Europe

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

All member states still have national elections, if the issue was important as some make it out to be people would have voted in euro sceptic politicians whether there were mainstream parties representing that view or not...

Most people don't vote on a single issue. Established parties already have all of the money and resources. In many countries it is extremely difficult for minor parties to break through. And UKIP and the Conservatives are Eurosceptic parties.

When there is a single issue as important as this, you need a referendum and not an election. Germany especially needs to break with tradition and ask what the people want for once.

The people of the USSR had no choice whether to remain part of the USSR, seen as individual states aren't allowed to secede by your definition of calling the EU USSR i could call the USA the USSR right?

That wasn't my definition though, was it? And I believe states in America are still allowed to secede through a process, though someone will probably correct me if I am wrong.

[Adrian II]

The European Union is not necessary to ensure a greater influence on the world for the European nations. We once exercised great influence and power internationally, many of us still do, and we can do it again without unification.

Soooo, we once dominated the seas, sciences and economy, we owned North America, large swaths of Asia and Africa, and we can do it again?

Teheee

Just on the off-chance that it's contageous, I'm out of this thread.

[Beskar]

I can't think of hardly any con's to a European Federation as an idea itself, however, I can think of plenty about the way we are doing it at the moment.

So I am not opposed to the idea itself, just the way it is being done.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Soooo, we once dominated the seas, sciences and economy, we owned North America, large swaths of Asia and Africa, and we can do it again?

We can once again dominate the seas, sciences, and economy. We already have fairly strong economies and sciences at least.

I can't think of hardly any con's to a European Federation as an idea itself, however, I can think of plenty about the way we are doing it at the moment.

There are plenty.

[KukriKhan]

That wasn't my definition though, was it? And I believe states in America are still allowed to secede through a process, though someone will probably correct me if I am wrong.

There is no provision for it in the US Constitution. So it's not that it's prohibited, it's that it's not specifically authorized. For the moment, barring new law, the US civil war set the precedent that "once in, never out".

Texas talk of secession is bravado, not plan.

[Beskar]

There are plenty.

Like what? Anything I can think of, the pro's outweigh the con's, if it is done correctly.

[Kagemusha]

Like what? Anything I can think of, the pro's outweigh the con's, if it is done correctly.

Like big government < small government. In this case colossal government replacing governments ranging from large to tiny.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Like what? Anything I can think of, the pro's outweigh the con's, if it is done correctly.

This shows why we need more debate on the issue of European integration itself rather than just on the Treaties, I suppose.

[Furunculus]

we tried that in the "why britain needs the EU" thread, and look where that got us!

[Beskar]

Like big government < small government. In this case colossal government replacing governments ranging from large to tiny.

Depends on definition of "Big Government". The term is very wishywashy, you could say, just having one government in Brussels is far smaller than 20 odd different governments at once.

If you are talking about centralisation, then how much is centralised and what powers occur there? Usually, it would just be general foreign policy, etc.

Hypothetically speaking, is everyone having the same currency, the same plug sockets, the same road laws and various regularisation and standardisation a bad thing? If anything, it brings far more unity between the nations, the ability to walk into the country next door and knowing that there are pretty much the same exact laws and that you don't need to convert money, or needing to re-train or relearn things. Knowing that your plug for your laptop works without fiddling with millions of different changers just to load up totalwar.org. These are just the general populace benefits, there are masses of economical benefits to this as well.

There is another way of thinking about it as well. We can either join America, join Russia, join China, etc, or we can forge our own European Superpower, and when America tries to force us into pointless wars, we can just stick up our middle finger at them, instead of some nations (like Britain) being slave states to the American Empire.

[Tribesman]

the word "official" is there to point out that most military think-tanks believe that china massively under-reports its defence budget

So if they under-report their budget does that mean its really bigger?
As they are officially 2nd does that mean they are even more second?
That wierd, still puts Britain in 4th not 2nd.

[Kagemusha]

Depends on definition of "Big Government". The term is very wishywashy, you could say, just having one government in Brussels is far smaller than 20 odd different governments at once.

If you are talking about centralisation, then how much is centralised and what powers occur there? Usually, it would just be general foreign policy, etc.

Hypothetically speaking, is everyone having the same currency, the same plug sockets, the same road laws and various regularisation and standardisation a bad thing? If anything, it brings far more unity between the nations, the ability to walk into the country next door and knowing that there are pretty much the same exact laws and that you don't need to convert money, or needing to re-train or relearn things. Knowing that your plug for your laptop works without fiddling with millions of different changers just to load up totalwar.org. These are just the general populace benefits, there are masses of economical benefits to this as well.

