An EU superstate

[emmytee]

Would It be a good idea? I know there are no moves to create one afoot just now, but would you support it in theory?

I personally wouldn't mind to be honest, as a "united states of Europe" we could acheive a lot more, like space exploration, scientific research, not to mention we'd have a kick ass military.
Of course, there would be problems with language and political differences within, not to mention corrupt french politicians (lol).

[Tomsan]

UNE! United Nations of Europia! And I will rule it!

english will be taught at the age of 6

[Ganon42]

Sure, it would probably work fine, except the language problem.
Plus, we need a big super power thingy to keep the U.S. in check.

[SwaaanOfTheDead]

It won't work.
Just try to make all Eurepean Governments ONE.
And then it probably would end in WW3

[lapis]

I'd support it in theory, but it's nothing more than a pipe dream. I'm 21 and I'm already too jaded to believe it will ever happen. I mean, talks about Turkish membership are threatened to be vetoed by the elected leaders of roughly 800,000 Cypriots while the European Commission, which is also supposed to represent about 460 million other Europeans, recommended to leave the majority of the areas of negotiation open.

In order to achieve a superstate we first need to do away with the veto powers of individual member states. After that, the powers of the European Commission must exceed the powers of the national governments, especially regarding issues such as defence and foreign policy. The number of commissioners (25 at present) must go down and the remaining ones need to become a lot more prominent - you can never have a strong bloc without noticeable leadership. All of this isn't going to happen in the next five decades, of course. The main purpose of the Union is strengthening the economies of the member states and that will remain so for a long, long time.

[Kev-o]

At 12/2/06 09:34 AM, Bassistic wrote: It won't work.
Just try to make all Eurepean Governments ONE.
And then it probably would end in WW3

Don't you mean, WW 5? WW 3 is the Middle East Conflict, and WW 4 are the Global resistance movements.

[lapis]

When people insist that humanity has already seen a third World War they usually mention the Cold War. It's all semantics in the end.

[SwaaanOfTheDead]

At 12/2/06 10:27 AM, Kev-o wrote:

At 12/2/06 09:34 AM, Bassistic wrote: It won't work.
Just try to make all Eurepean Governments ONE.
And then it probably would end in WW3

Don't you mean, WW 5? WW 3 is the Middle East Conflict, and WW 4 are the Global resistance movements.

Nope. I mean a real WW. When the US starts to see the "EU Superstate" as a Threat I think it would end in an WW which includes a massive use of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons.
After that WW the population on Earth will be decreased to a few hundred Million people

[lapis]

At 12/2/06 10:34 AM, Bassistic wrote: When the US starts to see the "EU Superstate" as a Threat I think it would end in an WW which includes a massive use of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons.

I wouldn't worry about it. No side benefits when most of humankind gets wiped out in a nuclear war and even a conventional war would damage the economic positions of both the US and the EU too much to render it worthwhile. I'm sure there are and have been American lawmakers who consider the upsurge of Chinese influence in Asia a "threat" to their interests in the region but I have yet to see a World War unfold. Besides, the EU and the US share many interests and standpoints so I doubt they'd let any conflict or disagreement escalate in the near future.

[Tomsan]

At 12/2/06 10:34 AM, Bassistic wrote:

Nope. I mean a real WW. When the US starts to see the "EU Superstate" as a Threat I think it would end in an WW which includes a massive use of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons.
After that WW the population on Earth will be decreased to a few hundred Million people

and you would think this because.....................???
why the hell would europe and the us fight eachother with such weapons?

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

We've already come a long way, but i think if Europe should stick together, for Asia is rising!
I also think, that we should be more afraid of Russia, then of China. China has good intentions in keeping the region stable. Rusia is trying to put pressure on Europe by Gas policies, they already killed a traitor, in London, and are getting away with it!

[Neoptolemus]

At 12/2/06 11:53 AM, TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID wrote: We've already come a long way, but i think if Europe should stick together, for Asia is rising!
I also think, that we should be more afraid of Russia, then of China. China has good intentions in keeping the region stable. Rusia is trying to put pressure on Europe by Gas policies, they already killed a traitor, in London, and are getting away with it!

Holy fuck i can't believe people are actually believing Litvenenko was killed by the Kremlin.

" I know lets kill one of our critics in a very obvious way so more attention gets drawn towards us".

Anyway, what we should do is keep getting new members so that eventually the EU will be known as the Eurasian Union.

[LegendaryLukus]

I think that the European superstate will happen eventually, but not for a long time. It's heading in the right direction, what with the EU parliament and the single currency, but the destination of European superstate will take time.

On the Litvinenko issue, I guess we don't have any proof that it was the Kremlin, but the radioactive substance had to be created in a high-tech laboratory, so who had access to it?

[Neoptolemus]

At 12/2/06 01:31 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: On the Litvinenko issue, I guess we don't have any proof that it was the Kremlin, but the radioactive substance had to be created in a high-tech laboratory, so who had access to it?

