• Plans have been drawn up for a full-blown 'United States of Europe' and Britain will have little say
    94 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bobie;50194891]who?[/QUOTE] probably the daily sun and RT
Yeah, no, ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Language barriers, different mentalities, opinions, traditions. Fuck, my country still use our own currency and several do to. You'd be literally asking nations to give up independence in favor of becoming some faceless Union which could hardly address all the problems that would come up from this. You just can't compare Europe to US.
This is (mostly) a conspiracy theory article, so I don't want to get too bogged down in this debate... But the amount of people who want or are neutral towards union is insane. The nations of the EU share very little, quite frankly, in common, linguistically, culturally and economically. Individual nations may be similar - Germany and Austria, or Britain and Ireland, but this doesn't mean that a superstate is viable. And besides, even if there were similarities, it is politically impossible. Most people don't want to delegate their governance to far off Brussels bureaucrats, who are mostly unelected (the European Parliament, as any idiot, both pro and anti-EU knows, is completely worthless and a waste of space. The Commission makes all the decisions). Quite frankly, I don't want too much involvement of France in running Britain, as I see it as overly left-wing, pathologically anti-American and extremely dysfunctional. Irish people don't want overbearing British influence upon them, probably less for practical reasons, but instead for cultural and historical reasons. And this is just examining the relations between the more similar nations instead of comparing Germany, Estonia and Greece! I feel no bond between myself and the average Latvian, as much as they attempt to push the 'European' label, and as such a superstate is likely impossible. I know it is easy to stereotype Americans, but I think their general response in this thread has shown their ignorance towards Europe and its vast differences across a tiny geographical area. We are nothing like the thirteen colonies. Our differences make eventual destruction and civil war caused by the difficulties of maintaining slave-holding south against industrial north look like nothing. The EU has constantly shown itself to be utterly incompetent. Schengen is a disaster that looks to bring back the far-right in significant numbers across Europe for the first time in decades. The Euro is one of the worst economic mistakes in modern history, attempting to merge vastly different economies (see the resemblance?) into one currency, impoverishing southern Europe (in the long term) and resulting in economic disaster through the lack of fiscal rules. This doesn't mean that we should necessarily leave the EU. Unraveling such a close relationship is exceedingly difficult and dangerous. What it does mean is that further integration should aim to be stalled, at least in the case of non-Euro countries, indefinitely, as this is clearly not working. The reaction, however, always seems to be to demand more integration, even when the electorate is sick of it, even when it has not worked in the past. This is what concerns me in the past, and is one of the reasons why I actually think Cameron's opt-out of the 'ever closer union' clause is actually pretty important.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;50194325]That's only north America, there still central and south, also this discussion is not supposed to take place in public please remember to use our locally assigned Skype groups.[/QUOTE] Group: USA-NUMBER-1 password: NUMBER ONE
I'm surprised at the number of people in here who are okay with a one world government, if that goes badly there will be nowhere to turn.
[QUOTE=dale_uk_scout;50195025]Group: USA-NUMBER-1 password: NUMBER ONE[/QUOTE] pfft, we're smarter than that, the DMV is in charge of assigning, distributing, and running our local task groups, that's why they're always so backed up/slow.
[QUOTE=Dom Pyroshark;50194950]Yeah, no, ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Language barriers, different mentalities, opinions, traditions. Fuck, my country still use our own currency and several do to. You'd be literally asking nations to give up independence in favor of becoming some faceless Union which could hardly address all the problems that would come up from this. You just can't compare Europe to US.[/QUOTE] Due to the internet, international crime is transcending national barriers. To deal with this, there is going be a need for an global form of government.
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;50195255]Due to the internet, international crime is transcending national barriers. To deal with this, there is going be a need for an global form of government.[/QUOTE] Not for a long while will cybercrime be anywhere near important enough to require this
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50194994]This is (mostly) a conspiracy theory article, so I don't want to get too bogged down in this debate... But the amount of people who want or are neutral towards union is insane. The nations of the EU share very little, quite frankly, in common, linguistically, culturally and economically. Individual nations may be similar - Germany and Austria, or Britain and Ireland, but this doesn't mean .[/QUOTE] Lmao 'share very little in common' Oh you know beside the 2000 years or so of shared history and cultural interaction, foundational legal systems, linguistic family trees, economic ties and more. Yes there is diversity and differences but to say that Europe doesn't have a shared history? Utterly ridiculous. To say that the economies of Europe aren't already so closely tied together as to be essentially inseparable? Start over your thought process, theres a better way to argue your position that starts on more realistic grounds.
