Indeed. Unless Russia got in on the Euro pact, they would likely become somewhat threatened and end up developing a Russian-China-Middle Eastern pact. And then all hell breaks loose...
o_O Uh, no. Russia and China are competitors. And the Middle East is not exactly the most stable ally of Russia right now, given the history.And China would need to stop screwing with their Muslim population before the Middle East would make a pact with them. Also, the Middle East is hardly monolithic. Those three regions would never, ever unite.
Indeed. Unless Russia got in on the Euro pact, they would likely become somewhat threatened and end up developing a Russian-China-Middle Eastern pact. And then all hell breaks loose...
This sounds like the storyline of a FPS/RTS war game :P
Indeed. Unless Russia got in on the Euro pact, they would likely become somewhat threatened and end up developing a Russian-China-Middle Eastern pact. And then all hell breaks loose...
This sounds like the storyline of a FPS/RTS war game :P
With possibly the words Tom Clancy or Call of in it. ^_^
I like Tom Clancy games. You go to war with major powers frequently in them. It satisfies that wonder about what might happen, without all the suck that is actual war.
And you know what's fucking bullshit? Iraq. Thanks to fucking Iraq, Afgahnistan is slowly going to shit.
Indeed. Unless Russia got in on the Euro pact, they would likely become somewhat threatened and end up developing a Russian-China-Middle Eastern pact. And then all hell breaks loose...
o_O Uh, no. Russia and China are competitors. And the Middle East is not exactly the most stable ally of Russia right now, given the history.And China would need to stop screwing with their Muslim population before the Middle East would make a pact with them. Also, the Middle East is hardly monolithic. Those three regions would never, ever unite.
Indeed. If Russia were ever to create any kind of EU-scale trading pact it would be with non-EU/non-NATO eastern European nations that Russia could exert influence over.
Wich means it would contain Belarus and nothing else. Seriously, Russia is distrusted in Eastern Europe and every country wants to join the EU/Nato Alliance(even Serbia). Even Belarus might go to the western block if the dictatorship collapsed.
The closes Russia has is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and thats more to show the middle finger to the USA/EU then a real threat.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Will Europe unite? Yes. I think it will happen in my lifetime, too. The benefits are just too great not to. Economically, the common market has been an incredible success, and at some point, people will begin to realize that having a common political presence in world affairs with the full backing of the union will allow Europe to basically dictate foreign affairs in a lot of ways that individual European nations can't do right now.
Has the EU been a success so far? That's also a resounding "yes." Before the European Coal and Steel Community, Europe was the most violent continent on the planet by far, and since its founding, and especially, its expansion, Europe is now a peaceful place. The only major conflict that has happened in the last 50 years has been the breakup of Yugoslavia, and, considering the history of European politics and how it relates to wars in the Balkans...
And yet euroskeptic/nationalist political parties made very impressive gains in the recent elections.
I agree with the others in this thread when they say that a United EU is a long way off, if it's going to happen at all.
One election cycle certainly does not stop or even necessarily slow down integration.
Especially when it can be expected that the last thing to integrate would be the political structures.
Getting 27 members to agree on anything is a crapshoot.
The EU will eventually be essentially a single country in all but name but it's going to take 100 years because people are afraid of change and as long as the old timers are in power it doesn't matter what the younger generations want.
There are still nay-sayers who wish their country had never joined the EU, as long as there are enough of them around who vote "no" on anything EU related without reading it's hard to make progress.
Also there wouldn't be a problem if the mothefucking fisherman self-regulated an iota.
Resource harvesters self-regulating?
Has that EVER happened?
Nope.
Not entirely true, but there are only a couple cases where harvesters self-regulated.
WMain, regulations on fishing are necessary in order to actually preserve fish stocks for the future. It has nothing to do with saving individual fish. If you allow people to overfish, that depletes fish stocks and when they disappear completely they are gone. Overfishing of Cod in the Grand Banks is an example. Some people might lose out in the short run, but many more people will benefit in the long run if fishing is done in a sustainable manner.
Also, you can't say "we've been fishing since the beginning of time!" as an excuse. Boats with dragging nets that pick up anything and everything are awful for the environment, and just lead to overfishing. Humans catch more fish now that ever before.
