> That's an interesting mix. It sounds like you're pro-democracy and also pro-centralisation, would you say that's a fair statement? I am pro-centralisation in

> That's an interesting mix. It sounds like you're pro-democracy and also pro-centralisation, would you say that's a fair statement? I am pro-centralisation in the sense, that I see areas where the benefits are obvious: everything regarding unified market, freedom and access for people, military, foreign policy, environmental issues. I also see areas where you have to be careful: privacy, data protection, lack of transparency, lack of control. What I do have is a mindset, of paying it forward a bit and not having to get instant compensation. I am for example generally okay with the EU building infrastructure in poorer countries. We will get that value back, but it will take its time and it will come in different, hard to be measured forms. That's why I think you should not be to pedantic when measuring your own benefit. It evens out, while the overall value steadily increases the more countries work together. It is not only about whether your piece of the cake is a tiny bit bigger, but also the overall size of the cake increases. I do see, how such thoughts are harder to have, when you are living in one of the paying countries and personally feeling left behind. > Are you implying that Asia is on the path to peace ahead of Europe? No, not at all. I am just saying that Asia is on its way to the top and that the EU cannot count on the US staying world leader. Countries like Germany, France or Great Britain will have no say in world politics whatsoever, while the EU as a whole can be a stable local power big enough to be heard in the world and pursue its interest and have some influence.