Well, it sort of ties their respective economies together. This isn't really the forum for that particular discussion, lol. But take Greece, for example. There is a staggering amount of debt there, much of which has been written off - and, regardless of what occurs in that country, much more will likely end up being written off in the future. The EU has a single currency and such things are probably not good for its value (at least in the short to moderate future). For that and other reasons, if I understand correctly, some in England (et al) would be happy to leave the EU. I don't know... It's like, if you have a finite, limited amount of money and ten children. The money you have is, if used carefully, enough to provide for your family. But you split your money up between those ten children - and each one of them spends their allotment as they see fit (and a few of the children are hopelessly insane). That's not really a perfect example... But it should give you an idea. Some people are of the belief that the only way a unified currency and closely tied set of economies will work is if they are all governed by one entity. <SHRUGS> I don't really know how well that would work, either - find a scenario where there are as few as two people and it is very likely that, sooner or later, they will disagree on policy. Add a third person, and that likelihood becomes a certainty.
I wondered, back when I first heard about the concept of a European Union, why it wasn't set up as several groups of countries whose economies are more comparable. IOW, instead of all of them being under one umbrella, you'd take a country that was struggling economically (such as Greece), and pair it off with one or more countries that are either also struggling or that have economies which are still... I would never use the term "insignificant," but one that are not economic powerhouses, perhaps because they have only recently started growing. There might be more of such countries, so a chart of all countries involved might take the shape of a two-dimensional pyramid (with the few economic giants on top). You would need some sort of structure in place to encourage those nations nearer to - or at - the top of the pyramid to help bring those groups at the lower levels up (but not to throw good money after bad). It probably wouldn't work all that well, though, because it would still be difficult to enforce the rules among many different countries. At least not without the threat - and, eventually, use - of some of the more powerful countries' military forces. And in today's global political climate, it seems like such forces are either used for petty reasons... or else the process ends up being some (realistically) pitiful, mostly useless (in the long term, at any rate) thing that is crippled by those countries' inner political games.
I've wondered if some kind of setup along the same lines might - in the hypothetical and, alas, mythical perfect world - be set up as an answer to the current and ongoing pollution that is not so slowly wrecking our air, ground, water, climate, and future. Because, the way I see it... The so called third-world and developing nations of the world are, if left to themselves, likely to produce quite a significant amount of pollution. And it's not really fair (for wont of a better term) to expect otherwise - after all, we (the developed nations of the world) sure produced a lot of it as we got to this point (and, sadly, still do). Look at India. Possibly China, but I don't know enough about your country to be guaranteed of being 100% factual, lol, and I do not wish to give offense. But take India. 40 years ago (or less), the majority of the population did not own a motorized vehicle. More recently, their economy has grown. And, as a result of this, many more people can afford to own such things. Thus... more pollution. They also have more industrial activity - more pollution again. To some extent, and considering only the short term of course, disregarding environmental concerns is "cheaper" and can allow for faster growth. London, England was a
very polluted place during the Industrial Revolution, lol. But we know better now, and their economy (and also their technology level) allows them to be far less polluting. Would England have grown as it did if the Industrial Revolution had not taken place? LMAO. That's what I mean about being fair - developing nations today are always going to be handicapped if they are forced to follow "a perfect world's" environmental policies. However, life as we know it may well be doomed if something drastic is not done. Not "done in a few countries" - but done everywhere on the planet. One way to help the world change would be to set things up so that, if the developing nations actually decide to become wholly "green," those nations that have already achieved a certain high level of development... help them do so, as a way to compensate them for being somewhat late to the party (so to speak). Another way would be for those developed nations to band together and declare an all-out, total war on every single other country, I suppose. But, well, I sort of think my idea has more merit
.
I see that I have managed to combine going completely off-topic with my penchant for rambling, lol, so I will stop here.
(technical Lol) still the EU no matter what tho 
very good offer just need to save for the 1200w Mars 2 
It seems everyone is getting busy in summer.haha.
you may go for your summer vacation later
i think they must smlls good
Usually how long you will flower them?
