United States Of Europe?

wendell borton

i saw declan gangley talk about setting up a party in support of a US of E. with an elected president a while back on the late late show.

Would any one support this?

I see it as a better option to the current path europe seems to be heading in, with the biggest countries calling the shots.

Sky King

No. Reckon it's going the other way to be honest.

DoesNotCompute

This is Varadkar's wet dream. Dont think it'll happen tbh

marty1985

Won't happen, the European project is on its last legs as it is, IMO.

InTheTrees

I thought it already was.

Isnt that the point of the european parliment? And all that Brussels stuff?

Pacifist Pigeon

I'm not against the idea of a so-called "United States of Europe" but I'm not happy with the format this new European Federation is taking. There isn't a lot of democratic accountability within the EU at present, methinks.

NinjaK

A nightmare for any Patriot. Unfortunaely there are too many traitors around today so its a real possibility.

AnonoBoy

Declan Ganley - that bastion of good sense. I await his proposal of a meter-run European Union where every country has to top up their membership on a daily basis or else be kicked out.

I heard he got the idea years ago from the gas meter he used to feed with fake coins whilst living as a student in a typical sh*tty student flat years ago.

Sister Assumpta

No. We are too different in social and economic terms to some of mainland Europe to be tied into this sort of pact with them.

Ireland's independence was hard won. It must not be eroded (almost irrevocably) for temporary financial stability by any constitutional change in this country. I would be 100% opposed to any compromising of the Irish constitution.

biko

Hell no, the EU (which is pretty much a USE anyway) is crumbling.
As said before, we're much too dissimilar for anything like that to work.

dxhound2005

Does Ireland have to join?

b_mully

I can't imagine that, how would we elect a president ? a small country like Ireland would never get a look in on that presidency and having a rotating system like we do now would not give the president enough time to do anything

Headshot

My united states of whatever

Sister Assumpta

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Does Ireland have to join?

Technically, no.

If we don't join, we can still access funding under the EU-IMF arrangement.

It expressly says so in the treaty.

This shouldn't be for us. We should decline this treaty.

Underdraft

Europe was fairly united during the Crusades as well. Likewise just because you have a state of agreement in this continent atm doesn't mean it will strengthen or last forever. I don't see this EU having any more success at it either long term.

Herb Powell

NinjaK wrote: »

A nightmare for any Patriot. Unfortunaely there are too many traitors around today so its a real possibility.

I see stuff like this on YouTube all the time. Could you please explain to me, besides ideals, what the REAL implications would be for the ordinary citizen?
And don't just say "you'll lose your rights" because that's not an answer, that's a cop-out.
Not saying I'm for a USE, but I want to know what are the actual negative consequences

Sister Assumpta

Herb Powell wrote: »

I see stuff like this on YouTube all the time. Could you please explain to me, besides ideals, what the REAL implications would be for the ordinary citizen?

Here's just one

The (unelected) European commission drafts policies which our government must commit to support in the event of even relatively mild deficits, under this treaty.

At the moment, there is a clear room for negotiation. Under the treaty, these things are not negotiated, we specifically "commit to support" the european commission... i.e. abide by its decisions.

While fully respecting the procedural requirements of the European Union Treaties, the Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro commit to support the proposals or recommendations submitted by the European Commission where it considers that a Member State of the European Union whose currency is the euro is in breach of the deficit criterion in the framework of an excessive deficit procedure.

There is some controversy over the fact that it would be easier for the larger states may find ways around such procedures, and remain free from interference in their affairs by the Commission, under QMV.

We've all seen how much economic policy can impact upon our lives.

As an Irishwoman, I do not want to see a faceless bureaucrat's diktat being merely implemented by democratically elected parliaments, apparently without leaving any reasonable room for negotiation on policy.

JohnMearsheimer

I wouldn't say the European project is on it's knees but it's probably at some kind of crossroads about what it wants to be. Europe can't seem to agree a proper common fiscal policy, never mind a common EU foreign policy etc. States are rational actors and will not agree to anything that will hurt them. There are just too many divergent interests to reconcile for a United States of Europe to happen.

opinion guy

wendell borton wrote: »

i saw declan gangley talk about setting up a party in support of a US of E. with an elected president a while back on the late late show.

Would any one support this?

I see it as a better option to the current path europe seems to be heading in, with the biggest countries calling the shots.

Wait wait wait. Wasn't Declan Ganley against Europe ???

Herb Powell

Sister Assumpta wrote: »

Here's just one

The (unelected) European commission drafts policies which our government must commit to support in the event of even relatively mild deficits, under this treaty.

At the moment, there is a clear room for negotiation. Under the treaty, these things are not negotiated, we specifically "commit to support" the european commission... i.e. abide by its decisions.

Yup, loss of sovereignty is a big one.
Again, I'm not pro-"USE", I just want to hear some more opinions, as the people who are usually dead-set against anything like this tend to be a little bit on the crazy side (not saying people who oppose it ARE, I don't support such an idea, but I think you know the kind of people I'm talking about, and they are really tiresome)

Sister Assumpta

Herb Powell wrote: »

Yup, loss of sovereignty is a big one.
Again, I'm not pro-"USE", I just want to hear some more opinions, as the people who are usually dead-set against anything like this tend to be a little bit on the crazy side (not saying people who oppose it ARE, I don't support such an idea, but I think you know the kind of people I'm talking about, and they are really tiresome)

Yes, I do indeed know what you mean. These usual anti-everything types detract from the seriousness of decisions such as this, and make it too easy for 'the other extreme' (in this case, elements within the government; Creighton, Varadkar) to dismiss all concerns about European integration as poppycock.

