Greenland is not in europe. It may be a danish colony but that doesn't make it "european territory" any more than french guiana is. EU territory? Sure. But europe is a penninsula on the western flank of eurasia.
> Greenland is not in europe. It may be a danish colony but that doesn't make it "european territory" any more than french guiana is. EU territory? Sure. But europe is a penninsula on the western flank of eurasia.
You are right that Greenland is not in Europe (it sits on the Nort American tectonic plate).
It is also not an EU territory, however, it is linked to Europea through Denmark. European influence exists through governance, education, and trade.
Most Greenlanders identify primarily as Kalaallit (Inuit) and Greenlandic, not European.
How do Hawaiians feel about this? Just in case: what would you consider a valid qualification for Hawaiians, for their opinion on this matter to be material? And how many of them support an independent Hawaii?
I looked online but didn’t find any hard numbers, only vague movements. Scottish independence for example seems to have substantial , if minority , support. If the same cannot be said for Hawaii, then this comment feels… like a cop out.
As is the case when it comes to indigenous populations being displaced and slowly replaced over time: they don't get to have a choice. Hawaii was mostly Japanese in the early 1900s having already displaced previous arrivals, and today less than 15% of the population considers themselves native hawaiians. The remaining 85% are there _because_ Hawaii is not independent, why would they ever hold a vote for it ?
See similar cases in New Caledonia, the Falklands, and more.
US foreign policy is nearly as dimwitted as european foreign policy is. Of course puerto rico is a colony.
But also, actually, if China did annex puerto rico? Snap snap snap. Good for them. They really made it out the hood. May god look upon the rest of us so positively
> And Hawaii is not in America. Certainly neither is Guam etc.
Sure, no argument here.
> What kind of argument are you even trying to make?
Mostly that characterizing Greenland as European is just as insane as characterizing French Guiana that way. Or the falknlands, New Caledonia, Polynesia, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Aruba, Curaçao, Anguilla, Bermuda, the Virgin Islands, etc etc. These are colonies—not part of europe, and should have been made whole decades ago with the resolution of WWII, and their continued presence as "rightfully" part of European nations destabilizes our globe.
Europe is welcome to extend its economic privileges to all nations of earth, and I for one will continue to argue for kicking us out of Hawaii and Guam while ensuring we don't further engage in predatory trade agreements.
Of course, I don't expect any of this predation to cease anytime soon.
Greenland has been inching towards independence since the seventies, because that's the common ambition of greenlandic peoples and it's slow because there are rather deep ties between Denmark and Greenland. These ties are to some extent very negative for the greenlanders, they're generally discriminated against and have been viciously mistreated at times, but a quick clean cut would also be quite painful for them.
In the seventies Greenland joined the EU predecessor EEC with Denmark, quickly realised that europeans were emptying their fishing waters and in the early eighties left the union. It's the only entity to have done so. Then the independence process trudged on, they self-manage in many areas now, even more since a 2008 referendum where some 75% or so voted in favour of independence. Since 2009 there is a law that says that Greenland can become independent whenever they want, as long as it's approved by greenlander referendum and the danish parliament.
To the extent they're a colony international law also clearly gives them the right to unilaterally declare independence. A majority of greenlanders are likely still in favour, but a majority also would prefer to postpone it if it would result in worse living conditions, since that's what polls usually conclude.
Ignoring half a century of rather delicate politics and independence ambitions the US shat all over it and said that they wanted to buy it, and then several years later said that they might just annex instead. This is quite belligerent and nasty behaviour, which in my opinion should have caused european countries to start dumping US bonds and stop answering calls from the White House.
Well nobody is forcing Denmark to be a dick about decolonization, nor a dick to all the people it never colonized. That's a choice.
> This is quite belligerent and nasty behaviour
So was colonizing, well, anywhere. Europe still hasn't been appropriately punished for this. And yes, the US deserves to be punished severely for its own brutal conquests.
Denmark isn't "being a dick about decolonization", it's just that they happen to be very kindly subsidising half of Greenland's budget, which causes even many enthusiastic about the idea of an independent Greenland cause to think that leaving might be a mistake.
Conversely, the leader of the present day United States threatens to colonising Greenland by force to show off how powerful he is. Ergo Europeans, particularly Greenlanders, have little reason to trust the US
> Denmark isn't "being a dick about decolonization", it's just that they happen to be very kindly subsidising half of Greenland's budget, which causes even many enthusiastic about the idea of an independent Greenland cause to think that leaving might be a mistake.
Brother, spread this pro-colonization propaganda elsewhere.
> Conversely, the leader of the present day United States threatens to colonising Greenland by force to show off how powerful he is. Ergo Europeans, particularly Greenlanders, have little reason to trust the US
You know nothing about this, so stop spreading your made up lies. A roadmap for Greenlandic independence is in place. The Greenlandic parliament is controlling the speed of this process.
That's what the possessive descriptor "European" means, yes. Which is why it's weird you're so against it. I'm not really sure what you're arguing at this point.
"European" is a geographic adjective. It does not apply to domination of other places. No amount of willpower will make the places that europe chooses to rape "european".
Currently Denmark participates in financing Greenland, pulling the rug on it would likely not be pleasant for the greenlanders and if they did I'd count that as rather dickish unless the greenlanders had a near consensus on the issue and asked the danish parliament to do it.
Well, some justice have been sought and won, but a lot remains. To me it seems like an attempt at distraction to clump together the treatment of the Mau Mau and the nuking of Algeria with Denmark's relation with Greenland.
Besides economic relations, independence for Greenland would also mean that they would need to seek justice to a larger extent through international courts and in at least some cases it's likely easier for greenlanders to find justice in danish courts.
And yet denmark hasn't burned. How do you remediate this contradiction?
> To me it seems like an attempt at distraction to clump together the treatment of the Mau Mau and the nuking of Algeria with Denmark's relation with Greenland.
Believe me, britain deserves far worse than just being burned down. But denmark still must face justice
You make it sound that the brits were the bad guys, when it was an elite top % pulling the strings and the rest were mostly trying to make ends meet.
But yes agree, the elite extracting wealth from the colonies back in the days, and still are extracting wealth from your average Joe, deserves far worse.
Colonies can only address this at the granularity of the nationalism with which they were presented. If every-day brits don't want to be blamed, they need to make their own rebellion to show they aren't party to the evil done in their name.