Diplomatic Victory
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;50195255]Due to the internet, international crime is transcending national barriers. To deal with this, there is going be a need for an global form of government.[/QUOTE] More than just the internet makes nation-states obsolete. The ever increasing global interconnection, the transnationality of economic flows, corporations, people, culture, transportation, everything. Our antiquated political systems are woefully inadequate to deal with the reality of 21st century human civilization and it shows. We need better global based coordination. Attempts to regress away from that will end in our devolution or demise
[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;50195289]Lmao 'share very little in common' Oh you know beside the 2000 years or so of shared history and cultural interaction, foundational legal systems, linguistic family trees, economic ties and more. Yes there is diversity and differences but to say that Europe doesn't have a shared history? Utterly ridiculous. To say that the economies of Europe aren't already so closely tied together as to be essentially inseparable? Start over your thought process, theres a better way to argue your position that starts on more realistic grounds.[/QUOTE] It is so amusing to watch an American say this as it truly shows your ignorance of reality. Ask a hundred Europeans how close a bond they feel with other Europeans. It will reliably be much, much weaker than their national bonds, in a way which makes a European superstate entirely unviable. Why do you think people hate the European Union so much (no, it isn't just Brits)? The UK doesn't have a shared legal system, firstly, but that is a side point. All kinds of countries have shared linguistic family trees, and most feel no need to join each other. Shared history isn't a good reason whatsoever. All kinds of countries have economic ties and cultural ties much closer than the European Union, but South America aren't clamouring to join up in a superstate. Mostly because it isn't beneficial to any party involved. [editline]25th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=luverofJ!93;50195304]More than just the internet makes nation-states obsolete. The ever increasing global interconnection, the transnationality of economic flows, corporations, people, culture, transportation, everything. Our antiquated political systems are woefully inadequate to deal with the reality of 21st century human civilization and it shows. We need better global based coordination. Attempts to regress away from that will end in our devolution or demise[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand anything about governance. People don't actually like being ruled by a distant, unanswerable superstate which they think doesn't cater to their needs. Fucking 45% of [I]SCOTLAND[/I] thinks it shouldn't be in the UK because of political and cultural differences. SCOTLAND! I rest my case. You are living in fantasy world. Only an American could think like this.
National identity is important, a United Europe super state would result in massive unhappiness because I could see, like FlashMarsh says, a distant unanswerable superstate which may or may not have an idea how to cater to the needs of individual nations and their own problems as the link between local politics and national politics is lost.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50194994]This is (mostly) a conspiracy theory article, so I don't want to get too bogged down in this debate... But the amount of people who want or are neutral towards union is insane. The nations of the EU share very little, quite frankly, in common, linguistically, culturally and economically. Individual nations may be similar - Germany and Austria, or Britain and Ireland, but this doesn't mean that a superstate is viable. And besides, even if there were similarities, it is politically impossible. Most people don't want to delegate their governance to far off Brussels bureaucrats, who are mostly unelected (the European Parliament, as any idiot, both pro and anti-EU knows, is completely worthless and a waste of space. The Commission makes all the decisions). Quite frankly, I don't want too much involvement of France in running Britain, as I see it as overly left-wing, pathologically anti-American and extremely dysfunctional. Irish people don't want overbearing British influence upon them, probably less for practical reasons, but instead for cultural and historical reasons. And this is just examining the relations between the more similar nations instead of comparing Germany, Estonia and Greece! I feel no bond between myself and the average Latvian, as much as they attempt to push the 'European' label, and as such a superstate is likely impossible. I know it is easy to stereotype Americans, but I think their general response in this thread has shown their ignorance towards Europe and its vast differences across a tiny geographical area. We are nothing like the thirteen colonies. Our differences make eventual destruction and civil war caused by the difficulties of maintaining slave-holding south against industrial north look like nothing. The EU has constantly shown itself to be utterly incompetent. Schengen is a disaster that looks to bring back the far-right in significant numbers across Europe for the first time in decades. The Euro is one of the worst economic mistakes in modern history, attempting to merge vastly different economies (see the resemblance?) into one currency, impoverishing southern Europe (in the long term) and resulting in economic disaster through the lack of fiscal rules. This doesn't mean that we should necessarily leave the EU. Unraveling such a close relationship is exceedingly difficult and dangerous. What it does mean is that further integration should aim to be stalled, at least in the case of non-Euro countries, indefinitely, as this is clearly not working. The reaction, however, always seems to be to demand more integration, even when the electorate is sick of it, even when it has not worked in the past. This is what concerns me in the past, and is one of the reasons why I actually think Cameron's opt-out of the 'ever closer union' clause is actually pretty important.[/QUOTE] I don't know how big post-nationalism is in europe but this thread's subject matter has stirred quite a bit of it, and I should warn you that from my experience this is not the kind of subject matter that tends to invite open minded discussion. I mean a USE wouldn't really be post-nationalist since it would be a nation itself, but a lot pf people only seem to care that it's bigger than the nations that are currently there.
