I don't think anything is your native language.
Also, you have a lousy rate to present your argument, even to make your argument, basically all the contribution you did in this thread is to provide the EU law which define the legal definition of European Union, which as I said is irreverent. Let me help you out with your own argument
Your whole thesis is based on the exist Economic Cooperation that current exist with numerous Asian Country and somehow they can ascend into a Union with a single, supranational governing entity. While you argue your case by linking such economic cooperation exist and European Union is build on the same background as first being a Economic cooperation between the 6 founding European Country.
However, you are using the European as an complete entity as a proof that such relation exist. Logically, your argument is the same as the you are arguing since 2 + 2 = 4, then 4 must come from 2 + 2. This is a logically wrong statement, in a court of law, it was called "
Argumentative", it would be fine if this is the focus of argument, it would not be if you use it as a proof, as you cannot prove a reason of an existence on something that had Already exist, you case must be build on the reason why something was created
BEFORE said thing came into existence, working backward does not support your argument, as EU can be formed by the need of many, one of them are economic cooperation, but you can not provide, without reasonable doubt, that the EU is solely based on the Economic Cooperation, had you not considered all the possible scenario.
Then you build your case on this arbitrary logical flaw of EU exist because of Economic Co-operation, which you have not examine enough of other avenue, which basically build your whole case of a NEAU existence (Which NEAU not actually existed yet) on the illogical argument.
My counter-argument to you, which is actually not my base argument on the issue with NEAU to begin with. Is that EU was build on the security co-operation that Europe is coming out after WW2. By providing an evidence as written on EU own webpage (Which you have yet to cross examine) and the reason of the threat is build on Cold war as supported by many nation that was part of EU, but not NATO. Which basically poke hole into your thesis on EU is solely build on Economic Cooperation simply because IT IS a economic cooperation today. Which an argument exist beyond the scope of economic, and a fact (not just an argument) you have not disprove.
My main argument, (Which you have not cross-examine, nor rebuttal, even tho you claim you can defuse my argument in minutes) for the failure to establish of NEAU is build on the country trust and need, where it would require a extranational entity enemies for North East Asia to form themselves as an Union. With the people who purposed that extranational entites being the United States.
Which my argument went on to provide.
1.) US is too far to physically threaten any country in Asia.
2.) The reason to form a NEAU is contradictorary, the establishment of NEAU would require the US to relinquish all American Overseas Territories in Asia-Pacific and thus pull out of the effective influence of Asia, and if that can be happen without NEAU, then what NEAU is for then?
And additional argument is that forming an NEAU would simply trigger the formation of other Union in the region to try and counter balance it first, beside the US, which it mainland sit 12000 mile away, there are two large country namely India and Russia next to China, what would they think if such union would come into existence? NEAU would be more of a threat to them then the US. Which again, negate the power of balance of NEAU. Rendering it useless.
You can go along and try to throw insult at me all you want, but if you want to argue, and you are using its tone like this to argue in a court of law, it would be amaze if you were not held in contempt, let alone winning a case, your argument is both irreverent and repetitive. Unless you have anything to say to the point I just raise, I rest my case.
@Blue Marlin argue much more like a lawyer than you. And I know lawyers, my wife is one
by the way, are you a law student or a lawyer (QC/SC or OC) if you are not a lawyer, you don't have a record.
I was not sure after reading this vague arguments of yours, if you were trolling me with such lenghty text, but you get for now the benefit of the doubt. Unlike you who has plenty of free time, i am very busy man who needs to submit my report soon to the board of committee. I guess i will make some free time and give you last try.
"Your whole thesis is based on the exist Economic Cooperation that current exist with numerous Asian Country and somehow they can ascend into a Union with a single, supranational governing entity. While you argue your case by linking such economic cooperation exist and European Union is build on the same background as first being a Economic cooperation between the 6 founding European Country".
My answer is yes, your assumption is correct.
"However, you are using the European as an complete entity as a proof that such relation exist. Logically, your argument is the same as the you are arguing since 2 + 2 = 4, then 4 must come from 2 + 2. This is a logically wrong statement, in a court of law, it was called "Argumentative", it would be fine if this is the focus of argument, it would not be if you use it as a proof, as you cannot prove a reason of an existence on something that had Already exist, you case must be build on the reason why something was created BEFORE said thing came into existence, working backward does not support your argument, as EU can be formed by the need of many, one of them are economic cooperation, but you can not provide, without reasonable doubt, that the EU is solely based on the Economic Cooperation, had you not considered all the possible scenario".
You want to talk about the figure 4? fine, lets see 1+3=4, 5-1=4, 24-20=4, etc, They all end with 4 and not just with the only combination of 2+2=4.
On a serious note, I can prove that the EU is soley based on the Economic Cooperation and yes i already considerd all the possible scenario's. But you see, what i know about the many historical (non economic)reasons why (former)EU were created hardly matter, because all that matter is what states agreed on the core objective when they first signed the treaty and extensively mentioned in the sentences of the relevant EU treaty and not the silly chit chats before. The most important core objective the former EU members had in mind, were displayed in the first sentence of the treaty and that was and is still the harmonization of the internal market. Without integrated economy in the EU, there would be no EU. Poor eastern europe countries, which joined the EU instead of somekind of poor Russian led organization, were all soley motivated by wealth/trade/money. If wealth/trade/money was never the only factor, why bother to join the EU? For security? ohh pls ever heard of NATO? Those poor eastern european countries already joined the NATO for their protection.