I think this is true of my own country (the US), and it's hopeless. I think most americans are ok with the evil done in their name. I wish I had better advice or insight.
But pretending like two imperial powers arguing over greenland is some great injustice just spits in the face of humanity. Have some fucking dignity. Greenland deserves better than to be treated like a piece of property
> It was supposed to be something akin to United States of Europe
No, it never was.
> but instead in devolved into a bureaucracy
No it hasn't:
"There are two striking aspects of this rejection of EU bureaucracy. First, in comparison with other, comparable entities, such as the US federal bureaucracy, the EU’s administrative apparatus has a marginal size. Specifically, the EU, which is responsible for more than 440 million citizens, employs only around 60,000 people, while the US federal bureaucracy has more than two million employees that govern a territory with about 330 million inhabitants. Accordingly, the EU bureaucracy is comparatively small and far from being the “bureaucratic monster” which it is frequently portrayed as."
I'm thankful for that. That is why our food is way better and way healthier than the shit the US makes it's citizens eat.
> is incredibly socialist and the EC thinks it is above everyone else.
LOL. No it's not "socialist" and the European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union. If you really think the Commission behaves as if they are above everything else (they do not!), I pull an American president.
> That is why our food is way better and way healthier than the shit the US makes it's citizens eat.
The US optimized for convenience, affordability, and variety.
You can eat very healthily in the US, but it requires more intentional choices.
In many (not all) EU countries, the default option is closer to healthy.
> You can eat very healthily in the US, but it requires more intentional choices.
It requires money too. If you are poor your choices are naturally limited and in the end you are dependent on government regulations to eat at least somewhat healthy.
What's interesting is JFK Jr. (our Secratary of Health and Human Services) has a stance that Americans eat too many ultra-processed foods. He wants people to eat more whole foods and fewer additives. He questions conventional warnings about saturated fat and supports dietary changes than include more full-fat dairy and meats. He prefers education over bans or mandates.
And that is not working for the poor of which the US seems to have plenty for a developed country.
The poor have no choice, even if they are educated, and the food industry is fine with selling them garbage. It's legal to do so after all. AFAIK food is generally even cheaper in Europe than in the USA. Even with those regulations.
Regulation is about setting minimum standards for acceptance, not specifying exactly how.
This means that if I walk into a random croissant shop and buy a croissant, I don't subsequently have 2 days of food poisoning.
Arguably, healthier being the default is also good. The less I personally need to think about this, the more I can think about other more useful things.
> There are two striking aspects of this rejection of EU bureaucracy. First, in comparison with other, comparable entities, such as the US federal bureaucracy, the EU’s administrative apparatus has a marginal size. Specifically, the EU, which is responsible for more than 440 million citizens, employs only around 60,000 people, while the US federal bureaucracy has more than two million employees that govern a territory with about 330 million inhabitants.
that's because the EU co-opted existing member state agencies instead of creating its own
e.g. the german federal department of agriculture effectively is controlled by the EU (almost all of its duties are an EU competence), but 100% of its costs are attributed to germany
this makes the EU look much more efficient than it is
The EU in its current form is mostly about markets. It routinely pushes for the sacrifice of government monopolies to the altar of the free market (see for a recent example the french train network). Most of its regulations are to ensure a level field for a balanced market.
Hell it pushes for free markets even when it makes very little sense (the eu electricity market and its weird idiosyncrasies are an artifact of that)
It basically bans member governments from printing money and imposes very strict limits of 3% GDP on government deficits. For reference the US deficit was 5.9% gdp this year, Almost twice as much. this greatly limits government control over the economy.
> imposes very strict limits of 3% GDP on government deficits.
You might want to check that information. This very strict limit is only enforced on selective EU countries like Greece for example.
France has had routinely yearly deficits above 3% in the last 10 years and has never been worried one bit about it.
For the record the French deficit was around 5.4% this year and it is set to increase again next year as the parliament is completely blocked and a budget compromise cannot be reached.
Even the so called debt ceiling defined in the pact of stability is mostly ignored. Italy and France are both well above the 100% debt to GDP ratio when the treaty says that every country within the EU should be at or below 60%.
> It basically bans member governments from printing money
It only bans the ones that have adopted the Euro. The countries that have declined to adopt the euro are free to do as they please more or less.
The euro countries though may not be able to print money, but they just get the ECB to do it for them via quantitative easing which has been used since 2008 and only recently stopped when the interests rates started climbing after the pandemic.
> Even Zelenskyy acknowledged that the US provides more aid than the EU. And this is despite the fact that Europe has twice the population and doesn't have a vast ocean between it and Russia.
Why does the population matter at all? The US GDP is $30T and the EU GDP is $21T.
> Isn't it exactly the opposite, and it was the EU that attempted to overthrow democracy in the US (and failed)?
What are you talking about? According to US intelligence agencies, bipartisan Senate reports, and federal prosecutions, Russia, China, and Iran have been singled out at running disinformation campaigns. The EU has never been accused by the US of trying to topple democracy in the US.
They are not "giving" money. They are exchanging them for resources. Russia gets the money but loses resources which it could've sold to other countries instead.
Ah, you're totally right. Europe is getting the better end of the deal Russia is practically getting scammed, exchanging goods for profits they can redistribute to fund their war.
The EU is not Europe. I never see any pro-EU sentiment anywhere besides on HN and Reddit. Talk to Europeans and they hate the EU and see it as an oppressive foreign power. Except for the Germans.
> Talk to Europeans and they hate the EU and see it as an oppressive foreign power.
Your framing is off, I'm afraid.
Across Europe, most people see the EU as more good than bad, especially compared to the alternative of countries acting alone. At the same time, support is often cautious rather than enthusiastic.
Voter turn out is extremely low in certain central and eastern Europe for EU elections. I think it was down to under 20% in some places a few years ago.
I had hoped that the UK would vote to remain and Europe would move away from a centralist, authoritarian model, but it's got worse especially since 2020. The EU is its own worst enemy.
No, I haven't. Both the UK and EU are doing many of the same things. You can argue that the EU is bureaucratic without supporting bureaucracy within the UK. These are not contradictory positions.
You claimed that the UK leaving was bad as they were more liberal, and then noted that they were also doing lots of anti privacy stuff. Seems a little contradictory to me.
One definition of authoritarian is "enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom".
