• Venice wants to leave Italy.
    88 replies, posted
At the rate they're sinking I wasn't aware this would be a choice either way
[QUOTE=Crackerman451;39116960]Could someone explain why the north and the south aren't fond of eachother?[/QUOTE] North produces a lot of wealth, south is quite far behind, Rome distributes everything. As you can imagine the north sees most of it's wealth go to the south. Also made even worse by the extreme inefficiency of it's use, so the north is pissed off that they produce a lot and most goes south, and then even moreso when that money goes in most part to politicians and/or mafia. Also Veneto hates this system in particular. Plenty of them are past the point of reasonable irritation and just hate anyone that is from further south than them (even Emilia Romagna, which is richer than them and right under them). Ain't uncommon there to hate the people from the neighbouring town (seriously seen people tell others to "go back home, we don't want your kind here" when the guy was from a town 50km away).
Wooooh, second Venetian Republic! Yeah! I went to Venice once, it's filthy and it stinks and half of the historical monuments there are covered in graffiti and surrounded by beggars. That sums up Italy as a whole actually, when I come to think of it.
If this go through it would be bringing back more history, and to begin with Venice was taken by Napoleon, They did vote on if they wanted to join the new kingdom of Italy, which succeded, maybe its time for another vote?
[QUOTE=Megafan;39112854]It's bordered to the east by an already autonomous region (one of five such regions) called Friuli-Venezia Giulia.[/QUOTE] I live in Friuli-Venezia Giulia and can attest that being "autonomous" doesn't really mean much and we're not entitled to any special rights or anything of that kind, it's just a "cool" attribute for a region that has to deal with multiple ethnicities inside of it (slovenians, austrians and other immigrants). [editline]6th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zambies!;39113223]What about Trieste?[/QUOTE] What's wrong with Trieste?
[QUOTE=Crackerman451;39116960]Could someone explain why the north and the south aren't fond of eachother?[/QUOTE] There's a long history to it. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, Italy has been broken into a bunch of different countries up until 150 some years ago when Piedmont (a kingdom in northwest Italy) unified the nation under them, whether they liked it or not. Plus there's minor ethnic influences as well, with northern Italians being more influenced by Germany while southern Italy and Sicily have a more Arab-like way to them. They're still all Italians but sometimes even minor differences can be a major division. Plus all that "north makes money; south is poor" stuff everyone else said.
[QUOTE=Crackerman451;39116960]Could someone explain why the north and the south aren't fond of eachother?[/QUOTE] From what I know from personal experience (I was born and live in northern Italy), it's not that south and north are not too fond of each other, but rather that there are many differences and discrepancies between the 'ways' of each and the south (especially the regions of Sicilia and Calabria) is sadly known for being infested by criminal organisations such as Mafia and Camorra, which are almost as powerful (if not more powerful) than the State itself in those regions. In some cases criminality and unlawfulness have become so distributed that they're not even persecuted by the authorities anymore. The south is also not very rich nor productive (although excellence exists there as well) and due to criminality it has many more problems taking off. Just to clear it up, it's not that all southern people are criminals, there are also a lot of splendid persons there who work their asses off to contribute in completely legitimate ways. Also, some political parties (the "Lega") aim for secession of a part of the north of Italy (they would want to make a nation called Padania out of it) and they also despise the south and if they were to govern Italy they'd probably try to make it even poorer by redirecting its wealth to the north. Some northern italian citizens also do actually despise southern people (they call them "terroni", which is an insult for southern people) because they have the stereotype of them being ignorant, criminal and violent troglodytes. [editline]6th January 2013[/editline] Anyways, I haven't heard anything about this in italian news, and it's not even on most news websites, so this might easily be a hoax. [editline]6th January 2013[/editline] [URL="https://www.google.com/webhp?q=venice+leave+italy#q=venice+leave+italy&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=hqnpUMPAJvCP4gSkkIG4DA&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.Yms&fp=e1271ffb9a0749d4&bpcl=40096503&biw=1184&bih=883"]Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's a hoax.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39117032]Eh it'd be nicer for countries to merge, until there are no borders left.[/QUOTE] why
Lets Kaiserreich this bitch.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39122526]why[/QUOTE] I don't like the idea of closed borders, restricted passports, large standing armies, etc. Plus I also like the idea of integrated economies (transnational currencies, no tariffs, etc). Like, once you get rid of border restrictions and reduce the military to the bare minimum, alongside integrating your economy with your neighbor, then what's the point of having separate sovereign states? (Especially if they have similar laws and foreign policy).
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39123132]I don't like the idea of closed borders, restricted passports, large standing armies, etc. Plus I also like the idea of integrated economies (transnational currencies, no tariffs, etc). Like, once you get rid of border restrictions and reduce the military to the bare minimum, alongside integrating your economy with your neighbor, then what's the point of having separate sovereign states? (Especially if they have similar laws and foreign policy).[/QUOTE] Because of national identity. When you get people to fall under one banner for long enough, they'll get sick of it and strive to return to their roots. Seriously, there's been so many wars over it.
What next? The Papal states?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39124450]What next? The Papal states?[/QUOTE] Well they have the Vatican as a separate entity
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39124381]Because of national identity. When you get people to fall under one banner for long enough, they'll get sick of it and strive to return to their roots. Seriously, there's been so many wars over it.[/QUOTE] National identity is always a silly thing. Most wars aren't really even to do with national identity, but most wars that claim to be for "independence" are usually thinly veiled excuses.
Theoretically, it would be better if there were many, many smaller states as it's easier and more efficient to manage and govern a small region with smaller population than a giant state with a large population, let alone a diverse one.
