Any other believers in a Federal Europe here?

Will2911Will2911 Posts: 464
Forum Member
I can't be the only one. Is there anyone else who supports the idea of an ever closer union and wants a European Superstate?

I see it as one of our only two options, become the 51st state of America (yuck) or go into a European Superstate (Yay)

In fact, what would you prefer if they were the only two choices?
«1

Comments

  • megarespmegaresp Posts: 888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Will2911 wrote: »
    I can't be the only one. Is there anyone else who supports the idea of an ever closer union and wants a European Superstate?

    I see it as one of our only two options, become the 51st state of America (yuck) or go into a European Superstate (Yay)

    In fact, what would you prefer if they were the only two choices?

    Apparently there is little interest in this topic. Maybe you could spell out your reasons for wanting to formally federalise the EU. That might encourage a bit of debate ;-)
  • Mike_1101Mike_1101 Posts: 8,012
    Forum Member
    No. I think the future should be a slimmed down trade and co-operation area.

    I might have agreed with you 40 years ago though.
  • irishfeenirishfeen Posts: 10,025
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No!

    .... And it will never happen! Europe unlike the U.S. Is just too different from country to country - different cultures and history. I think the EU has now more then enough powers and I don't think the will get any more.

    It's either a slightly revised Union under its current guise or a breakup IMO - I don't see how more powers being transferred from national parliaments can actually happen, it will just be voted down by the electorate.
  • DarthGoreDarthGore Posts: 1,664
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    irishfeen wrote: »
    No!

    .... And it will never happen! Europe unlike the U.S. Is just too different from country to country - different cultures and history. I think the EU has now more then enough powers and I don't think the will get any more.

    It's either a slightly revised Union under its current guise or a breakup IMO - I don't see how more powers being transferred from national parliaments can actually happen, it will just be voted down by the electorate.

    that's assuming the electorate actually gets offered a say in it - unless you're in Ireland or the UK, there are no referendums planned for any further transfer of powers to Brussels

    why would the EU agree to open the question back up to France where they previously rejected the EU Constitution? that puts them at risk of disgruntled French voters from giving the wrong answer, and will need a subsequent referendum which will probably annoy them more so it will be two rejections in a row from a "democracy" so why would the EU want to go down this route?
  • irishfeenirishfeen Posts: 10,025
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DarthGore wrote: »
    that's assuming the electorate actually gets offered a say in it - unless you're in Ireland or the UK, there are no referendums planned for any further transfer of powers to Brussels

    why would the EU agree to open the question back up to France where they previously rejected the EU Constitution? that puts them at risk of disgruntled French voters from giving the wrong answer, and will need a subsequent referendum which will probably annoy them more so it will be two rejections in a row from a "democracy" so why would the EU want to go down this route?
    Without Ireland and the UK passing the treaties even the rest of Europe can't do a single thing about it ... That's one of the main reasons I want the UK to stay inside the EU. Britain and Ireland need eachother round the European table to bring about change.

    If the UK leaves it could be 4 million Irish people holding back 400m+ Europeans - the pressure on us without the UK would be enormous.
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There aren't only two choices which is fortunate as I imagine most would not want either of them.
  • 1TrueNorth1TrueNorth Posts: 4,001
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Membership of the european federalist party is free.
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    1TrueNorth wrote: »
    Membership of the european federalist party is free.

    A shame it isn't the case for the EU. :D
  • BrokenArrowBrokenArrow Posts: 21,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes, I would be in favour of a European superstate ruled by London, using sterling.
  • 1TrueNorth1TrueNorth Posts: 4,001
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes, I would be in favour of a European superstate ruled by London, using sterling.

    This qoute is exactly why the europhobes are so phobic they just cant get their head around tge fact we no longer have an empire. The EU is not just about creating some idealistic superstate its about keeping our voices and economic power relevant.
  • 1TrueNorth1TrueNorth Posts: 4,001
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If the EU collapsed or the Euro or brotain left and the eu or eurozone becam one singular politicsl entity would london still be the worlds trading capital? I think not. If we .left the banks would up sticks to germany. More Euros are traded in the city of london than in the entire eurozone. the success of the city all but depends on the euro and the EU and our membership thereof.
  • StykerStyker Posts: 49,551
    Forum Member
    I keep on changing my mind on this whole issue but I am leaning towards voting to leave the EU BUT if the EU is to continue with or without us, then surely they have to go a fully federalised elected Government system because the current set up must be deeply flawed.