It would seem to me that the recent spate of sanctioning individuals - e.g. for 'disseminating misinformation' without a legal definition of what that actually is would be an example of authoritarianism. A direct attack on freedom of speech and thought.
It insists on things like "corruption is bad", "human rights are for everyone including gays" so naturally certain conservative groups find that authoritarian.
Human rights are for everyone, not just people you agree with. If you bring in censorship, surveillance and smother protest for people you disagree with, you will find it getting used against you yourself at some point. Europe has imported this false binary from the USA, and it is not benefitting it either.
The EU has its fair share of corruption, but it is is better at hiding it than developing countries. Its current president Ursula Von Der Leyen is a fraud who appears to have cheated at university, and only got to where she did due to wealth and aristocratic family connections.
also things such as chat control and surveilling the entire populace, but I'm sure you must be right that the problem people have with it is that they say "corruption is bad"
Chat control is a Swedish proposal that has consistently lost in the Parliament. We should of course keep fighting it but at least as a Swede I know things would have been much worse without the EU.
It was pushed by Sweden but also by many other countries including France (which loves to give lessons of democracy to the world by the way and is very much at the forefront of human rights or so they say) and Hungary amongst others.
> has consistently lost in the Parliament.
It has consistently lost so far. Secondly the reason it has lost is because people like me took the time to actually reach out to any MEP who would take my call to tell them to oppose this law. If we had waited for the EU to react and put a stop to this madness, we would still be waiting.
This law should never have been proposed in the first place anyway. The fact that it was proposed and debated is a shameful action in itself.
> I know things would have been much worse without the EU.
How can you know for sure? You can't. Since it originated from the EU commission, it stands to reason that without the EU commission it would not have happened.
You believe that the EU is good because that is your belief. The European countries existed for 100s of years before the EU. There is no reason to think that they can't go back to this state in the future.
I've never seen any pro-EU attitude in the European countries I've lived in. Except for among the political and media class. But those aren't representatives of the general population.
But I haven't lived in central Europe, like Germany, Belgium, etc. Where the attitudes seem to be quite pro-EU.
The original statement still stands. Europe is not the EU. The EU is not Europe.
Which Europeans have you "talked" to? Discord and twitter don't count. People moan about the EU like they moan about their own national government.
Opinion polls on actually leaving the EU show a minority in favour. Most Europeans saw Brexit play out and realise sticking the finger up at your neighbours is not a winning strategy.
Brexit was ironically mostly an anti immigration vote. It has thoroughly demolished the involved parties that the one thing promised has not come to pass.
I guess real life doesn't count either? Good that we can rely on HN and Reddit, where the pro-EU sentiment is strong. I just haven't seen that in real life, which is why I suggest maybe it might be particular to Germans and probably Belgians and Dutch.
Unfortunately you live in the wrong time and age. You'd like to report to your local commissar when somebody expresses opinions and ideas against the cherished government - "he's a right wing propagandist who seeks to destroy us!". But it's not the 20th century anymore, and all you can do is scream into the cyber void.
Accusing anybody who doesn't love the government of "spreading propaganda" is not a sign of knowledge. It's a sign of an obsolete 20th century mindset and perspective on life.
Next perhaps you're going to accuse me of "Staatsfeindlichkeit", which the German leadership was screaming in their denouncements, before the people tore down their walls.
"Verunglimpfung des Staates" - "Insulting the State", this awful, awful crime, is something I'm going to continue doing however I fancy. Millions of people were killed for that right, so it's not something I'm ever giving up.
Not loving the government is OK. Heck, hating the government might also be OK.
Insisting that we European citizens hate the EU when it is not true, and then doubling down with accusations of censorship when the whole thread points out your mistake, is downright stupid. But hey, if that makes you happy as some kind of freedom fighter, go for it.
When you start talking about "right wing propaganda that will destroy us", then I only hear echoes of the government worship of the 20th century. As I said, the EU is not Europe, nor the other way around. And that's mainly what's upsetting hackers. They live in a fantasy that the EU is in some way like the USA. I know that quite a lot of Germans, Dutch and Belgians consider themselves "EU citizens". And maybe Spaniards as well. Nobody in Northern Europe considers themself an "EU citizen" or gives any value to the EU. They consider themselves people of their own nations only, and the EU as a foreign influence.
The EU has better healthcare and welfare overall, but fewer individual rights in other areas. Less gun crime (although this depends on region). Poverty levels vary a lot across the EU.
Americans take homeschooling for granted, for better or worse, but it is banned in some European countries like Germany.
Also the USA allows groups such as the Amish their liberty, which would be extremely unlikely in much of the EU where state interference would either force them out or destroy them.
The US has umpteen issues but is much better for freedom of expression frankly, although it is being steered away from that.
I've read somewhere that Americans understand freedom as "freedom TO", shiny Europeans understand freedom as "freedom FROM". This is extremely visible in this thread and probably a cause of many misunderstandings.
There's philosophical terms for this: America emphasizes negative liberty ("freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint") , while Europe emphasizes positive liberty ("the possession of the power and resources to act in the context of the structural limitations of the broader society which impacts a person's ability to act")
The EU is not more "free". There are a lot of things you can't say or will get shut down for. Most of the EU does not have the same freedom of expression or religion that the USA guarantees in its founding documents. The collective cannot have freedom if the individual does not. That includes the right to disagree.
The EU and USA are going down the same road. Social media is a part of this censorship of open discussion and is usually American based, but works hand in hand with the European governments. Both European and American governments seem happy to deceive citizens into a surveillance state.
It is unacceptable to ban homeschooling. Some children need to be homeschooled, because of disabilities, or even high intelligence. Given the fact that Germany has suffered from both far right and far left dictatorships within living memory, anything that does not promote blind obedience to the state should be encouraged.
Many parts of Europe retain a feudal mentality, which includes constant deference to authority.
> There are a lot of things you can't say or will get shut down for.
Such as? I honestly can't think of anything.
> It is unacceptable to ban homeschooling. Some children need to be homeschooled, because of disabilities, or even high intelligence.
European education laws prioritize the child's right to education and social development over parental autonomy as an absolute. Mandatory schooling laws have been adopted to ensure minimum educational standards and to safeguard against neglect and abuse, which is especially important when it comes to disabilities. Someone with proper training and decades of experience will educate a disabled child far more effectively than a parent whose only guaranteed qualification may be knowing how to have sex.