The United States of America worked because the majority of the 13 colonies were of British decent, giving them common ground The United States of Europe wouldn't work because the vast majority of countries differ so much in ethnicity, culture, and religion that it would be impossible to unite them all without any major issues arising. I mean sure, Rhode Island was an odd colony, and so was Georgia, but at least they spoke the same language and were already under the same rule from the King. European countries differ too much in language, and they all have their own provincial governments set up that I'm sure not all of them would be willing to give up.
Hence why if something like this were to happen it'd be deep into the future when relations and tensions raised/declined.
considering how the US started as basically a bunch of countries with a small unifying body keeping them off each others throats, this might have historical precedent :v:
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;50194597]Borders already have very little meaning within the EU, you dont even need a passport to travel anymore But the idea of europe being one united nation is ridiculous, every single state is so culturally different, we don't even speak the same language[/QUOTE] I agree. I'm Austrian and even though Austria and Hungary were once a single country I can't imagine how that would work nowadays, let alone all of Europe. The only country similar enough would be Germany, but the last time that didn't work out all that well [B]at all[/B].
[QUOTE=Jordax;50194516]I would say that Sweden's lack of nationalism is also a good way to explain their problems right now. And I don't blame the Poles and other Eastern European countries for being pretty nationalistic. That tends to happen when said countries didn't get to be independent countries of their own for the majority of last century, wherein their histories got completely oppressed too.[/QUOTE] Oppressed too? Are you seriously talking about oppression? [editline]25th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50194994]This is (mostly) a conspiracy theory article, so I don't want to get too bogged down in this debate... But the amount of people who want or are neutral towards union is insane. The nations of the EU share very little, quite frankly, in common, linguistically, culturally and economically. Individual nations may be similar - Germany and Austria, or Britain and Ireland, but this doesn't mean that a superstate is viable. And besides, even if there were similarities, it is politically impossible. Most people don't want to delegate their governance to far off Brussels bureaucrats, who are mostly unelected (the European Parliament, as any idiot, both pro and anti-EU knows, is completely worthless and a waste of space. The Commission makes all the decisions). Quite frankly, I don't want too much involvement of France in running Britain, as I see it as overly left-wing, pathologically anti-American and extremely dysfunctional. Irish people don't want overbearing British influence upon them, probably less for practical reasons, but instead for cultural and historical reasons. And this is just examining the relations between the more similar nations instead of comparing Germany, Estonia and Greece! I feel no bond between myself and the average Latvian, as much as they attempt to push the 'European' label, and as such a superstate is likely impossible. I know it is easy to stereotype Americans, but I think their general response in this thread has shown their ignorance towards Europe and its vast differences across a tiny geographical area. We are nothing like the thirteen colonies. Our differences make eventual destruction and civil war caused by the difficulties of maintaining slave-holding south against industrial north look like nothing. The EU has constantly shown itself to be utterly incompetent. Schengen is a disaster that looks to bring back the far-right in significant numbers across Europe for the first time in decades. The Euro is one of the worst economic mistakes in modern history, attempting to merge vastly different economies (see the resemblance?) into one currency, impoverishing southern Europe (in the long term) and resulting in economic disaster through the lack of fiscal rules. This doesn't mean that we should necessarily leave the EU. Unraveling such a close relationship is exceedingly difficult and dangerous. What it does mean is that further integration should aim to be stalled, at least in the case of non-Euro countries, indefinitely, as this is clearly not working. The reaction, however, always seems to be to demand more integration, even when the electorate is sick of it, even when it has not worked in the past. This is what concerns me in the past, and is one of the reasons why I actually think Cameron's opt-out of the 'ever closer union' clause is actually pretty important.[/QUOTE] We share more than what the citizens of the USA ever did. Did you ever attend any history class? If anything the US of A were created that easily BECAUSE people came from all sorts of different areas. Well that and multiple wars of conquest.