There is another way of thinking about it as well. We can either join America, join Russia, join China, etc, or we can forge our own European Superpower, and when America tries to force us into pointless wars, we can just stick up our middle finger at them, instead of some nations (like Britain) being slave states to the American Empire.

The problem is that for example how would you set up taxes for the central government, when the average incomes are dramatically different from country to country? Also how some central government could be aware of the special circumstances which can be found from all over Europe. The thing is that in Federal State we would only be creating another layer of government in the center, while the former National and regional governments would have to remain as the central government could not fill in to their role because lack of understanding of the regional conditions. We can create as many European standards we want without turning into a federal state. In matter of fact its happening right now.

Why exactly we have to forge our own superpower? In our current state we can defend ourselves and also project force and help outside the Europe. Why exactly we need to become a superpower? So instead of fighting each other like it was in the past, we could be able to enter or create global conflicts? Id rather live in peace then be a part of powerful superstate that has the need to project its power on the global scale, thank you.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If you are talking about centralisation, then how much is centralised and what powers occur there? Usually, it would just be general foreign policy, etc.

Con #1.

Hypothetically speaking, is everyone having the same currency, the same plug sockets, the same road laws and various regularisation and standardisation a bad thing? If anything, it brings far more unity between the nations, the ability to walk into the country next door and knowing that there are pretty much the same exact laws and that you don't need to convert money, or needing to re-train or relearn things. Knowing that your plug for your laptop works without fiddling with millions of different changers just to load up totalwar.org.

That is a con in the long term and certainly not a "general populace benefit."

These are just the general populace benefits, there are masses of economical benefits to this as well.

Economic benefits should be free trade and no more. There are also the economic drawbacks to European unification to consider.

There is another way of thinking about it as well. We can either join America, join Russia, join China, etc, or we can forge our own European Superpower, and when America tries to force us into pointless wars, we can just stick up our middle finger at them, instead of some nations (like Britain) being slave states to the American Empire.

No offence, but that is leftist hogwash.

[Meneldil]

That is a con in the long term and certainly not a "general populace benefit."

No offence, but that is irrational anti-EU righteous hogwash.

Edit: As I am curious, how is that a con in the long term ?

Edit2: As I am trully a curious person, I'm also wondering. How is that every anti-EU person keeps repeating that an european con/federation would lead to WWIII or to a bloodbath, knowing that WWI & II were caused by nationalistic feelings and century old-hatreds? For all I know, the EU is one of the best ways to fight nationalism (which has in any case disappeared from most of western Europe), and to create friendship between countries who usually cannot stand eachothers.
As examples, I'd show France and Germany (who were main/important protagonists during the 2 WW's), Bulgaria and Romania, the UK and Ireland.
Now, give me one good reason as to why the EU is going to cause WWIII.

For all I know, given historical examples, you, dear anti-EU crowd, are the main opponent to a lasting peace in Europe. YOU are underlining your supposed differences and specific cultures (lol), and thus promoting an outdated nationalism that caused more harm than good so far. YOU are teaming up with far-right nutjobs from all over the place to fight teh Evil European Empire of Death and protect an sovereignty that never existed in the first place.

See, I can make stupid arguments too.

[Beskar]

The problem is that for example how would you set up taxes for the central government, when the average incomes are dramatically different from country to country?

Edit: Haha! I found this question, i kept looking for it as I remembered reading it.

Basically, a unification would actually equalize all the incomes over Europe. If there was a European minimum wage with European tax laws it would mean on average, people would roughly be paid and taxed the same, this would cause areas to rapidly start charging the same sort of prices for things and it would increase the incomes from the worse-off in Europe to better and with them having more money, they also would be spending this in their areas, bringing economical growth and interest into areas. Other countries also wouldn't have problems selling stock in these poorer areas either, as they don't have to sell them at a loss in comparison to if they did in the far West of Europe.

Also how some central government could be aware of the special circumstances which can be found from all over Europe. The thing is that in Federal State we would only be creating another layer of government in the center, while the former National and regional governments would have to remain as the central government could not fill in to their role because lack of understanding of the regional conditions. We can create as many European standards we want without turning into a federal state. In matter of fact its happening right now.

Special Circumstances would simply be based on case-by-case basis. However, a federal government has different layers which handles issues on different stages, so majority of the bottom stage stuff doesn't even reach the top, unless it is really important as it is handled on that level.