I've seen what a complete crapshoot state education is first hand. My god daughter came out of school recently and can barely read and write. I had to suffer through it myself...
I find it amusing that homeschooling is so vilified and stereotyped. All the homeschooled children I know are BETTER educated not worse. Contrary to the stereotype. Schools have massive bullying issues and are often bad environments for neurodiverse people. Schools are very Lord of the Flies.
Home schooling is of course only as good as the people teaching but the same is true of schools. Most state curricula prioritise the state and adoration of the state... funnily enough
He is not an EU citizen and, as a foreigner, acts as a mouthpiece for a hostile dictatorship. The US has sanctioned similar people too, most notably Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of Russia Today: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2559
Not all European countries have banned home schooling. Not even all members of the EU.
As for neglect and abuse of children, the public schools is where you will most readily find it. Including bullying until children commit suicide. And school shootings. Which is a lesser risk at home. No matter which continent.
No one said all EU countries have banned homeschooling. That is just one issue.
Schools are a haven for bullying, both by students and teachers. I did have some good teachers but some of them were also the most cruel and abusive people I've ever met.
I don't give very much for statistics and opinion polls. People tend to give the answer they think they're "supposed to give" in those. I base my assessment on my experience from talking to people in real life.
> Maybe you should get out of your right-wing bubble.
Your comment is nasty, but I don't think you're this nasty in real life. Probably you're just blowing off some steam online.
Likewise, I've never met a person who has said they are for the EU or even strongly pro-EU. So it must be a question of which of the EU member countries you are in or other kind of bubbles.
> Get out of yours.
I suggested in my original post that Germans seem to be pro-EU. And probably neighbouring countries too. Here in this thread also appeared a fanatically pro-EU Spaniard. In Nordic countries, I've never met a person who would admit they were pro-EU. Of course they must exist, since presumably half the people voted yes to join, a few decades ago.
In the end it seems to be no more complicated than people who benefit financially from EU redistribution of money are pro-EU and the people who have to pay the bill for it are against the EU.
As I said, I don't give much for opinion polls. And comparing two sides as you do now, doesn't mean that people are fond of either side.
You can prove anything with statistics. The last opinion poll I saw for my country of birth was both the EU and the national government at a less than 50% approval rate.
Ok so you trust your gut and lived experiences more that population statistics. That's a totally valid approach but it's very easy to misread the popular opinion as your friends are not a random sample.
I have an idea of what I'm talking about. I say that the EU is not Europe. Nor is Europe the EU. People in these conversations need to understand the difference, because it is significant. Norway, Great Britain, Iceland and Switzerland aren't in the EU.
Yes, but those are only trade and border agreements, and don't give the EU influence on internal political matters. Compare similar trade agreements between other nations, such as between the United States and their neighbours.
> want to annex a European territory
Greenland is not in europe. It may be a danish colony but that doesn't make it "european territory" any more than french guiana is. EU territory? Sure. But europe is a penninsula on the western flank of eurasia.
Edit: huh I had no idea how complicated the classification of eu territories is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_territories_of_members...
> Greenland is not in europe. It may be a danish colony but that doesn't make it "european territory" any more than french guiana is. EU territory? Sure. But europe is a penninsula on the western flank of eurasia.
You are right that Greenland is not in Europe (it sits on the Nort American tectonic plate).
It is also not an EU territory, however, it is linked to Europea through Denmark. European influence exists through governance, education, and trade.
Most Greenlanders identify primarily as Kalaallit (Inuit) and Greenlandic, not European.
Does that mean Hawaii isn’t part of US because it’s far away from mainland?
You got it baby, free hawaii
How do Hawaiians feel about this? Just in case: what would you consider a valid qualification for Hawaiians, for their opinion on this matter to be material? And how many of them support an independent Hawaii?
I looked online but didn’t find any hard numbers, only vague movements. Scottish independence for example seems to have substantial , if minority , support. If the same cannot be said for Hawaii, then this comment feels… like a cop out.
>How do Hawaiians feel about this?
As is the case when it comes to indigenous populations being displaced and slowly replaced over time: they don't get to have a choice. Hawaii was mostly Japanese in the early 1900s having already displaced previous arrivals, and today less than 15% of the population considers themselves native hawaiians. The remaining 85% are there _because_ Hawaii is not independent, why would they ever hold a vote for it ?
See similar cases in New Caledonia, the Falklands, and more.
Hawaiian land is being sold off regardless of democratic legitimacy.
Perhaps it is better to argue they should exercise indigenous control than wait until the concept is a farce
Its not a colony. Stop diminishing the agency of Greenlanders.
Of course it's a colony; this is just an observable fact. This is true regardless of how Greenland polls. Agency is immaterial.
It’s not more a colony than Purto Rico is. Would you say US would be OK if China annexes Purto Rico because they are a colony of US?
US foreign policy is nearly as dimwitted as european foreign policy is. Of course puerto rico is a colony.
But also, actually, if China did annex puerto rico? Snap snap snap. Good for them. They really made it out the hood. May god look upon the rest of us so positively
And Hawaii is not in America. Certainly neither is Guam etc.
What kind of argument are you even trying to make?
> And Hawaii is not in America. Certainly neither is Guam etc.
Sure, no argument here.
> What kind of argument are you even trying to make?
Mostly that characterizing Greenland as European is just as insane as characterizing French Guiana that way. Or the falknlands, New Caledonia, Polynesia, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Aruba, Curaçao, Anguilla, Bermuda, the Virgin Islands, etc etc. These are colonies—not part of europe, and should have been made whole decades ago with the resolution of WWII, and their continued presence as "rightfully" part of European nations destabilizes our globe.
Europe is welcome to extend its economic privileges to all nations of earth, and I for one will continue to argue for kicking us out of Hawaii and Guam while ensuring we don't further engage in predatory trade agreements.
Of course, I don't expect any of this predation to cease anytime soon.
Would you say that US attacked Japan first because Japan never ever attacked US? Only Hawaii which is not American.
I don't spend my time holding opinions about which state jerked off on the other's face. But hawaii is certainly not american
[flagged]
Oh, so US is giving up their claims to Purto Rico, Alaska, Hawaii, etc? Or are American imperalists holding on to their colonies?
God willing? Absolutely.
Worst of all, they are holding on the most of North America
What a bizarre description of what the US did.
