In the Abacus poll, 46 per cent of respondents said they would support Canada becoming a member state of the EU, and 44 per cent said the Canadian government should definitely or probably look into joining it.
In the Abacus poll, 46 per cent of respondents said they would support Canada becoming a member state of the EU, and 44 per cent said the Canadian government should definitely or probably look into joining it.
Your English wasn’t incorrect, it’s that disagreed with what you wrote. You used it has become which is the tense you use for something completed (as in, it has finished), while I believe it is not completed and for that reason wrote is becoming which is the same verb but in a different tense (as in, it is happening). I’m no native speaker, so might not be the best explanation. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
I think in your last comment all forms are all correct, and the tense in which you the verb to vote has different nuance but i wouldn’t think something of it in this particular case. If you use ‘are voting for’ you basically mean how people would vote if they would have to vote today (or this week) and you would use ‘voted for’ mainly if it is relevant that it is different then how people would vote today. (Will) vote for, is voting for, will be voting are basically interchangeable, unless I am missing the nuance myself. You explain it correctly yourself so I think you understand it but I made you doubt yourself. Sorry for that.
There are many politicians who consider the EU as not fully formed. The changes don’t happen very fast, but it is in my view still an ongoing proces. For example, which countries are part of it continues to change (England left and others joined, more will likely join later), the euro itself hasn’t changed but the countries it is used in still changes (Bulgaria is expected to switch over to the Euro next year) and also what is and isn’t in the Schengen area changes, even this year with Gibraltar joining.
Another example of how, according to some, the EU would be more finished is with a ‘multi-tier membership options’, in which some countries have a tighter bond to the EU and others have a looser (think of how Norway and Switzerland aren’t in the EU, but they are not entirely outside of it either).
There is lot has already been decided, so maybe it is already 90% finished, but there still is an ongoing debate on what the EU should end up looking like.
Since brexit leaving the EU hasn’t looked like a very attractive option but still there is a lot of discussion on whether the EU should be smaller (e.g. having borders controlled by each individual member-state) or bigger (e.g. having a single combined army). In other words, there is still room to decide on what topics the EU should be big and on which it should be small. That makes the EU as it is right now very different than the US for example, where most of the expansion and integration happened two to three centuries ago (around the civil war mainly I think, but I’m no expert on US history either).
Thx, once again.
To be clear, I was half trolling (half only) with my rhetorical question but reading your comment I would not be surprised to realize we agree on a lot of things.
What truly worries me is the speed and the extend at which so many anti-eu parties have become politically meaningful.
I mean, I don’t care at all if they’re being funded by a foreign country but I do care to realize our own population is now that gullible and clueless as to believe their shit. I mean, do people have never read a history book?
I also don’t mind those parties existing, people are more than welcome to have their own ideas and to try to convince others to support them, even when I consider those ideas not the best ever. But them becoming a legit political force means they’re convincing enough of us to support their ideas, which should be the real issue. Imagine a flat-earther becoming to new head of a major science department: their silly ideas is not the issue, it’s how they managed to get to that post that should worry all of us.
Meanwhile, we have so few legit political leaders standing for the EU that are able to convince anyone. That’s not good.
Exactly like I worry to see illiteracy and hostility towards culture in general become the new normal among younger generations in the EU, too. Nothing good can come out of that trend, only more hate and more violence. Here again, it could help if people would read a history book, once in a while… but for that younger people should be taught how to properly read and then how to use what’s written in a book.
As for the EU membership, I’m one to think there should be a tiered EU memberships. Doing so, we would be able to welcome more new members quicker and then we could give time to all parties to get to know one another better and get used to living together and, well, get enough time to make sure we can all agree on some fundamental values and principles… like that should be the case in any lasting union (says I, after almost 30 years and counting with my spouse). The sad thing is that this tiered thing exists already but, unsurprisingly, only for the monetary aspect of the Union. It’s so… easy to hate on the EU sometimes, no wonder many won’t refrain of doing so.
Brexit… The morning I heard the news, it was so… I was… I just could not believe that thing really happened and that any politicians could be that incompetent and dishonest and willing to screw their own people so badly. To me, that Brexit campaign was but a scam devised so they would be allowed to redistribute power between the various groups but it never meant to end as an actual exit out of the EU. Obviously, I was wrong.
Whether we like or not, whether we think there is a reason to worry or not, the huge political shifts we’ve recently been witnessing coupled with the constant and ever growing hysteria in the media and with the fast growing illiteracy in the population, all things we now seem to consider the new normal, those should decide a lot of that for ourselves.