• Creation of the United States of Europe?
    296 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;17815078]Why does everyone think this is somehow contradictory? I don't think you know what market anarchism is.[/QUOTE] You're funny, I give you that.
Itt: 14 year olds getting flamed by 15 year olds who think that they are a lot smarter so they can act like 13 year olds
[QUOTE=Hivemind;17814846]:words:[/QUOTE] Basically you misunderstood what the entire argument was about. I'm not against law (as opposed to legislation) or the use of force in defense of yourself and your property. We were [u]only[/u] arguing over whether state borders are necessarily enforced by violence, which is an evident truth that I'm sure you agree with. We were [u]not[/u] arguing over the legitimacy of it.
It wouldn't work, the East European politicians would mardy.
I hope this gets through. Europe is still a patchwork of national identities, and needs to be brought together as one nation, or atleast a confederation.
[QUOTE=scout1;17820954]I hope this gets through. Europe is still a patchwork of national identities, and needs to be brought together as one nation, or atleast a confederation.[/QUOTE] A patchwork which would help during a federation, since it would give more individual sense to each state.
The Lisbon Treaty does not create the position of 'President of the European Union' but changes the already existing position of the President (see chairman) of the European Commission from cyclical between heads of state, and instead puts in place an independent President chosen witht the agreement of the European member states. One of the main features of the Lisbon Treaty is that further ammendments would need only a majority vote from the member states, not a unanimous decision as of now. This makes a degree of sense considering recent enlargement of the Union, but eurosceptics worry about how this might make constitiutional change easier. The main Federalist aspect of the Treaty is actually the creation of a communal Diplomatic Service, something which moves towards a common foreign policy. The reasons given for that change are coherence in foreign policy decision and savings in expenditure for all member states by pooling resources. Whilst this might affect individual state sovereignty, it is really a question of whether you consider sovereignty to be Zero Sum.
[QUOTE=Athelus;17824609] Whilst this might affect individual state sovereignty, it is really a question of whether you consider sovereignty to be Zero Sum.[/QUOTE] Oh god I hope that France doesn't get to manage the defense.
United Statessss Uniteddd Statteeessssssssssss of EURASIA!
[QUOTE=Brosi;17824911]United Statessss Uniteddd Statteeessssssssssss of EURASIA![/QUOTE] yeah, but a European Federation would be stronger then the US, so we would be number 1, while they would come second.
[QUOTE=evilking1;17824647]Oh god I hope that France doesn't get to manage the defense.[/QUOTE] There are no provisions in the Lisbon Treaty or current EU for a joint defense strategy. Also France has the largest nuclear stockpile, largest army and has the broadest experience in modern warfare of the European states (it has participated in more 'new wars' than britain, which has focused solely on the middle east), a notable example being the Cote d'Ivoire. In any case that's all academic. There is no way that a single state would be put in charge of a joint defense plan, even if there was one. That's not how the EU works. As for rivalling the USA, a united Europe could approach it in economic and military strength, but it would take time, and the union would be unlikeley to surpass US power. Also there is no real political incentive to do so.
How do you defend a country with nukes, wave them really angry? But yeah Frenchmen have been fighting quite well recently.
[QUOTE=evilking1;17825200]How do you defend a country with nukes, wave them really angry? But yeah Frenchmen have been fighting quite well recently.[/QUOTE] And for most of the pre- world war 2 era, it's main failing were internal politics and insufficient alliances with belgium. Also, you tend not to invade a country with nuclear weapons due to 'MAD'. Besides, any central European conflict is unlikeley within your lifetime.
[QUOTE=Athelus;17825181]Also France has the largest nuclear stockpile, largest army and has the broadest experience in modern warfare of the European states (it has participated in more 'new wars' than britain, which has focused solely on the middle east), a notable example being the Cote d'Ivoire. [/QUOTE] Two things to point out: The first is that the size of a nations armed force is, to an extent, irrelevant. France may have the bigger army, but Britain has the second largest navy in NATO (i.e. bigger than France). The second point is that Britain has just as much, if not more, experience than France when it comes to 'new wars', with the Falklands War being a prime example. I can't see how the fact that we are fighting heavily in the Middle East makes us any less capable.
There will never be a "United Nations of Europe". Mostly because of language barriers.
Please Britain, maintain your currency and your national integrity.
