Poll: The EU should become 1 nation? Discuss.
- Thread starter Federalist92
- Start date
Recommended Videos
We should forget the idea of nations.Joshimodo said:
If you look in to any country (european at least) you'll see that there are all ready people with different cultures, languages and societies.
Every human being is a individual. Everyone is also a part of a packs of people who form little groups, who together form bigger groops and communitys and who together form the humankind.
Nations are nowadays solely based on the place the people inhabit. It's a thing with borders and that's something we don't need. We all live in the same place.
On the Earth
The survival of species relies on unity.
The Climate Change, the space age, continued existence.
They all need our full attention as a whole.
Europe will be one, the world will be one, We will be one.
As an Irish European I think it should happen, it would raise the level of medical help, education etc. it would make us the super power and help standards across the world. Of course the neutrality of Ireland and other would still have to apply to the countries etc.
love avatar by the way. that used to be my favourite film when i was younger.Mantonio said:
which country do you speak of?
we'd do what we do now. most countries these days are multicultural anyway so we would just use whatever we wnted and then got people to translate what we needed like in the EU council now
you cant not be noticed!dallan262 said:
The ammount of complaining you do.
I live in newcastle just south of the border and i used to love scotland. i even loved haggis and had a scottish flag. As soon as i went there i relised just how much they hated "my type" as one scottish kid put it which really meant ENGLISH. I was so shocked at a racist comment from some 13 year old that i didnt look where i was going cos i was looking at the floor and i accidently walked into a scottish person who then insulted me. despite being geordie i still couldnt understand his accent and when i said pardon, he told me to f**k off.
as soon as i got home i through the flag out.
You claim we treat you horribly, but since English people pay for scottish NHS and then you treat us like that, i reall y dont want you anymore. the welsh and irish are much nicer. my aunty liked wales so much she moved there. my grandad didnt like scotland so much he left there.
Dont complain you dont get enough attention when just about everyone in the world knows that you want independance already
(no offence but we already know dude)
Thats the first thing you point toFederalist92 said:
?What about the "united kingdom" ? 4 different countrys under 1 set of laws.
The biggest issue i see is language. Who ever is in charge, as theres always a leader, will basicly be the country who everyone else feels has more say than them and jealousy will ensue.
Ide love a EU-nation, or even better, a global union in practice, not just in name like the UN.
No, it's a bad idea. I like having independent economies (seriously, if every country had the Euro and one centralized economy, the recession would have sent us back to the stone age [considering the level of debt in some of the ex-Eastern Block nations etc.]).
The system we have now kind-of works, but is full of corruption.
As a proud Englishman, I find having unique cultural identity and independent government to be worth more than "but it'd be like America" concepts.
The European countries cannot work together. Look at the problems with farming, the craptastic EU "political correctness" laws (where members of the EU parliament cannot address a female politician by the word "miss" or "Mrs" because it's sexist, they have to use the full name instead) and frankly bizarre laws (such as the fact you can only sell bananas with a specific curvature). Look at Afghanistan (a legal, UN-supported action) and the amount of troops the European nations promise to provide to support British/American troops - they haven't, and as such our men are suffering far more casualties than they should be.
Look at the trouble in the UK regarding the minutiae differences between English, Welsh and Scottish taxation and educational policies. If 3 developed countries struggle to sort out an even taxation/legal system how in the holy hell are 50? And what are 211 groups of cultural identity supposed to do it (as in, look at the trouble in Spain with...that "terrorist group wanting sovereignty of a small area, I've forgotten the names as am getting ready for work)?
A "European Army" would be no better than this. Each country maintaining it's own laws, civil liberties, military and political jurisdiction works far better than a centralised government.
I do think that the UK needs to be a part of Europe in order to have a chance of competing economically with the rest of the world (and the same for other European nations), but I think maintaining independence of governance and differing currency (i.e. economic security) are a far better option than a "superstate".
++EDIT++
Voted "Hell No". I would have disagreed with "what we have now is OK" but the second part about a single, centralised government is a contention for me (as in to represent us internationally - Nations should have their own ambassadors not one "Hi, here's my feelings of all 50 states" bloke), and made me hit the "hell no" button instead.
The system we have now kind-of works, but is full of corruption.
As a proud Englishman, I find having unique cultural identity and independent government to be worth more than "but it'd be like America" concepts.
The European countries cannot work together. Look at the problems with farming, the craptastic EU "political correctness" laws (where members of the EU parliament cannot address a female politician by the word "miss" or "Mrs" because it's sexist, they have to use the full name instead) and frankly bizarre laws (such as the fact you can only sell bananas with a specific curvature). Look at Afghanistan (a legal, UN-supported action) and the amount of troops the European nations promise to provide to support British/American troops - they haven't, and as such our men are suffering far more casualties than they should be.
