Poll: The EU should become 1 nation? Discuss.

[aakibar]

Bad idea do not get The french in Germans together, bad mix lol. but really it would be hard people would disagree there may be some sort of language barrier, their could be some lingering hostilites from a by gone era. another thing is, would it be mandatory for all countries within the geografic realm known as Europe, could countries opt out or opt in depending on area. Its an idea that would require a lot of thought, preparation, and propaganda to get it across to the people.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Stupid idea. Putting England, France and Germany in the same country is like having New York and California under the same ruler.

 

[Vuljatar]

Yay, total homogenization. /facepalm

Have any of you read Anthem?

 

[Superbeast]

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 didn't say you were favouring the SNP, I was saying the SNP struggle to make the figures viable for an "independent Scotland" and they wouldn't be imposing anywhere near the extent socialist policies you seem to support. I was using it as a point to show that developing an independent "united socialist states" would be utterly impossible from an economic point of view.

And (though I'm a Southerner/Midlander), I find it difficult to believe you actually think you are *persecuted* by those living in the same country as you just a little bit down on the compass. The North is screwed financially thanks to Thatcher (crippling the mining and factories), we in the South aren't trying to "keep the Northern idiots down" or anything like that...hell, it reads as if you think the "southerns" aren't English (quote: i just dont like how southerns treat us english). The Scots don't treat you better, they don't magically make you exempt from English law or taxes (and are angry to ALL English people /jk).

And neither Scotland nor England are going to become Socialist any time soon, so you're going to have a very long wait. The fact you *want* a separate socialist state is...bizarre and slightly disturbing to me.


On-topic:

To those saying "The United States manages fine, it'd be the same" (or words to that effect) are missing the point. You couldn't have a single representative of every country in the EU coming together to make decisions that would affect every country, and billions of people. Hell, how would elections function (I'm guessing you don't have, in some cases, 20+ choices of party from communist to neo-nazi trying to run each state independantly of the Federal government)? How do you organise fair taxation and distribution of wealth - the richer nations (France, Germany, UK etc) would be bankrupted helping the less-developed ones out, dragging the whole EU down to such an extent that it would be too feeble to operate on the world stage.

The way that it should (and was originally designed to work) is to create an area of trade and general interest (hence the Parliament to establish rules for dealing with international relations within the "alliance"). This allows the "European economy" to flourish, boosting each individual nation on the world stage and allowing them to compete with America and China. But the countries are free to operate whatever domestic policies they want and are free to make their own decisions regarding things like invasions, non-EU trade and so forth.

A "united States of Europe" with a single Government would be unwieldy and unworkable. Too many people involved across too many nations with different exports and areas of expertise. "European Trade" wouldn't function too well if every nation was operating on the same economy and same laws, since there'd be no import/export taxes (as it's just one nation) so there'd be a challenge to boost the GDP of the whole sector. If you are keeping the nations independent for having taxation trades then what is the point of a "USE" and why not just keep (a refined version) of the system we have now?

Theoretically it's a great idea in that the "super-nation" would have the military might of America and Russia and as such become an international super-power, but economically and politically it wouldn't work, and if imposed would be attacked from within by "terrorist" organisations wanting the freedoms of individual states and dissent from the populace. National identity, independent trade (with concessions for operating within the EU trade-zone) and independent governance are why the EU sort-of works as it is, and really shouldn't be changed.

 

[Lord Thodin]

Im not from the European theatre but if i was, Id say go Hitler, name yourselves all ONE thing, and become a superpower. Ally the US and then take over the world. Use the power to fix all the worlds problems.

 

[Lord Thodin]

Stupid idea. Putting England, France and Germany in the same country is like having New York and California under the same ruler.

How so? It'd work. New York and California are both full of alot of rude pushy people.

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

sounds like that code geass anime,I don't watch it but I saw the pilot,and it doesn't sound like any part of europe getting more power is so good

 

[Milford Cubicle]

I think the EU should slowly transform into one nation. We are in no hurry to scare people by rushing it, however when we eventually are one country we will have one stronger military, one stronger economy, and one stronger presence. All the major wars have started in europe, so wwhy why not try to stop this by talking away the countrys that fight and making one instead. seems a good idea to me.

No. Don't be so silly. It is a foolish idea.

 

[AlphaOmega]

They can do anything they wish if that means thell keep turkey out tbh, but Im pretty damn opposed to the "EU-Country"

 

[Agent Larkin]

Considering the fact that the EU has bullied my country into stop being a democracy I'm going to say NO. In fact lets make it a big NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[Agent Larkin]

Stupid idea. Putting England, France and Germany in the same country is like having New York and California under the same ruler.

I think San Fransico and Texas would be a better comparison.

 

[Trace2010]

It is the last plank in the plan...why not?

On the same token...how about the US annexing Mexico, Canada, and Central America?

 

[Federalist92]

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 didn't say you were favouring the SNP, I was saying the SNP struggle to make the figures viable for an "independent Scotland" and they wouldn't be imposing anywhere near the extent socialist policies you seem to support. I was using it as a point to show that developing an independent "united socialist states" would be utterly impossible from an economic point of view.

