Federalize or Regionalize

> all of Lappland is "developed regions"
> northern France & Western Riviera are not

Attached: as usual.jpg (900x900, 43.38K)

The federalists wish it was, regionalists are still active, and with the loss of trust in the Brussels federalist institutions, they are beating the EVP and PES puppets easily on the local level.

And with Russia strengthening the separatist movements in Europe, with arms, the project is far from dead

East Germany still hasn't recovered?

This is both poorly shown and based on meme stats, so 1 rich guy in scandinavia makes giant empty forest looks developed

Federal structure is dogshit and failed everywhere it's been tried other than Switzerland, where it works for the same reason their direct democracy does - small population

Fucking excuse me. This map has Ulster as less developed than the rest of Ireland. Fucking crack smokers.

Attached: unnamed.jpg (1200x1200, 252.54K)

This

The smaller the governance region, the better for the people. The bigger it is, the harder it is for the people to topple it when it malfunctions, and the higher the likelihood of malfunction both because power -> corruption and because nobody in russia knows what it's like to live in brazil and therefore could make a good governance decision on behalf of brazilians. Indeed, the smaller the governance area, the more focused the decisions are and the more they risk impacting (both positively and negatively) the leader, which incentivize taking good decisions. In addition, the damage from poor decisions becomes more limited. As for tackling large-scale threats and projects, small governance regions can collaborate temporarily through the usual channels, no different than companies conducting business.

Not recovered is exaggerated, but it is still lagging behind the West, yes. GDR caused some systemic issues that are difficult to rectify completely.
Fundamentally this is no different from some states being richer than others, for whatever historical or practical reason.

You make a good argument. The centralization of power definitely has a dramatic potential for abuse.

And I think I didn't emphasize one of my points enough: what I mean by power -> corruption is that the more power someone has, the less they need to be aware of potential backlash because they are increasingly insulated from it. Hence, they no longer need to take good decisions for the people as opposed to good decisions for themselves. Not only does it cause 'normal corruption' ("good" guy turns to the "dark" side), but it also means leadership positions increasingly attract those who are in it purely for themselves at all cost as opposed to people who care for the region.
In addition, there's the problem of delegation: even a perfect decision will never be enacted properly if there are too many layers of delegation between the top and the bottom of the governance chain, but the larger the governed region, the more governance levels you need to manage the whole thing (conversely, those lower governance levels -- which are protected by the higher levels from consequences -- are all capable of blocking good decisions from the top while enacting bad decisions on purpose).