Look at the trouble in the UK regarding the minutiae differences between English, Welsh and Scottish taxation and educational policies. If 3 developed countries struggle to sort out an even taxation/legal system how in the holy hell are 50? And what are 211 groups of cultural identity supposed to do it (as in, look at the trouble in Spain with...that "terrorist group wanting sovereignty of a small area, I've forgotten the names as am getting ready for work)?
A "European Army" would be no better than this. Each country maintaining it's own laws, civil liberties, military and political jurisdiction works far better than a centralised government.
I do think that the UK needs to be a part of Europe in order to have a chance of competing economically with the rest of the world (and the same for other European nations), but I think maintaining independence of governance and differing currency (i.e. economic security) are a far better option than a "superstate".
++EDIT++
Voted "Hell No". I would have disagreed with "what we have now is OK" but the second part about a single, centralised government is a contention for me (as in to represent us internationally - Nations should have their own ambassadors not one "Hi, here's my feelings of all 50 states" bloke), and made me hit the "hell no" button instead.
No, just no.
1. All the 'benefits' that we get from the EU as it is could be negotiated by bilateral treaties between states or by leaving the EU and joining the EFTA instead.
2. The EU is a staggeringly corrupt unaccountable entity, including: not having it's accounts signed off by auditors for thirteen years (as per 2007 anyhow), expenses allowance abuse by MEPs, and having an Executive Branch that is not directly elected by individual citizens living in the EU.
3. A unified economy is right up there on a list of mine marked BAD IDEAS - this would be so much more sensitive to global shifts and even internal disputes, whereas now some markets in Europe seem to be recovering alright.
4. Referendum? I was never asked if I wanted this, and my parent's generation were asked (and lied to) if they wanted to be part of the European Economic Community, not a supranational organisation.
5. I'm used to having the securities of a Common Law legal system, joining the EU would impose a Civil Law legal system. Goodbye being tried by a jury of my peers....
6. Policies such as the CAP and CFP are disgustingly wasteful, i.e. the CFP has created a 'tragedy of the commons' in European waters (while effectively forcing some nations to surrender sovereignty); the CAP artificially inflates food prices (which means that poorer nations are unable to afford to buy much) and benefits only a tiny number of EU citizens (around 5% of EU citizens work on farms and are responsible for less than 3% of the EU's GDP).
No thanks.
1. All the 'benefits' that we get from the EU as it is could be negotiated by bilateral treaties between states or by leaving the EU and joining the EFTA instead.
2. The EU is a staggeringly corrupt unaccountable entity, including: not having it's accounts signed off by auditors for thirteen years (as per 2007 anyhow), expenses allowance abuse by MEPs, and having an Executive Branch that is not directly elected by individual citizens living in the EU.
3. A unified economy is right up there on a list of mine marked BAD IDEAS - this would be so much more sensitive to global shifts and even internal disputes, whereas now some markets in Europe seem to be recovering alright.
4. Referendum? I was never asked if I wanted this, and my parent's generation were asked (and lied to) if they wanted to be part of the European Economic Community, not a supranational organisation.
5. I'm used to having the securities of a Common Law legal system, joining the EU would impose a Civil Law legal system. Goodbye being tried by a jury of my peers....
6. Policies such as the CAP and CFP are disgustingly wasteful, i.e. the CFP has created a 'tragedy of the commons' in European waters (while effectively forcing some nations to surrender sovereignty); the CAP artificially inflates food prices (which means that poorer nations are unable to afford to buy much) and benefits only a tiny number of EU citizens (around 5% of EU citizens work on farms and are responsible for less than 3% of the EU's GDP).
No thanks.
JUST SO YOU KNOW THOUGH. In response to what i said earlier, i dont hate you, and i dont really hate the scottish majority.dallan262 said:
alot of you just want independance and thats it.
Its the ones that want independance yet still want our money, our army and our healthcare that annoy me. also the ones like the ones i described before who where just god damn cruel.
It has actually been an ideal of mine that Northern Ireland, scotland, and anywhere in england north of York, should be formed into one socialist country called the NSSE or the Northern Socialist States of Europe.
What do you think buddy.
We get haggis, guiness and a barrier of southern english hating people between you and the rest of england.
( i have nothing against southerners. its the opinion of everyone i know in the north and what i hear on the streets.)
