Jump to content

The United States of Europe


United States of Europe  

79 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Belgium and Luxembourg are both french speaking as well.

Switzerland shouldn't really be counted as its non-eu. (they would become one of those weird countries that are completely surrounded by one country.)

Like Lesotho.

<<< Thrist for knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If the EU exists in its current form, in a decade's time, I'll be really surprised.

The creation of a "federal European superstate" is a very late twentieth century idea. No chance it will ever happen. The creation of a two-speed Europe- those dominating the Euro currency and those without it / defaulting on obligations- is much more likely.

The EU was a good idea but has turned into a neoliberal happy-clapping organisation. I'd be much happier to be part of the Norway / Switzerland club and make more of our own policies, in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Independence I hope the next big change in our governance is withdrawal from the EU.

A corrupt, monolithic, undemocratic, bureaucratic, waste of time and resources. It disappoints me that people who regard themselves as being on the left of politics defend and support this institution. Maybe in an independent Scotland with (hopefully) a written constitution incorporating a commitment to social justice they won't feel the need to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Independence I hope the next big change in our governance is withdrawal from the EU.

A corrupt, monolithic, undemocratic, bureaucratic, waste of time and resources. It disappoints me that people who regard themselves as being on the left of politics defend and support this institution. Maybe in an independent Scotland with (hopefully) a written constitution incorporating a commitment to social justice they won't feel the need to.

I would prefer this after a yes or a no, but think we'll be disappointed in either eventuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're far more likely to leave the EU as part of the UK than an independent Scotland.

An independent Scotland will be in the EU unless something goes absolutely horrifically wrong during negotiations with the EU and we decided against it. I can't see Scotland joining EFTA, for example; all the narrative is towards EU membership.

On topic - Europe is moving towards 'ever closer union' at a time when its citizens are getting fed up with it and, in some cases, having to resort to voting for out and out racists to express their displeasure with it. Hopefully this will lead to the EU's decline rather than than federalism, but I'm concerned federalism is inevitable.

I am however in favour of retaining the free movement of labour and goods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support the federalisation of the UK and, if a United States of Europe was to be modelled on the USA then I would support this also. Whether this would work though due to the political and ideological differences in the individual countries is debatable though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support the federalisation of the UK and, if a United States of Europe was to be modelled on the USA then I would support this also. Whether this would work though due to the political and ideological differences in the individual countries is debatable though.

I'm with you on all points. Federalisation is the way to go, even for Scotland instead of independence. Problem is whether we'd ever actually get that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Independence I hope the next big change in our governance is withdrawal from the EU.

A corrupt, monolithic, undemocratic, bureaucratic, waste of time and resources. It disappoints me that people who regard themselves as being on the left of politics defend and support this institution. Maybe in an independent Scotland with (hopefully) a written constitution incorporating a commitment to social justice they won't feel the need to.

Corrupt - In most of Europe political corruption barely raises an eyebrow. Europeans generally understand that politics and corruptions are inevitable bedfellows. It's only really in Britain where a fuss is made about it and that fuss is mainly due to hypocrisy and ignorance. After a decade of leaks and revelations about British government I'd hardly say any attempt from Westminster to protect the British taxpayer from corrupt Europeans could possibly be taken seriously.

Undemocratic - Really? We just had European elections with 30% turn outs. If it's undemocratic the main reason is people not voting. It's also worth reminding ourselves that it's not uncommon for members of the British cabinet to not be elected MPs and that we've had more unelected Prime Ministers than you can shake a stick at in recent times.

Bureaucratic - What does bureaucratic actually mean other than being a political trope? Would you rather government was a free for all with no rules, procedure or processes? Government is bureaucratic it can't and shouldn't be anything else. Government is not in the high volume sales business.

