European Superstate to form

[Farmer77]

EUROPEAN political chiefs are to take advantage of Brexit by unveiling their long-held plan to morph the continent’s countries into one GIANT SUPERSTATE, it has emerged yesterday.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit

 

 How do our European members feel about this? 

[seeder]

"USE"....... or the United States of Europe....welcome to the future

[Duke Wellington]

50 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

EUROPEAN political chiefs are to take advantage of Brexit by unveiling their long-held plan to morph the continent’s countries into one GIANT SUPERSTATE, it has emerged yesterday.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit

 

 How do our European members feel about this? 

Yes, I noticed that two days back on a German news website.

It is hilarious that their response to the emerging crises that threatens to bring down the whole EU is to rush though the creation of the USE as fast as possible. Why don't they try listening to their peoples?

Civil wars coming on the continent if they try that on.

[+and-then]

Ten sounds like a good, round number of members.  

[Phaeton80]

Exactly as expected, they are hastily closing the net. Let the cards fall where they may (and let them fall in favor of The People).

[Phaeton80]

3 hours ago, seeder said:

"USE"....... or the United States of Europe....welcome to the future

 

Not if some of us have something to say about it.

[seeder]

Just now, Phaeton80 said:

 

Not if some of us have something to say about it.

 

Say it loud and clear.... and make sure all others do too!

[Phaeton80]

No worries there. This move will not go down well with the lionpart of the population, no matter how much they try and character- assasinate the EU skeptics; I am sure of it.

On a side note; the level of cooperation across the media landscape, by left and right wing main (Dutch) media outlets, is unsurpassed in context of positioning the British Leave camp (and all EU skeptics) as 'intellectually challenged' or 'old and rigid'..

I dont think Ive never seen this before in my life.

[LV-426]

6 hours ago, seeder said:

"USE"....... or the United States of Europe....welcome to the future

I was thinking more along the lines of the Associated Reformed States of Europe, or "A.R.S.E."

Edited June 28, 2016 by LV-426

[toast]

From the article:

Quote

Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels. 

Thats absolute nonsense and I have no idea from where The Express got such informations from. 

[questionmark]

5 minutes ago, toast said:

From the article:

Thats absolute nonsense and I have no idea from where The Express got such informations from. 

Now, now toast, this thread would have been the best example of how they managed to convince the British to saw off the branch they were sitting on...

 

As far as where the Express gets its material from: as stories in the past, including scandals (i.e Dunblane, John Bodkin Adams just to mention the biggest ones): if they don't have it they make it up on the go.

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by questionmark

[+OverSword]

Gee....Who would have seen this coming?

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, toast said:

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by Farmer77

[LV-426]

21 minutes ago, questionmark said:

if they don't have it they make it up on the go.

I'm reluctant to disagree with you there, seeing as you're an expert on this particular methodology...

As far as the article goes, I've no doubt at all that this is the long-term agenda of the EU. I'd be highly surprised if they became transparent about it though, particulary right now, post-Brexit, with anti-EU sentiment prominent in other countries. It would be suicide at a time when they need to be moving in the other direction.

Edited June 28, 2016 by LV-426

[questionmark]

Just now, LV-426 said:

I'm reluctant to disagree with you there, seeing as you're an expert on the subject...

As far as the article goes, I've no doubt at all that this is the long-term agenda of the EU. I'd be highly surprised if they became transparent about it though, particulary right now, post-Brexit, with anti-EU sentiment prominent in other countries. It would be suicide at a time when they need to be moving in the other direction.

What they took is plans that existed since the dawn of the EU, that were absolutely no secret and pertain to themes that have to be solved together, like guarding the border (we have seen last year what happens if you leave it to one country, they just get overrun), like emigration, like tackling youth unemployment (because as seen the individual countries can't get it solved).

It would be pretty stupid to try to convene the parliaments and have them decide 10 different laws... we know how well that works...it does not. So, having people already elected to solve common problems (and misused by some Brexiter to tell 1001 night stories, join the fishery commission and then out of 47 meetings attend 1 and turning around saying the Britons got short changed--- well duh, you were there to see that the British got their due and did not do your job) so why not let them decide that?

That is not a "superstate", most that could come out of that is a bigger state. Whether that is desirable might be debatable but given the ineffective problem solving at individual state level it is time to try something else.

[toast]

6 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

As far as the article goes, I've no doubt at all that this is the long-term agenda of the EU.

Are you really in the opinion that it would be possible to level a bunch of 28 27 independent countries on army, criminal law, taxation system and central bank issues? Hell, if the EU would give that a try, the EU would be dead, and/or depopulated, very soon.

[Helen of Annoy]

4 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

Not if some of us have something to say about it.

Well, for example, I have something to say about it.

 

This fear of EU is accidentally political question too, but it comes down to the fact that some people are so hilariously insecure they’d rather be weak among the weaker, than strong among the strong.

And since there are no realistic reasons why should anyone fear further development of cooperation between European nations (except hypothetical someone who would benefit from European loss), the scary stories have to be told in the most panicky way.

Fortunatelly, it takes a lot more than scary stories and one sad, anachronic and chauvinist spectacle to bring such great idea down. 

 

And I have something else to say too. I'm not worried in the slightest for the national identity and sovereignty of my own, very small, nation. Being part of EU can only help us remain what we are, in atmosphere of reduced risks and closer therefore better relations with the neighbours.

