Untied States of Europe? We've had half a century of short-term self-interested mismanagement by our elected leaders. Bring it on.

That is just way off reality in my opinion.

Who are these people who have these visions of a more united Europe for reasons other than economic benefit? And why did they start to gave these views?

Lol, here's 2 from the last week or so.

https://ig.ft.com/juncker-speech-annotated/

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-fra...-idUKKCN1C11I5


Why? Can't be absolutely certain, but I think it's probably a standard mechanism in societal evolution (if there is such a defined subject) that power groups that persist do so because they are geared to gathering power to themselves as a main and often first priority.

i agree that not enough was invested in defended the eu, not least because it actually works really well and doesn't need major reform (just cuts to the cap, better accounting rules in the parliament and better eurozone monetary policies)

but it's never going to be a united states of europe or even a much tighter union. i know denmark would never go for it (despite being very pro-eu) and plenty other countries are the same including many of the new member states.

and that's fine.

'it can never happen here' is and always will be a terrible defence.


We've seen weak and poor political representatives like Major and Blair give up major chunks of sovereignty for short-term goals, and now stuff like brexit is happening, the EU will use its pally influence to make sure referenda are avoided as much as possible. And there's always weak and easily influenced political leaders the EU can bring pressure on. 'Oh vote for X and you'll get Y, honest!'.

Meanwhile the only clearly anti-EU parties are the far right - and they will grow if politicians keep acting against their own countries' interests.

Hence AfC. Hence Austria coming super close to getting a far-right majority. And so on. That Macron guy will be destroyed when it comes to re-election - probably by the National Front.

The EU is basically Nero fiddling while Rome burns as they push their own agenda, which is ultimately national sovereignty destruction, pure and simple.


I loathe any variant of the Nazis, so the EU playing a game that makes them appear over and over is just terrible for Europe.

The problem is you dont see the bigger picture. Every state on its own will have small bargaining power in the future. Europe isn't known to have rich reserves on important resources. UK has coal and Oil but for hightech products you need lots of other stuff which you wont find here. If everyone is on its own it will be hard to compete against the US, China and other emerging countries like India or Brazil. The Chinese are already heavily investing in Africa to get control of their natural resources.
Not to mention the bigger world problems like climate change and a widening gap between the poor and the rich. If everyone is on its own the rich will just outplay everyone for the best conditions which will only hurt the states and its peoples because they will lose taxes etc.. May already said she would make the UK a tax haven if the EU plays hardball. Not sure how that will help UK people if the state has less money to actually invest into NHS, education and other important stuff.

your by far biggest blind spot is that you dont realise that nothing happens unless the member states want it. there's no "eu" other than the member states with any power to change these thing.

Handing the power to a centralised bureaucracy is not the only solution to this.

That is so utterly naive. Treaties bind countries forever when dealing with the EU. So utterly undemocratic.

Proof: rise in anti EU parties.

every treaty and every decision on any of these questions is taken by the national leaders. no country is accidentally going to fall into a united states of europe or whatever. it's completely deluded

They've already done it twice.

You are completely missing the point here.

The EU believe completely they are the only way to do things, so constantly try to use the Bevan tactic of stuffing their mouths with gold in terms of future prosperity to strip national sovreignity. In order to gain more and more power. And it takes only a few individuals in power, stuck in a self congratulatory echo chamber, to sign it all away.

I pretty much want to puke every time I see a post or facebook page that goes on about how the EU protects us from our national governments, like its some kindly patrician organisation.

People who want to give up freedoms like democracy for an easy life are political sheep.

How many times do we have to explain that 'the EU' has almost no power. The power lies entirely with the individual state governments. What you are arguing against doesn't exist and is unlikely to exist in our lifetime. The whole sovereignty argument is just a stupid smokescreen.

If it has no power, please explain the Primacy of EU Law. Is EU Law non existent?

Or the European Commission. Or Parliament. Or ECJ. Why are European countries pouring money into these if they have no power again?

i honestly dont know what the bevan tactic is or you mean by "theyve already done it twice", but all the important stuff is decided by the member states and can be changed at any time by the member states. cameron could have gotten whatever he wanted if he had just convinced the other countries.