Any country with any form of nuclear capabilities.

[LegendaryLukus]

At 12/2/06 01:47 PM, Neoptolemus wrote:

At 12/2/06 01:31 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: On the Litvinenko issue, I guess we don't have any proof that it was the Kremlin, but the radioactive substance had to be created in a high-tech laboratory, so who had access to it?

Any country with any form of nuclear capabilities.

Ok, so who would have the most to gain from Litvinenko's demise? Russia has quite obviously been bumping off people who have openly spoken out against the government. I just don't think that we should simply rule out Russia just because 'it's too obvious'.

[Neoptolemus]

At 12/2/06 01:55 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: Ok, so who would have the most to gain from Litvinenko's demise? Russia has quite obviously been bumping off people who have openly spoken out against the government. I just don't think that we should simply rule out Russia just because 'it's too obvious'.

Yes we can't truly dismiss Russia at the moment. However, if you think logically if you were to kill one of your critics would you poison them with polonium 210 (which quite a rare substance) or try and make it look like they had a heart attack? Personally i think something sinister is happening and some people are trying to demonise Russia although i will keep an open mind until i gather mass amounts of information.

[Togukawa]

Well, if you want to send the message "don't fuck with us", you wouldn't choose a quiet way like a heart attack.

As for an EU superstate, I doubt it will happen any time soon. Too many different and sometimes conflicting intrests, cultures and history.

[the-salmon-of-doubt]

At 12/2/06 03:26 PM, Togukawa wrote: As for an EU superstate, I doubt it will happen any time soon. Too many different and sometimes conflicting intrests, cultures and history.

there's also the fact that not all countries are in the eu, and eastern european countries might get pissed off

[elkrobber]

There is no positive reason to do it, really. It would just destroy culture, cause alot of conflict, and would be too populous to govern properly (it would have a much higher population than the US).

[Sir-S-Of-TURBO]

No it wouldnt be possible, not now, not until somebody destroys the entire world and then founds europe again and then makes some sort of superstate.

Or until someone destroys france...

[Neoptolemus]

At 12/2/06 04:14 PM, elkrobber wrote: There is no positive reason to do it, really. It would just destroy culture, cause alot of conflict, and would be too populous to govern properly (it would have a much higher population than the US).

I really don't understand how it would completely destroy culture, afterall Europe has a shared culture (well, most of Europe does).

As for it being too populous to govern properly not really. Each country would be like a principality or something similar. It would be alot like how Britain is now where there is English parliament, Scottish parliament etc. I believe each state withing the superstate would still hold regional power for mundane issues but would be subject to European courts and law much like the current situation.

[elkrobber]

At 12/2/06 04:38 PM, Neoptolemus wrote:

At 12/2/06 04:14 PM, elkrobber wrote: There is no positive reason to do it, really. It would just destroy culture, cause alot of conflict, and would be too populous to govern properly (it would have a much higher population than the US).

I really don't understand how it would completely destroy culture, afterall Europe has a shared culture (well, most of Europe does).

There are huge variations in lots of different cultural things in europe, such as music, food, and people's general day to day attitude. It's those differences that make travel within europe (being quite a small place) something that actually happens. A superstate would merge many of these things together, and, in my opinion, stop europeans wanting to see the rest of europe. Of course skiing and stuff would be the same, but it would definitely have a big impact.

As for it being too populous to govern properly not really. Each country would be like a principality or something similar. It would be alot like how Britain is now where there is English parliament, Scottish parliament etc. I believe each state withing the superstate would still hold regional power for mundane issues but would be subject to European courts and law much like the current situation.

That would just take away more power from the already mostly powerless standard citizen, by giving politicians 10,000's of kilometres away the power to decide the fate of an area they may never have even seen. Also, if two principalities decided to start a war, it would be a civil war, and everyone would be obliged to join in.

It's really not a good idea, even if the combined forces of europe could attack america, that would just cause a nuclear war.

Trust me, it's not a good plan.

[RedSkunk]

Isn't the EU nearly there? The member-states' economies are nearly fully-integrated, creating an economy roughly equal to the US. And the EU is already a political force, brokering deals in the Israel-Palestine conflict, with Iran, N. Korea.. They're ineffective sure, but it's a start.

I don't think that Europeans are particularly enlightened or more moral than Americans. Most of their foreign policy is just as self-serving and destructive as ours. The reason why I support the EU and it becoming a larger political force is to deconstruct the unilateral world we live in. A single global power that dominates the entire globe and has pretty much carte blanche is fucking dangerous. The rise of the EU is inevitable in my mind, and the best thing about it is the US can't do a whole lot about it. They can be intentionally abrasive and slow things, but they're limited to token amounts of soft power.

To oversimplify – nobody will support an invasion or coup of a European state on the grounds that they're a direct threat and amassing WMDs.