This treaty has the potential to bring about some remarkably undemocratic situations. That's one of my concerns anyway.

lividduck

I would defintley be in favour. European taxes in return for european services.
Yes Yes Yes

My name is URL

What would be so terrible about a properly run and genuinely federal Europe? I'd take it over the heady brew of bullshit that is the current 'Union'.

smash

Fcuk no. The Germans would really take over then!

Celly Smunt

My name is URL wrote: »

What would be so terrible about a properly run and genuinely federal Europe? I'd take it over the heady brew of bullshit that is the current 'Union'.

we are a peripheral country,therefore no jobs.

k.p.h

My name is URL wrote: »

What would be so terrible about a properly run and genuinely federal Europe? I'd take it over the heady brew of bullshit that is the current 'Union'.

True, but I have highlighted you error. Will never happen, corruption and self interest is human nature. Best just stick to sovereign nations that trade with each other IMO.

Better the devil you know ... etc etc

Doc Ruby

My name is URL wrote: »

What would be so terrible about a properly run and genuinely federal Europe? I'd take it over the heady brew of bullshit that is the current 'Union'.

The first question myself and any citizen would have to ask is whats in it for me and my country?

And why not just stick with a trading union instead?

We don't need anything else really.

This isn't like the USA, its a load of individual countries each with their own very ancient histories, cultures, and in many cases languages. You can't make rules for all because you have to keep every single one satisfied.

Icepick

NinjaK wrote: »

A nightmare for any Patriot.

patriot /= xenophobe

Celly Smunt

k.p.h wrote: »

Better the devil you know ... etc etc

that exact phrase sums up fianna fail in power and why there are gobshítes in the dail.

Big Nasty

Doc Ruby wrote: »

This isn't like the USA, its a load of individual countries each with their own very ancient histories, cultures, and in many cases languages. You can't make rules for all because you have to keep every single one satisfied.

I'm not well enough up on history to argue but wasn't the US originally formed from different colonies and nationalities that had migrated there, fought against each other and eventually unified?

Anita Blow

Herb Powell wrote: »

Yup, loss of sovereignty is a big one.
Again, I'm not pro-"USE", I just want to hear some more opinions, as the people who are usually dead-set against anything like this tend to be a little bit on the crazy side (not saying people who oppose it ARE, I don't support such an idea, but I think you know the kind of people I'm talking about, and they are really tiresome)

I think the biggest disadvantage has been said. The countries of Europe are too different. You can't try to force people of different cultures into one "European identity" because there is no such thing as a single European identity. There's about 40 different European identities. I think this is evidenced by the extremely low turn-outs for EU Elections in most if not all EU Countries. People just don't care about the EU. Yet, when they are given the chance to have their say on integration, they tend to vote no (at first anyway).

Besides that though, for me anyway, I'm against a USE simply because we are a tiny country. My vote among 4 million others in an election carries far more weight than my vote among 500 million others. Government should be kept as close to the community as possible, not sent abroad to Brussels.

biko

biko wrote: »

Hell no, the EU (which is pretty much a USE anyway) is crumbling.
As said before, we're much too dissimilar for anything like that to work.

It's really only a dream for the Empire builders in the financial world as it is a way of increasing their wealth and jobs for the boys!

For the rest of us there's really nothing in it for us.
When the current economic difficulties finally play out, we may well find ourselves dumped out of the €uro, so the USE will never happen.

Sindri

MCMLXXV wrote: »

I'm not well enough up on history to argue but wasn't the US originally formed from different colonies and nationalities that had migrated there, fought against each other and eventually unified?

Not really.

Celly Smunt

USE also sounds like a welshman saying USA,therefore i'm out.

WolfForager

You want a future where Frenchmen can be referred to as our countrymen?

HAHAHHAHAHA

Yea righ.

Ah fook, this is my 4,000th post.

Balmed Out

Underdraft wrote: »

Europe was fairly united during the Crusades as well. Likewise just because you have a state of agreement in this continent atm doesn't mean it will strengthen or last forever. I don't see this EU having any more success at it either long term.

?? This was before any act of union and there were regular skirmishes between the english, scottish and welsh.
France wasnt a completely unified country with the king having little real authority over the stronger families.
Italy was ununited and the northern areas constantly revolting against German dominance, etc etc

Balmed Out

I wouldnt be in favour of a United states of europe but I dont think that were too different.
When picking a national language there was only one vote between English and German. It was a collection of collonies populated by people all over Europe at a time when we were all culturally far more diverse then we are now.

Stereomaniac

Perhaps what Underdraft meant to say was, we were united in our division. No I am not too sure what was meant by Europe being fairly well united during the Crusades. That would mean that all the Hollywood moving pictures that I saw set during that time are inaccurate. o.O

tigger123

opinion guy wrote: »

Wait wait wait. Wasn't Declan Ganley against Europe ???

That's what I was thinking ??? Wasn't he banging on before about too much power in Brussels etc? Am massively confused by this.

K-9

opinion guy wrote: »

Wait wait wait. Wasn't Declan Ganley against Europe ???

This must be the European Treaty for Dummies he was on about, that he never got around to publish.

Sf will put us right though, so all is okay.

My name is URL

tigger123 wrote: »

That's what I was thinking ??? Wasn't he banging on before about too much power in Brussels etc? Am massively confused by this.

He has always been pro-Europe. Just critical of the direction that it has taken.

Where's the sense in implementing a set of ideals when the process makes a vast proportion of people skeptical about ever reaching it?