NationStates Jolt Archive

There are probably other topics on this, but I was wondering what people’s opinions were on this especially those from other countries within Europe.

I believe that Europe should develop into a super state with a standardisation of laws, systems, transport, safety and health amongst other things first then a complete reform into a super state with a federal like system similar (but not the same) as the USA as a comparison.

Europe is facing strong competition especially from the up coming economic powerhouses of India and China. With the adoption of the Euro, Europe is coming together very slowly but in some areas too slow or none existent to meet up with the collectivisation of the whole. There is a lot of self-interest present and some quite different politic set ups which do not co-operate successfully with each other.

Separately, many countries do not stand a chance. They are either too densely populated on a small area or too unpopulated in a large area. Both these types need each other to survive as the large area can be used for farming while the dense areas for industry.

There is also the need for resources. Many areas are resource rich and others almost barren, united it would provide for the whole. More united Europe could provide improvement and development where needed benefiting the lives of the majority. At first this would burden the more powerful states at first but it is more beneficial to them and the other countries in the long term.

Defense could also be more universal in Europe and in a lot of cases spending in defence could be cut greatly and used for more positive ends, as there would be greatly reduced friction within geopolitical area.

As I proposed a state system with some comparisons to the USA, this is to free those people who want to be separated. Areas like Catalonia would be able to separate from their countries Spain or areas like Scotland/Wales from Britain and have more some self manage whilst working within the greater system for universal goals.

As for culture, I believe each area has something to offer the other. While Britain is sterile in community and friendliness to each other compared to Italy for example, which are more social, it does provide advantages in terms of road safety that would benefit Italy. (You have to see the traffic in Italy to believe it, it is crazy.) While Italy could help lighten the British public up to be more social.

As for the language barrier, as English is the main world language in terms of most often spoken and taught as a second language, I believe it should be compulsory for it to be taught at a young age within the super state and any other languages are optional and according to the states. However, I don't believe the English should get away with just learning English either. I believe they should be taught a major European language like French at a young age as well.

As for electing governments, I believe there should be stateside elections similar to that England with it based on density of population. (Each area too but separately elects the local governments.) Using a similar model working upwards to Super-State level. I think same/similar politically minded parties should unite on the super state scale so it won't be a case of state parties fighting for overall control but grander super-state parties.

Feel free to express constructive opinion. I would like any feedback whether positive or negative. Just give an argument with either one for that case.

I approve of the eventual european superstate, but im not sure about letting countries dissolve themselves (Scotland/wales leaving UK)

A three tier system could deal with that, EU supersate, regional superstated (Iberia, Benelux, Baltics, UK & Ireland etc) then a country (like scotland)

It may sound good in theory, but it is a practicle impossibility.

Interesting.. regional does should quite good as well.

Super state > Regional > Country > County/Equalivant > Local area ?

Would be a very democratic system.

Regional would only really work if the areas were similar like Scandinavia so there wasn't too much conflict.

I'd prefer a system of diplomatic cooperation with the minimal amount of enforcement needed to stop it falling apart - we shouldn't haul countries before the European courts for going a little over budget temporarily, for instance, but the courts should get involved to stop countries infringing on their citizens' rights. I think the trend towards devolution inside countries such as the UK and Spain is a good thing, and I would envisage a future Europe being a loose association of regional governments.

It may sound good in theory, but it is a practicle impossibility.

Why is that?

(I am interested in how you arrived to your conclusion.)

I don't see this working out. The people of this country would still think of themselves as French, or Spanish and whatnot first, and European Second. This type of sectionalism is what led to the American Civil War, and I think that would occur here as well, perhaps not a full blown war, but the infrastructure would be horrendous. There would be a power struggle, and ultimately those that lost would feel oppressed, leading to a lack of unity. I think a massive Euro-country would be GOOD, but I don't think it is feasible.

but im not sure about letting countries dissolve themselves (Scotland/wales leaving UK)
Would you deny the citizens of regions the right to self-determination even if they vote for it?