Also there wouldn't be a problem if the mothefucking fisherman self-regulated an iota.
Resource harvesters self-regulating?
Has that EVER happened?
Nope.
Not entirely true, but there are only a couple cases where harvesters self-regulated.
WMain, regulations on fishing are necessary in order to actually preserve fish stocks for the future. It has nothing to do with saving individual fish. If you allow people to overfish, that depletes fish stocks and when they disappear completely they are gone. Overfishing of Cod in the Grand Banks is an example. Some people might lose out in the short run, but many more people will benefit in the long run if fishing is done in a sustainable manner.
Also, you can't say "we've been fishing since the beginning of time!" as an excuse. Boats with dragging nets that pick up anything and everything are awful for the environment, and just lead to overfishing. Humans catch more fish now that ever before.
I know that and i'm not against regulations, what i'm against is how draconian the regulations are. They are doing more damage than good, both in employment and in environmental concerns as was pointed out earlier. Because of the regulations tons of fishing catch is dumped to try meet within the quota.
I imagine fishermen aren't massively against the regulations, but they are going to be against the unneccessary waste they can't control because of the regulations quota problems.
Getting 27 members to agree on anything is a crapshoot.
The EU will eventually be essentially a single country in all but name but it's going to take 100 years because people are afraid of change and as long as the old timers are in power it doesn't matter what the younger generations want.
No. France, for example, is French. They're not about to give that up to be European. (Nor should they, really.)
Getting 27 members to agree on anything is a crapshoot.
The EU will eventually be essentially a single country in all but name but it's going to take 100 years because people are afraid of change and as long as the old timers are in power it doesn't matter what the younger generations want.
No. France, for example, is French. They're not about to give that up to be European. (Nor should they, really.)
Except where being 'European' grants them stronger bargaining power in economic trade summits &c. Regional monikers also do not preclude more local monikers. When I travel abroad I use the demonym Chicagoan rather than American even though both are accurate. Calling yourself Parisian, French, or European would be no different.
I'm also curious as to how a somewhat more strengthened EU (potentially with its own military power depending on the hypothetical) fails to meet the necessary requirements to be considered a country on its own right.
I think every government that has ever existed has been corrupt in one way or another, so the idea that the British government alone isn't (as we've seen lately it is heavily), or that the EU wasn't going to be, is kind of silly. I can't see the UK ever joining the EU to be honest as we have countries inside of the UK (such as Scotland) who want to be their own independent economies and countries outside of the UK. Also, the English are just way too English to allow themselves to stop being called The United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Apart from that I reckon the Uk should just pack in its armed forces and become the bank of Europe, much like the Swiss, but with even less of an armed force.
I think every government that has ever existed has been corrupt in one way or another, so the idea that the British government alone isn't (as we've seen lately it is heavily), or that the EU wasn't going to be, is kind of silly. I can't see the UK ever joining the EU to be honest as we have countries inside of the UK (such as Scotland) who want to be their own independent economies and countries outside of the UK. Also, the English are just way too English to allow themselves to stop being called The United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Apart from that I reckon the Uk should just pack in its armed forces and become the bank of Europe, much like the Swiss, but with even less of an armed force.
o_O
Why would they stop being called The United Kingdom of Great Britain?
o_O
Why would they stop being called The United Kingdom of Great Britain?
I thought the idea was that they would become part of the "Euro State", which would then mean they are no longer under monarchistic rule. Is that not correct?
Getting 27 members to agree on anything is a crapshoot.
The EU will eventually be essentially a single country in all but name but it's going to take 100 years because people are afraid of change and as long as the old timers are in power it doesn't matter what the younger generations want.
No. France, for example, is French. They're not about to give that up to be European. (Nor should they, really.)
Except where being 'European' grants them stronger bargaining power in economic trade summits &c. Regional monikers also do not preclude more local monikers. When I travel abroad I use the demonym Chicagoan rather than American even though both are accurate. Calling yourself Parisian, French, or European would be no different.
I'm also curious as to how a somewhat more strengthened EU (potentially with its own military power depending on the hypothetical) fails to meet the necessary requirements to be considered a country on its own right.
I won't call you crazy, simply because it's not worth it. When you travel, do you happen to hop across the pond or is it limited to Milwaukee & back again?
o_O
Why would they stop being called The United Kingdom of Great Britain?