[QUOTE=Killuah;50197326] If anything the US of A were created that easily BECAUSE people came from all sorts of different areas.[/QUOTE] I don't follow the logic here what so ever, if anything it was created easily because nothing was firmly established yet, and during it's creation they were in the middle of an existential war where refusing to unify could end up with everyone remaining under british rule, it was literally a smaller group forming to split off from a greater whole (Britain's empire). [QUOTE=Killuah;50197326]Well that and multiple wars of conquest.[/QUOTE] And yeah, we hadn't well established the continent yet, borders and states weren't really final and the ones that existed weren't long established places at the time. Hell I'd say Canada and the U.S. would have a much, much easier time merging in that kind of way than the EU would, and I can't really imagine that happening, I also imagine a huge percentage of both populations being displeased due to the policy changes that would be required, and arguing over whose systems would be adopted would deadlock the systems for years. The idea is a mess and I don't agree with people in a completely different climate far detached from the populations they represent deciding what's best for them. And while I realize that due to our class and political systems being intertwined that it happens to some extent, the larger a demographic these people represent, the less happy people are with them. I mean hell, look at the United Nations, they're a joke because even slightly controversial ideas get deadlocked due to conflicts of interest and the only things they seem to draw consensus on is giving themselves more power to interfere with the lives of their own citizens. Imagine if the UN had to agree on a global budget for their expenditures, and everyone in the world was relying on it getting passed for their government to work properly, it would be a disaster.
I guess you could use anything as an argument against or for unification. Common history? Good for community. Common history? Too many old feuds. No common history? Not much beef to deal with. No common history? Why should we cooperate. In the end what's left is the will to do it.
It is the end goal, however much it drags us down.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50195058]I'm surprised at the number of people in here who are okay with a one world government, if that goes badly there will be nowhere to turn.[/QUOTE] nation states without supranational entities has been going badly for literally centuries you've got to remember that every time a supranational entity has sprung up, it has been because nation states have fucked up so terribly that they have created them see, league of nations, united nations, the IMF, the EU every time nations have fundamentally fucked up, supranationalism comes into play
I consider myself a federalist, so I'm pretty okay with this. However, I'd much rather see European regions banding together (pretty much like the UK is today). For example: the northern European countries becomes one (with current borders still existing as state/regional borders). Then this union, together with five or six others, is then a part of the larger entity that is the European Federation. To clarify, I suck at politics both at regional and international scale so I'm sure there are lots of problems with this. However, it is just my personal opinion and something that I would find sweet.
like, it makes me fucking chuckle whenever posters like flashmarsh claim that the european union has shown itself to be incompetent, as though nation states have set the bar for competency the original ECSC was created because the nations of europe were so fucking incompetent that we wouldn't stop killing each other so some smart people got together and thought, trading is the only way we will stop killing each other i'll say it again, [B]nation states in Europe were SO BAD at NOT KILLING EACH OTHER, that France and Germany sought a supranational solution to it[/B]
I used to believe that unified europe could work. But in the last 6 years have taught me that as it is now it can't. Either make it work or break it. Right now its more like united nations where people just yell their own agendas over each other. And some countries follow the EU rules more strictly than others. So either those issues will be fixed or the union will break itself eventually.
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;50197666]I used to believe that unified europe could work. But in the last 6 years have taught me that as it is now it can't. Either make it work or break it. Right now its more like united nations where people just yell their own agendas over each other. And some countries follow the EU rules more strictly than others. So either those issues will be fixed or the union will break itself eventually.[/QUOTE] I think it still has helped plenty that everyone's followed the rules to some extent. Even though it has demonstrated the issues with the system of unified rules. The system could use some improvement, but the extent of it is pretty okay as it is.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;50197687]I think it still has helped plenty that everyone's followed the rules to some extent. Even though it has demonstrated the issues with the system of unified rules. The system could use some improvement, but the extent of it is pretty okay as it is.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;50197666]I used to believe that unified europe could work. But in the last 6 years have taught me that as it is now it can't. Either make it work or break it. Right now its more like united nations where people just yell their own agendas over each other. And some countries follow the EU rules more strictly than others. So either those issues will be fixed or the union will break itself eventually.[/QUOTE] the issue you have is that you'll have people complaining that it does nothing because it has no power, or the [I]same people[/I] whining that they've lost sovereignty to it when it gets the power to do things same shit with the UN, the same posters that complain the UN does nothing are probably the same posters that would complain if it had any power at all you can't win
I'd probably be okay with a kalmar union 2.0 if we eased into if, but the entire eu? I don't like that idea.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50197638]nation states without supranational entities has been going badly for literally centuries you've got to remember that every time a supranational entity has sprung up, it has been because nation states have fucked up so terribly that they have created them see, league of nations, united nations, the IMF, the EU every time nations have fundamentally fucked up, supranationalism comes into play[/QUOTE] Do not forget the Catholic Church.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.