Why is that?

(I am interested in how you arrived to your conclusion.)

I just can't see every country agreeing, some countries will refuse to have anything else but independence no matter how little it affects them.

I'd prefer a system of diplomatic cooperation with the minimal amount of enforcement needed to stop it falling apart - we shouldn't haul countries before the European courts for going a little over budget temporarily, for instance, but the courts should get involved to stop countries infringing on their citizens' rights. I think the trend towards devolution inside countries such as the UK and Spain is a good thing, and I would envisage a future Europe being a loose association of regional governments.

What do you mean by devolution within the countries? You mean by them accepting European human rights coming more united or the opposite?

I agree that association is the way forward, but I am quite keen to see things standardised like every country having the Euro.

European Super State... wasn't that a 70's stadium rock band? Or am I thinking of Asia?

Would you deny the citizens of regions the right to self-determination even if they vote for it?

Yes, petty nationalism is irrelavant

It may sound good in theory, but it is a practicle impossibility.

Nothing is an impossibility. Only an improbability. If everyone was determined enough to work for the future it could happe. But then why not extend this superstate to the whole world? It would be even better.

Yes, petty nationalism is irrelavant
You call it petty nationalism, I call it the right for regions not have their culture destroyed by an authoritarian remote governing authority.

I don't see this working out. The people of this country would still think of themselves as French, or Spanish and whatnot first, and European Second. This type of sectionalism is what led to the American Civil War, and I think that would occur here as well, perhaps not a full blown war, but the infrastructure would be horrendous. There would be a power struggle, and ultimately those that lost would feel oppressed, leading to a lack of unity. I think a massive Euro-country would be GOOD, but I don't think it is feasible.

I agree, the power struggle is aweful. I mentioned that in the opening but the greediness of some nations like Britain and France in some ways ruins things and I think we should start seeing ourselves as a bigger picture. I have no problems with people being proud of where they come from but I don't think it should be to a point where you dislike others.

Seems kind of a moot point. Nations are going to act on their own interests first and foremost, so a superstate would be at best a loose conglomeration. Also, I would absolutely not allow the citizens of a region to vote themselves into such a society against the wishes of the national government. To do so would undermine the sovereignity of individual nations and probably lead to war, i.e. Scotland tried to leave the UK and become part of newly formed Europa (or whatever other name you give said superstate). This interference with a nation's authority within its borders would immediately cause conflict.

I agree that association is the way forward, but I am quite keen to see things standardised like every country having the Euro.
Until there is greater harmonisation between the laws effecting countries' economies, I don't think expanding the Eurozone is economically desirable (of course there are arguments for doing it for political reasons).

Nothing is an impossibility. Only an improbability. If everyone was determined enough to work for the future it could happe. But then why not extend this superstate to the whole world? It would be even better.

I agree. Although European Super State is far enough at the moment because it would need to be created so it can start agreeing things on a global scale. Ultimately I believe in a democratic, fair and just loose world government with global standardisation and with the aim of helping its people opposed to the global police state government which is referred to as the NWO.

Conflict may be almost inevitable, but for a worthy cause and if possible without violence, it is not always undesirable. Sometimes it is the only way to relieve tension or bring a change.

Until there is greater harmonisation between the laws effecting countries' economies, I don't think expanding the Eurozone is economically desirable (of course there are arguments for doing it for political reasons).

I agree, I mentioned that we should develop forward and standardise most laws and practises.

What do you mean by devolution within the countries? You mean by them accepting European human rights coming more united or the opposite?
Some decisions are best made on the international stage, and others a best made as locally as possible. While it makes sense for the EU as a whole to decide what human rights its citizens must be given, issues such as school curricula are best decided at the national or subnational level to take into account differences in regional culture.

You call it petty nationalism, I call it the right for regions not have their culture destroyed by an authoritarian remote governing authority.

catalonias are a 'nation within a nation', the welsh have their assembly, the scots have thir own parliament.

