A European Superstate

[dakewlguy]

This is something that has interested me a lot, being British. What do you think the possible problems with Europe becoming more interlinked could be? This is assuming it ever does, sadly it isn't a very popular idea with the public, because of the media exaggerating how it would be a threat to national identity and all.

Or do you even think it is neccessary? My view is that with the USA shifting more and more to the right, and now basing elections on who hates gays the most, it is a bad idea to rely on it too, and it is in fact a threat to world prosperity. Now, if there was a European superstate acting as a second superpower, the US would have to listen much more to the concerns of Europe regarding pollution, human rights abuses, Iran, etc.
China is becoming quite an economic powerhouse, but it's still so very isolationist, that any influence it has is going to waste.

[POFO_Communist]

I agree with your views in this matter.

You are from the UK? It seems to me that the UK population is the least enthusiastic about any further european integration, which is a shame, but not too unexpected.

Anyone that can't see the benefits of a united europe, at home and on a global scale, must be delusional or completely engulfed by the disease called 'nationalism'.

But don't worry, despite some opposition, I strongly believe that europe will one day, and one day very soon, be united.

Europe as a whole must steer away from the increasingly agressive and imperialist US, and forge closer ties with it's eastern neighbours, particularly russia, and china. This will assure further european integration and increase european influence over the fragile middle east, which is spiralling dangerously into onblivion. If europe gave more support to iran, this would help counterbalance the agressive cowboy attitudes of the US and Israel in the region.

[__ca va?]

Europe as a whole must steer away from the increasingly agressive and imperialist US, and forge closer ties with it's eastern neighbours, particularly russia, and china.

I don't think that Russia is better than the US in any way. Just take a look at Juscheko's face and talk about agressiveness then.


If europe gave more support to iran, this would help counterbalance the agressive cowboy attitudes of the US and Israel in the region.


Why would Europe ally with an opressive theocratic state?

Basically I agree with you, Europe must unite. But it must show an alternative of freedom, peace and welfare instead of helping any despotic country which is against the US or Israel.

[dakewlguy]

You are from the UK? It seems to me that the UK population is the least enthusiastic about any further european integration, which is a shame, but not too unexpected.
Yeah I'm from the UK. I think something like 60% of people say they will vote no come the referendum, so it's not looking good at all for possible integration. It is really foolish, and just dumb nationalism. It'll benefit Britain a lot economically, but as with immigration people are too caught up with protecting the national identity or some other crap.



Europe as a whole must steer away from the increasingly agressive and imperialist US, and forge closer ties with it's eastern neighbours, particularly russia, and china. This will assure further european integration and increase european influence over the fragile middle east, which is spiralling dangerously into onblivion. If europe gave more support to iran, this would help counterbalance the agressive cowboy attitudes of the US and Israel in the region.

One positive aspect of the Bush administration being in control of the US does seem to be that its pushing European governments to be more liberal. Like the deal they struck with Iran, which completely left out the USA, no doubt that was motivated by feeling threatened by the USA.
Russa I'm not so sure about. There's still a lot of tension and suspicion between Russia and the rest of Europe. And Putins actions against media and firms that threaten him are pretty worrying.

[POFO_Communist]

I don't think that Russia is better than the US in any way. Just take a look at Juscheko's face and talk about agressiveness then.

Well, I did not specifically state that russia is better than the US in any way, however, for europe's sake, it is in her best interests to forge closer ties with russia, thereby developing more trust with russia, which is a european neighbour and a part of europe.

How can trust and support of russia (and increased stability stemming from it', be in any way detrimental to europe as a whole?


Why would Europe ally with an opressive theocratic state?

Why would the US ally with an even more opressive theocratic state? A.K.A. Saudi Arabia?


But it must show an alternative of freedom, peace and welfare instead of helping any despotic country which is against the US or Israel.

Europe should forge closer, more 'intimate' ties with countries like iran, in order to influence the country in these three categories, freedom, peace and welfare. It should not distance itself from them and relly on the US to impose it's brand of imperialistic freedom and liberty.
According to the US, you can only be free and happy, if you live like they do.


There's still a lot of tension and suspicion between Russia and the rest of Europe. And Putins actions against media and firms that threaten him are pretty worrying.

That is specifically why europe should move closer to russia, to dispell these tensions and suspicions, which are only there because of the US and it's caretaker presence in europe.

[Morpheus]

I'm opposed to superstates because I'm opposed to all states. In addition, the way the European integration is being done is such that it strengthens the capitalist class and weakens the working class.

