Poll: The EU should become 1 nation? Discuss.

[Skeleon]

I pretty much agree 100% with the OP.
Yes, the EU should definitely become one nation, similar to the concept of the USA (though much more varied).
I also agree that such a change can't happen over night. So I voted the "Kind of"-option.
We need Europe to become the third superpower in the world (next to the USA and rising China).
Maybe the Russians and Turks'll join in once they've sorted out their democracy-issues?

Just look at the censored German versions of video games.

Oh Geez, not this again.
They're trying to protect children. Nothing more.
Adults are in no way hindered.
What do I care? I buy all my games on amazon.co.uk anyway.

 

[pantallica95]

In the US we have representitves for the states, and shit gets done. So if they put basically the same principal into effect for governing the EU, it wouldn't turn out so bad perhaps.

Fair point. However, the US is very diffrent from Europe. You dont have the same culture, ethnic, racial and language divides as we have here in Europe. We have the EU now, and they get fuck all done.

We dont have the same, but we have some pretty thick ones.

 

[Superbeast]

Making a distinctly shorter point than last time... I think a summary of my views is that we should have a united foreign policy while leaving internal affairs and law-making to national governments. Outwardly unified, inwardly independent and staying that way. I'm also all for aid going to developing countries within the EU. You can't really expect to have unity while you have inequality and the resentment that brings.

I also don't think this should be done hastily. This has to be done over a process of decades, maybe even a century. Definitely not years.

Quoting the smaller point

The economic parts are what should be happening now and the political parts would be better than what we have now (none of the EU parliament is elected, even by majority of MPs [one MP gets chosen by PM basically] and they abuse their power for monetary gains).

This is essentially what I think should happen too - but without naming the EU as a single nation, that way it doesn't stand on anyone's pride, and should help keep things more civil between Britain and France. It should be treated a little like NATO - ie not a country, but a union of a majority of countries that will enact in the same way so as to have the economic or military might to impose sanctions and world order when needed. But also with the trade/politic side too.

What does need to be kept in check is bias - look at how France screwed the UK over with the farming subsidies. What also needs to change is the cost - £40,000,000 A DAY (as mentioned by another poster) is insane.

Essentially: A coming together of distinct, separate, self-determining nations operating with beneficial trade regulations and acting as a single entity in times of war/imposing action upon a foreign sovereign nation. All nations need their own parliaments that have the ability to set their own laws and taxes with separate internal economies but an overarching policy of Europe-wide co-operation.

 

[Nickolai77]

*snip*

I read it all

What i think you have outlined is pretty much how the EU works today- with a few exceptions. Your point about the military, i think i agree, and it seems fair that richer nations pay more (Such as the UK, France and Germany) but in return have more power on the EU panel. The whole idea of abolishing the "One Nation One Veto" i think is one of a number of reforms under the Lisbson Treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty also promises an elected EU President (replacing the current rotating presidency) and a EU foregin minister. The idea of an EU Foregin minister sounds good to me, he would be a very powerful individual as he (or she, but for the sake of things lets say hes a he lol) represents the opinion of the EU powers combined- When he speaks, the rest of the world such as China, Russia, The Middle East and our American allies, will listen.

An elected EU President is i think a step towards federalism, not really something i totally disagree with i should say, but something a lot of people, especially Daily Mail readers, rage about. I think the main advantage of an elected EU president is that it makes the EU more democratic. The people vote for a president who they agree with the most, and whom is responsable if he fails to deliver- thus forcing the EU to respond to public opinion like any good democratic system.

Big problem- how do you get people simply voting for members sent by their own countries?- In this model, Germany would win every time. I suppose that could be overcome, like how we do in the European electons, vote for a party and not a figure head. There may be a few other unforeseen problems, so i think a series of mock elections should be trailed to see if this could work fairly or not.

 

[Mad Maniac with axe-firing chainsaw]

*snip*

I read it all

What i think you have outlined is pretty much how the EU works today- with a few exceptions. Your point about the military, i think i agree, and it seems fair that richer nations pay more (Such as the UK, France and Germany) but in return have more power on the EU panel. The whole idea of abolishing the "One Nation One Veto" i think is one of a number of reforms under the Lisbson Treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty also promises an elected EU President (replacing the current rotating presidency) and a EU foregin minister. The idea of an EU Foregin minister sounds good to me, he would be a very powerful individual as he (or she, but for the sake of things lets say hes a he lol) represents the opinion of the EU powers combined- When he speaks, the rest of the world such as China, Russia, The Middle East and our American allies, will listen.

An elected EU President is i think a step towards federalism, not really something i totally disagree with i should say, but something a lot of people, especially Daily Mail readers, rage about. I think the main advantage of an elected EU president is that it makes the EU more democratic. The people vote for a president who they agree with the most, and whom is responsable if he fails to deliver- thus forcing the EU to respond to public opinion like any good democratic system.

Big problem- how do you get people simply voting for members sent by their own countries?- In this model, Germany would win every time. I suppose that could be overcome, like how we do in the European electons, vote for a party and not a figure head. There may be a few other unforeseen problems, so i think a series of mock elections should be trailed to see if this could work fairly or not.