There cultures are not being destroyed by an authoritarian regime (there is only one or two of those left in europe)

Conflict may be almost inevitable, but for a worthy cause and if possible without violence, it is not always undesirable. Sometimes it is the only way to relieve tension or bring a change.

The best way is to keep talking and talking and try to comprise and use incendives to agree. This is how peace in Ireland is where it at today. Britain keep the people at the table discussing and discussing to try and solve the crisis. Yes there were few incidents but far less then what would of occured.

A three tier system could deal with that, EU supersate, regional superstated (Iberia, Benelux, Baltics, UK & Ireland etc) then a country (like scotland)
No. If Ireland was in a UK regional superstate, it would render our independence pointless. The UK has 15 times out population.

Some decisions are best made on the international stage, and others a best made as locally as possible. While it makes sense for the EU as a whole to decide what human rights its citizens must be given, issues such as school curricula are best decided at the national or subnational level to take into account differences in regional culture.

I agree, but then again it is best for some standardisation. For example it might be the case where it was complusory to learn Maths/Science/Language which when the children leave school they are at the similar high standard then other subjects is up to the districts. No point teaching agriculture to a bunch of students in the heartland of urban London for example.

No. If Ireland was in a UK regional superstate, it would render our independence pointless. The UK has 15 times out population.

but it is part of the region of the British Isles (probably an unpopular term), it would not render your indeendence usless if there are an equal number of British and Irish members in a superregion parliament, it would render the Uks nationhood as irrelivant aswell

No. If Ireland was in a UK regional superstate, it would render our independence pointless. The UK has 15 times out population.

I proposed Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland to be seperated from England which would bring more balance to the classes.

As I said earlier, there would be some degree of standardisation done to the isles but then there would be powers only done at the nation level so Ireland would still have independence as a people. For example, Ireland having the Euro hasn't undermined it's independence on any grand scale.

catalonias are a 'nation within a nation', the welsh have their assembly, the scots have thir own parliament.

There cultures are not being destroyed by an authoritarian regime (there is only one or two of those left in europe)
The South West of England is the poorest region of the country, but has no choice but to be a net contributor to the British government because of the tax and spending decisions made in Westminster. We don't have a regional assembly and are forced to watch as the government bleeds the region dry - only Objective One money from Europe saves Cornwall from economic collapse. Meanwhile, thousands of (mainly) Londoners buying holiday homes in the region are pricing locals out of the housing market while leaving properties empty for most of the year, and our local politicans have no power to enact legislation (for example, higher tax of second homes to reflect their cultural cost to the region) in order to improve the situation.

The European Superstate is not impractical, a more accurate description would be 'inevitable', its the way the tide is going. No European democratic method gives a realistic way to leave the European project. Although, I believe that eventually the European Superstate will prove itself to its citizens, but - like the US - there will be no turning point where the populace votes on their future, it will be a gradual evolution.

A European seccessionist war will not occur like in America, firstly, because there is not a divisive issue amongst Europeans such as slavery. But also because progressive political engineers have learnt since the American constitution, European federalism would be more advanced, and thus more successful.

A European seccessionist war will not occur like in America, firstly, because there is not a divisive issue amongst Europeans such as slavery. But also because progressive political engineers have learnt since the American constitution, European federalism would be more advanced, and thus more successful.
More significantly, Europe has shown no signs of punishing nations for leaving the EU (for example, Greenland).

catalonias are a 'nation within a nation', the welsh have their assembly, the scots have thir own parliament.

There cultures are not being destroyed by an authoritarian regime (there is only one or two of those left in europe)
I disagree. I believe the Scottish culture was changed irrevocably and obviously by English control, for good or bad I will not debate. I also believe that Czechlslovakia and other countries that were formed and combined multiple cultures by the authority of whichever nations happened to have control at the time had tremendous effects on the cultures of all societies combined therein.

