Aside from your blatant shameless cheerleading, I cornered him to diss one of the ricest countries in the world, the seat of the EU. He said it is unheard that a region has its own foreign policy, I provided him an example and he started dissing Belguim from his alshabab infested, grandma burning southern region. He has no perspective whatsoever. Mind you that he dropped that argument, so who owned who ya cheerleader?
As for your second point, we pointed out several times the type of countries that opted for a federal system. If you put your cheerleading pompoms down, here's are the types of countries that opted for a federal system:
1-Countries that have a history of mistrusting government, like the US. The white migrants fled from government and religious prosecution from Europe. So they have a distaste for strong central government.
2-Multi ethnic countries and counttries that have several offcial languages. The examples are endless, Ethiopia, Belguim
3- Countries with immense landscape and natural resources such as Canada. It is inefficient for a centra government to handle these issues, a local federal government can handle it more efficiently.
4-Countries that come from a brutal civil war. Many ex Balkan countries have opted for a federal system, and some of them are now EU members.
Somalia ticks all the boxes except number 2.
The first discussion I had with
@london10 was about substate foreign policy, he ridiculed that thought and asked for an example where it is implemented. I gave hima clear cut example plus a academic paper encouraging it but like a kid he dissed Belguim. He wasn't ope for discussion, he would dismiss my arguments no matter what. I didn't hear him since about regions in other countries having their own foreign policy