I don't want to sound rude, but you seem to miss the point in virtually all of the EU posts. It's almost as if you have decided to back a horse, based on [something or other] and try to fit reality with that.

Of course people some people in the EU are going to want change, and if the member states want it then they will get it. Otherwise they won't. Why wouldn't the EU want to evolve over time?

Your point was that the EU wasn't about practicalities/economics but some kind of ideology. As if, way back when the idea was being formed, people had this dream of a union. Hardly - there was no history of it and no gain other than economic. That is what drives it. To deny that is quite something. It wouldn't be so bad if you accepted the broad arguments and were prepared for lower economic growth etc because you just don't like [something or other].

That last bit is serious horse ****. Just mind-blowing stuff. The EU has played a part of promoting democracy, and continues to do this. Democracy can all too easily be eroded from inside (see what has happened in Turkey and what is happening in Poland for example, and that with a small vote share) - but, you have to be a democratic state to be in the EU. Many believe that Latvia's path to democracy, for example, was sped up as their politicians knew that they had to meet certain standards to be in the EU and that was crucial to their economy. Turkey had visions of being the EU at some point (though all EU member states have to agree of course) but now they have no chance as things stand.

If you think that democracy is "safe" is Western nations that currently perform well on that score then you are wrong.

Next thing you will be saying that the elected politicians should be appointing judges - sounds very democratic.

Then you may say that the democratically elected leaders need their message to be heard, and what better way than having a state run TV channel and radio station.

Then, some years down the line, if you woke up and realised that democracy had broken you would probably blame anyone but yourself.

Could you run through in more detail the economic benefits of flying the EU flag from public buildings / primary schools etc. on the continent?

How does the economic cost-benefit analysis of the EU national anthem stack up?

What about starting the euro currency - was that also just about economics and not about politics?

I have to say I have a lot more respect for posters like chezlaw who know what the EU is about and argue the case for it, instead of pretending its about something completely different.

It's obvious the end goal has always been political integration, even if its a hundred years away, but politicians everywhere have been too worried about scaring the voters to admit it.

I don't see what the problem is with an eventual United states of Europe. America is so vast and its states are so diverse, but (until recently, and with good reason) they always managed to unite under a common leader, and I don't know why people are so scared of a similar plan for Europe.

Surely it's better for the UK to be an important part of a big country sitting between the USA and Russia/China, than be independent and easily picked off and bullied?

Well do big countries in general offer a higher quality of life to their citizens than small countries?

It's difficult to pick comparable pairs of countries, maybe Canada vs the USA, Poland vs Czech Rep, France vs Belgium but looking at those ones I don't really see it has much effect tbh.

EU laws had to be ratified by the UK so the power is still with the UK. Once ratified they have primacy. That is why the EU is a very slow moving project because up until recently single state could veto anything. Countries are pouring money in the EU because having common agreed laws and regulations improves trade. Lifting up the poorer countries also improves the economy in all countries and provides stability.

The financial crisis was a serious setback and showed problems with the euro among other things but the principles and benefits of the EU are still there

Not that we are going to have a serious discussion about this because this has been pointed out to you so many times I lost count.

Swap 'ratifed' to rubber stamped.

America can slap a 219% tariff on uk planes and laugh when we threaten consequences. Even looney trump would dare do the same to the EU.

Thanks for confirming you can't have a serious conversation about this. The UK blocked or watered down tons of laws and regulations and so did other countries. The UK was especially good at blocking financial regulations to protect the City. The former east block countries are still very successful in blocking much needed road transport regulations.

The thing is such laws and regulations never make it to ratification because countries in advance make it clear they won't ratify so for uninformed people like you it looks like everything gets rubberstamped.

Do ministers ever have the ability to say no to them?

Please cite one case where this has happened.

I think you'll find the term rubber stamp is wholly correct.

What problems did it show that you were unaware of before?

E.g. that wasn't extensively described in the debates going on in UK broadsheet papers, parliament, debating societies (I was at uni at the time) in the mid to late 1990s?