Also, Israel's creation fostered the Islamic nationalism that led to the huge issue we have today with terrorism. Playing with cultural borders and blurring those lines can have cataclismic effects, and generally ends up resulting in war.


That makes it a BAD IDEA. Probably.

More significantly, Europe has shown no signs of punishing nations for leaving the EU (for example, Greenland).

the only example

the only example
So what, you think that if, say, Britain left then the rest of Europe would invade? Why should the EU treat any other country wanted to secede differently from Greenland?

but it is part of the region of the British Isles (probably an unpopular term), it would not render your indeendence usless if there are an equal number of British and Irish members in a superregion parliament, it would render the Uks nationhood as irrelivant aswell

What differentiates a region of equal Irish and British from two seperate nations within the Union. The only difference I can see is that your proposal unfairly muffles the British people and deliberately insults Irish nationalists. Overall I think these regions you propose are artificial, superfluous, and detrimental to federal democracy.

I disagree. I believe the Scottish culture was changed irrevocably and obviously by English control, for good or bad I will not debate. I also believe that Czechlslovakia and other countries that were formed and combined multiple cultures by the authority of whichever nations happened to have control at the time had tremendous effects on the cultures of all societies combined therein.

Also, Israel's creation fostered the Islamic nationalism that led to the huge issue we have today with terrorism. Playing with cultural borders and blurring those lines can have cataclismic effects, and generally ends up resulting in war.


That makes it a BAD IDEA. Probably.

That is why I suggested for them to be separate within the Super State as they will be standardised to the levels needed and have enough room for its own cultural development.

So what, you think that if, say, Britain left then the rest of Europe would invade? Why should the EU treat any other country wanted to secede differently from Greenland?

nope, i was meerly saying that Greenland was the only example of a country leaving the EU

Also, Israel's creation fostered the Islamic nationalism that led to the huge issue we have today with terrorism. Playing with cultural borders and blurring those lines can have cataclismic effects, and generally ends up resulting in war.
Israel is a very different issue - it was the forced displacement of native people to make way for a foreign populace. It's not the same thing as a union (or takeover) of governments.

nope, i was meerly saying that Greenland was the only example of a country leaving the EU
In that case, okay. It sounded like you intended that as a criticism of my argument that the EU has shown no sign of punishing nations who want to leave.

nope, i was meerly saying that Greenland was the only example of a country leaving the EU

There is also the example of Swizterland.

It has not left but it will not join as it wants to remain politically neutral on the international stage.

The government wants it to become more united but with countries like Britain currently war mongering it isn't doing any favours.

More significantly, Europe has shown no signs of punishing nations for leaving the EU (for example, Greenland).

Exactly. I always argue that the Civil War marked the end of America's moral high ground. If you listen to the rhetoric of the time, the North did not oppose slavery per say, the opposed secession. Sounds more like an Empire than a Federation to me.

Israel is a very different issue - it was the forced displacement of native people to make way for a foreign populace. It's not the same thing as a union (or takeover) of governments.

True, but how do you think forcing a nation to accept a piece of it leaving will affect it? I would expect in a much similar fashion. After all, Texas voted to leave Mexico and join the US, and that led to war with the US. Not a very long war, but a war nevertheless. A similar situation with the UK could lead to the next war, as I expect the UK would tell Europe to **** off.

In that case, okay. It sounded like you intended that as a criticism of my argument that the EU has shown no sign of punishing nations who want to leave.

nah i was only trying to show off my knoweldge, but i realised it made me look like a bit of an arse

I disagree with Empires/Polices states.

Just letting it be known.

There is also the example of Swizterland.

It has not left but it will not join as it wants to remain politically neutral on the international stage.

The government wants it to become more united but with countries like Britain currently war mongering it isn't doing any favours.
Switzerland has a number of treaties with the EU giving it many of the benefits of membership without losing any of its self-governence without explicit approval from its government.