Oh... Italians.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39124791]Theoretically, it would be better if there were many, many smaller states as it's easier and more efficient to manage and govern a small region with smaller population than a giant state with a large population, let alone a diverse one.[/QUOTE] How would you manage large scale things? (Transport and communications for instance)
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39125122]How would you manage large scale things? (Transport and communications for instance)[/QUOTE] What do you mean exactly? Each region would take care of its own roads and communications
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39125160]What do you mean exactly? Each region would take care of its own roads and communications[/QUOTE] Standardization mainly, which is very difficult to achieve in a decentralized system. Trying to get a massive cluster of tiny countries who have their own ways of doing things to agree on the same thing is a nightmare (imagine fiscal policy or daylight savings). And if they did, then why even have separate states? Why not join the ones with common interests up so they can reduce the bureaucratic mess?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39125209]Standardization mainly, which is very difficult to achieve in a decentralized system. Trying to get a massive cluster of tiny countries who have their own ways of doing things to agree on the same thing is a nightmare (imagine fiscal policy or daylight savings). And if they did, then why even have separate states? Why not join the ones with common interests up so they can reduce the bureaucratic mess?[/QUOTE] Well like I said, fiscal things would be managed by each regional state. As for standards, Europe seemed to do well enough with that before the EU really took off. Besides, how would grouping together [I]reduce[/I] bureaucratic messes? If anything, it'll add more to it because there's more to manage.
[QUOTE]Besides, how would grouping together [I]reduce[/I] bureaucratic messes? If anything, it'll add more to it because there's more to manage.[/QUOTE] Well, the point behind centralization is pretty much to do that. If you had 20 countries managing their own finances, their own currency, their own banking system, exchange rates, etc, it creates a lot of hassle. On the contrary, a single state needs only one currency, one central bank, a single government department. Plus all laws, all armies, all transport, all communications is directly managed and controlled from a single entity that not only has the power to control much of what is going on throughout the country, but also has access to a lot of information. If you have about 20 smaller states all making their own decisions, you would end up with something like Germany before unification. A fucking nightmare to travel anywhere or send post. Plus having to be stopped at the borders constantly and paying all sorts of duties on goods being moved.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39125373]Well, the point behind centralization is pretty much to do that. If you had 20 countries managing their own finances, their own currency, their own banking system, exchange rates, etc, it creates a lot of hassle. On the contrary, a single state needs only one currency, one central bank, a single government department. Plus all laws, all armies, all transport, all communications is directly managed and controlled from a single entity that not only has the power to control much of what is going on throughout the country, but also has access to a lot of information. If you have about 20 smaller states all making their own decisions, you would end up with something like Germany before unification. A fucking nightmare to travel anywhere or send post. Plus having to be stopped at the borders constantly and paying all sorts of duties on goods being moved.[/QUOTE] Look at the top four biggest countries on the earth: 1. Russia 2. Canada 3. China 4. United States Three out of those four have rather crappy governments. The one country that doesn't comparatively, Canada, has a small population. Let's go by population then: 1. China 2. India 3. United States 4. Indonesia None of these nations are known exactly for efficient or good government.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39125444]Look at the top four biggest countries on the earth: 1. Russia 2. Canada 3. China 4. United States Three out of those four have rather crappy governments. The one country that doesn't comparatively, Canada, has a small population. Let's go by population then: 1. China 2. India 3. United States 4. Indonesia None of these nations are known exactly for efficient or good government.[/QUOTE] I choose population for my next example as well. 149 Qatar 150 Gabon 151 Guinea-Bissau 152 Equatorial Guinea These countries are well known for being much smaller than China or Indonesia. The latter 2 are not particularly the best of places to live at the moment. One has just had a coup and the other has had a long history of human rights violations. Qatar itself is an absolute monarchy with some dodgy political history and some human rights violations too. Comparing these countries by population is a good way to show why the countries at the top of a list may have terrible governments, and why the ones about 150 places down also have terrible governments.
He does have a point. and if we were to pretend for a moment that Europe is a unified federation under the EU, it'd shoot up near the top of the countries by population list and the EU government doesn't seem all that bad.
But the EU (or rather the EMU) is having issues with the north having to pay for the economic issues in the south. Unions and federations are a good thing in my opinion, but the members of these must have similar economies and be equally prosperous for it to work. Otherwise the richer parts will start to complain when they have to help the struggling nations. And if there are big cultural differences, federal laws will be accepted in some nations, but not in others etc.
Good point. The similar economies part I agree with, but the equally prosperous part not necessarily. When, for example, Poland joined the Union, their prosperity increased without really dragging the rest down. It's a matter of circumstances: get everyone on equal footing when it goes well.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39125444]Look at the top four biggest countries on the earth: 1. Russia 2. Canada 3. China 4. United States Three out of those four have rather crappy governments. The one country that doesn't comparatively, Canada, has a small population. Let's go by population then: 1. China 2. India 3. United States 4. Indonesia None of these nations are known exactly for efficient or good government.[/QUOTE] im sorry are you serious though? i'm really tired of people that know absolutely nothing about politics trying to spout bullshit. Look at statistics, please; the united states is amongst the top countries worldwide when it comes to government effectiveness, little corruption, political stability, and rule of law indicators. China is about the 60th percentile. russia's a shithole.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;39131103]i'm really tired of people that know absolutely nothing about politics trying to spout bullshit. Look at statistics, please; the united states is amongst the top countries worldwide when it comes to government effectiveness, little corruption, political stability, and rule of law indicators.[/QUOTE] high compared to all countries, maybe compared to the rest of the civilized world it isn't
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.