    I mean, how can The EU have one foot in towards federalisation mainly with the Single Currency but not have a elected federal Government? It would be like the Americans not having an elected Federal President and Government and instead all the Governors of all 50 states would meet up regularly to try and reach agreements on key decisions.

    Do people think that EU countries should carry on with the current set up of all the leaders of the countries meeting up to try and reach decisions or do they think its would be better to go for an elected federal Government/President? I can't see the British people wanting that though and a Federal Elected EU Government should be part of the national discussion in the run up to the referendum as at some point it will probably happen.
  • BrokenArrowBrokenArrow Posts: 21,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    1TrueNorth wrote: »
    This qoute is exactly why the europhobes are so phobic they just cant get their head around tge fact we no longer have an empire. The EU is not just about creating some idealistic superstate its about keeping our voices and economic power relevant.

    I don't really believe in an European superstate ruled by Britain, using sterling.
  • _Call_Me_Dave__Call_Me_Dave_ Posts: 201
    Forum Member
    1TrueNorth wrote: »
    This qoute is exactly why the europhobes are so phobic they just cant get their head around tge fact we no longer have an empire. The EU is not just about creating some idealistic superstate its about keeping our voices and economic power relevant.
    Britain as a country has always been outward looking. The EU is isolationist and in favour of protectionism. This may have been a suitable way of conducting business 50 years ago but thanks to globalisation this is no longer the case.

    The internet and ease at which people are able to communicate mean that proximity is no longer a requirement for easy access to trade. Before I left school I was dealing with businesses in Asia through the use of email and Skype. This is the future, not hiding behind tariffs and halting trade deals to protect vested interests.

    The world is a smaller place and it is time the EU realise that. If the UK were to rejoin EFTA we would have access to the EEA. Not only that but we would be free to sign FTAs with countries all around the world. EFTA members have been far quicker to sign FTAs than the EU. The EU have been putting some of their large FTAs on hold due to member countries complaining.
  • MARTYM8MARTYM8 Posts: 44,710
    Forum Member
    1984 here we come!
  • Mike_1101Mike_1101 Posts: 8,012
    Forum Member
    Britain as a country has always been outward looking. The EU is isolationist and in favour of protectionism. This may have been a suitable way of conducting business 50 years ago but thanks to globalisation this is no longer the case.

    The internet and ease at which people are able to communicate mean that proximity is no longer a requirement for easy access to trade. Before I left school I was dealing with businesses in Asia through the use of email and Skype. This is the future, not hiding behind tariffs and halting trade deals to protect vested interests.

    The world is a smaller place and it is time the EU realise that. If the UK were to rejoin EFTA we would have access to the EEA. Not only that but we would be free to sign FTAs with countries all around the world. EFTA members have been far quicker to sign FTAs than the EU. The EU have been putting some of their large FTAs on hold due to member countries complaining.

    You might have benefited from "Globalisation" but many in this country are much worse off because of it. Jobs, careers and whole industries destroyed.

    True, people can buy imported goods cheaply but long term, was it really worth losing your job, career and pension and being much worse off?
  • 1TrueNorth1TrueNorth Posts: 4,001
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There are two fedetalist parties http://federalistparty.eu/ which is a pan european party who run in EU elections. mebersjip is fre Theres also a uk based party. http://www.federalistparty.org.uk/ if you really seriously hold those views.
  • DarthGoreDarthGore Posts: 1,664
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mike_1101 wrote: »
    You might have benefited from "Globalisation" but many in this country are much worse off because of it. Jobs, careers and whole industries destroyed.

    True, people can buy imported goods cheaply but long term, was it really worth losing your job, career and pension and being much worse off?