NATO - Member countries
Same with Turkey. Why doesTurkey try so hard to join the EU if it is not for the vast internal market of the EU which means trade>money>wealth? Knowing you, you will probably spin it like this: "Turkey was part of the Greco-Romanian empire, so it is more than justified that Turkey try to be member as the EU. Trade only would not be the decisive factor but other factors like european brotherhood, culture, bloodrelated etc are other relevant factors too. You see most turks in Turkey looks like southern european and so it is naturally they want to connect to their lost southern european countries." BIG LOL
Bottomline is, it is all about trade/money/wealth. NATO already provided the security on the European continent. Money moves the world, in this case money moves the members of the european countries to be part of the EU and not the culture,security social factors. All other factors came later when the EU feels confident enough and base on the consensus in the European Council, more and more tasks are included like the monetary policy. The first thing every new member of the EU had in mind was:"show me the money".
Proof number 1:
The EU was created in the aftermath of the Second World War. The first steps were to foster economic cooperation: the idea being that countries who trade with one another become economically interdependent and so more likely to avoid conflict.
See second sentence of the link below. If we assume economic cooperation was never the focus from the beginning, why bother to emphasize
trade from the beginning, why not
cultural exchange or militaire cooperation between the EU countries?
EUROPA - The EU in brief
Proof number 2: ask your so called swedish lawyer wife to read the core of the EU treaty. I even put 3 language english, dutch, swedish for you. It should be easy for your swedish wife. Have fun because we both know you cant read directives, regulation +the reference to the essential jurisprudence to make the many layers of the treaty clear and sound. Try find the relevant C-numbers. If you really could read the whole EU treaties and what is the core of it (put in link below) you would already stop this conversation over the essence of the European Union.
I personally find it sad, that you take this discussion of EU law based on your wife knowledge who is specialized in militaire affair instead of based on your own legal knowledge. It is like someone who is bragging from hear saying.
EUR-Lex - 12012E/TXT - EUR-Lex
What is the connection between the EU and the Greater East Asia? Reread my previous posts again. Next one.
1.) US is too far to physically threaten any country in Asia.
2.) The reason to form a NEAU is contradictorary, the establishment of NEAU would require the US to relinquish all American Overseas Territories in Asia-Pacific and thus pull out of the effective influence of Asia, and if that can be happen without NEAU, then what NEAU is for then?
1)There is different kind of threats.
1) The obvious threat is war between countries for instance the World War 2
2) the not so obvious threat like arab springs revolution, central asian color revolution ,the Crimea revolution etc ( iam too lazy to sum them all up). Where USA usually pull the strings for regime change if you dont obey the USA. USA might be far away but somehow their dirty claws reach far. USA might not use their miltary power, but they hell sure wont stop their NGO, diplomats from making mischief by supporting the ''freedom fighters''.
One need not to go further than recent events. Ask the Russians how they feel about the USA meddling in Ukraine which ended up with the loss of Crimea to the Russian. Or asked Assad how he felt when the whole world learnt of the USA training moderate rebels. How would your lovely USA feel if China is starting to train Texas freedom fighter, or Hawaai freedom fighter?
U.S. Starts New Training for Syrian Rebels - WSJ
Imagine Tianmen square 2.0 in China. What do you think economically and politically will happens to China? It would be isolation again, maybe not enough to make immediate threat to China, but it will hurt China on the long run. Asked Putin how the the sanction taste.
The problem is that you have the military mind chip on your shoulder. The military see "hammer" as solution for every problem. So you are not fit to understand the finesse of art of deceive by NGO, diplomats, lawyers etc.
2) If the USA pull out of the asian theather, there is still purpose for the Greater East Asia Project. The synthesis of these countries would give this organization so much power, prestige, knowledge in all aspects that universe litterally would be the limit. I dont know what declining Russia or overpopulated India would do, but franky i dont care. They could form somekind of union with each other or with others. If they feel threatened, they could always try to pull off some stunt against this organization but the repercussion would be severe for them. While India or Russia still figuring what to do, the development of the Greater East Asia in all aspects will leave them biting the dusts. The future consequence after the formation of this organization is that we could be form outer post or satellite states around the Greater East Asia. Sometimes, one needs to stop thinking and just do it. If you keeping thinking what if this, what if that, you might aswell want to end your life.
On a side note, dont use NEAU=North East Asian Union. I hate that. The word "Union" implies whole as something like1 body/entity without difference. The first phase is crucial.The moment you mentioned Union, no proud nationalistic east asian country is going to sign the founding treaty because of the high nationalistic sentiments. They would asked themselves: "what Union"? Union based on my special characteristic of my country or based on the others special traits? By using the name i have invented ''Greater East Asia" , the impression would be that each still keep their own special traits and yet happy to have organization that binds them together.
Beside anything else, maestro? I mean how could i ever get it in my head to ever doubt your comments about the history and purpose of the European Union and her core activities. I mean you, a military personnel with huge geopolitic knowledge, would naturally know more than me about the European Union treaties, the anti-trust policy, the monetary policy, the European Competition Law and Regulation and last but not least the Principles and foundations of European Union law. You even talk like if you know how a dutch court works from the inside, the procedure, the dicretion of the court etc. But i have to admit you saw through my fake intelligent though. Ok, i admit. i am not legal scholar who is specialized in (EU)state and administrative law. I brought my diploma for 10 euro, ordered it via online cursus. guilty as charge. Can you sleep better now you know i am fake?
Btw I dont need to insult you. How can i insult you for who you really are?
