Fact is, all sorts of bad stuff have happened in the US, carried out by duly elected representatives, following (sort of) open procedures in legislative sessions, and signed by elected chief executives. Fascists weren't required. — BC

Exactly. So how come? What's the real lesson? And how to reverse it when there's a vocal minority claiming taxation is theft and vested interests keen on keeping their privileges because any loss of privilege is considered an injustice by them? And how come a relative minority benefitting from it gets such widespread support from voters? It doesn't, for instance, comport with studies where people would rather force both parties to end up with nothing than accept an unfair result from a negotiation. Fairness is a strong motivator yet we'll gladly vote for parties or people who have no interest in fairness.

Edit: I think the first one is obvious. It's not a negotiation in Parliament and not a trade. So there is no social "contract", just people pursuing their self-interest to the furthest extent as possible that the system permits. This is mitigated to some extent in multi-party systems that require coalitions to form majority voting blocks but over the years has been avoided by trading off unrelated issues before parties actually come into power and thereby avoid democratic control.

These nations do not share the same security concerns as the European mainland, so should not be permitted to have this kind of influence over European (mainland) security. — Tzeentch

Depends on just what UK does. Yes, it's likely that if the US under Trump really would leave NATO, then I guess UK would be the first in line to make a bilateral defence treaty with the US.

But you see the negative effects of this already in Far East Asia: US has bilateral defense agreements with Japan, South Korea, Phillipines etc, and then there is the strange AUKUS. But there isn't coordination among these countries. And SEATO simply fell apart as the countries had so little in common.

Hence taking out the UK from an European helps only Russia!

This is a very interesting subject, but perhaps a little off-topic for the thread. Lets continue this discussion in the future. :pray:

Well, if Trump goes really with what he possibly said, then we'll get in no time this debate to start in earnest.

BRUSSELS — One of Europe's most senior politicians recounted how former U.S. President Donald Trump privately warned that America would not come to the EU's aid if it was attacked militarily.

"You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you," Trump told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in 2020, according to French European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who was also present at a meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

"By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO," Trump also said, according to Breton. "And he added, ‘and by the way, you owe me $400 billion, because you didn’t pay, you Germans, what you had to pay for defense,'" Breton said about the tense meeting, where the EU's then-trade chief Phil Hogan was also present.

A while back I pointed out how, if you want a real example of looming fascism, one should look no further than our own backyard, Europe.

Today it seems European Union is becoming more and more authoritarian, now overtly threatening to sink the Hungarian economy if it refuses to back aid to Ukraine.

Brussels threatens to hit Hungary's economy if Viktor Orbán vetoes Ukraine aid (Financial Times)

Note the lack of respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of Hungary, and the EU's willingness to strong-arm smaller nations into obedience.

The Duran did a good report on this, in which they also briefly touch on Donald Tusk whom I mentioned earlier in this thread as an example of looming fascism.

FT report, EU planning to destroy economy of Hungary (The Duran)