    I hate to say this, but a lot of people will blame shifting changes from technology (the Internet) to be called "globalisation"

    if I can buy a film, legally, online through something like iTunes or Amazon as a digital video to watch on my phone or tablet, and it hasn't yet been released as a UK DVD, does that mean that I am at fault for failing to buy a DVD from a UK shop, or are UK DVD distributors at fault for not providing me with the film I want to see, when I want to see it?

    globalisation isn't always a bad thing, for consumers it's great, the problem for vendors is you're competing against a foreign market in a foreign currency at today's exchange rates - the £ against the $ effectively means that if I buy something online from America and have it delivered, it can still be cheaper than buying the same item from a British vendor.... that is not the fault of the consumer, and globalisation is not directly to blame for fluctuating exchange rates

    given that in some cases people have less money to spend, they will seek out the cheapest available options, if the UK markets can't compete, then naturally people will look elsewhere via the internet for the same products and frankly - this is where the UK needs to become more embracing rather than complaining that it's a bad thing - many small UK companies now sell abroad (beyond the EU) to make profits from countries that they could never naturally get distribution deals in - why? because the internet allows them to do it easily, and in foreign countries, the buyers have a phone in the palm of their hands offering access to a world's worth of products

    the EU wants to limit this type of purchasing wherever it can, because they realise that the world has become global thanks to the internet, but they also realise that EU markets won't move with the times and follow consumers, they simply want more profit
  • _Call_Me_Dave__Call_Me_Dave_ Posts: 201
    Forum Member
    Mike_1101 wrote: »
    You might have benefited from "Globalisation" but many in this country are much worse off because of it. Jobs, careers and whole industries destroyed.

    True, people can buy imported goods cheaply but long term, was it really worth losing your job, career and pension and being much worse off?
    I imagine those who smashed up the power-looms in the 1800s felt the same way some do today about globalisation.

    Pulling up the drawbridge will not stop globalisation. However, I do think the government needs to put in a considerable amount of work in ensuring job seekers have the right skills and helping those who have lost their jobs find alternative employment.
  • niceguy1966niceguy1966 Posts: 29,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mike_1101 wrote: »
    You might have benefited from "Globalisation" but many in this country are much worse off because of it. Jobs, careers and whole industries destroyed.

    True, people can buy imported goods cheaply but long term, was it really worth losing your job, career and pension and being much worse off?

    And other people in the UK have benefited from globalisation. Jobs, careers and whole industries created.

    It is a disruptive change.
  • Mike_1101Mike_1101 Posts: 8,012
    Forum Member
    Without going off topic, the problem is the way international businesses were allowed to move production offshore, great for them but not for those left behind.

    Sir James Goldsmith accurately predicted how it would turn out in 1994
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s
    Here is the interview if you haven't seen it. Sadly his predictions all came true.
  • BRITLANDBRITLAND Posts: 3,443
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If it gives Scotland devo max then why not? :p
  • Parker45Parker45 Posts: 5,849
    Forum Member
    I voted in the first referendum and always hoped that it would eventually lead to a United States of Europe - which may still happen some time in the future. Contrary to what a lot of people now say, there was, at the time of the referendum, plenty of suggestions that joining the Common Market could lead to some sort of political union. People have either forgotten that or else they didn't read, listen or watch all the discussions, which i followed avidly.
  • KiteviewKiteview Posts: 9,246
    Forum Member
    Styker wrote: »
    I keep on changing my mind on this whole issue but I am leaning towards voting to leave the EU BUT if the EU is to continue with or without us, then surely they have to go a fully federalised elected Government system because the current set up must be deeply flawed.

    No it doesn't have to go to a fully federalised elected government system. It could go to a fully Confederal system for instance.

    Saying it must do X or Y is nonsense - it is akin to someond saying that the UK must become a fully federal republic because they conclude all the "archaic" bits of our political system must be abandoned fairly soon whereas those "archaic" bits - like the EU's "deeply flawed" bits - trundle on quite happily and continue to confound the critics.
  • KiteviewKiteview Posts: 9,246
    Forum Member
    irishfeen wrote: »
    Without Ireland and the UK passing the treaties even the rest of Europe can't do a single thing about it ... That's one of the main reasons I want the UK to stay inside the EU. Britain and Ireland need eachother round the European table to bring about change.

    If the UK leaves it could be 4 million Irish people holding back 400m+ Europeans - the pressure on us without the UK would be enormous.

    That's a bit of a bizarre post.

    EU Treaties change by consensus. There is no reason to suppose that Ireland would find itself any better or worse off when negotiating EU Treaties. After all, apart from the Schengen opt out, what areas are problematic?
Sign In or Register to comment.