  Dismantling the EU is like burning down your own house

I'm not an expert, but isn't "your own house" should rather be your country in this analogy? It ought to be still there without some bureaucratic institution on top of it.

▲ patcon 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just think "neighborhood", no? This seems like splitting hairs... And to what end? to take a shot at EU supra-national structure? ("What, you don't ally to your country?" kinda shade.)

-- Canadian

▲

vlian2088 6 hours ago | parent [-]

more like an increasingly authoritative and retarded HoA.

	▲	inigyou 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		... which you have no obligation to follow the rules of

▲ hsuduebc2 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe “your own city” would be a more precise metaphor than “your own house”. Your country is your house, but the EU is the city around it, with the roads, infrastructure, shared rules, market, security, and institutions that make the house function.

The concept of a modern nation is also relatively new. It emerged as an identity for groups of people who were no longer defined mainly by the monarchs ruling over them. That identity replaced the king as the symbol of belonging.

But now nationalism is often doing the opposite. Instead of freeing people from old power structures, it is holding Europe back.

So yes, maybe it is not literally “your house”, but the point still stands. Burning down the city around your house is not exactly a smart move either.

▲

logicchains 6 hours ago | parent [-]

>the EU is the city around it, with the roads, infrastructure, shared rules, market, security, and institutions that make the house function.

If you measure "function" by the relative economic and military power of the country, then the EU has overwhelmingly degraded the function of its initial members compared to when they joined.

	▲	benjiro29 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> If you measure "function" by the relative economic and military power of the country, then the EU has overwhelmingly degraded the function of its initial members compared to when they joined. Very sure that when the EU was still in its infancy, we had only "west Europe" in arms, vs a USSR (aka all the eastern states and Russia). Now all those states are part of NATO and the EU. Instead of the border to the closest hostile nation (Russia) being barely 100km from here, its now over 1200km to the first contact point. That same Russia can barely deal with a Ukraine, that has some spare change backing from the EU. How is again at a war economy? Ukraine, sure, Russia, sure, EU ... nowp. We now have Northern members that used to be neutral or not part of NATO, that are now part of it. I feel like people love to misrepresent a lot of history. We have never been in a better position as a EU, vs what we used to be 40, 80, 100 years ago. Yea, we have a lot of buildup to do again, but lets be honest, i rather see buildup now with modern kit for the modern battles, then relying on outdated 1990's doctrine and weapons. And even that is still a slow process with transitioning to the new reality of drones, drones and drones. Do not forget that 90% of the kills are now by drones. People love to parrot those US talking point that often have no sense of history and our current EU reality in regards to security. While i admit, that we are still too reliant on US kit, even that is slowly changing. The EU moves slowly but it moves. Better then being some nations that are stuck in Imperialistic ways of thinking, like Russia.

▲ 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]