Also, we wouldn't be creating another layer, if anything, that layer is already there as it is, and it would actually become far more streamlined, especially when each of the European areas are reconstructed to fit ideally into this system instead of the current piece-meal style system.

Regional conditions again are handled on a regional basis and if they are very important, the "top" will know.

Why exactly we have to forge our own superpower? In our current state we can defend ourselves and also project force and help outside the Europe. Why exactly we need to become a superpower? So instead of fighting each other like it was in the past, we could be able to enter or create global conflicts? Id rather live in peace then be a part of powerful superstate that has the need to project its power on the global scale, thank you.

Not really, none of the European nations are as powerful as they think they are. It is an arrogance that somehow all the European nations seem to think they are really all powerful. They are strong yes, but you imply that nations such as the Netherlands can go toe-on-toe against Russia or America or China or other real major powers. On the otherhand, the combined might of all the nations such as France, Britain, Germany, (the other european nations) all together would be a really powerful military force that would rival the likes of America. Also, "part of a powerful superstate that has the need to project its power" why are we members of NATO then, which is the powerful American Superstates need to project its power? Just saying.

Con #1.

Why is it? Europe would forge its own foreign policy, which stops slave states or states being pressured by the grander states into doing their will. As far as I am aware, it is only Britain which is the most warlike in Europe and that is only because of the "Special Relationship" with America.

That is a con in the long term and certainly not a "general populace benefit."

Why is it? You given no argument to support such a conclusion.

Economic benefits should be free trade and no more. There are also the economic drawbacks to European unification to consider.

What drawbacks? The benefits would be the free-trade zone, also free expansion into other areas of Europe which would increase business due to it being over a larger area. With standardisation, there would be more compatiability with technology. Also, it would be far easier to use the vast lands and resources of other nations for your business, so further economic expansion and technological advancement. What are the drawbacks compared to the situation now? If anything, the situation actually improves, not get worse.

No offence, but that is leftist hogwash.

Actually, it is not left or right, it is simply counter-balance. Military tactics 101.

[Beskar]

For all I know, given historical examples, you, dear anti-EU crowd, are the main opponent to a lasting peace in Europe. YOU are underlining your supposed differences and specific cultures (lol), and thus promoting an outdated nationalism that caused more harm than good so far. YOU are teaming up with far-right nutjobs from all over the place to fight teh Evil European Empire of Death and protect an sovereignty that never existed in the first place.

See, I can make stupid arguments too.

Hah, it does pretty much sum up majority of the opponents. They focus on things such as age old conflicts since the time of the Romans instead of a common-good.

Though, it brings me to another point, one thing I find really stupid are the idiots who keep going: "Bussels is going to steal our pints!!! instead of being a pint, it would be 500ml! even though it doesn't stop us from calling it a 'pint' we just want to keep a horrible measurement system just to be awkward." Yes, I am talking to you, the readers of the Sun newspaper, cut out the stupid arguments.

Oh, just for the record, pulling out of Europe would bring significant disadvantages which is why you don't find parties such as the "Conservatives" advocating it. The pro's really do outweigh the con's. The majority of the arguments are based on being awkard and halting progress. If they instead, tried to make Europe better by challenging the wrongs such as the method they are using, then good things might actually occur.

[Furunculus]

So if they under-report their budget does that mean its really bigger?
As they are officially 2nd does that mean they are even more second?

not that anyone would ever accuse you of selectively quoting to create an misleading impression, but yes, that's exactly what i said too:

the word "official" is there to point out that most military think-tanks believe that china massively under-reports its defence budget, so its not a little bit under or over the UK and france, it is probably about 30% higher, if not even higher.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That wierd, still puts Britain in 4th not 2nd.

that is because you still haven't figured out that comparing national figures of what they consider to be their defence spending is not relevant, but i did try:

Defence spending is a very complex thing Tribesman, and very hard to compare.
Does set of figures X include:
> operational expenses
> attrition replacement
> equipment procurement
> R&D projects
> Intelligence apparatus
Then you must ask yourself if figures for nation Y include the same, and they mostly do not.
For example while the Gendarmerie are under the control of the Interior Ministry I believe they are funded from the Defence budget.
So official figures published from their respective nations have little merit for comparative purposes, which is why i went to the trouble of getting the figures pulished by the IISS in the 2008 publication of The Military Balance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but to return to the core question; what is the point of your pointless (and incorrect) nit-picking, are you leading somewhere with this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Furunculus]

Hah, it does pretty much sum up majority of the opponents. They focus on things such as age old conflicts since the time of the Romans instead of a common-good.