But that's just common sense talking, don't listen to it, it's more interesting if you listen to little people with big fears.  

[LV-426]

17 minutes ago, toast said:

Are you really in the opinion that it would be possible to level a bunch of 28 27 independent countries on army, criminal law, taxation system and central bank issues? Hell, if the EU would give that a try, the EU would be dead, and/or depopulated, very soon.

In the short-term, no. That's why I'm sceptical about the article.

In the long-term, of course. What would stop them? The more power they get, the more they'll want, and the better their platform will be for attaining that power.

Back in my twenties, the first degree I did was a combined honours degree in psychology and politics. I actually dropped the politics after a year as it was boring as hell, but the one maxim that has stayed with me to this day is "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." It isn't a question of what the EU's ambitions are, it's a question of when they'll make them apparent.

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, toast said:

Are you really in the opinion that it would be possible to level a bunch of 28 27 independent countries on army, criminal law, taxation system and central bank issues? Hell, if the EU would give that a try, the EU would be dead, and/or depopulated, very soon.

Criminal, taxation and Banking seem doable and logical for a economic union. A joint army on the other hand seems a step too far to me.

[toast]

19 minutes ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

Criminal, taxation and Banking seem doable and logical for a economic union. A joint army on the other hand seems a step too far to me.

An economic union does not require unity in laws against crime and does not require a joint army. Of course, Europe still lack on compatibility of the, e.g., computer manhunt systems but thats just an administrative problem that can be solved without to level the laws of 27 countries. As I`ve said already, that is an impossible task and it would costs, or better said, waste billions of euros and would not and never lead to a situation that would satisfy all countries involved.

[Unusual Tournament]

4 minutes ago, toast said:

An economic union does not require unity in laws against crime and does not require a joint army. Of course, Europe still lack on compatibility of the, e.g., computer manhunt systems but thats just an administrative problem that can be solved without to level the laws of 27 countries. As I`ve said already, that is an impossible task and it would costs, or better said, waste billions of euros and would not and never lead to a situation that would satisfy all countries involved.

I agree that a joint army is not required but some front line states currently have some troublesome neighbours...Poland, Finland and Greece that could use a united voice in protecting their territorial rights and citizens. A firm EU foreign policy would stabilise the EU more than a united army.

i don't know much about European crimininal laws but I would think that uniting laws across the EU would free up the judicial system and save a helluva lot of time and money for everyone and less susceptible to corruption which is always a good thing. Anyway I don't see how this could effect anyone's rights, in fact I would have thought they would empower them more.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Say it with me folks.... UNE VOLK.....

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, toast said:

An economic union does not require unity in laws against crime and does not require a joint army. Of course, Europe still lack on compatibility of the, e.g., computer manhunt systems but thats just an administrative problem that can be solved without to level the laws of 27 countries. As I`ve said already, that is an impossible task and it would costs, or better said, waste billions of euros and would not and never lead to a situation that would satisfy all countries involved.

I don't mean to sound flippant, Toast, but this sounds like the birth pains of a true Federal government being brought into existence.  Our experience here with such government is that it rarely cares if it satisfies the people.  I've believed for some time that a European "superstate" would eventually become a reality.  It won't have 28 members though.  

[Space Commander Travis]

10 hours ago, toast said:

Are you really in the opinion that it would be possible to level a bunch of 28 27 independent countries on army, criminal law, taxation system and central bank issues? Hell, if the EU would give that a try, the EU would be dead, and/or depopulated, very soon.

Well, they've made a pretty good (or pretty hopeless) start by trying to unify the economies of 19 countries in one currency, however impractical that may have been, so it really doesn't seem outrageous bearing in mind that their ambitions have always been quite openly stated to be "Ever Closer Union".

[Space Commander Travis]

10 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Well, for example, I have something to say about it.

 

This fear of EU is accidentally political question too, but it comes down to the fact that some people are so hilariously insecure they’d rather be weak among the weaker, than strong among the strong.

 

And since there are no realistic reasons why should anyone fear further development of cooperation between European nations (except hypothetical someone who would benefit from European loss), the scary stories have to be told in the most panicky way.

 

Fortunatelly, it takes a lot more than scary stories and one sad, anachronic and chauvinist spectacle to bring such great idea down. 

 

And I have something else to say too. I'm not worried in the slightest for the national identity and sovereignty of my own, very small, nation. Being part of EU can only help us remain what we are, in atmosphere of reduced risks and closer therefore better relations with the neighbours.

But that's just common sense talking, don't listen to it, it's more interesting if you listen to little people with big fears.  

So you really don't have any objection to the way that, for instance, Greece was treated? You don't think that the attempts to impose economic uniformity on countries with economies as diverse as Germany, rural Spain and Greece is inevitably doomed to failure, at any rate for the smaller countries, even if the wealthy ones come out of it quite nicely? The funny thing is that you characterise anyone who does have doubts about the viability of the project of uniformity as living in fear, when you seem quite happy to surrender authority to a greater power, over which you have virtually say whatsoever. Why does being skeptical about this surrendering of authority mean that it has to be due to fear, when you might argue that it takes more nerve to take the risk of taking authority back than it does to trust in a super-authority over which you have very little say to protect you?