I thought the idea was that they would become part of the "Euro State", which would then mean they are no longer under monarchistic rule. Is that not correct?
I'm failing to see how this would turn them into 'Landing Strip 1.' Much the same as how when the Constitution got ratified Massachusetts didn't suddenly cease to exist, Great Britain would still be there.
Getting 27 members to agree on anything is a crapshoot.
The EU will eventually be essentially a single country in all but name but it's going to take 100 years because people are afraid of change and as long as the old timers are in power it doesn't matter what the younger generations want.
No. France, for example, is French. They're not about to give that up to be European. (Nor should they, really.)
Except where being 'European' grants them stronger bargaining power in economic trade summits &c. Regional monikers also do not preclude more local monikers. When I travel abroad I use the demonym Chicagoan rather than American even though both are accurate. Calling yourself Parisian, French, or European would be no different.
I'm also curious as to how a somewhat more strengthened EU (potentially with its own military power depending on the hypothetical) fails to meet the necessary requirements to be considered a country on its own right.
I won't call you crazy, simply because it's not worth it. When you travel, do you happen to hop across the pond or is it limited to Milwaukee & back again?
o_O
Why would they stop being called The United Kingdom of Great Britain?
I thought the idea was that they would become part of the "Euro State", which would then mean they are no longer under monarchistic rule. Is that not correct?
I'm failing to see how this would turn them into 'Landing Strip 1.' Much the same as how when the Constitution got ratified Massachusetts didn't suddenly cease to exist, Great Britain would still be there.
Yes, but Massachusetts is a state within a country, much like Wales is a "country" within the UK. It's the name of a place. The UK is called the UK because it's ruled by a monarchy, and the whole "Great Britain" thing came from the country conquering and thinking it was Berty Big Bollocks. If the country becomes a single state within a united ruled Europe it wold no longer be under monarchistic rule and so would therefore no longer be named the UK.
o_O
Why would they stop being called The United Kingdom of Great Britain?
I thought the idea was that they would become part of the "Euro State", which would then mean they are no longer under monarchistic rule. Is that not correct?
I'm failing to see how this would turn them into 'Landing Strip 1.' Much the same as how when the Constitution got ratified Massachusetts didn't suddenly cease to exist, Great Britain would still be there.
Yes, but Massachusetts is a state within a country, much like Wales is a "country" within the UK. It's the name of a place. The UK is called the UK because it's ruled by a monarchy, and the whole "Great Britain" thing came from the country conquering and thinking it was Berty Big Bollocks. If the country becomes a single state within a united ruled Europe it wold no longer be under monarchistic rule and so would therefore no longer be named the UK.
It is now, but prior to 1788 it was a country in a loose confederation/alliance with other countries. Does membership in the EU specifically ban monarchies? Because this would be the first I've heard of it.
o_O
Why would they stop being called The United Kingdom of Great Britain?
I thought the idea was that they would become part of the "Euro State", which would then mean they are no longer under monarchistic rule. Is that not correct?
I'm failing to see how this would turn them into 'Landing Strip 1.' Much the same as how when the Constitution got ratified Massachusetts didn't suddenly cease to exist, Great Britain would still be there.
Yes, but Massachusetts is a state within a country, much like Wales is a "country" within the UK. It's the name of a place. The UK is called the UK because it's ruled by a monarchy, and the whole "Great Britain" thing came from the country conquering and thinking it was Berty Big Bollocks. If the country becomes a single state within a united ruled Europe it wold no longer be under monarchistic rule and so would therefore no longer be named the UK.
It is now, but prior to 1788 it was a country in a loose confederation/alliance with other countries. Does membership in the EU specifically ban monarchies? Because this would be the first I've heard of it.
It doesn't, Denmark and the Netherlands are also EU members that still have their own royal familes
Getting 27 members to agree on anything is a crapshoot.
The EU will eventually be essentially a single country in all but name but it's going to take 100 years because people are afraid of change and as long as the old timers are in power it doesn't matter what the younger generations want.
No. France, for example, is French. They're not about to give that up to be European. (Nor should they, really.)