True, but how do you think forcing a nation to accept a piece of it leaving will affect it? I would expect in a much similar fashion. After all, Texas voted to leave Mexico and join the US, and that led to war with the US. Not a very long war, but a war nevertheless. A similar situation with the UK could lead to the next war, as I expect the UK would tell Europe to **** off.


I don't think England will go to war or tell Europe to "f*** off" if Scotland/Wales wanted to leave.

It just has a tricky buisness of deconstructioning and reconstructing institutions. Hence why it would be better when it was part of the Super State as then it won't be that big mess of it all.

Exactly. I always argue that the Civil War marked the end of America's moral high ground. If you listen to the rhetoric of the time, the North did not oppose slavery per say, the opposed secession. Sounds more like an Empire than a Federation to me.
Let's not bring the Civil War into this, as it will no doubt spark a HUGE conflagration.

And America has as much right to a moral high ground as any other nation. For instance, England wasn't much ahead of the US in abolishing slavery, and only because the pop. slowly turned against it, much as it occurred in the US. In France, the revolution was marked by extreme bloodshed and violence, and Viche France collaborated with the Nazis in exterminating the Jews. Germany I don't need to elaborate on. Spain, you could argue, was dominated by the Vatican for so long that for some time it was no more than an extension of the Pope's will, which I will consider amoral, not because of any beef with Catholicism, but merely distaste for the Church in that period.

Also, numerous European nations participated in the rape of Africa, so at this point we have ALL lost the moral high ground.

I don't think England will go to war or tell Europe to "f*** off" if Scotland/Wales wanted to leave.

It just has a tricky buisness of deconstructioning and reconstructing institutions. Hence why it would be better when it was part of the Super State as then it won't be that big mess of it all.
I disagree - most public services in Britain are managed by regional bodies so independence would just involve handing control of those regional bodies to the independent government.

Also, numerous European nations participated in the rape of Africa, so at this point we have ALL lost the moral high ground.
I've never understood the argument that because countries have done Bad Things in their pasts, they can never again have any say in ethical issues.

I disagree - most public services in Britain are managed by regional bodies so independence would just involve handing control of those regional bodies to the independent government.

I know that. :p

I was just thinking about the army and other things like that.

I know that. :p

I was just thinking about the army and other things like that.
Well, it's not like Scotland needs to worry about the Vikings anymore. :-)

I've never understood the argument that because countries have done Bad Things in their pasts, they can never again have any say in ethical issues.

If that is true. Poor Germany.

Speaking of Germany, I like some of the things they have been doing. Devotion to stamping out nuclear power, funding renewable energy and using systems like tax cuts to promote things like "living roofs". Well done to you guys. Just wish Britain did some of that stuff.

Switzerland seems to be the moral highground champion of the world and they already condemned Israel for some of things it has done.

I've never understood the argument that because countries have done Bad Things in their pasts, they can never again have any say in ethical issues.
Well, the point of my post was to show how ridiculous that belief is, so you and I concur.

Well, it's not like Scotland needs to worry about the Vikings anymore. :-)

In the Isle of Mann, I think it is still legal to kill a scotmans landing on the shore... Though I am sure there are now legal rammifications towards such actions now.

(Scots used to raid the isle of mann and pillage towns / steal women / etc.)

If that is true. Poor Germany.

Speaking of Germany, I like some of the things they have been doing. Devotion to stamping out nuclear power, funding renewable energy and using systems like tax cuts to promote things like "living roofs". Well done to you guys. Just wish Britain did some of that stuff.

Switzerland seems to be the moral highground champion of the world and they already condemned Israel for some of things it has done.
Yeah, but their "morality" really just makes them good bankers. Bankers who allow some of the most dangerous criminals in the world to escape detection. They have willingly aided and abetted known terrorists and assisted felons in escaping and avoiding extradition, so they're out too :)

Switzerland seems to be the moral highground champion of the world and they already condemned Israel for some of things it has done.
Switzerland? As in "give us your money and we'll look after it for you, no questions asked" Switzerland?

As for standardisation and the super state, I think it should be considered soon with the event of the Fusion Reactor being built in France.

If Europe bounded together and produced more of these, there would be energy self-sufficience and could get rid of fossil fuels and nuclear reactors.

Then again, Eastern Europe would suffer greatly as it gets its economy from the oil coming from Russia to sell into Europe. Russia would also be annoyed at losing such big buisness.

As I said, Switzerland is the susposed moral high ground champion.

Lot more than you said too occur. Shows how pretty corrupt our governments are.

As for standardisation and the super state, I think it should be considered soon with the event of the Fusion Reactor being built in France.

If Europe bounded together and produced more of these, there would be energy self-sufficience and could get rid of fossil fuels and nuclear reactors.

Then again, Eastern Europe would suffer greatly as it gets its economy from the oil coming from Russia to sell into Europe. Russia would also be annoyed at losing such big buisness.
If we don't need oil as much for fuel, the price will come down and we'll use it more for other purposes (plastics manufacture, for instance).

Still would ruin Eastern European economies and annoy Russian the "Energy Super Power".

Luckly we don't need it for plastics either as we can process biomass into oils which can be used as plastics.

Still would ruin Eastern European economies and annoy Russian the "Energy Super Power".

Luckly we don't need it for plastics either as we can process biomass into oils which can be used as plastics.
Then other places without biomass facilities will use it for plastics. If we come up with oil-free alternatives for certain products, the price of oil will decrease until the point where it becomes competitive again. Only global regulation (tax on oil to reflect the price of its externalities, and tariffs on countries without such a tax) will reduce consumption.

I would highly appreciate greater European integration. This would not require cancellation of local culture, rather cancellation of local agendas.

Europe should have one currency, one constitution, one scientific programme, one army, one foreign politics. No veto right, all decisions at majority (of people).

Since not all countries would accept, only those willing should build this "inner circle".

Very nice in principle, but will, say, M. Chirac accept to give up control of French nukes? (or, better, dismantle them...).

And I take for granted that UK would not join. They seem to feel that the Channel is wider than the Atlantic... which is good, because if we (Italians) learnt driving from them, we would start driving on the wrong side, which is possibly the only craziness missing to our traffic...:(

Then other places without biomass facilities will use it for plastics. If we come up with oil-free alternatives for certain products, the price of oil will decrease until the point where it becomes competitive again. Only global regulation (tax on oil to reflect the price of its externalities, and tariffs on countries without such a tax) will reduce consumption.

Sort of lost where you are heading with this...

I would highly appreciate greater European integration. This would not require cancellation of local culture, rather cancellation of local agendas.

Europe should have one currency, one constitution, one scientific programme, one army, one foreign politics. No veto right, all decisions at majority (of people).

Since not all countries would accept, only those willing should build this "inner circle".

Very nice in principle, but will, say, M. Chirac accept to give up control of French nukes? (or, better, dismantle them...).

And I take for granted that UK would not join. They seem to feel that the Channel is wider than the Atlantic... which is good, because if we (Italians) learnt driving from them, we would start driving on the wrong side, which is possibly the only craziness missing to our traffic...:(

Ha, I been in Sorrento for the last two weeks. I am sure the traffic signs/lights/markings are just there for dectoration. I seen so many near crashes it is unbelievable.

I think UK would have to swap road signs to reflect integration with Europe. But I still think the examination/safety standards should be reflected in Europe as it is one of the toughest and safest there is.

I think lots of nukes would be demantled. Last I heard UK has enough to destory the world 2 times and I think we have more than enough with just our lot.

(I have always wondered why they needed so many to destory the world more than once.)

I hear Orwell a knockin'

Asian Super State

And a alliance between the pacific island nations that'd get their ass kick and turned into an agricultural centre by Asia Super State, which then Europeans would fight for and it will be war in Oceania and the 'Nesias

Sort of lost where you are heading with this...
Yeah, I'm going a bit off-topic. Maybe I'll start a new thread on the futility of technological alternatives without pricing in externalities.

Yeah, I am hoping for a Europe which is not a police state like in Orwellians 1984 though. :p

Yeah, I am hoping for a Europe which is not a police state like in Orwellians 1984 though. :p

Ya get whats coming to ya really, :(

Damn the NWO. :(

First we must decide where are the borders of Europe. Would that country include Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Albania and then eventually Israel, Egypt and Tunisia?

I think they could join if they accept the guidelines and the standardisation of the state.

The European Super State and the United States could become the The United European Super State! Muhahahhaah!

I think they could join if they accept the guidelines and the standardisation of the state.
But then it would stop being European super-state

But then it would stop being European super-state

A lot of Americans have European roots anyway ;)

A lot of Americans have European roots anyway ;)
I didn't reply on your post :D

I didn't reply on your post :D

Whoops! Haha touche! My bad :)

The unification of Europe would only increase the flood of immigrants to western Europe from eastern Europe, and France and Britain have enough immigration problems as it is, without even more flowing this way, there should be restrictions on movement, just to help our countries

U.s.e! U.s.e!

The unification of Europe would only increase the flood of immigrants to western Europe from eastern Europe, and France and Britain have enough immigration problems as it is, without even more flowing this way, there should be restrictions on movement, just to help our countries

As the country would be united, the people would end up flocking back home as they will see their lives improve.

Ha, I been in Sorrento for the last two weeks. I am sure the traffic signs/lights/markings are just there for dectoration. I seen so many near crashes it is unbelievable.

Well, you know, people in Naples (enchanting places, aren't they?) say that red lights are for advice. And we tend to get bored if we cannot drive "creatively". Then, we mourn the casualties of the road. Sometimes I wonder how many Mona Lisa would we have painted if we saved our creativity instead of using it to break every possible rule.:headbang:

(I have always wondered why they needed so many [nukes] to destory the world more than once.)

Just to play on the safe side, I guess. Too bad if some of this crazy species manages to survive...:sniper:

We are pretty much screwed before we get to the point of the world actually blowing up. Going over that seems stupid and a waste of money.

It is like buying a grill which can cook 100 burgers at once at a very high cost when a ten burger one would be perfect and a lot less cheaper.

The unification of Europe would only increase the flood of immigrants to western Europe from eastern Europe, and France and Britain have enough immigration problems as it is, without even more flowing this way, there should be restrictions on movement, just to help our countries
that is not the problem.
franco dutch

A European Federation would be great, but the sheer beaurocracy of the thing would be its downfall.

There are over 20 languages in the EU already, and those are just the official ones of countries.

Unless we all learn Esperanto, I'm afraid it wouldn't work.



But it would still be fantastic to have anyway.

No, the role of the European Union must be downplayed if anything. They have to stop deciding over trivial matters like the size of jam jars or a banning chocolate cigarettes. It's currently nothing but a suffocating bureacracy that tells companies what to do and don't, while at the same time it represses the local government's role in the economy. I wouldn't want to see it get even more powerful if it doesn't become a useful tool. I'd rather see my own country leave the union that put up with some of the ridiculous laws the union puts forward any longer.

The unification of Europe would only increase the flood of immigrants to western Europe from eastern Europe, and France and Britain have enough immigration problems as it is, without even more flowing this way, there should be restrictions on movement, just to help our countries

You've mentioned immigration within Europe but you havent mentioned immigration from non-European countries as a problem? :eek:

One of the worst things that can happen to EU would be for it to be more like USA, as a federation/superstate. EU should be downplayed in some areas such as the ones invoving each countries' culture and integrate on areas like economy, defence, foreign policy. So I think, in the end EU should be like a confederation whose members work for common good while preserving their distinctiveness.