And (though I'm a Southerner/Midlander), I find it difficult to believe you actually think you are *persecuted* by those living in the same country as you just a little bit down on the compass. The North is screwed financially thanks to Thatcher (crippling the mining and factories), we in the South aren't trying to "keep the Northern idiots down" or anything like that...hell, it reads as if you think the "southerns" aren't English (quote: i just dont like how southerns treat us english). The Scots don't treat you better, they don't magically make you exempt from English law or taxes (and are angry to ALL English people /jk).

Actually.
I think as times gone on ive got confused. a couple of years ago, i only hated the conservative party, (partly for Thatcher) mainly because all my family and friends told me stories about how the conservatives were all upper class snobs who loved looking after the south and all their own personel mansions but didnt give a damn about northern cities and their industry. After a damning report on margret thatcher for history (for which my history teacher actually shook my hand and complained about his lack of milk, while the students clapped) i relised that they must be right. I had done all this research on thatcher and had found her to be just as bad as i was told. A year or so later, when the economy started going down hill, i thought that maybe that was just her. the conservatives might not all be that bad. these veiws were further backed up with the expenses scandal when labour MPs had used money for furniture and second homes.
I was convinced the conservatives could be better. However, then, within the space of two days, i relised that most of the shadow cabinet were posh people from eton (so what you say, but this made me think about my previous views) and the conservatives had also been involved in the scandal but theres were worse. they werent furnishing second homes like the labour MPs. they were building moats around their manors, building islands houses for their pet ducks and having their gold initials stamped on gutters (why?).
Then recently, i have been led to believe, that while Cameron and others in the party support the NHS the majority still think like the old extreme-right conservatives and dont like it. My grandad survived because of the NHS and i dont want an american society where i have to pay for my education and healthcare out of my own pocket.
Its not that ive got anything against southerners. its the conservatives.
thanks for making me remember this.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Stupid idea. Putting England, France and Germany in the same country is like having New York and California under the same ruler.

How so? It'd work. New York and California are both full of alot of rude pushy people.

So are England and France; but yeah, San Fransisco and Texas might be a good comparison.

or let's just put all the Americas together under one president, and Canada as well.

 

[Federalist92]

Do you count as European as a second generation emigrant with a dual citizenship in a European nation?(not sure if that is a real word, basically your grandparent emigrated from Europe)

if youve a european passport then sure. even a joint one.

 

[Nickolai77]

I don't think a European super nation would work. To many countries with their own distinctive identities and languages and cultures. Only the Romans united Europe, and they did that by conquest.

I think, ideally, Europe should be a loose federation of countries which are politically and economically tied to each other and help each other out. Europe however does need reform to sort out its mess of a bureaucracy, and it needs to be more democratic by make a formal voting system which elects a figurehead of the European Union who is responsible for carrying out the will of the voters.

Realistically, Europe can only be a loose federation of countries- we just need to make a mechanism which allows the union to work as efficiently and democratically as possible.

Maaybe over the course of the centuries Europe can evolve into a more or less single state, or maybe if some catastrophic event happens and the borders between European countries no longer exist and everyone wants to merge into a super-state. But yes, Europe would pwn if it was a single state, but i dont think that is possible .

 

[Mantonio]

I'm feeling disconnected from my own country enough as it is, thank you very much.

love avatar by the way. that used to be my favourite film when i was younger.
which country do you speak of?

I live in Britain. And while the EU has had some good policies, the fact that our country now has to follow orders from some person I've never heard of in Brussels (who, according to my father, is apparently German) just sets alarm bells ringing in my head. Also, our current Prime Minister, the appalling Gordon Brown, wasn't even voted into power.

I feel as if I've got no voice as it is. I don't need that amplified by being ruled by some shadowy council of people I know nothing about, who have never stepped foot inside Britain.

 

[Agema]

Hm.

So, it's said the UK, France, Germany etc. will have to give money to the poorer nations. Well, why not? Within all these countries money is distributed from the rich to the poor already. The poor are taxed less than the rich; some regions get more aid than others. It's not going to bankrupt anyone, it's just progressive taxation and aid-giving on an EU-wide scale rather than national.

It's just a total myth that cultures will disappear because of European unity. Firstly, You don't need to be unified with another country to see your culture eroded - note the inroads US culture has made all over the world. Most importantly, being unified with another culture does not cause your culture to disappear: England has ruled Wales for around 700 years, and yet the number of people speaking Welsh is both large and increasing.

There's the argument about squabbling nations, but this doesn't really apply either. Every EU country has agreed to put key aspects of their nation in the hands of the EU as part of joining, principally economic negotiations, but they also accept the European Courts for justice, and so on. Many have abandoned their own currency and tied themselves into central European monetary policy. There's no reason to believe countries will never eventually hand more and more power over to the EU as time goes by.

 

[Simriel]

It would rather make sense given that it would turn europe into a superpower. I mean the U.S is basically one big country made out of little countries.

 

[Griffolion]

Personally, i think the entire world should become one nation. Pooling the worlds greatest talent in every craft and field into one united group will see a much better advance in technology and philosophy.

Well thats just me anyway.