Except where being 'European' grants them stronger bargaining power in economic trade summits &c. Regional monikers also do not preclude more local monikers. When I travel abroad I use the demonym Chicagoan rather than American even though both are accurate. Calling yourself Parisian, French, or European would be no different.
I'm also curious as to how a somewhat more strengthened EU (potentially with its own military power depending on the hypothetical) fails to meet the necessary requirements to be considered a country on its own right.
I won't call you crazy, simply because it's not worth it. When you travel, do you happen to hop across the pond or is it limited to Milwaukee & back again?
I've spent time on other continents.
I also enjoy Summerfest.
I'd still say you're way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off with your view on that part of the Old World. Having a single person from Europe qualify himself as "European" to anybody on the continent is not happening. I'm not going to say "ever", but I'm thinking it.
Getting 27 members to agree on anything is a crapshoot.
The EU will eventually be essentially a single country in all but name but it's going to take 100 years because people are afraid of change and as long as the old timers are in power it doesn't matter what the younger generations want.
No. France, for example, is French. They're not about to give that up to be European. (Nor should they, really.)
Except where being 'European' grants them stronger bargaining power in economic trade summits &c. Regional monikers also do not preclude more local monikers. When I travel abroad I use the demonym Chicagoan rather than American even though both are accurate. Calling yourself Parisian, French, or European would be no different.
I'm also curious as to how a somewhat more strengthened EU (potentially with its own military power depending on the hypothetical) fails to meet the necessary requirements to be considered a country on its own right.
I won't call you crazy, simply because it's not worth it. When you travel, do you happen to hop across the pond or is it limited to Milwaukee & back again?
I've spent time on other continents.
I also enjoy Summerfest.
I'd still say you're way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off with your view on that part of the Old World. Having a single person from Europe qualify himself as "European" to anybody on the continent is not happening. I'm not going to say "ever", but I'm thinking it.
o_O
Why would they stop being called The United Kingdom of Great Britain?
I thought the idea was that they would become part of the "Euro State", which would then mean they are no longer under monarchistic rule. Is that not correct?
I'm failing to see how this would turn them into 'Landing Strip 1.' Much the same as how when the Constitution got ratified Massachusetts didn't suddenly cease to exist, Great Britain would still be there.
Yes, but Massachusetts is a state within a country, much like Wales is a "country" within the UK. It's the name of a place. The UK is called the UK because it's ruled by a monarchy, and the whole "Great Britain" thing came from the country conquering and thinking it was Berty Big Bollocks. If the country becomes a single state within a united ruled Europe it wold no longer be under monarchistic rule and so would therefore no longer be named the UK.
It is now, but prior to 1788 it was a country in a loose confederation/alliance with other countries. Does membership in the EU specifically ban monarchies? Because this would be the first I've heard of it.
We're already members of the EU, we're just not under the Euro, and the Eu is in no way a state system, or a super state as the OP implies it will become.
Getting 27 members to agree on anything is a crapshoot.
The EU will eventually be essentially a single country in all but name but it's going to take 100 years because people are afraid of change and as long as the old timers are in power it doesn't matter what the younger generations want.
No. France, for example, is French. They're not about to give that up to be European. (Nor should they, really.)
Except where being 'European' grants them stronger bargaining power in economic trade summits &c. Regional monikers also do not preclude more local monikers. When I travel abroad I use the demonym Chicagoan rather than American even though both are accurate. Calling yourself Parisian, French, or European would be no different.
I'm also curious as to how a somewhat more strengthened EU (potentially with its own military power depending on the hypothetical) fails to meet the necessary requirements to be considered a country on its own right.
I won't call you crazy, simply because it's not worth it. When you travel, do you happen to hop across the pond or is it limited to Milwaukee & back again?
I've spent time on other continents.
I also enjoy Summerfest.
I'd still say you're way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off with your view on that part of the Old World. Having a single person from Europe qualify himself as "European" to anybody on the continent is not happening. I'm not going to say "ever", but I'm thinking it.
o_O
Why would they stop being called The United Kingdom of Great Britain?
I thought the idea was that they would become part of the "Euro State", which would then mean they are no longer under monarchistic rule. Is that not correct?
I'm failing to see how this would turn them into 'Landing Strip 1.' Much the same as how when the Constitution got ratified Massachusetts didn't suddenly cease to exist, Great Britain would still be there.