Waste of time - The original purpose of the EU was to bring countries closer together, particularly the major powers and prevent war from breaking out. So far there has never been any war in any EU country to date. France and Germany in particular, after centuries of animosity, have never been closer. Does everyone always agree? No, but the prospect of war is almost unimaginable, even between recent enemies like Greece and Turkey. Free trade has benefited almost everyone, and thanks to the Hengen Agreement the free movement of people have never been easier. Do you honestly think anyone would want to lose any of those benefits that the EU provides?

Resources - Well sure, it's wasteful. But so is any large organisation. The NHS is enormously wasteful but few people what to get rid of that. The Ministry of Defence procurement is enormously wasteful and is almost completely unaccountable. The EU has a lot of scope to be improved and that will most likely happen with various reforms but it does not mean, in the great scheme of things, that it is worthless.

We export goods of more value to Ireland and Netherlands combined than we do to the United States and China combined. We import twice as much from Germany than we do from the US. The entire European economy is based around the EU and European integration. No EU would be catastrophic for the world economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the EU exists in its current form, in a decade's time, I'll be really surprised.

The creation of a "federal European superstate" is a very late twentieth century idea. No chance it will ever happen. The creation of a two-speed Europe- those dominating the Euro currency and those without it / defaulting on obligations- is much more likely.

The EU was a good idea but has turned into a neoliberal happy-clapping organisation. I'd be much happier to be part of the Norway / Switzerland club and make more of our own policies, in the future.

Erm, Norway and Switzerland have to comply with most of the outcomes of EU policy anyway in order to trade - and pay handsomely for the privilege. Which, if the EU-US trade deals come off, will prove even more central and expensive for stand-alone states to buy into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've left out a couple of the below because they do apply to all governments, in fairness.

Undemocratic - Really? We just had European elections with 30% turn outs. If it's undemocratic the main reason is people not voting. It's also worth reminding ourselves that it's not uncommon for members of the British cabinet to not be elected MPs and that we've had more unelected Prime Ministers than you can shake a stick at in recent times.

Waste of time - The original purpose of the EU was to bring countries closer together, particularly the major powers and prevent war from breaking out. So far there has never been any war in any EU country to date. France and Germany in particular, after centuries of animosity, have never been closer. Does everyone always agree? No, but the prospect of war is almost unimaginable, even between recent enemies like Greece and Turkey. Free trade has benefited almost everyone, and thanks to the Hengen Agreement the free movement of people have never been easier. Do you honestly think anyone would want to lose any of those benefits that the EU provides?

Resources - Well sure, it's wasteful. But so is any large organisation. The NHS is enormously wasteful but few people what to get rid of that. The Ministry of Defence procurement is enormously wasteful and is almost completely unaccountable. The EU has a lot of scope to be improved and that will most likely happen with various reforms but it does not mean, in the great scheme of things, that it is worthless.

We export goods of more value to Ireland and Netherlands combined than we do to the United States and China combined. We import twice as much from Germany than we do from the US. The entire European economy is based around the EU and European integration. No EU would be catastrophic for the world economy.

Undemocratic - how does an EU voter remove Van Rumpoy or Barrosso? In addition, who voted for Juncker? If you don't like Cameron or Salmond, they can be removed by either 1) not voting for them so they lose their seat or 2) not voting for their party so they will no longer be in government. The new system will change that in theory as I'd imagine Juncker can technically be 'voted out' by not voting for EPP aligned parties. The trouble here is that he still won't actually be elected as an MEP.

Waste of time - It simply isn't fair to say the EU in isolation has kept the peace. At best it's a contributory factor, but there were many things in there not long after WW2 (European Convention on Human Rights, Coal and Steel Community etc) which were no doubt just as influential. Free trade and the customs union are undoubtedly great things, but are also a form of EU protectionism which disincentives goods from third countries. At any rate, the free movement, Schengen agreement and free trade are extended to the EFTA countries.

