for everything inside the EU, i highly doubt it is. For extraterritioral trade. The EU is large enough to trade with other countries in euros instead of dollars.

the mass migration caused by american wars in the middle east you mean? Also, frontex seems to be working fine so far.

>on a single direction on defeating Russia

unlike the US, which has stopped all military aid to ukraine in 2025, and seems to be favouring russia more and more.

Lets not forget, europe is increasing its military en masse mainly because on one hand you have the russian flattening ukraine, and on other hand you have the US demanding greenland.

Who needs further enemies with friends like this?

Nobody forced the EU to open its borders. It's their job to defend their borders from intruders, foreign especially military aged males with no visa, instead of acting as a global charity with their taxpayers' money then wonder why the far right is booming and arrest them for hate speech.

>unlike the US, which has stopped all military aid to ukraine in 2025

This is news to me that doesn't math what Google returns. Care to back that up?

>and on other hand you have the US demanding greenland

That's bad indeed on the US, but EU can't even defend Ukraine from Russia, a broke-ass country, do you think they would have gone to war with the US over Greenland? The US can do this because the EE can't do anything.

And good luck with fighting all of NATO in a conventional war. According to Trump US is such losers they even lost in Afghanistan against the Talibans. And now you wanna fight rest of NATO (that has more soldiers than US).

The official docs of the RIRs are "non-commercial guides for IPv6 allocation", too.

Also, the votes you are described are all about the implementation of certain ideas/legislation inside the context of the EU, not about the organisation itself?

I'm a European citizen, stating the obvious. Happens to be the contrary of what most ppl in here think it is.

> Member states joined the EU through mechanisms of their state. (Acts of parlements, referendum or something else).

They did. That was a long time ago. When the EU was created the expectation was to align salaries, social welfare networks through access to cheap lending through the common currency, even though politicians like Margaret Thatcher understood the role of the ECB the moment it was proposed. Indeed her last speech as a PM in the house of commons is legendary[^1].

> Also, the votes you are described are all about the implementation of certain ideas/legislation inside the context of the EU, not about the organisation itself?

Most voters don't make that distinction. The fact that every time a government wants to implement an unpopular idea uses the EU as an excuse doesn't help ofc.

To recap: given the opportunity, the majority of countries in Europe would choose to live the EU today, if you ask them. It was much easier for the UK to do so, because they were not part of the monetary union.

[^1]: "[...] the point of that kind of Europe with a central bank is no democracy, taking powers away from every single Parliament, and having a single currency, a monetary policy and interest rates which take all political power away from us.", M. Thatcher, Excerpt from her last speeh as UK's PM (1990).