Yes, but Massachusetts is a state within a country, much like Wales is a "country" within the UK. It's the name of a place. The UK is called the UK because it's ruled by a monarchy, and the whole "Great Britain" thing came from the country conquering and thinking it was Berty Big Bollocks. If the country becomes a single state within a united ruled Europe it wold no longer be under monarchistic rule and so would therefore no longer be named the UK.
It is now, but prior to 1788 it was a country in a loose confederation/alliance with other countries. Does membership in the EU specifically ban monarchies? Because this would be the first I've heard of it.
We're already members of the EU, we're just not under the Euro, and the Eu is in no way a state system, or a super state as the OP implies it will become.
I'd still say you're way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off with your view on that part of the Old World. Having a single person from Europe qualify himself as "European" to anybody on the continent is not happening. I'm not going to say "ever", but I'm thinking it.
And?
Ba-da-dum?
Should there be an "and"?
You seemed to stop halfway to making a point, so I figured there was more.
We're already members of the EU, we're just not under the Euro, and the EU is in no way a state system, or a super state as the OP implies it will become.
Yeah, it is.
That's a good response, fleshing it out isn't necessary I guess so I'll just lay back and say you're right....
We're already members of the EU, we're just not under the Euro, and the Eu is in no way a state system, or a super state as the OP implies it will become.
How is it not? Particularly under the hypothetical where it strengthens its inter-state regulatory frameworks/harmonization &c. over the coming decades.
We're already members of the EU, we're just not under the Euro, and the EU is in no way a state system, or a super state as the OP implies it will become.
Yeah, it is.
That's a good response, fleshing it out isn't necessary I guess so I'll just lay back and say you're right....
Did I misunderstand what you mean by state-system? I assumed that you refer to a "political system". The EU at the moment has a fixed political structure with trias politica where the executive part is (for the moment and in some cases) left to the individual member states. It would soon have a constitution and even firmer definition of it's functioning. Did you mean something different?
I'd still say you're way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off with your view on that part of the Old World. Having a single person from Europe qualify himself as "European" to anybody on the continent is not happening. I'm not going to say "ever", but I'm thinking it.
And?
Ba-da-dum?
Should there be an "and"?
You seemed to stop halfway to making a point, so I figured there was more.
From what I understand, the English are already having an identity crisis drowning in all things American, Irish, Scottish, etc. so I'm not too sure they'd want to hop on any bandwagon that would further dilute their sense of identity.
I also understand that places like Italy or Belgium have enough trouble getting along in their own country due to having very old memories of city-states and things of that sort. I know that times are changing but we are talking about nations with very long lasting perceptions and memories of their neighbors so I can't imagine a fully united Europe in the next 100 years even.
We're already members of the EU, we're just not under the Euro, and the Eu is in no way a state system, or a super state as the OP implies it will become.
How is it not? Particularly under the hypothetical where it strengthens its inter-state regulatory frameworks/harmonization &c. over the coming decades.
Just because the countries have the same currency does not mean they are under the rule of a single national government. If this is incorrect please actually justify instead of just "I know you are but what am I, and you're wrong!"
Posts
This sounds like the storyline of a FPS/RTS war game :P
With possibly the words Tom Clancy or Call of in it. ^_^
And you know what's fucking bullshit? Iraq. Thanks to fucking Iraq, Afgahnistan is slowly going to shit.
http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/
<MORTAL KOMBAT THEME>
Your contribution is up to your usual standards I see.
Indeed. If Russia were ever to create any kind of EU-scale trading pact it would be with non-EU/non-NATO eastern European nations that Russia could exert influence over.
The closes Russia has is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and thats more to show the middle finger to the USA/EU then a real threat.
One election cycle certainly does not stop or even necessarily slow down integration.
Especially when it can be expected that the last thing to integrate would be the political structures.
This is unfortunately the type of bullshit that's starting to appear all over Dublin.
Bunch of fearmongering halfwits.
Celeste [Switch] - She'll be wrestling with inner demons when she comes...
The EU will eventually be essentially a single country in all but name but it's going to take 100 years because people are afraid of change and as long as the old timers are in power it doesn't matter what the younger generations want.