Greenland has been inching towards independence since the seventies, because that's the common ambition of greenlandic peoples and it's slow because there are rather deep ties between Denmark and Greenland. These ties are to some extent very negative for the greenlanders, they're generally discriminated against and have been viciously mistreated at times, but a quick clean cut would also be quite painful for them.
In the seventies Greenland joined the EU predecessor EEC with Denmark, quickly realised that europeans were emptying their fishing waters and in the early eighties left the union. It's the only entity to have done so. Then the independence process trudged on, they self-manage in many areas now, even more since a 2008 referendum where some 75% or so voted in favour of independence. Since 2009 there is a law that says that Greenland can become independent whenever they want, as long as it's approved by greenlander referendum and the danish parliament.
To the extent they're a colony international law also clearly gives them the right to unilaterally declare independence. A majority of greenlanders are likely still in favour, but a majority also would prefer to postpone it if it would result in worse living conditions, since that's what polls usually conclude.
Ignoring half a century of rather delicate politics and independence ambitions the US shat all over it and said that they wanted to buy it, and then several years later said that they might just annex instead. This is quite belligerent and nasty behaviour, which in my opinion should have caused european countries to start dumping US bonds and stop answering calls from the White House.
> if it would result in worse living conditions
Well nobody is forcing Denmark to be a dick about decolonization, nor a dick to all the people it never colonized. That's a choice.
> This is quite belligerent and nasty behaviour
So was colonizing, well, anywhere. Europe still hasn't been appropriately punished for this. And yes, the US deserves to be punished severely for its own brutal conquests.
Denmark isn't "being a dick about decolonization", it's just that they happen to be very kindly subsidising half of Greenland's budget, which causes even many enthusiastic about the idea of an independent Greenland cause to think that leaving might be a mistake.
Conversely, the leader of the present day United States threatens to colonising Greenland by force to show off how powerful he is. Ergo Europeans, particularly Greenlanders, have little reason to trust the US
> Denmark isn't "being a dick about decolonization", it's just that they happen to be very kindly subsidising half of Greenland's budget, which causes even many enthusiastic about the idea of an independent Greenland cause to think that leaving might be a mistake.
Brother, spread this pro-colonization propaganda elsewhere.
> Conversely, the leader of the present day United States threatens to colonising Greenland by force to show off how powerful he is. Ergo Europeans, particularly Greenlanders, have little reason to trust the US
Conversely? Brother, they are the same thing.
Fine, be that American whose ignorance of world affairs is exceeded only by faith that anything its government does, dastardly foreigns do worse...
I am no liberal
You know nothing about this, so stop spreading your made up lies. A roadmap for Greenlandic independence is in place. The Greenlandic parliament is controlling the speed of this process.
[flagged]
It is European right now. It's under European sovereignty.
No, it's a colony. Calling it european is an affront to everyone with the ability to read
A European colony is European.
You can call anything anything you want. Why not call greenland australian?
Of course you'll look ridiculous regardless
That's just silly. Is a Frenchman French, even if he lives in the US?
This is an asinine comparison. You need to inquire about the identity of the french man's slave
It's not. European is a descriptor of sovereignty here, not one of geography.
Is your wallet yours, even if you leave it somewhere?
So use the right words: "greenland is the property of denmark"
That's what the possessive descriptor "European" means, yes. Which is why it's weird you're so against it. I'm not really sure what you're arguing at this point.
"European" is a geographic adjective. It does not apply to domination of other places. No amount of willpower will make the places that europe chooses to rape "european".
It's not purely geographic. It's possessive, it's cultural.
A Spanish dish is Spanish outside of Spain as well, as is a French song or a Danish person (the relevant one in this case!).
> It's possessive, it's cultural.
So you admit that the relationship between denmark and greenland is one of violence, not affection?
It's one of ownership. That's what possessive means.
Yes. You're talking about a relationship born of violence. Who would ever endorse this?
Thats how literally all state sovereignty everywhere in the world works.
Ok, so why cry over greenland when you know how this works?
Who's crying? We're defending our interest.
Why do you want to punish the Greenlanders? They would rather be a Danish colony than an American.
Look the danish punished greelanders many generations before us. Pretending this is justice is just evil
Currently Denmark participates in financing Greenland, pulling the rug on it would likely not be pleasant for the greenlanders and if they did I'd count that as rather dickish unless the greenlanders had a near consensus on the issue and asked the danish parliament to do it.
Well, some justice have been sought and won, but a lot remains. To me it seems like an attempt at distraction to clump together the treatment of the Mau Mau and the nuking of Algeria with Denmark's relation with Greenland.
Besides economic relations, independence for Greenland would also mean that they would need to seek justice to a larger extent through international courts and in at least some cases it's likely easier for greenlanders to find justice in danish courts.
Ok, why doesn't denmark finance birundi?
> Well, some justice have been sought and won
And yet denmark hasn't burned. How do you remediate this contradiction?
> To me it seems like an attempt at distraction to clump together the treatment of the Mau Mau and the nuking of Algeria with Denmark's relation with Greenland.
Believe me, britain deserves far worse than just being burned down. But denmark still must face justice
You make it sound that the brits were the bad guys, when it was an elite top % pulling the strings and the rest were mostly trying to make ends meet.
But yes agree, the elite extracting wealth from the colonies back in the days, and still are extracting wealth from your average Joe, deserves far worse.
Colonies can only address this at the granularity of the nationalism with which they were presented. If every-day brits don't want to be blamed, they need to make their own rebellion to show they aren't party to the evil done in their name.
I think this is true of my own country (the US), and it's hopeless. I think most americans are ok with the evil done in their name. I wish I had better advice or insight.
But pretending like two imperial powers arguing over greenland is some great injustice just spits in the face of humanity. Have some fucking dignity. Greenland deserves better than to be treated like a piece of property
It does, through NGO:s, humanitarian aid and african development and investment funds.
If you think a war for liberation is appropriate for the greenlanders I suggest you move there and agitate in local languages for this.
> It does, through NGO:s, humanitarian aid and african development and investment funds.
Oh? so you're pro continued rape of africa? How has that worked out? Which african peoples are asking for this at this point?
Christian charity failed generations ago and it's pathetic to see people still voicing support for it
[flagged]
And then Americans wonder why they are being viewed as a hostile enemy of Europe…
> It was supposed to be something akin to United States of Europe
No, it never was.
