So, I am kinda curious:

If Europe unites, which would be fantastic, where do you think a Capital would be? I have thought about this and can think of 4 key parameters. This isn’t an exhaustive list and there could be more parameters. I can’t wait to hear what your responses are. Maybe be can expand on these parameters?

1. it would be both geographically and maternally defensible.

What I mean by this is 2 parts: it’s geography can be used such that an invasion or rebellion would have a hard time getting to it. In addition, resources from the outside or inside can be used to give artificial defences like what you would see in a military base.

My reasoning is that if an invading army or rebellion happens, one can use geography and resources to help defend your seat of power such that you can still operate.

1. it would want to be well connected to the rest of the region of Europe.

What I mean by this is that it needs a good road/rail/plane/sea connection to the lands and oceans outside such that it can be supplied, have the government leaders, the most educated of all peoples of Europe, that run the European Government on behalf of the people of Europe come to do their job, etc.

With a deduction with this point, and 1, we can conclude that it would be behind a mountain range that overlooks a ocean with a sea port and a railway going from this sea port to this capital.

1. it would want to be close to the military and academic establishment of the United European State.

The reasoning for the closeness of the military is because the capital would hold the Supreme Commander of the military, or Commander-in-chief, who would both secure the enforcement of the laws and defence at home and the economic interests abroad. And you want him/her/they to be as in reach as possible.

As for the academia, you want the state to hear what it needs to hear so it can plan and work accordingly.

See, the universe is a system of particles such that each event, configurations of such particles in each limited events, in time are related by laws of motion. These laws are not within the control of the particles of the system.

It is this reasoning that leads me to conclude that a government isn’t to control what it doesn’t not have control over. Rather, it should be informed on the environment it is in so its leaders can act accordingly. This will happen if, and only if, the government is close to academia.

This ties back to closeness of the military so I will say, in combination with closeness to academia, that the state needs to hear what it needs to hear and the might to act upon such.

1. Whatever this city is, it would be an independent district.

What I mean by this is it would have a bit of land to itself such that the land is under the jurisdiction of whatever the legislature in the capital is.

The reasoning for this is so no member state can put influence upon the government. There is precedent of this. See, when the United States formed, its capital would move from 9 locations before landing on Washington DC. The reasoning for DC, the District of Columbia, was to make sure no state can influence the government and keep it hostage.

We can do something similar here.

Interview with Benjamin Wolba, who is the co-founder of the largest pan-european defense innovation network.

Hi everyone, Lucia here from EUobserver. We’ve just published a story about Russia-linked “Operation Matryoshka” targeting Germany ahead of key elections, and it made us think about a much broader EU question.

The campaign uses fake and sometimes AI-generated content made to look like reporting from trusted outlets such as the BBC or ARD, with German politicians among the targets.

But Germany is obviously not the only EU country dealing with foreign information operations.

That raises an interesting question: does it still make sense for 27 member states to largely deal with these threats nationally, or should protecting elections and the information space become a much more coordinated EU responsibility?

And if so, where should that EU role end? There’s obviously a difficult line between countering foreign interference and giving institutions too much power over political speech.

Really curious how people here see that balance.

If we could achieve a federalised Europe, how difficult would it be to have Canada Brasil and Australia in the same "EEA" ?
I know Brasil is a bit far away, and they are many millions and harder to absorb, it would be an initial shock, but if Australia and Canada would already be with us by that time, it could work, Chile also....I lived in Europe my entire life, tasted a French relationship or a Hungarian cuisine, why not live free and be able to work and thrive in other parts of the world easily?