[October Revolution]

I agree the creation of anykind of european superstate can only help to strengthen the divides between classes and make it even more unlikely that anykind of communist "state" will exist atleast in europe. Just take america for instance the class divides and govermental power in that "free" country are huge and thats exactly what would happen to europe, only more efficiently. The idea of a superstate would only create a terribly ridgid bourgeois soceity. Sadly though it looks asif thats the way europe is heading :(

[Severian]

What Morpheus said. Also, it's a program for advancing the interests of European capital in competition with U.S. and other capital. It's the worst of mistakes for workers to line up with "our own" bosses against others.

I don't think an actual 'superstate' is likely given conflicts of interest between the governments and business interests of various European countries.

[October Revolution]

But they also have many common interests too so the conflicts will have to be weighed against what the nations agree on. Also if the "superstate" comes into existence it will eliminate the vast amjority of differences because all the states will be one. I think a european "superstate" is very likely not in the near future but mayb in 100-200 years or so.

The real question should be, would the people of europe accept a "superstate" the vast majority of people won't want to be run by some politican tucked up in his tower in the heart of Brussels and so many countries may be reluctant in joining said "superstate" due to fear of alienating it's populous.

[Livetrueordie]

Europe is already connected in a confederation, which is a form of government. The EU.

[October Revolution]

Yes but it is by no means ONE state which is what a superstate would consist of. The EU only makes it easier for the coutries within europe to interact, trade and ofcourse set absurd legislation, whereas a super state would be just like the US. One state no boundries everything the same even after it's been establish for along time one language.

The Eu and the proposed superstate are very different, would you consider the EU to be a world superpower no but the superstate would be one to rival the US.

[t_wolves_fan]

I think as the cultures and races mix, marry, and have children, the world will eventually become a global superstate. Once we're all the same race and share the same culture, it'll be pointless not to.


In about 1,000 years or so.

[Ramshaw is all]

A European Superstate would provide a stability to the world, as a liberal opposition to the ever more right wing US. I think a European Country is a great idea, and it would provide a much more solid foundation for communism/socialism to flourish, as I think individual communist states can become isolated and suffer due to lack of resources necessary for modern life, causing serious harm to the quality of life. I like the idea of a global superstate, however, this is obviously a much more difficult project than a European Superstate.

[dakewlguy]

Well im not so sure about this whole idea about it providing a foundation for Socialism. While most EU countries bar the UK are Social Democrat types - tax high, spend high - and liberal on things like gender rights, sexuality rights, etc, it is also very much Capitalist.

One of the key pushes in the constitution and other EU policies is to create a huge free trade zone, where labour and goods can move from country to country with no barriers like tarrifs.


The real question should be, would the people of europe accept a "superstate" the vast majority of people won't want to be run by some politican tucked up in his tower in the heart of Brussels and so many countries may be reluctant in joining said "superstate" due to fear of alienating it's populous.
Spain recently voted yes to the constitution, I think the UK and France are the two countries where there is a real chance of the public voting no to the EU constitution. In the UK this is because of the Right-Wing preferring closer ties to the USA; and the Left-Wing not wanting to support Tony Blair on any issues. In France the issue is fears of Turkey joining the EU, which a lot of people don't want.

In most countries however it has popular support.

[October Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 11:30 PM

Spain recently voted yes to the constitution, I think the UK and France are the two countries where there is a real chance of the public voting no to the EU constitution. In the UK this is because of the Right-Wing preferring closer ties to the USA; and the Left-Wing not wanting to support Tony Blair on any issues. In France the issue is fears of Turkey joining the EU, which a lot of people don't want.

In most countries however it has popular support.
Well these are just opinion polls not real evidence has been collected stating if people are fore or aginst europe. If an actual referendum was voted on tomorow i beleive the majority of votes would be no because many people still have a national identiy (which isn't a good thing) and they wouldn't like to see their nation dissolved into one large bureaucratic hub.

[dakewlguy]

Of course polls are evidence of an opinion. As for referendums, crazily, poll results and referendum results tend to correlate strongly.

The idea of national identity is rubbish, too. All Western societies now have countless cultures and groups in them.

[bushdog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 07:14 PM

Now, if there was a European superstate acting as a second superpower, the US would have to listen much more to the concerns of Europe regarding pollution, human rights abuses, Iran, etc.
China is becoming quite an economic powerhouse, but it's still so very isolationist, that any influence it has is going to waste.
I agree that the short lived US reign as the single superpower (15yrs.) is going down, China's economy is growing a tremendous pace and now that the countries of europe have stopped fighting with eachother (Wow, a first after how many thousands of years?) that the winds of change are coming.