> but instead in devolved into a bureaucracy
No it hasn't:
"There are two striking aspects of this rejection of EU bureaucracy. First, in comparison with other, comparable entities, such as the US federal bureaucracy, the EU’s administrative apparatus has a marginal size. Specifically, the EU, which is responsible for more than 440 million citizens, employs only around 60,000 people, while the US federal bureaucracy has more than two million employees that govern a territory with about 330 million inhabitants. Accordingly, the EU bureaucracy is comparatively small and far from being the “bureaucratic monster” which it is frequently portrayed as."
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2023/09/04/why-do-so-many...
> that regulates the shit out if everything,
I'm thankful for that. That is why our food is way better and way healthier than the shit the US makes it's citizens eat.
> is incredibly socialist and the EC thinks it is above everyone else.
LOL. No it's not "socialist" and the European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union. If you really think the Commission behaves as if they are above everything else (they do not!), I pull an American president.
> That is why our food is way better and way healthier than the shit the US makes it's citizens eat.
The US optimized for convenience, affordability, and variety.
You can eat very healthily in the US, but it requires more intentional choices. In many (not all) EU countries, the default option is closer to healthy.
> You can eat very healthily in the US, but it requires more intentional choices.
It requires money too. If you are poor your choices are naturally limited and in the end you are dependent on government regulations to eat at least somewhat healthy.
> It requires money too. If you are poor your choices are naturally limited
Yes, because the US optimizes for convenience, price, and variety, so you see more industrialized food.
On average, poor people in Europe eat healthier than poor people in the US, but still significantly worse than wealthier Europeans.
> On average, poor people in Europe eat healthier than poor people in the US, but still significantly worse than wealthier Europeans.
Sure. But in the end the EU feeds it's citizens healthier food than the US does. That's all I'm saying. I'm glad we have those regulations.
We agree.
What's interesting is JFK Jr. (our Secratary of Health and Human Services) has a stance that Americans eat too many ultra-processed foods. He wants people to eat more whole foods and fewer additives. He questions conventional warnings about saturated fat and supports dietary changes than include more full-fat dairy and meats. He prefers education over bans or mandates.
> He prefers education over bans or mandates.
And that is not working for the poor of which the US seems to have plenty for a developed country.
The poor have no choice, even if they are educated, and the food industry is fine with selling them garbage. It's legal to do so after all. AFAIK food is generally even cheaper in Europe than in the USA. Even with those regulations.
Regulation is about setting minimum standards for acceptance, not specifying exactly how.
This means that if I walk into a random croissant shop and buy a croissant, I don't subsequently have 2 days of food poisoning.
Arguably, healthier being the default is also good. The less I personally need to think about this, the more I can think about other more useful things.
> There are two striking aspects of this rejection of EU bureaucracy. First, in comparison with other, comparable entities, such as the US federal bureaucracy, the EU’s administrative apparatus has a marginal size. Specifically, the EU, which is responsible for more than 440 million citizens, employs only around 60,000 people, while the US federal bureaucracy has more than two million employees that govern a territory with about 330 million inhabitants.
that's because the EU co-opted existing member state agencies instead of creating its own
e.g. the german federal department of agriculture effectively is controlled by the EU (almost all of its duties are an EU competence), but 100% of its costs are attributed to germany
this makes the EU look much more efficient than it is
It makes them lool as efficient as they actually are. Being able to use existing infrastructure is good.
Socialist is a very weird term to use here. The eu is the epitome of neoliberalism, even more so than the us
Tge EU is liberal just as much as I’m asian…
The EU in its current form is mostly about markets. It routinely pushes for the sacrifice of government monopolies to the altar of the free market (see for a recent example the french train network). Most of its regulations are to ensure a level field for a balanced market.
Hell it pushes for free markets even when it makes very little sense (the eu electricity market and its weird idiosyncrasies are an artifact of that)
It basically bans member governments from printing money and imposes very strict limits of 3% GDP on government deficits. For reference the US deficit was 5.9% gdp this year, Almost twice as much. this greatly limits government control over the economy.
> imposes very strict limits of 3% GDP on government deficits.
You might want to check that information. This very strict limit is only enforced on selective EU countries like Greece for example.
France has had routinely yearly deficits above 3% in the last 10 years and has never been worried one bit about it.
For the record the French deficit was around 5.4% this year and it is set to increase again next year as the parliament is completely blocked and a budget compromise cannot be reached.
Even the so called debt ceiling defined in the pact of stability is mostly ignored. Italy and France are both well above the 100% debt to GDP ratio when the treaty says that every country within the EU should be at or below 60%.
> It basically bans member governments from printing money
It only bans the ones that have adopted the Euro. The countries that have declined to adopt the euro are free to do as they please more or less.
The euro countries though may not be able to print money, but they just get the ECB to do it for them via quantitative easing which has been used since 2008 and only recently stopped when the interests rates started climbing after the pandemic.
You get that EU mostly is a free trade union? You know free trade that MAGA hates (I heard Americans today love tariffs).
Then you are very Asian.
[flagged]
> Even Zelenskyy acknowledged that the US provides more aid than the EU. And this is despite the fact that Europe has twice the population and doesn't have a vast ocean between it and Russia.
Why does the population matter at all? The US GDP is $30T and the EU GDP is $21T.
Why does location not matter at all? We're halfway across the world, why should we be the ones contributing the majority of the funding?
> Isn't it exactly the opposite, and it was the EU that attempted to overthrow democracy in the US (and failed)?
What are you talking about? According to US intelligence agencies, bipartisan Senate reports, and federal prosecutions, Russia, China, and Iran have been singled out at running disinformation campaigns. The EU has never been accused by the US of trying to topple democracy in the US.
>the EU has LITERALLY provided less aid to Ukraine than it has given to Russia
The EU is buying resources from Russia, not providing aid to it.
Potato, Potato. Whether giving money with no strings attached or some strings attached, guess where that money is going to go.
They are not "giving" money. They are exchanging them for resources. Russia gets the money but loses resources which it could've sold to other countries instead.
Ah, you're totally right. Europe is getting the better end of the deal Russia is practically getting scammed, exchanging goods for profits they can redistribute to fund their war.
They did not, this is all political ragebait journalism and memes.
Disbanding the EU is an official goal of the new US security strategy.
Divide and conquer is working well it seems.
There is no conspiracy, sorry.
It is not. I know the media has pushed this ragebait to get engagement from you, but you can literally read the official policy document.
