h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"But British European Commissioner Chris Patten, along with other leading figures in the European Union, rejects all talk of a superstate in the making: "People can't go on pretending that we are on a journey to some ghastly superstate," he said. "That's never going to happen. It's a dumb argument and we should thump it on the head.""

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1058155.stm

"Addressing Germany, Mr. Chirac went to the safe ground of saying that neither country wanted a European superstate that would substitute for nation states. . . there was no direct suggestion of vast changes, such as the coming of a European president or a European government. The closest Mr. Chirac edged to pointing in this direction was in a reference, without elaboration, to "necessary institutional adjustments, on both the executive and parliamentary sides, to reinforce the effectiveness and democratic control of the Union." (woo, scary)

http://www.ttc.org/cgi-binloc/searchTTC.cgi?displayZop+4750

Neil Kinnock: "The EU will never become a superstate" (that was a couple of years ago - maybe he's changed his mind)

http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid=3891

One man who has certainly changed his mind is Joschka Fischer:

"It has been a weight around the German Foreign Minister's neck for the past four years. On Saturday, Joschka Fischer denied pursuing a "two-speed" European "superstate" and agreed the idea was out-dated."

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg05690.html

Incidentally, the idea that German reunification was a stepping stone towards a superstate is a bit baffling - that's the restoration of national sovereignty and genuine self-determination, no? A decision made by the German people for themselves? About as national as it gets?

However, this is my favourite. UK government it may be, but it's actually worth reading, I think

"Put to him that the Foreign Secretary appeared to be 'trivialising' the debate by referring to silly stories such as straight bananas instead of tackling head-on on the record remarks by Romano Prodi, Chancellor Schroeder and Mr Cook's European counterparts who seemed to be talking up the prospect of a European 'superstate', the [Prime Minister's Official Spokesperson] pointed that Chancellor Schroeder did not support the idea of a 'superstate'. Moreover, Mr Cook had addressed the point about being a 'superpower' rather than a 'superstate'. We had always acknowledged that some people had a different vision regarding the future of the EU. We were arguing that just because someone somewhere in Europe might say something, it didn't automatically mean that in a few years time it would come pass. In relation to the general debate, the Prime Minister's speech in Warsaw where he had set out his vision of the future of Europe had struck a chord not just in Britain, but in other European capitals too. Put to him that the Prime Minister's vision had not struck a chord in the key European capitals which wanted a two-speed Europe, the PMOS pointed out that a 'superstate' and two-speed Europe were not the same thing. Put to him that having a two-speed Europe was a means to an end, the PMOS said perhaps - but only if you were coming from a mindset where you had decided that Europe was 'out there' and would do dreadful things to us. Our view was that Britain engaging as a strong leading player in the EU was in our national interest. That was a vision shared by other European leaders in other European Capitals. We recognised they might have a different take on that vision, but we did not buy the line that because Romano Prodi or Joschka Fisher - both of whom were important people - said something, that that would automatically come to pass. Put to him that Jacques Chirac wanted a 'superstate', the PMOS said this was not remotely the case. M. Chirac was the French President who wanted power for France in the way that Tony Blair was the British Prime Minister who wanted power for Britain. Both represented their countries. M. Chirac would stand up and fight for the French every bit as much as the Prime Minister would stand up and fight for Britain. Likewise with other European Leaders. This demonstrated the importance of giving a balanced sense of the debate."

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page2010.asp

"We were arguing that just because someone somewhere in Europe might say something, it didn't automatically mean that in a few years time it would come pass" Well, well - who would have guessed.

Political flavours change, and what is said publically often changes when it becomes less politically expedient.

I can't be bothered to trawl the internet to find examples, though Chris Patton's political career is a fair example.

I fail to see how more civil servants gives us greater freedom, or better service.

>>Chris Patton's political career is a fair example<<

Which bit? Running John Major's election campaign? Well-known for their Euro-superstate yearnings, the Conservative party. British commissioners are nominated by the UK government - they're hardly likely to put forward the name of someone who's going to turn round, once appointed and say "Ha ha, got you, I'm a superstater and now I'm going to impose it on everybody!!!"

