The United States of Europe

[Michael W]

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.

He was elected and given a mandate by leading the party which won the most seats.

Juncker, by contrast, didn't pick up a single vote across Europe, and isn't even the leader of the EPP.

[welshbairn]

He was elected and given a mandate by leading the party which won the most seats.

Juncker, by contrast, didn't pick up a single vote across Europe, and isn't even the leader of the EPP.

They had televised debates across Europe before the European elections, with the declared candidates for the Presidency from the various groupings. If you voted for a member party of the EPP you knew you were voting for Juncker. Just as people voting Tory in Britain knew they were voting for Cameron, although a tiny fraction actually did. Strangely the UK chose not to broadcast the debates.

[Spain]

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.

You've got to think outside the box here. It could be on a longer time-scale here and who said it had to be formed through the EU? What if countries walk away and the UK for example start a new and better supported equivalent which countries start to join. A Federal Europe will probably happen eventually, but if the current EU fails, it could be centuries away.

[Hillonearth]

The EU initially worked to an extent when the member states had a lot in common, but it started overextending itself in the 80s when it let in some southern European countries like Greece and Portugal with chaotic economies who were never going to bring much to the table.

The process has only accelerated in recent years with only Finland, Sweden and Austria being notable exceptions, with virtually every other country in the land grab being a patchwork of outdated post-Soviet industry and rural peasant economies, who are unlikely to be anything more than passengers in the medium term.

The next group knocking at the door are just the same; Albania, Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey...

[vikingTON]

The process has only accelerated in recent years with only Finland, Sweden and Austria being notable exceptions, with virtually every other country in the land grab being a patchwork of outdated post-Soviet industry and rural peasant economies, who are unlikely to be anything more than passengers in the medium term.

Just three of the EU member states are post-Soviet legacies - the Baltic States - and pose next to no serious administrative issues to the EU. Apart from that fairly basic error, and the huge pile of fail in suggesting that any 'peasant economy' survived two generations of communism - just a terrific effort at slurring half of Europe anyway.

[Hillonearth]

Just three of the EU member states are post-Soviet legacies - the Baltic States - and pose next to no serious administrative issues to the EU. Apart from that fairly basic error, and the huge pile of fail in suggesting that any 'peasant economy' survived two generations of communism - just a terrific effort at slurring half of Europe anyway.

Cheers! In that category I was however including the ex-Soviet satellite states in addition to former constituent parts of the USSR sensu stricto. They've also been left with the handicap of the legacy of half a century of monolithic state-controlled industry. Despite best efforts during the communist era, rural life hasn't changed a great deal in some of these places though, and passing through the hinterlands of some East European countries is like stepping back a hundred years. "Peasant" maybe sounds pejorative, but describes the lifestyle fairly accurately.

Which countries would you consider actually brought something to the party after accession to the EU rather than just getting the numbers and footprint up? I could see a case being made for Poland and the Czech Republic, after that...?

[vikingTON]

Satellite states existed as sovereign entities with different levels of economic development. As for the idea that rural parts are a step back in time, that simply is not historically accurate. Villages life, industries and garden production, alongside vast agricultural commercial enterprises isn't even close to a 'peasant' structure, nor that of 100 years ago, anywhere in the region. Collectivisation completely disrupted that part of society.

There is no good reason why the satellite states shouldn't be integrated - Poland is as effective and far more significant part of the European economy than Austria or Finland. The whole point of integration from the start was not to be a club of predominantly Western European economic 'winners' - if that were to happen, the gap between the EU and the rest grows and no-one can ever aspire to joining.

If we were actually papping out members on the basis of being shambolic, economically questionable entrants, then you'd arguably have to include Spain, Italy and increasingly France to that list. But of course, they look like 'real' countries to Brits and have tilty high-speed trains and holiday villas so clearly get to stay in the club.

[Hillonearth]

Satellite states existed as sovereign entities with different levels of economic development. As for the idea that rural parts are a step back in time, that simply is not historically accurate. Villages life, industries and garden production, alongside vast agricultural commercial enterprises isn't even close to a 'peasant' structure, nor that of 100 years ago, anywhere in the region. Collectivisation completely disrupted that part of society.

There is no good reason why the satellite states shouldn't be integrated - Poland is as effective and far more significant part of the European economy than Austria or Finland. The whole point of integration from the start was not to be a club of predominantly Western European economic 'winners' - if that were to happen, the gap between the EU and the rest grows and no-one can ever aspire to joining.

If we were actually papping out members on the basis of being shambolic, economically questionable entrants, then you'd arguably have to include Spain, Italy and increasingly France to that list. But of course, they look like 'real' countries to Brits and have tilty high-speed trains and holiday villas so clearly get to stay in the club.

Spain definitely - I'd add it to the Greece and Portugal I mentioned earlier. Italy's a strange one though - it's virtually two countries, with the industrial north and largely agrarian south having not a great deal in common.

It seems that the drive towards collectivisation happened to varying degrees in different countries within the Soviet orbit - in Russia itself to the greatest degree obviously, but with little to no lasting effect elsewhere (unless they've managed to undo it incredibly quickly). I passed through villages in Poland just a couple of months before they joined the EU in 2004 - not far out of the likes of Warsaw and Krakow either - that were still at horse-drawn level, with not much more than subsistence level activity appearing to be going on.

[Audaces Fortuna Juvat]

This just got interesting - keep going.

[vikingTON]

Collectivisation occurred across the entire socialist bloc during high Stalinism. The village garden cultivation easily seen in Slovakia and presumably Poland as well is a product of the vast majority of the land being collectivised. That small cultivation was allowed to avoid the mass starvation used in the Soviet Union to get rid of the peasantry. If you're looking for near-genuine rural life of a century ago, you'll likely find in France or Spain, but nowhere between Berlin and Moscow.

[Hillonearth]

Specifically in Poland, it appears that collectivisation was attempted in the immediate post-war years, but thanks to strong resistance from peasants who had put up with six years of the Nazis and subsequently weren't going to put up with any shite from the Communists, more or less died along with Stalin in the early 50s.

It was abandoned almost entirely by 1957, which is probably why there's no sign of it ever having happened these days.

As regards the anachronistic lifestyle in some parts of rural France I may well be wrong, but it's always appeared to me as a bit more of a conscious choice by some there to live an idyllic simple life in a nice part of the world as opposed to the lack of choice some people living in similar circumstances in grimmer bits of Europe do.