I have read the document, it certainly implies that the EU is a problem and that the US should support 'patriotic' parties in pulling away from it.
It's a short read (30 pages, large font) so it's well worth looking at.
A majority of Europeans also think the EU has major issues. This does not constitute being anti-Europe.
The EU is not Europe. I never see any pro-EU sentiment anywhere besides on HN and Reddit. Talk to Europeans and they hate the EU and see it as an oppressive foreign power. Except for the Germans.
> Talk to Europeans and they hate the EU and see it as an oppressive foreign power.
Your framing is off, I'm afraid.
Across Europe, most people see the EU as more good than bad, especially compared to the alternative of countries acting alone. At the same time, support is often cautious rather than enthusiastic.
Voter turn out is extremely low in certain central and eastern Europe for EU elections. I think it was down to under 20% in some places a few years ago.
I had hoped that the UK would vote to remain and Europe would move away from a centralist, authoritarian model, but it's got worse especially since 2020. The EU is its own worst enemy.
> move away from a centralist, authoritarian model,
EU is authoritarian? Why do you think that?
It is restricting freedom of expression, and increasing public surveillance.
The EU is what held back the surveillance in the UK. Post brexit they went all in on surveillance.
Both the UK and the EU are rolling in censorship, surveillance and digital ID.
You've literally just contradicted your own post in this thread.
No, I haven't. Both the UK and EU are doing many of the same things. You can argue that the EU is bureaucratic without supporting bureaucracy within the UK. These are not contradictory positions.
You claimed that the UK leaving was bad as they were more liberal, and then noted that they were also doing lots of anti privacy stuff. Seems a little contradictory to me.
One definition of authoritarian is "enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom".
It would seem to me that the recent spate of sanctioning individuals - e.g. for 'disseminating misinformation' without a legal definition of what that actually is would be an example of authoritarianism. A direct attack on freedom of speech and thought.
It insists on things like "corruption is bad", "human rights are for everyone including gays" so naturally certain conservative groups find that authoritarian.
Human rights are for everyone, not just people you agree with. If you bring in censorship, surveillance and smother protest for people you disagree with, you will find it getting used against you yourself at some point. Europe has imported this false binary from the USA, and it is not benefitting it either.
The EU has its fair share of corruption, but it is is better at hiding it than developing countries. Its current president Ursula Von Der Leyen is a fraud who appears to have cheated at university, and only got to where she did due to wealth and aristocratic family connections.
also things such as chat control and surveilling the entire populace, but I'm sure you must be right that the problem people have with it is that they say "corruption is bad"
Chat control is a Swedish proposal that has consistently lost in the Parliament. We should of course keep fighting it but at least as a Swede I know things would have been much worse without the EU.
> Chat control is Swedish proposal.
It was pushed by Sweden but also by many other countries including France (which loves to give lessons of democracy to the world by the way and is very much at the forefront of human rights or so they say) and Hungary amongst others.
> has consistently lost in the Parliament.
It has consistently lost so far. Secondly the reason it has lost is because people like me took the time to actually reach out to any MEP who would take my call to tell them to oppose this law. If we had waited for the EU to react and put a stop to this madness, we would still be waiting.
This law should never have been proposed in the first place anyway. The fact that it was proposed and debated is a shameful action in itself.
> I know things would have been much worse without the EU.
How can you know for sure? You can't. Since it originated from the EU commission, it stands to reason that without the EU commission it would not have happened.
You believe that the EU is good because that is your belief. The European countries existed for 100s of years before the EU. There is no reason to think that they can't go back to this state in the future.
I've never seen any pro-EU attitude in the European countries I've lived in. Except for among the political and media class. But those aren't representatives of the general population.
But I haven't lived in central Europe, like Germany, Belgium, etc. Where the attitudes seem to be quite pro-EU.
The original statement still stands. Europe is not the EU. The EU is not Europe.
Which Europeans have you "talked" to? Discord and twitter don't count. People moan about the EU like they moan about their own national government.
Opinion polls on actually leaving the EU show a minority in favour. Most Europeans saw Brexit play out and realise sticking the finger up at your neighbours is not a winning strategy.
Brexit was ironically mostly an anti immigration vote. It has thoroughly demolished the involved parties that the one thing promised has not come to pass.
I guess real life doesn't count either? Good that we can rely on HN and Reddit, where the pro-EU sentiment is strong. I just haven't seen that in real life, which is why I suggest maybe it might be particular to Germans and probably Belgians and Dutch.
Where have you lived in the EU? I think that the EU is mostly mediocre rather like our national governments.
That is more indicative of the company you keep than the actual reality on the ground.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/657860/member-states-show-stron...
Spanish guy here: no, we don't hate the EU, quite the opposite. Please stop feeding on right-wing propaganda that wants to destroy us.
Unfortunately you live in the wrong time and age. You'd like to report to your local commissar when somebody expresses opinions and ideas against the cherished government - "he's a right wing propagandist who seeks to destroy us!". But it's not the 20th century anymore, and all you can do is scream into the cyber void.
Dude please, my country endured 40 years of a fascist government, we know a few things about right wing propaganda...
Accusing anybody who doesn't love the government of "spreading propaganda" is not a sign of knowledge. It's a sign of an obsolete 20th century mindset and perspective on life.
Next perhaps you're going to accuse me of "Staatsfeindlichkeit", which the German leadership was screaming in their denouncements, before the people tore down their walls.
"Verunglimpfung des Staates" - "Insulting the State", this awful, awful crime, is something I'm going to continue doing however I fancy. Millions of people were killed for that right, so it's not something I'm ever giving up.
Not loving the government is OK. Heck, hating the government might also be OK.
Insisting that we European citizens hate the EU when it is not true, and then doubling down with accusations of censorship when the whole thread points out your mistake, is downright stupid. But hey, if that makes you happy as some kind of freedom fighter, go for it.
When you start talking about "right wing propaganda that will destroy us", then I only hear echoes of the government worship of the 20th century. As I said, the EU is not Europe, nor the other way around. And that's mainly what's upsetting hackers. They live in a fantasy that the EU is in some way like the USA. I know that quite a lot of Germans, Dutch and Belgians consider themselves "EU citizens". And maybe Spaniards as well. Nobody in Northern Europe considers themself an "EU citizen" or gives any value to the EU. They consider themselves people of their own nations only, and the EU as a foreign influence.