[QUOTE=Athelus;17825181]There are no provisions in the Lisbon Treaty or current EU for a joint defense strategy. Also France has the largest nuclear stockpile, largest army and has the broadest experience in modern warfare of the European states (it has participated in more 'new wars' than britain, which has focused solely on the middle east), a notable example being the Cote d'Ivoire. In any case that's all academic. There is no way that a single state would be put in charge of a joint defense plan, even if there was one. That's not how the EU works. As for rivalling the USA, a united Europe could approach it in economic and military strength, but it would take time, and the union would be unlikeley to surpass US power. Also there is no real political incentive to do so.[/QUOTE] well GDPwise the EU earns more than the US already
I think it will (reluctantly) happen
[QUOTE=Brosi;17824911]United Statessss Uniteddd Statteeessssssssssss of EURASIA![/QUOTE] A United States of Eurasia would be enormously powerful (it would just be pushing all other countries around though, maybe a bit too powerful). But don't expect that in the next 150 years (unless something big changes).
[QUOTE=Beafman;17810298]One person? We would set up a European Congress and Senate to legislate. There would be a President, but as with the american one, he wouldn't just be able to "lead". The people would have to vote him and then the congress would have to vote yes to his proposals and laws.[/QUOTE] Basically we'd become America 2, but with even less states' rights. No thanks.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;17826013]Basically we'd become America 2, but with even less states' rights. No thanks.[/QUOTE] No, we would implement Proportional representation instead of plurality voting system they use in the US. That way there would be much more democracy compared to the US. And just because we got a congress and senate wouldn't mean it would be America V2. We could implement much more freedom to each individual state compared to the US. We don't need to be a federation exactly like the US.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;17826013]Basically we'd become America 2, but with even less states' rights. No thanks.[/QUOTE] no we'd be a diverse united europe with more rights.
Kick the British and Irish out of the EU and I can defiantly see a European Federation happening.
[QUOTE=David29;17825660]Two things to point out: The first is that the size of a nations armed force is, to an extent, irrelevant. France may have the bigger army, but Britain has the second largest navy in NATO (i.e. bigger than France). The second point is that Britain has just as much, if not more, experience than France when it comes to 'new wars', with the Falklands War being a prime example. I can't see how the fact that we are fighting heavily in the Middle East makes us any less capable.[/QUOTE] Look up 'new war' it doesn't mean the same as a modern war, the Fauklands was certainly not a 'new war'. I'm not saying that France is 'better' than Britain (by the way it wasn't in NATO for a long time), just that it isn't incompetent militarily. Also navies are rarely used in 'new wars', unless you count the clashes with somalian pirates.[/off topic] The GDP of the EU is also sometimes lower than the US depending what source you use.
Its getting there, but there's nothing wrong with the present situation - no tolls and searches when moving between european countries. I support a united union, though.
[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rWb43KbRD0&feature=related[/MEDIA]
[QUOTE=Vasili;17811314]I don't want a man from Poland telling me what I can and cannot do in my own country.[/QUOTE] Got a problem, asshole? So what? It could be a man from any country. What difference does it make? We're all human, after all. People, before posting, read some of the posts that have been made. Pro-EU guys made quite a lot of good, valid points while the other side is not justifying itself at all, instead it prefers to resort to blind hate.
[QUOTE=$$>MUFFIN<$$;17826907][MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rWb43KbRD0&feature=related[/MEDIA][/QUOTE] [quote=musewiki]The name comes from the book "The Grand Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brzezi&#324;ski, who puts forward the view that Eurasia must be controlled by the USA to secure oil supplies.[4] In addition, it draws influence from "Nineteen Eighty-Four" by George Orwell,[4] in which Eurasia arbitrarily changes between ally and enemy of Big Brother country Oceania. This is where the idiom "We have always been at war with Eurasia/Eastasia" came from, typically employed in response to the most obvious political uses of the exposure effect to convince a populace that a ruling figure or party said or did the opposite of that which was in fact actually said or done.[/quote] The song isen't about a european federation being bad, it's about following every order that the US gives to Europe.
[QUOTE=toxicpiano;17825939]well GDPwise the EU earns more than the US already[/QUOTE] Yep, we're already the strongest economy in the world.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17827772]Yep, we're already the strongest economy in the world.[/QUOTE] Only if you count every country in the union, not the ones with an actual integrated economy. Which doesn't imo make much sense.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.