Well, as you can tell, I have trawled a bit and the fact is that you won't find any major figures saying 'Eurostate now' - journalists somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun saying that's what they said, certainly, since it's very much in their interests to put that spin on it - but like most aspects of the European debate, once you start to look into the detail then that's exactly what you find, detail, complex ideas being thrown around, not as dictats, but as invitations to discussion.

The one figure who actually did talk in terms of a European superstate was Joschka Fischer (a few years ago now, as you'll see from the retraction above). And the response he got to it was pretty much universally negative, in Germany and throughout Europe. So where's the problem? Personally, I don't think he was wrong to raise the issue: he had some ideas about where he wanted to see Europe going, he made the case, too few people agreed with him, the idea was dropped.

That's what it SHOULD be like If there was more of that kind of discussion, more working out, right across the continent, of what people actually want from Europe, where they want it to go, then we could get on with making it work. And if the consensus is that the majority want to keep the nation states in their current position, or roll back some power in that direction, then fine - but let's do it because it's the best way to govern matters, let's not do it because we're afraid even to HEAR any other ideas.

Perhaps you could say I'm extremeley dis-illusioned. I'm old enough to have voted in favour of joining Europe, believing that it was essential to form trading partnerships on our doorstep, and that the future lay in Europe, not the Commonwealth.

The reality has disgusted me, with nations enacting legislation for totally self-serving ends, notably Germany and France. As Britain has a smaller population than (say) Germany I find it unlikely that legislation will be enacted that favours, or even treats impartially, with us.

The arguaments in favour of joining together in a "common market" are almost identical to those for "pooling sovereignty", where you pool it only when it is in your national interest.

When there was six members, and most of the strength, population, and economic wealth was in france and germany, it is perfectly true that they were able to exert undue influence in their favour over the rest of the union.

however with the latest round on new members, that takes it up to 25 countries, with a combined population of 450 million, and the value of veto power becomes less.

also, france and germany are now divergent economies, so their interests don't lie as close together as they used to.

on the minor point of their ignoring the limits and penalties for their current economic problems, it is almost entirely due to the way the e.u. had to fudge it to allow them into the single currency in the first place, so they can't really moan when they pass the limits they only just met when they joined.

"Blickybadger - Yes we do all live on the same , but that doesn't explain why people who live in different countries should have a say in how each other runs their life."

Nuclear proliferation, fishing quotas, whaling bans, border controls, drug production, arms sales, money laundering do we need more examples of international co-operation and cross border regulations?

"If anything we are now seeing successes when political is not centralised but is put out to a smaller level. I talk of course of the success of the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly. These are the first steps in those two nations taking political un-union with Great Britain."

Northern Ireland isnt being such a success right now is it, but even if all three were sucessful they couldnt leave Great Britain because they are Great Britain!

"And all power to them if that's what their populations want. Who am I to impose my political will on the population of another country[?]

Well you never have been able to impose your will, you have a say in how things are done but you dont get to impose your will on a voiceless people as they all have votes too.

"You ask me why it matters that these people are foreign. Well that's easy, it matters precisely because they are foriegn nations."

I ask you why it matters that people are foreign and you say the samr thing as before "they are foreign". That's not a very good answer really.

"The culture, politics, history, in fact everything differs between any two countries you care to mention in Europe."

The culture, politics, history, in fact everything differs between any two....people you care to mention in the UK so what is your point?

"I don't want to live in a society where my laws are decided on a 'one size fits all' basis across 25 different and diverse states. I want to live in a country where it is my fellow countrymen who decide what happens to them and their lives."

You live in a country that has seperate and distinct cultures always has done and always will do. Some people dont want fox hunting some do. Some peole think we should build on gren belt land others dont.

The UK makes decsions that please some people while seeming unfair and biased to others, thats the nature of democracy. The UK's power in the world will diminish and Eurpoe as a whole will do the same if we dont exert a more unified approach to economics at the very least. I do not have the power to impose "my" views on you or any one else. What I would really like to se though is a reasoned debate about the progress of European co-operation and possible unification that isnt based on the premiss that "they" will make bad decisions for "us" becasue "they are foreigners".

one love