> Talk to Europeans and they hate the EU and see it as an oppressive foreign power.
Maybe you should get out of your right-wing bubble.
- EU approval among its citizens hits record high as security fears grow, poll shows (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-approval-among-its-c...)
- Nearly three quarters of EU citizens (74%) say that, taking everything into account, their country has benefited from being a member of the EU. (https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3378)
The EU is busy clamping down on freedom of expression and forcing through Digital ID. It isn't some paradise.
There are things I like about the EU, but it also has some things horribly wrong.
> It isn't some paradise.
Compared to the USA it still is.
The EU has better healthcare and welfare overall, but fewer individual rights in other areas. Less gun crime (although this depends on region). Poverty levels vary a lot across the EU.
Americans take homeschooling for granted, for better or worse, but it is banned in some European countries like Germany.
Also the USA allows groups such as the Amish their liberty, which would be extremely unlikely in much of the EU where state interference would either force them out or destroy them.
The US has umpteen issues but is much better for freedom of expression frankly, although it is being steered away from that.
I've read somewhere that Americans understand freedom as "freedom TO", shiny Europeans understand freedom as "freedom FROM". This is extremely visible in this thread and probably a cause of many misunderstandings.
This is definitely the case.
There's philosophical terms for this: America emphasizes negative liberty ("freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint") , while Europe emphasizes positive liberty ("the possession of the power and resources to act in the context of the structural limitations of the broader society which impacts a person's ability to act")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
Right now EU is not arresting own citizens for failure to provide ID card while america does that even when said people have id card.
EU is not demanding 5 yeara of social media public from kids entering in.
EU is not killing fisherman to feel manly.
EU is overall more democratic and more free. The parts that sux Hungary and Slovakia dont sux because of EU, but despite it.
It is ok for Germany to not have homeschooling.
The EU is not more "free". There are a lot of things you can't say or will get shut down for. Most of the EU does not have the same freedom of expression or religion that the USA guarantees in its founding documents. The collective cannot have freedom if the individual does not. That includes the right to disagree.
The EU and USA are going down the same road. Social media is a part of this censorship of open discussion and is usually American based, but works hand in hand with the European governments. Both European and American governments seem happy to deceive citizens into a surveillance state.
It is unacceptable to ban homeschooling. Some children need to be homeschooled, because of disabilities, or even high intelligence. Given the fact that Germany has suffered from both far right and far left dictatorships within living memory, anything that does not promote blind obedience to the state should be encouraged.
Many parts of Europe retain a feudal mentality, which includes constant deference to authority.
I've seen what a complete crapshoot state education is first hand. My god daughter came out of school recently and can barely read and write. I had to suffer through it myself...
I find it amusing that homeschooling is so vilified and stereotyped. All the homeschooled children I know are BETTER educated not worse. Contrary to the stereotype. Schools have massive bullying issues and are often bad environments for neurodiverse people. Schools are very Lord of the Flies.
Home schooling is of course only as good as the people teaching but the same is true of schools. Most state curricula prioritise the state and adoration of the state... funnily enough
> Such as?
Well, we can't say them.
(but it involves nazies, denying genocides, hate speech, and this kind of stuff. It also depends on the country)
> Such as? I honestly can't think of anything.
Jacques Baud, recently sanctioned by the EU for promoting conspiracy theories. https://data.europa.eu/apps/eusanctionstracker/subjects/1802...
He is not an EU citizen and, as a foreigner, acts as a mouthpiece for a hostile dictatorship. The US has sanctioned similar people too, most notably Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of Russia Today: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2559
Not all European countries have banned home schooling. Not even all members of the EU.
As for neglect and abuse of children, the public schools is where you will most readily find it. Including bullying until children commit suicide. And school shootings. Which is a lesser risk at home. No matter which continent.
No one said all EU countries have banned homeschooling. That is just one issue.
Schools are a haven for bullying, both by students and teachers. I did have some good teachers but some of them were also the most cruel and abusive people I've ever met.
Please tell me more about the daily school shootings in Europe.
the eu is better for online freedom of expression, with its GDPR regulations
GDPR is decent, but the governments themselves are pushing surveillance so it is two steps forward and one back.
I don't give very much for statistics and opinion polls. People tend to give the answer they think they're "supposed to give" in those. I base my assessment on my experience from talking to people in real life.
> Maybe you should get out of your right-wing bubble.
Your comment is nasty, but I don't think you're this nasty in real life. Probably you're just blowing off some steam online.
I'm from the EU. I don't know a single person that is against EU. Everyone among my friends and colleagues, including me, is strongly pro-EU.
At least I know that's a bubble, because I know anti-eu people exist in my country too. Get out of yours.
Likewise, I've never met a person who has said they are for the EU or even strongly pro-EU. So it must be a question of which of the EU member countries you are in or other kind of bubbles.
> Get out of yours.
I suggested in my original post that Germans seem to be pro-EU. And probably neighbouring countries too. Here in this thread also appeared a fanatically pro-EU Spaniard. In Nordic countries, I've never met a person who would admit they were pro-EU. Of course they must exist, since presumably half the people voted yes to join, a few decades ago.
In the end it seems to be no more complicated than people who benefit financially from EU redistribution of money are pro-EU and the people who have to pay the bill for it are against the EU.
Every single EU countries population prefers EU leadership over their own national leadership.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/657860/member-states-show-stron...
fwiw: I definitely am paying the bill. But I'm also strongly pro-EU. Taxes are a membership fee for a functioning society.
As I said, I don't give much for opinion polls. And comparing two sides as you do now, doesn't mean that people are fond of either side.
You can prove anything with statistics. The last opinion poll I saw for my country of birth was both the EU and the national government at a less than 50% approval rate.
Ok so you trust your gut and lived experiences more that population statistics. That's a totally valid approach but it's very easy to misread the popular opinion as your friends are not a random sample.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Stop generalising. You don't know what Europeans think at all "except for the Germans"
I have an idea of what I'm talking about. I say that the EU is not Europe. Nor is Europe the EU. People in these conversations need to understand the difference, because it is significant. Norway, Great Britain, Iceland and Switzerland aren't in the EU.
All of those bar the UK are in the EEA though.
Yes, but those are only trade and border agreements, and don't give the EU influence on internal political matters. Compare similar trade agreements between other nations, such as between the United States and their neighbours.