There are still nay-sayers who wish their country had never joined the EU, as long as there are enough of them around who vote "no" on anything EU related without reading it's hard to make progress.
Not entirely true, but there are only a couple cases where harvesters self-regulated.
WMain, regulations on fishing are necessary in order to actually preserve fish stocks for the future. It has nothing to do with saving individual fish. If you allow people to overfish, that depletes fish stocks and when they disappear completely they are gone. Overfishing of Cod in the Grand Banks is an example. Some people might lose out in the short run, but many more people will benefit in the long run if fishing is done in a sustainable manner.
Also, you can't say "we've been fishing since the beginning of time!" as an excuse. Boats with dragging nets that pick up anything and everything are awful for the environment, and just lead to overfishing. Humans catch more fish now that ever before.
I know that and i'm not against regulations, what i'm against is how draconian the regulations are. They are doing more damage than good, both in employment and in environmental concerns as was pointed out earlier. Because of the regulations tons of fishing catch is dumped to try meet within the quota.
I imagine fishermen aren't massively against the regulations, but they are going to be against the unneccessary waste they can't control because of the regulations quota problems.
Except where being 'European' grants them stronger bargaining power in economic trade summits &c. Regional monikers also do not preclude more local monikers. When I travel abroad I use the demonym Chicagoan rather than American even though both are accurate. Calling yourself Parisian, French, or European would be no different.
I'm also curious as to how a somewhat more strengthened EU (potentially with its own military power depending on the hypothetical) fails to meet the necessary requirements to be considered a country on its own right.
Apart from that I reckon the Uk should just pack in its armed forces and become the bank of Europe, much like the Swiss, but with even less of an armed force.
o_O
Why would they stop being called The United Kingdom of Great Britain?
I thought the idea was that they would become part of the "Euro State", which would then mean they are no longer under monarchistic rule. Is that not correct?
I won't call you crazy, simply because it's not worth it. When you travel, do you happen to hop across the pond or is it limited to Milwaukee & back again?
I'm failing to see how this would turn them into 'Landing Strip 1.' Much the same as how when the Constitution got ratified Massachusetts didn't suddenly cease to exist, Great Britain would still be there.
I've spent time on other continents.
I also enjoy Summerfest.
Yes, but Massachusetts is a state within a country, much like Wales is a "country" within the UK. It's the name of a place. The UK is called the UK because it's ruled by a monarchy, and the whole "Great Britain" thing came from the country conquering and thinking it was Berty Big Bollocks. If the country becomes a single state within a united ruled Europe it wold no longer be under monarchistic rule and so would therefore no longer be named the UK.
It is now, but prior to 1788 it was a country in a loose confederation/alliance with other countries. Does membership in the EU specifically ban monarchies? Because this would be the first I've heard of it.
It doesn't, Denmark and the Netherlands are also EU members that still have their own royal familes
I'd still say you're way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off with your view on that part of the Old World. Having a single person from Europe qualify himself as "European" to anybody on the continent is not happening. I'm not going to say "ever", but I'm thinking it.
And?
We're already members of the EU, we're just not under the Euro, and the Eu is in no way a state system, or a super state as the OP implies it will become.
Ba-da-dum?
Should there be an "and"?
Yeah, it is.
You seemed to stop halfway to making a point, so I figured there was more.
That's a good response, fleshing it out isn't necessary I guess so I'll just lay back and say you're right....
How is it not? Particularly under the hypothetical where it strengthens its inter-state regulatory frameworks/harmonization &c. over the coming decades.
Did I misunderstand what you mean by state-system? I assumed that you refer to a "political system". The EU at the moment has a fixed political structure with trias politica where the executive part is (for the moment and in some cases) left to the individual member states. It would soon have a constitution and even firmer definition of it's functioning. Did you mean something different?
Nope, that was it. Thank you for reading.
I also understand that places like Italy or Belgium have enough trouble getting along in their own country due to having very old memories of city-states and things of that sort. I know that times are changing but we are talking about nations with very long lasting perceptions and memories of their neighbors so I can't imagine a fully united Europe in the next 100 years even.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28administrative_division%29
Just because the countries have the same currency does not mean they are under the rule of a single national government. If this is incorrect please actually justify instead of just "I know you are but what am I, and you're wrong!"