[RedSkunk]

At 12/2/06 05:16 PM, elkrobber wrote: There are huge variations in lots of different cultural things in europe, such as music, food, and people's general day to day attitude. ... A superstate would merge many of these things together, and, in my opinion, stop europeans wanting to see the rest of europe.

The same "huge variations" can be cited in any country with a large landmass or population. And the political unification of Europe would not necessarily result in homogenization of culture. What makes you say that?

As far as Europeans traveling – the EU has aided travel. It's much easier to cross between nations as an EU citizen now than before. Come on.

That would just take away more power from the already mostly powerless standard citizen, by giving politicians 10,000's of kilometres away the power to decide the fate of an area they may never have even seen. Also, if two principalities decided to start a war, it would be a civil war, and everyone would be obliged to join in.

Empty rhetoric and then a war scenario? The further unification politically and economically decreases the possibility of open conflict between countries. The single thing that would most assure an eventual, peaceful solution between Turkey and Cyprus is if they were both members of the EU. Unification increases the costs of war, where it matters the most – economics.

[Karzand]

I find this highly unlikely due to the differences in language and European nationalism. Now a massive N.A. superstate including (Canada, The great USA, and Mexico) that could happen. Only one language to deal with, Spanish, as opposed to English, German, Italian, French, Portugese, Dutch, etc ,etc, etc.

[elkrobber]

At 12/2/06 05:47 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 12/2/06 05:16 PM, elkrobber wrote:

The same "huge variations" can be cited in any country with a large landmass or population.
And the political unification of Europe would not necessarily result in homogenization of culture. What makes you say that?

Most large countries don't, however, have at least 15 widely spoken naitive languages.
If a language for example, were to be claimed as the standard European language (not necesarily intended to take over from others), it would slow the development, and cut usage of other languages.

As far as Europeans traveling – the EU has aided travel. It's much easier to cross between nations as an EU citizen now than before. Come on.

Of course it would be easier to see the rest of Europe, but there wouldn't be so much motivation to do so, if the regions of Europe were to become more similar.

That would just take away more power from the already mostly powerless standard citizen, by giving [...] if two principalities decided to start a war, it would be a civil war, and everyone would be obliged to join in.

Empty rhetoric and then a war scenario?

I fail to see what was empty, or rhetorical about my statement.
The war scenario was simply to illustrate how a unified Europe could be problematic.

The further unification politically and economically decreases the possibility of open conflict between countries. The single thing that would most assure an eventual, peaceful solution between Turkey and Cyprus is if they were both members of the EU. Unification increases the costs of war, where it matters the most – economics.

You do have a point there, but if there was to be a war, it would prove far more costly for the whole of "Europletérre".

This is just the way I feel. I support the European Union, but a united European state wouldn't, in my opinion be practical, and isn't going to happen any time soon.

[RedSkunk]

At 12/2/06 06:15 PM, elkrobber wrote: Most large countries don't, however, have at least 15 widely spoken naitive languages.
If a language for example, were to be claimed as the standard European language (not necesarily intended to take over from others), it would slow the development, and cut usage of other languages.

The EU has already officiated 21 languages. They use five or so for EU business. English, German, French, Spanish.. Italian? This has been dealt with whole-heartedly to not step on toes. But it's terribly inefficient – I remember when I was studying the EU that something like 1/3 of their total budget goes solely to translation services (on-the-fly translations at meetings and paperwork).

Of course it would be easier to see the rest of Europe, but there wouldn't be so much motivation to do so, if the regions of Europe were to become more similar.

Again, I ask why political / economic unification results in a more homogenous Europe culturally. Seems like a false assumption.

I fail to see what was empty, or rhetorical about my statement.

"taking away power from powerless standard citizen blah blah blah." I'd bet you can't point out a single specific example of rights being taken away from an average citizen because of the EU.

The war scenario was simply to illustrate how a unified Europe could be problematic.

What is the worth of contemplating unrealistic scenarios?

You do have a point there, but if there was to be a war, it would prove far more costly for the whole of "Europletérre".

Mayhaps, but my last response stands.

This is just the way I feel. I support the European Union, but a united European state wouldn't, in my opinion be practical, and isn't going to happen any time soon.

That's perfectly fine. And now you're talking about something that I'm not. An actual single European state isn't in the cards any time soon, yes. But further political unification of the EU certainly is.

[RedSkunk]

And I don't mean to be flamey, elkrobber.

[Der-Lowe]

At 12/2/06 09:02 AM, emmytee wrote: Would It be a good idea? I know there are no moves to create one afoot just now, but would you support it in theory?

Yes, I think's it's better two have a "duopoly" in power, that is, of course, if those two superpowers decide to go against each other. I don't think it will happen, though; if there is confrontation, I'll expect a 2nd Cold War.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Never will happen.

You people already bitch enough about including Eastern European countries in the EU.

Unifiying people under one flag, law and leader probally won't happen.