their own personal money, and as a result the Roman gains were really their personal gains as well, it didn't end up in the state coffers, because there were no state coffers as such.

http://www.unrv.com/economy/roman-taxes.php

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/299558?uid=3738840&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101954265801

The Roman empire was hilariously corrupt

And yes, there was all kinds of slavery too, freedom of speech was done completely differently as of today... Etc.

BUT


IMAGINE

Not being a slave
Paying only a couple percent 'tax' directly to the local provider
Oh.. And all local officials having to be economically responsible for all decisions they assist the population with

Hilariously corrupt as judged by modern standards.

Not really, the governor had a fixed term and it was basically a race to extort as much out of your province before the time ran out

Which is not a fair comparison.

Easy. No state "coffers' no headache

That said, the governing system of Rome was not fit for purpose, once Rome reached certain size.

I'd say Roman political thought was sophisticated enough to make the corruption unexcusable

What's not easy is to stop the human heart from 'naturally' levitating towards power in the absence of a happy childhood.

The governing system was unsustainable and Rome was doomed to fail sooner or later.

tbh the only empire that cam close to not being a corrupt mess was the British Empire

(unsustainable at that size)

Yeah Rome was over extended as hell