'The rejection of the charter by the Netherlands, like France one of the six countries that founded the bloc in the 1950s, could deliver a fatal blow to the treaty designed to make the EU run better following its enlargement from 15 to 25 states.'
In writing the article, the author used the words 'countries' and 'states' interchangeably. What is the difference between a state, a country, and a nation? Some would say there is no difference. Others, especially Americans, would say there is a huge difference between a state and a country or nation. I'm sure there are still many others who would take the view that none of this matters, and therefore is a moot question.
I say it does matter because understanding what these terms truly mean is at the heart of understanding the republic of republics known as the United States of America. Americans have allowed themselves to be dumbed down to the point they don't even understand the form of government they are suppose to be living under.
As I often do, I have to ask, "What does the dictionary say?" Here are the definitions of these three terms:
State: a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially one that is sovereign (italics mine); b: a government or politically organized society having a particular character.
Country: a : the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship b : a political state or nation or its territory.
Nation: a : a politically organized nationality b : a territorial division containing a body of people and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status.
*Note that 'nationality' is defined as 'a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state.'
As I pointed out in my 2 June 2005 article, in my quote from Patrick Henry, the founders did not view the American colonies as one monolithic country/nation before, during or after the American Revolution. Even after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there was no serious argument that the member states were now reformed, subservient members of a single country. It was a union of sovereign states. I use the word 'state' here as one would in talking about 'the state of Israel,' or advocating for a 'Palestinian state.' Somehow I doubt anyone pushing for a Palestinian state would have in mind a politically organized piece of land that is not sovereign and independent of its neighbors.
Clearly, the American Union has been perverted from its original meaning and the intent of the founders. As the English language is a living language, and therefore subject to change in the meaning of words, and the U.S. Constitution is clearly not a 'living document' in the sense that the meaning of the words in that document change at the whim of whomever is reading/interpreting it, it is important to understand our history and the intent of the founders.
One must be a student of history to properly understand events today. I'd dare say a thorough knowledge of our history is more important than having great grammar or a deeper understanding of math beyond addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Ignorance of our history leads to gross mistakes being made in how our governments at the local, state and federal levels act, and we the citizens will be the worse for this ignorance.
those who question my view of the nature of the American union, or wish
to look deeper into this topic, I would suggest a good starting point
would be to read
Dr. Thomas Woods' latest article.