> Where have I suggested anything remotely similar. Apologies for taking the analogy too far. > I have compared the EU to USSR because of the similarly unacco

> Where have I suggested anything remotely similar. Apologies for taking the analogy too far. > I have compared the EU to USSR because of the similarly unaccountable bureaucracy. This is an opinion that is hard to justify, but whatever. > This has to be the main confusion of our time. Just because every border is not exactly perfect, it must mean that every border that has ever been drawn is completely arbitrary. I'm not claiming borders are completely arbitrary. I am, however, claiming that more often than not, borders are drawn such that they separate tribes that were previously quite close culturally. Other times borders are drawn through tribes. Over generations, a strong state manages to assimilate the tribe, and tribes on either side of the divide drift apart as individual members drift toward the national identity. I make no judgment on whether that is good or bad. I am only stating that the concept of national identity accelerates this process. I obviously do not dispute that the German language, and many parts of German national identity, were shared across modern day Germany prior to its current form. I am only arguing that these cultural regions are more flexible than you seem to think. The problem with the argument that borders are logical delineations between tribes, cultural, or linguistic regions, is that you have to base that on some criteria. If you choose language and culture, we will have to deal with Alsace-Lorraine, again... and so on, and so on. Everyone has a right to fight whichever state they are subject to, but they don't have some objective moral high ground just because they want to be free of it. Sovereign citizens can make all the arguments they want, nobody will take them seriously. That's one extreme end of the scale. The area is obviously very grey when it comes to real independence movements such as the Scottish or Catalan. However, at the end of the day, all that matters is whether you have the power on your side to do it, and you are willing to pay the price. We cannot establish any logical framework for when independence is objectively warranted, without also allowing things like sovereign citizens. You have to put the threshold somewhere, and as soon as you do, people will fall on either side based on personal opinion and it won't be logical any more. I wish we could move beyond the "EU bad because it's a super-state that takes away sovereignty" arguments, because it's so silly. They're rooted in a subjective belief that the EU is bad. That's a completely acceptable opinion to have, and it is one that can have evidence presented for and against it. The sovereignty argument is an emotional excuse with no rational basis.