"But we have the world's biggest frigates for that! *sighs as for german greens and lefts and their various idiocies*"
Are the new frigates really that bad? At least from what I've read on the Wikipedia article, they seem to be suited for the kind of task the German navy might be expected to undertake in the foreseeable future (peacekeeping, protecting ships from pirates et al.) Ok, can't get revenge for Jütland with ships like this, but I doubt that there'll be any major sea battle in the future.
Prinz Eugen der edle Ritter,
wollt dem Kaiser wied'rum kriegen
Stadt und Festung Belgerad!
It was more a comment on how they are "frigates" because the green and left parties would throw a tantrum if we'd be honest and call them destroyers.
From what I heard they are a bit of Awesome but Impractical
Belligerent means, literally, war waging- undergoing the actions of war e.g. "In World War I, the belligerent nations were The British Empire, The German Empire, The French Republic, The Austrian Empire etc"
Bellicose means inclined to fighting and warfare e.g "The French are incredibly bellicose because war means more mistresses for the survivors" or "Is it a Godwin to point out that Germany is being very bellicose?".
Don't just tell us the facts; tell us the memes, tell us the archetypes, tell us the catchy ideas and symbolic roles that get planted in pe
4. (By extension) Aggressively hostile, eager to fight.
5. Acting violently towards others.
So at least according to them the second meaning also exists. I'm sure I've also seen it used. I was aware of all of the other meanings, as well; my mistake was assuming (for no reason that I can think of) that the meaning that was meant here was #2.
When my mistake was pointed out I did feel the need to check, though, as English is not my first language and I still have a long way to go before I can say I've learned it properly.
Probably depends on how "alone" they'd be. Presumably their borders would be open to Italy (both ways) and they'd use the same currency and so on. Italy already has two (very) small nations within its borders - San Marino and the Vatican. (Well, you could also say that Italy itself is within Italy's borders, so make that 3 countries, 2 of them small.)
I'm sure they could make it but I don't see any point in doing so. That said, there probably wouldn't be a movement for independence if there was no reason for it, so I guess they probably can justify what they're doing. I haven't looked it up, though, so I can't tell you why they're doing this.
Sounds like a lot of people they can do better than their own governments. Though on some degree it also sounds like they want their home countries to keep providing them, without them needing to do anything for them and having full freedom to do whatever they want.
Of course, in Venice case, sounds like they are at first gauging whenever or not Venetians want independence and if so, start working to do so legally and peacefully. Sort of like Scotland is doing, didn't they run a new laws to make the referendum plausible?
"Run new laws"? Um... eh? If you mean... "devolution made it more possible, but this could always wind up on the cards thanks to the fact that Scotland is a country in a political Union with others", then... yeah.
But... I don't think that's what you meant.
If "organising an official framework" is "making new laws"... then yes. But, that framework? Was based on the fact that Scotland entered the Union voluntarily in the first place. It's... been implicit in the laws since the start that Scotland could go it alone again if it could find enough political agreement on how to start the process on both sides of the border to do that.
So, I'm a confused bunny.
Heck, in theory... Wales could even try — even though it was more conquered and less "entered voluntarily, helped by the fact that England had run out of royals anybody could bear to accept". (Although, that'd be a much bigger mess to sort out: it's been longer with a lot more integration with English systems.)