[dakewlguy]

Furthermore China and Russia have been holding unprecidented security and military talks, and are aiming to form even closer ties.

[October Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:13 PM
Of course polls are evidence of an opinion. As for referendums, crazily, poll results and referendum results tend to correlate strongly.

The idea of national identity is rubbish, too. All Western societies now have countless cultures and groups in them.
Firstly not all opinion polls correlate with actual referendum results. Some may but only if they are carried out by govermental orginisations. Many are very innacurate and so don't really portray what people really think.

Secondly are you claiming that countries don't have national identiy becasue thats absurd. Yes all western counties do exist multiculturaly but that doesn't stop people having a national identity. Many people within these countries believe theirs is the best in the world and will wave flags and whatnot to prove this e.g. the Golden Queens jubilee. Many of these people who may be 1st/2nd/3rd generation immigrants may wish to keep their national identity instead of loosing it completley to make one large nation.

[dakewlguy]

Some may but only if they are carried out by govermental orginisations. Many are very innacurate and so don't really portray what people really think.

As long as they get the sample correct and have correctly phrased questions then any organisation can get accurate results. It's just a case of taking time to create a good quality poll.


Many people within these countries believe theirs is the best in the world and will wave flags and whatnot to prove this e.g. the Golden Queens jubilee.
I don't think that is a good example. The jubilee had low media coverage, and low participation by the public.
And people almost always see their country as the best, it is not an indicator of national identity. It is a psychological trend, people will usually consider their group - nationality, peer group, work field, ethnic group - to be superior than other groups.

[October Revolution]

Yes any can but the majority don't by any means.

Hmmm where are you from because the jubilee had massive media coverage and actually quite alot of people participated maybe not in the actual official celebrations but across the country. I know it's not the best example but it's certainly not bad.
Yes people will and so many people will wish to keep theirs the "best" and not lose it completly. People will be opposed to the superstate because it creates one mass void of any natonal identity. It's just the same as the "should the UK join the euro" argument, people don't want to join it because people believe they will loose part of their nation to a larger faction and not just because it is an incredibly weak currency much like the dollar really :P
The fact people consider thier own faction to be the best is completly void of this argument because it is a sad fact that in these western countries people are very uneasy about warming to other cultures and regimes that are not their own.

[dakewlguy]

True true, we'll see as the referendums happen I guess. How do you think they're going to go? Personally I think all will vote yes, though France by quite a close margin, the exception being Britain.
The whole campaign here is screwed. The right-wing prefers stronger ties with the USA because it's a lot less liberal, even though it makes economic sense to have closer integration. The left-wing has a hard time supporting the yes vote because of Tony Blairs involvement, who has completely betrayed his party. And in Labour themselves, apart from Blair there isn't many cabinet members who are enthusiastic about Europe. It will be interesting to see how this all affects the UK in time.

Yeah I was in Norfolk at the time, it is quite a quiet place so perhaps it had less participation and events than other parts of the country. I still can't remember much media coverage but hey I didn't pay much attention at the time so maybe there was lots of coverage.

[October Revolution]

Im not so sure yes the majority of people (from countries on the continent) would vote yes for something such as the euro but a propoesd superstate is a totally different prospect. It would affect the people lives much more and i doubt a large amount of people are willing to risk the lives they have now.

[Ramshaw is all]

This constitution was a victory for Britain, its very Blairite. Basically France and Germany got spanked (and the media in them countries know that) to allow Britain to have its way with the constitution, its much more about setting strict guidelines for the powers of individual nations as opposed to the confusion at the minute. Europe would be piste if Britain then rejected its own constitution. It would, however, bring all the European countries into line with each other, making it an easy step to a superstate which I have no arguments with but it definetly isn't what Blair wants because he knows he'll never get the support.

[dakewlguy]

Yeah for sure. If Britain loses, and then tries to renegotiate the constitution, it will only ever get a worse deal than before. The current constitution is by far the best Britain could have got.

[comradesteele]

another thing stopping it ,though this is aminly britain i am talking about is common sterotypes and the "war" which is commanly talked about and heard about in britaian. much more than in other countries i belive.

[Iepilei]

A friend of mine said that they had a guest speaker to one of his comparitive politics classes from British Parliment who oversaw the recent Ukrainian elections. He said that it would be "damn near impossible" for a European Superstate to exist.

Everyone has their own problems, I suppose.

:ph34r: