EU Superstate - Yes Or No??

SharpshooterTom

The concept of an EU superstate has been pushed for a few decades now. Talk of Britain moving into the EU timezone recently, and just in general how much we share with our european neighbours overall.

Do you support EU federalism and a single european state? Is it necessary for humanity to prevent wars and ensure a peaceful society for all us human beings to move into bigger states?

Biggins

It's already one in all but official name.

dlofnep

No, I don't support it - Because the interests of localities will never be protected.

Kojak

No - break up the EU further, just make it a trading block where countries can trade freely, but nothing more than that.

The EU are trying to model it on the USA, but that is one whole country, not numerous countries (Many very different from one another) being banded together.

My name is URL

In an ideal world, where things are run effectively and absolutely fairly then I'd support it. But as things stand right now, there's no way in hell I would want it.

SeaFields

isnt that concept going to go bollocks up tonight if greece doesnt pass what its supposed to pass?

Tar.Aldarion

I would support there being one world country but we are not ready for something like that

ScumLord

Might as well, it'll keep the Germans happy they won't stop until they get their superstate in some form or an other.

AnonoBoy

Don't worry when everyone starts defaulting the whole thing will crumble.

Zebra3

No way.

One only has to look at how Irish politicans betrayed their country to foreign interests.

Imagine how badly raped the Irish taxpayer would be under a further integrated EU. :rolleyes: We're already footing the bill of around €100billion to pay for private gambling debts. :mad:

A successful super state needs the seat of power in one place and a single aim, who do you want in the driving seat? Germany, Greece whoever..

It can't work if the President is changed every six months, just imagine a ship sailing across the ocean with a different captain who chooses his own course every few days, it'll be going round in circles! :pac:

REXER

Yes, thats the only way that there is going to be competent control over budgets, taxes etc.
It would however have to be well planned and implimented to prevent any one regional entity gaining too much advantage over the neigbours and to ensure that there is fair distribution of resourses, work, investments etc.

As it stands, the union is going to fragment due to nationalistic self interests.

gonedrinking

Its got to the stage where we need France and Germanys permission to wipe our own arse............and they never grant it. End it now.

AnonoBoy

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Don't worry when everyone starts defaulting the whole thing will crumble.

The Euro looks very shaky at the moment, the trading EEC will probably survive though, isolationism will only lead to war!

silverspoon

I'm reasonably pro-EU but the problem is the arrogance of many of its bureaucratic organs. The EU has had problems with its legitimacy since pretty much the Maastricht Treaty and its proven track record of not respecting the boundaries of its power and competence make me a pretty definite opponent of EU expansion, as done in the way that it has been attempted before.

I don't disagree with harmonisation as a concept, but the EU have been operating under the guise of harmonisation as a means of pretty much steamrollering its agenda on other Member States. This has been a particular struggle for weak Member States, or even at a practical level, States like the UK and Ireland, whose legal systems don't lend themselves to comfortable EU-wide standardisation. It's an issue that will come up time and again, particularly in criminal law.

Moves towards a 'United States of Europe' do seem more of a reality post-Lisbon, but I get the impression that there are just too many Member States for whom it is a step too far. It's more likely that a 'two-tier' Union may be formed, in my opinion.

pragmatic1

If you asked me a few years ago I'd have said yes. Now our European neighbours can go and **** themselves.

pragmatic1

pragmatic1 wrote: »

If you asked me a few years ago I'd have said yes. Now our European neighbours can go and **** themselves.

I used to be fairly pro EU but turned a few years ago after seeing a documentory about where all the money was coming from to fuel the tiger! I then knew that we were going to be in deepshít.

prinz

At the moment no, at some stage decades or more into the future it may be possible. I'd support it only when it would actually work.

silverspoon wrote: »

Moves towards a 'United States of Europe' do seem more of a reality post-Lisbon....

Actually the opposite is true. Which is why federalists who support a US of E such as Declan Ganley opposed Lisbon.

professore

Zebra3 wrote: »

No way.

One only has to look at how Irish politicans betrayed their country to foreign interests.

Imagine how badly raped the Irish taxpayer would be under a further integrated EU. :rolleyes: We're already footing the bill of around €100billion to pay for private gambling debts. :mad:

Actually I think you're wrong there - if it was one superstate then the superstate would have to pay the gambling debts as a whole, not just Ireland.

However I'm against the superstate for other reasons, we would go back to being the cute emerald isle for the Germans to visit with no hi tech industries because the French and Germans would see to that in short order. One positive to come out of this bailout deal is that they have shown their true colours - particularly the French.

Can't wait for the next referendum.

biko

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I would support there being one world country but we are not ready for something like that

Yeah it's hard just to have people inside Dublin getting along, never mind Ireland and Europe.

Dyr

Fascinating that so many people voted no in this poll when they've been voting for years in referenda to facilitate a superstate

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

Fascinating that so many people voted no in this poll when they've been voting for years in referenda to facilitate a superstate

It was a case of "You will keep voting until we get the right result!".

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

It was a case of "You will keep voting until we get the right result!".

Those votes were merely resting in our ballot boxes until we could get clarification

silverspoon

prinz wrote: »

Actually the opposite is true. Which is why federalists who support a US of E such as Declan Ganley opposed Lisbon.

I thought that Ganley's Libertas was anti-Lisbon not because it was less integrationist (which is isn't), but because of the form in which that integration comes via Lisbon. Lisbon has centralised EU power massively, and has left plenty of room for that power to be centralised further, that is undeniable. It was the issues that Lisbon didn't address (or not satisfactorily) - transparency re finances, democratic legitimacy etc., that were the bone of contention for Ganley. I'm well open to correction on this, but that was my understanding of it.

Son Of A Vidic

OP - we have long moved past the concept stage.

Son Of A Vidic

Bambi wrote: »

Fascinating that so many people voted no in this poll when they've been voting for years in referenda to facilitate a superstate

Fascinating really how you seem to know how people voted in various referendums throughout the years.



I for one, have been voting No since the Maastricht treaty.

prinz

silverspoon wrote: »

It was the issues that Lisbon didn't address (or not satisfactorily) - transparency re finances, democratic legitimacy etc., that were the bone of contention for Ganley. I'm well open to correction on this, but that was my understanding of it.

The issues it didn't address (as above) were exactly the ones that would have made a move towards a United States of Europe much more likely than with Lisbon as it is. IMO Lisbon was a move towards a community based approach as opposed to a move towards a model of a federal superstate based on the USA.

mlumley

professore wrote: »

Can't wait for the next referendum.

There wont be one.:eek: The Lisbon Treaty was a self amending treaty, meaning that they can change what they want, when they want, and not ask us. Signed into law after the second vote we held gave them the power.

humanji

mlumley wrote: »

There wont be one.:eek: The Lisbon Treaty was a self amending treaty, meaning that they can change what they want, when they want, and not ask us. Signed into law after the second vote we held gave them the power.

Oh for f*ck's sake...

Leftist

Yes please. We are completely incapable and much too isolated.

Canis Lupus

Can't say I'd mind a united states of Europe.

prinz

mlumley wrote: »

There wont be one...:eek:

Yes there will. :eek:

dizzywizlw

We are pretty much a confederation at this stage.

As a federalist I fully support deeper integration from a purely ideological and power politics perspective. The level of bureaucracy is disheartening however, but what do you expect with Francophones?

Like it or not, a great power world will start to emerge as China attempts to catch up to the gigantic US advantage in world politics. The EU27 is the largest military and economic entity on the planet. It is very naive to hold onto the sovereignty notion when the rule of the strong has consistently undermined it throughout history. Neutrality is a farce and won't remain an Irish policy for too long. Any student of geopolitics worth their salt realises that A) Europe has to stand as a unified force because the US will look after itself in the coming century and A federal Europe is a necessity for the continuance of western civilisation as the pinnacle of freedom and development

I realise that sounds very crackpot but anybody that believes a loose trading block will play a meaningful role in a world where the US,China,Russia,India,Iran,Brazil etc. are vying for resources and influence is deluded.

Krusader

Anyone who supports a US of Europe is retarded

squod

It was a fantastic idea until some idiot mentioned Turkey. In my view the people running the EU superstate are going to have to have a lot more cop-on and a bit more honesty. It'll never happen.

pragmatic1

Crosáidí wrote: »

Anyone who supports a US of Europe is retarded

Yeah and everyone above and below me is smelly.

humanji

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Yeah and everyone above and below me is smelly.

Aww.

pragmatic1

humanji wrote: »

Aww.

Apart from you.

smokedeels

sounds bloated, I want less goverment... so, no.

Dyr

dizzywizlw wrote: »

We are pretty much a confederation at this stage.

Like it or not, a great power world will start to emerge as China attempts to catch up to the gigantic US advantage in world politics. The EU27 is the largest military and economic entity on the planet. It is very naive to hold onto the sovereignty notion when the rule of the strong has consistently undermined it throughout history. Neutrality is a farce and won't remain an Irish policy for too long. Any student of geopolitics worth their salt realises that A) Europe has to stand as a unified force because the US will look after itself in the coming century and A federal Europe is a necessity for the continuance of western civilisation as the pinnacle of freedom and development

We should probably scramble for africa too, just to be sure

DColeman

If it means burying the Irish language into the ground then yes I would support a single nation state. It's important for humanity to have a one language entity I think.

Krusader

DColeman wrote: »

If it means burying the Irish language into the ground then yes I would support a single nation state. It's important for humanity to have a one language entity I think.

Yay for Mandarin

My name is URL

smokedeels wrote: »

sounds bloated, I want less goverment... so, no.

I think it would mean the opposite. Things are extremely bloated right now.

DColeman wrote: »

If it means burying the Irish language into the ground then yes I would support a single nation state. It's important for humanity to have a one language entity I think.

Humanity has done alright so far, with more than one spoken language =/

Leftist

My name is URL wrote: »

I think it would mean the opposite. Things are extremely bloated right now.



Humanity has done alright so far, with more than one spoken language =/

With the world getting ever smaller etc it's time to at least have one language for europe. We're all dancing around the fact anyway that english is the global language.

dizzywizlw

Bambi wrote: »

We should probably scramble for africa too, just to be sure

You are aware that a new scramble for Africa is already under way right?

UsernameInUse

It's frightening to see the sheer ignorance of the 28 people in this poll. They haven't. got. a. clue.

humanji

UsernameInUse wrote: »

It's frightening to see the sheer ignorance of the 28 people in this poll. They haven't. got. a. clue.

Which 28 people?

UsernameInUse

humanji wrote: »

Which 28 people?

The "Yes" people.

My name is URL

Leftist wrote: »

With the world getting ever smaller etc it's time to at least have one language for europe. We're all dancing around the fact anyway that english is the global language.

People that want to or need to speak English already do so. There doesn't need to be one official language for all of Europe. If English is to be the global language then that will be achieved naturally, and without the need to 'bury' any other language.

humanji

UsernameInUse wrote: »

The "Yes" people.

Why? Maybe they know something you don't. Maybe they want a utopian EU Superstate where everyone lives in peace and harmony. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they are ignorant.

sbsquarepants

If history shows anything it's that artificial unions don't work. Every empire in the history of the world has fallen apart. Even the EU is currently tearing itself assunder. It's just a bad idea, people are different, they think and feel locally. I feel no kinship or loyalty towards the french or the romanians for example. I don't think or feel european, i feel irish. The vast majority of people are the same.
There will never be a one world government that comes about by any means other than oppression and as such, the resentment of it's people will ultimately be its downfall. It's happened time and time again