Two things:

• That was kinda the dream after WWII, no?

• Exploring space should be a uniting purpose of humanity, but colonizing space, as humans live now, is just wildly, hilariously impractical. It would be orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to live at the bottom of the ocean, or under the antarctic ice sheet. And this is speaking as someone really into exotic rocketry and transcendental sci-fi.

I'd recommend reading through Project Rho, if you're interested: https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/

As well as "farther future" but grounded Sci-Fi like Orion's Arm, where humanity doesn't really resemble its current form. And play KSP! The more you read and see, the more you realize "wow, sending humans through space is hard, and living there kinda doesn't make sense right now."

Hopefully our election across the pond will go against the fascists as well. 🤞

Most of my problems aren't caused by conflict between my nation and other nations. One world government is just another government, it can be a capitalist hellscape just like mine is today.

The UN was created for conflict resolution after WWII. Look at how its working out for Palestine.

EU (and NATO for that matter) are just beneficiaries of colonialism and will employ force to keep it that way.

the prospect of EU membership leading to a direct conflict with Russia.

Classic abusive relationship.

The funny thing is that Putin thinks he's following the same playbook of "color revolutions", a conspiracy theory popular among Marxists, and showing practically why it doesn't work. But he keep trying because he believes it's actually being used against him. So he keep failing hilariously like that again and again.

If there's one thing I learned from observing Brexit first hand as an EU immigrant in Britain, is that the vast majority of people don't really care about the EU unless they are or see a way to directly benefit from it (as I benefited from Freedom Of Movement) and even when they do care they don't understand how most of the mechanisms which are the point of the EU affect their lives (hence Brexiters only saw immigration and not how an island with no natural resources and a Service-centric Economy can't just default to WTO rules for exporting Services because WTO Treaties don't cover those, whilst even Remainers couldn't see the whole "together we're stronger" side and kept claiming that Britain could "better change the EU from the inside", which is not a teamplayer position).

So EU membership ends up being sold to the public on pretty generic promises of improvement of their own lives and on single sides the EU's many-sided nature, a message which is far easier to distort and even use in reverse by anti-EU actors.

I read orcas for a second and I was like fuckin free Willy is a bad guy?

One of the arguments against was “I’ll give you some money to vote ‘no’ on the EU referendum”

The main argument Putin's side had was "we will pay you to vote for us."

Thankfully, it didn't work.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c23kdjxxx1jo

Probably recycled the Brexit ones.

Putin will be sad

Arguments against... Wheelbarrows of troubles from Putin...

A lot of people from Romania hate the EU, i dont think its unreasonable to think people from Moldova would think differently

That was my initial thought aswell, but after thinking about it I changed my opinion to preferring the simple majority.

Imo one of the deciding factors is how you think about it. Do you see it as a choice between two conscious actions (acceptance or active rejection), or is only the "yes" vote an active choice and "no" something of a "natural" state?

Also if you set hurdles for change to high, then you are potentially hindering progress and systematically favoring conservatism. Which isn't always bad, but the status quo and how things were done in the past aren't always sustainable and worth the advantage.

Such significant commitments on a national level with international treaties should I think be carried by more than a simple majority. Its not a simple choice and without decent will behind it there is every chance it doesn't last or causes enormous strife within the populace. But the vote is advisory and fundamentally will probably be based on the majority regardless so its now up to government to decide if its enough to move forward.

Why would you like to see a supermajority in order to join an economic union?