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

Are the Sun just making a fuss over nothing. After all why not have a USE (United States of Europe)

What's so good about being independent anyway?

For goodness sake, if you do it, call it something other than the USE! Why not just "Europe"? That's a perfectly good name.


(or maybe you could be historical and just call it "Rome".)

Humm well considering I'd only spent 3 minutes contemplating the idea then I'd not really got around to thinking a name out.

Seriously, I think it's a great idea. But from here (Canada) I would have to argue against modelling a European Federation on the US. I don't imagine anyone in Europe (except maybe the French) would be keen on an officially unilingual melting-pot. There is, however, another potential model: a successful, prosperous, officially multilingual, stridently multi-cultural confederation which even has separate law codes for various parts of the country. Personally, I think hesitation about the idea would start to evaporate as soon as the "United States of" part was discarded.

We the Europeans are naturally Socialist anyway - most of them - and seem to at the moment mainly dislike the US, the UK does like them offically but the majority of the people don't.

What would we actually need to change to have a federal superstate? Looking at it logically if we just merge the armies I think we've got one.


Don't tell the Daily Mail (right wing nationalist annnoying evil newspaper) but we've already got one - actually they've been saying this for ages and have jsut been written off for being annoying.

I think you're right about that: merge the armed forces. Some have suggested on previous threads that this would be the impossible part (could you imagine a Frenchman taking an order from an Italian General?) but the armed forces have been functioning in an integrated manner for a couple of generations. A European super-state would be far simpler to construct than a Pan-North American one. European states have much to gain from working together; Mexico and Canada have everything to lose in any kind of political union with the US.

Maybe expanding the ties of the european union a bit more beyond economic? Even better, how about kicking our American a**es out of the UN and using that organization as a counterweight to the US?

As far as I understand they are already beyond the economic, for a start we have a european court which can overrule the High court in this country.

The European Parliment can dissolve ours. You don't have to show your passport when travelling from one European Country to another, but you do need one to fly as identifciation (obviously) - though we still demand them off people coming into the country.

There's a standing invitation to the UN to move its headquarters to Montreal. Seriously, there is.

just re-read my post, the European parliment can't disolve ours but I think they can pass laws which we have to follow.

I wonder

The cheap line is that Germany has tried to run Britain twice before, and I'd prefer it if it wasn't third time lucky.

The more measured line is that I have very little in common with the people of France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Denmark, etc etc. So why would I want to live in the 'federal state' country as them?

If you look at the values, the democracy, the legal system, indeed any cultural facet of an individual European nation it is different to that of the vast majority of all other European nations. What is the possible benefit of trying a 'one-size fits all' solution in bringing them together in a federal union. It will only be a compromise that leaves the majority unsatisfied one way or another.

Right firstly I tend to feel the same way, I don't feel particularly European, but when people argue against things on the grounds that it's one step towards a federal europe, I do wonder what would be wrong with a federal Europe anyway.

Right first things first we already are in a federal europe and have been for nearly 30 years.

European law superseeds domestic law and consequently "European" governemtent is federal at a level about domestic law.

Yes that is true, but at the moment the European institutions are only nibbling around the edges of the UK government's powers. I mean lets face it they spent the majority of their money on agricultural policy which is hardly a big ticket item in the scheme of things.

Now if they start to get their fingers into the serious stuff like macro-economic policy, health, pensions, welfare, education. Or heaven forbid defence and foreign policy. Then that would be a major move against UK sovereignty and a move towards a federal Europe. And that is a place I am not prepared to go

I think GreyDesk's comment about "having very little in common" is in the end the long and short of it - every other decent argument basically boils down to that slightly tribal feeling that "they" are different to "us". And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to belittle that feeling, I think it's very true.

But it's worth pondering that not everyone within the UK has the same culture, either - talk to a Welsh or Scottish nationalist, or even a born-n-bred Northerner, and you'll soon realise that. So in a sense, the UK is probably too big already, if "devolution" isn't enough for you.

But further than that, with the amount that people (and peoples) move around, it seems to me that it's rather a losing battle trying to divide up the world into one-culture pieces - just look at Ireland, or Yugoslavia, or Israel... So if a decent system of government could be created that gave a single structure to all of Europe - hey, the whole world, if we could manage it - and could sort out the issues that require a grand scale; well, that would be a vast improvement on "international diplomacy", if you ask me. And if smaller - much smaller - areas want to do the details in ways that make sense for themselves, they should have the power to do that, too; that's what "federal" means (or should do).

If the words 'United' and 'States' are to be avoided, how about Democratic European Nations Treaty as a name?

On a slightly more serious note, for centuries Europe was controlled (pretty much) by one extended family, the Saxe Coburg Gotha clan et al, and the peasants were totally powerless to do anything about it, until something changed... Not entirely sure what that 'something' was, maybe it was increased contact with one another

Anyhow, that desire for control hasn't disappeared - it's just been dormant for a while

Maybe the talk of a Federated Europe (aka DENT ) is a sign of an awakening?

Yes that's all well and good, I have nothing against states or smaller areas federating together in a way that pleases them. But that isn't the direction that we're taking in Europe right now. We are moving from centralised national government to centralised pan-European government. That ain't 'federation'.

I beg to differ on that, GreyDesk - even within the UK, we're becoming less centralised, not more. The Scottish and Welsh Assemblies are acquiring more power every year, and there's talk of splitting England up into Regional Assemblies - or, at least, having Assemblies for part of it. The only thing that's not quite right is that it's not clear which powers Westminster should still have, and why Southern England shouldn't have an Assembly of its own; but I suspect that'll get sorted over time...

I am not even goint to refer to the name federal, as it is abused in so many ways that it is impossible to nail down the meaning anymore.

The arguament for closer european union is that you need something to counter balance america. especially when you consider the increasing lack of power of individual countries to influence it by themselves.

In reality, there are a number of independent questions which all have an influence on what sort of europe you end up with.

in particular:

what needs to be handled at which level...local, regional, national, european, or international.

Which is the best way to achieve the desired results at that level...dictat from above, cooperation at the same level, or demands for change from below.

The main difference in attitude is between those who think that things should be decided at the top, and then have decrees handed down to the smaller regions, who seem to support ever closer integration, and those who have spotted that this process doesn't really work very well, and who tend to support slow and gradual moves towards the level of integration that seems right at the time.

Increase Mathers, you're right that the UK is becoming less centralised. And I for one am delighted that the Welsh and the Scots are getting more of a say as to how they run their own lives. Heck, give them full tax raising powers and float them off if that's what their population wants.

But that *isn't* what is happening at an EU level. The power of the EU Commission and Parliament is growing and powers are moving away from sovereign governments. The best example being the Euro which is in effect all of the governments in the Euro zone giving up their ability to manage their own fiscal policy to a central bank. How is that decentralization?

Xyroth. Why does America need counterbalancing? That was never the intention of the European Union. To say you need a counterbalance implies that you are looking for a powerful block that can resist the USA, and that to me implies unified foreign and defence policies with the the thought that we may use force against the US. That's not going to be a productive route for anyone.