I'm not quite sure how to resolve that particular conundrum... do we absolutely need a president in charge of the EU? Can't we make do with just the parliament?

 

[Under The Chestnut Tree]

But why?

 

[Nickolai77]

I'm not quite sure how to resolve that particular conundrum... do we absolutely need a president in charge of the EU? Can't we make do with just the parliament?

We have an EU president at the moment, its the leader of Sweden. (And if anyone knows his name, without using google, deserves cookies) He is supposed to be a "figure head" of Europe, but the fact that he is not an elected figure-head does mean you could question his legitamacy.

Bottom line is, i think an elected EU president, elected through the European political parties, would be a good thing because it would make the EU more democratic, and would also raise the public profile of the EU. Considerding the EU's importance, most people are clueless about what it is and how it works- this leads to lots of ill-informed opinions and has led or contributed to the rise in popularity of parties such as UKIP and the BNP.

 

[Superbeast]

*snip*

I read it all

What i think you have outlined is pretty much how the EU works today- with a few exceptions. Your point about the military, i think i agree, and it seems fair that richer nations pay more (Such as the UK, France and Germany) but in return have more power on the EU panel. The whole idea of abolishing the "One Nation One Veto" i think is one of a number of reforms under the Lisbson Treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty also promises an elected EU President (replacing the current rotating presidency) and a EU foregin minister. The idea of an EU Foregin minister sounds good to me, he would be a very powerful individual as he (or she, but for the sake of things lets say hes a he lol) represents the opinion of the EU powers combined- When he speaks, the rest of the world such as China, Russia, The Middle East and our American allies, will listen.

An elected EU President is i think a step towards federalism, not really something i totally disagree with i should say, but something a lot of people, especially Daily Mail readers, rage about. I think the main advantage of an elected EU president is that it makes the EU more democratic. The people vote for a president who they agree with the most, and whom is responsable if he fails to deliver- thus forcing the EU to respond to public opinion like any good democratic system.

Big problem- how do you get people simply voting for members sent by their own countries?- In this model, Germany would win every time. I suppose that could be overcome, like how we do in the European electons, vote for a party and not a figure head. There may be a few other unforeseen problems, so i think a series of mock elections should be trailed to see if this could work fairly or not.

I'm not quite sure how to resolve that particular conundrum... do we absolutely need a president in charge of the EU? Can't we make do with just the parliament?

Yet again I agree.

Without a single figurehead (like a President) there is less for the individual nations to bicker over (as whichever nation the President is from will, naturally, be seen as "superior" and, if he is from the more powerful nations like UK, France, Germany, could carry a lot of power to push biased policy through).

The Foreign Minister *could* be the equivalent of the PM - in that he is the envoy sent to foreign nations when the entire block is dealing with a situation (as each nation has it's own figureheads, like the Queen for example, to send when dealing with a foreign nation individually). He just has no power for anything *within* the EU, thereby ensuring there can be *no* bias (he retains his vote as the representative of a specific state for internal matters but can't sway things one way or another in times of a hung parliament - ie he acts as if a standard member). Perhaps even have him elected by the members within the parliament like the current head of the UN?

Parliament should sit in Switzerland too, as that's entirely neutral (and the entire population is armed just to make sure everything goes swimmingly).

 

[Mad Maniac with axe-firing chainsaw]

*humongous snip*

Sorry for the snip, trying to avoid having reams of text. I agree to the idea of him/her being more like a foreign minister who carries the will of the EU parliament to other foreign offices. That would prevent arguments over whose country gets the damn post. The main problem Europe has is agreeing over things without browbeating one another. Only using the president as a representative would calm the political storms.

 

[Justice Shades]

I hate the idea. It would destroy a lot of cultural heritage and national identity. What's wrong with having seperate countries? Europe isn't like the US at all, its inhabitants differ greatly in terms of language, culture and worldview. How could all these people possibly be united under a single government? It would be too unwieldy. If anything we need more representation, not less.

 

[Superbeast]

*humongous snip*

Sorry for the snip, trying to avoid having reams of text. I agree to the idea of him/her being more like a foreign minister who carries the will of the EU parliament to other foreign offices. That would prevent arguments over whose country gets the damn post. The main problem Europe has is agreeing over things without browbeating one another. Only using the president as a representative would calm the political storms.

Snipping is fine - threads where people need to write big replies would be obscene otherwise, I don't take offence to it or anything.

That's why I suggested it. Look how anti-Britain the EU became when Blair was the President, and the amount of anti-British reform pushed through by the French (and managing to keep their damned farming subsidies).

As I disagree with the EU becoming a physical nation, I disagree with their being a physical head (except that Foreign Minister blokey, because it's too impractical to send every representative to a country to say the same thing over-and-over again), thus don't see a need for a President - and it kills two birds with one stone by reducing the bickering.

 

[The Hairminator]

Wouldn't work. We have diferent languages, diferent cultures.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Human nature wouldn't allow it. If anything, more countries would be formed from the chaos. Say what you will about the USSR, but they were as close as you could get to a non-crazy Unified Europe (not EU).