Resources - 40% of the EU's budget is spent on CAP payments. 40% of its entire budget just given to farmers - that is absolutely outrageous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corrupt - In most of Europe political corruption barely raises an eyebrow. Europeans generally understand that politics and corruptions are inevitable bedfellows. It's only really in Britain where a fuss is made about it and that fuss is mainly due to hypocrisy and ignorance. After a decade of leaks and revelations about British government I'd hardly say any attempt from Westminster to protect the British taxpayer from corrupt Europeans could possibly be taken seriously.

Undemocratic - Really? We just had European elections with 30% turn outs. If it's undemocratic the main reason is people not voting. It's also worth reminding ourselves that it's not uncommon for members of the British cabinet to not be elected MPs and that we've had more unelected Prime Ministers than you can shake a stick at in recent times.

Bureaucratic - What does bureaucratic actually mean other than being a political trope? Would you rather government was a free for all with no rules, procedure or processes? Government is bureaucratic it can't and shouldn't be anything else. Government is not in the high volume sales business.

Waste of time - The original purpose of the EU was to bring countries closer together, particularly the major powers and prevent war from breaking out. So far there has never been any war in any EU country to date. France and Germany in particular, after centuries of animosity, have never been closer. Does everyone always agree? No, but the prospect of war is almost unimaginable, even between recent enemies like Greece and Turkey. Free trade has benefited almost everyone, and thanks to the Hengen Agreement the free movement of people have never been easier. Do you honestly think anyone would want to lose any of those benefits that the EU provides?

Resources - Well sure, it's wasteful. But so is any large organisation. The NHS is enormously wasteful but few people what to get rid of that. The Ministry of Defence procurement is enormously wasteful and is almost completely unaccountable. The EU has a lot of scope to be improved and that will most likely happen with various reforms but it does not mean, in the great scheme of things, that it is worthless.

We export goods of more value to Ireland and Netherlands combined than we do to the United States and China combined. We import twice as much from Germany than we do from the US. The entire European economy is based around the EU and European integration. No EU would be catastrophic for the world economy.

What a ridiculous post. Particularly trying to justify corruption. I'm not naive enough to think we will ever be rid of corruption in politics but I sure not going to try to ignore or condone it.

In fact all your arguments, other than some of those you have made under 'waste of time' seem to be on the theme of "yes the EU is bad but other things are worse".

From what I've noticed of your posts you seem to be pretty level headed but your justification for continuing in the EU is a pretty poor effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Undemocratic - how does an EU voter remove Van Rumpoy or Barrosso? In addition, who voted for Juncker? If you don't like Cameron or Salmond, they can be removed by either 1) not voting for them so they lose their seat or 2) not voting for their party so they will no longer be in government. The new system will change that in theory as I'd imagine Juncker can technically be 'voted out' by not voting for EPP aligned parties. The trouble here is that he still won't actually be elected as an MEP.

The reason Cameron is against Juncker is that the democratically elected European Parliament chose him. He wants to keep the top EU jobs appointed by him and his buddies, not the European hoi polloi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason Cameron is against Juncker is that the democratically elected European Parliament chose him. He wants to keep the top EU jobs appointed by him and his buddies, not the European hoi polloi.

He's against him because he's known for having federalist views and he isn't going to deliver the sort of reform he's looking for - it's nothing to do with who chose him. That he's trying everything he can to keep him out is another matter, and not one I agree with. The leaders of Member State governments shouldn't be picking the president.

Neither, should the parties be putting forward unelected candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither, should the parties be putting forward unelected candidates.

That's what they call representative democracy. David Cameron got a few thousand votes from the fine people of Witney, yet claims to represent the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The less you know about the EU and how it works, the more likely you are to be supportive of it.

USE is not going to happen. It was planned back in the 60/70's, with the intention of inching towards it over the years. Only now, the idea is starting to see sizable resistance. The Euro was always going to fail, the people who set it up knew full well it was going to happen. They did it in the hope that people would want want their EU project to succeed and they would be prepared to give up their sovereignty to make it happen. The EU crisis is being deliberately engineered by the bankers to make USE happen, but it's not working. The way I see it, once one country leaves the EU the rest will quickly follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...