I'm a politics student who stands out of guardian reading, che tee shirt wearing, organic bean eating politics students by being a realist and a libertarian. The EU is good as a trading agreement(what it was initially just meant to be) and can help to bring other countries human and civil rights up to scratch using the incentive to join (though this is destructive to that countries own culture in my opinion) it should not be merged into a supernation, when you agree to join you except that the EU have sovereignty over all other forms of constitution and power. so it is sort of an empire today. but it only has total legislative power over three small areas such as agriculture, which is has been particularly destructive of here in Britain. I'm happy with my own nation as it is (well not happy but more tolerant) and the EU becoming more powerful due to the collapse and general piggybacking of less developed nations to three or four major powers in the EU just isen't right.
1) Except that the EFTA doesn't get to decide EU policy, whereas sure as hell if the EU says "Jump", EFTA asks "How high?". It's a quick route to destroying any influence the UK has in Europe. That also destroys the UK's influence with the USA. Why would the USA bother with a small nation who has little or no say with the massive trading bloc that is the EU?LockHeart said:
2) It may or may not be now, but that's what reform and so on is all about. Things change.
3) You could expand that logic to counties, or towns, or individual villages. Large countries manage, you know.
4) We've elected successive governments and given them democratic mandate to sign treaties. They don't need to ask the public in a referendum.
5) [sarcasm]Yes, because EU countries are hotbeds of evil and injustice, and UK law never ever cocks up.[/sarcasm]
6) So what? Policies come and policies go. The EU gets some stuff right and some stuff wrong. So do all the national governments, local councils, and anyone else.
That NSSE of yours would become financially destitute within weeks. Look at the amount of money from English taxes that get pumped into Scotland and a lesser extent into Wales. One of the key arguments against Scottish independence is that economically it's non-viable, even if you claim all North Sea oil as yours. And this is with the policies put forwards by the SNP, and that's not trying to fund a totally socialist state (which would cost untold billions).Federalist92 said:
Very true - that's what my above post was trying to say, nice summing-up (I write with too much rambling for most people to read my posts). Have a cookie on me.zirnitra said:
i'm not favouring the SNP.
i'm english.
i just dont like how southerns treat us english and i believe we'd get treated alot better by the scottish.
im actually still divided.
it depends who becomes socialist first. scotland or england. that will help me decide where my loyaltys lie.
i'm english.
i just dont like how southerns treat us english and i believe we'd get treated alot better by the scottish.
im actually still divided.
it depends who becomes socialist first. scotland or england. that will help me decide where my loyaltys lie.
As a person who lives in an EU country which doesn't have much influence on the other countries... the idea is appallinng. *shiver* The big countries would just forget us here in the North and let us suffer as they already have those *directives* (my homeroom teacher considers that as a profanity) and what not...
No, just no.
No, just no.
European country's are extremely different, whit our own morals, cultures and disagree on various important political terms, as a half Dane half Greek living in the Denmark the idea of having the same government as Greece terrifies me.
i know your from UK but it kinda sounds like an american statement, their all from europe so they must agree on every thing (its all France any way right?)
i know your from UK but it kinda sounds like an american statement, their all from europe so they must agree on every thing (its all France any way right?)
1. They don't need to: free trade and border agreements are set and that's all I realistically want from Europe. Why would a nation need influence within Europe when all they'd be debating is how much influence the EU does and doesn't have over them? Besides, as part of the EFTA you'd still have considerable economic leverage with the other nations, just no political interference. Also, why would it destroy Britain's influence with America? The United States accounts for the United Kingdom's largest single export market, buying $57 billion worth of British goods in 2007. As well as this, the United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. American investment in the United Kingdom reached $255.4 billion in 2002, while British direct investment in the United States totaled $283.3 billion. Not to mention the whole military alliance thing we have going and Coalition efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Noooo, it really is our membership in the EU that keeps the Yanks interested...[/sarcasm]Agema said:
2. It's had 16 years to reform, I wouldn't hold my breath.
3. Yes, they manage, but are not in as good a position.
4. We were promised a referendum by a Mr G 'Cyclopean Tosser' Brown, I think we deserve one.
5. My point is that you'd have a massive culture clash: people wouldn't accept it. Plus I prefer being tried by a jury than I would having my sentence set summarily by a judge, hence one of the reasons that I don't like the magistrate' system in Britain.
6. Yes, but the CAP is a bad policy that has existed since the 1960's and now accounts for 48% of the EU's (un-audited) budget - ?49.8 billion. If any national government pursued such a bad policy they'd be voted out in the next election... Oh hang on... we can't do that with the EU...