Though, it brings me to another point, one thing I find really stupid are the idiots who keep going: "Bussels is going to steal our pints!!! instead of being a pint, it would be 500ml! even though it doesn't stop us from calling it a 'pint' we just want to keep a horrible measurement system just to be awkward." Yes, I am talking to you, the readers of the Sun newspaper, cut out the stupid arguments.

Oh, just for the record, pulling out of Europe would bring significant disadvantages which is why you don't find parties such as the "Conservatives" advocating it. The pro's really do outweigh the con's. The majority of the arguments are based on being awkard and halting progress. If they instead, tried to make Europe better by challenging the wrongs such as the method they are using, then good things might actually occur.

not really, it always comes back to the question of; why does britain need to do this? and i at least never hear a convincing answer.

my skepticism about how democratic a federal EU will be is informed by the base concept of what democracy is:

which is to say that you and I consent to be governed by the british government because the shared values, culture, and history will 'ensure' that those elected to govern in your name will do so in a manner that you can live with.
you elect a local politician based on his knowledge of your communities needs, and the assumption that because he is local he will fight to see those needs met.
your local politician then works with other broadly similar (read: british) politicians to govern the nation, which as Churchill agreed is the least bad form of governance yet devised.

it is a matter of trust, you don't lightly let convicted thieves operate tills in your shop, you don't let unvetted strangers run your kids play-group.

i don't have that confidence that the brussels collective will legislate/govern/arbitrate/negotiate in a manner that i am willing to be bound by, and lots of other people share that view too. and its not just brits, Louis would be horrified were it occur that les anglo-saxons had turned corsica into a tax-haven where french hedge fund managers could squirrel away money that should be spent on the hard working french citizen! i am dismayed that germany cuts energy deals with russia that result in pipelines going around former eastern-bloc countries and thus making them susceptible to extortion. finland doesn't like our closeness with america and refuses to join NATO. Norway sees the benefit of NATO but not much advantage in the political end of the EU. germany wouldn't trust an italian or a greek to be within a square mile of german economic policy.

every nation forms its collective values from their own shared history and culture, and none of that is bad in and of itself, but people get riled when views they do not hold to be of value are forced upon them by 'outsiders'. "it's one thing for my mother to tell me i drink too much, but who the hell does my milkman think he is to say such a thing!"

the natural answer to this lack of legitimacy is an increase in authoritarianism, as the only way to govern those who hold no loyalty to the governors. aka tryanny.

so when there is no need for britain to join a federated europe, and the only result is less representative government................ why do it?

[Fragony]

Now, give me one good reason as to why the EU is going to cause WWIII.

Because it's rebuilding the conditions.

[Beskar]

It really depends on this line of argument.
You don't need to have a car, but you probably must likely have one. Why is that? How is what you say a convincing argument to get a car? Why bother with a car when there is a Bus/Train. etc

The advantages of Europe are pretty much known and given, especially in the economic area and the majority of these are done. However, the problem starts when we talk from a political angle. There are many many advantages, in the age of globalisation as well, the world is getting smaller and smaller and what used to be big isn't so big anymore. The thing is, you have to remember, most of these arguments against Europe can be seen at a far more local level. You ever seen when for example, Blackpool and Preston are at Football? They are arch-rivals and if you say to them "Will you ever work with Preston?" those in Blackpool will say no. However, they are both in Lancashire and Lancashire has their rivalry with Yorkshire, dating back years and years to the big conflict known as the War of the Roses. However, they are both in England. Then on the bigger level, you got England versus Scotland and again, it all starts over again, then they are part of Britain. Then you got Britain versus France, then again, they are part of Europe.

So in this world of conflict, how is the conflict dealt with? It is done by looking at the bigger picture and working together, instead of fighting over the mundane differences. People have all sorts of identities, from their most local identity, to regional, to state, to nation and even to super nation. Instead of just fighting amongst ourselves, if we work together for the benefit of the whole, then wouldn't the world just be a better place then concentrating on ridiculous conflicts?

As for things like Defence. If all of Europe is under one military power, how strong would Europe be? We would be set for life, as it were, in terms of defence without having to worry about foreign powers and if anything, everyone in Europe would reduce their military spending and this spending can be spent on better things for everyone.

If you are saying "I dislike how this Europe is currently looking and the way it is being brought about and the style it is being done with" I will agree with you on this point entirely. However, this is a different argument to "Potential advantages and disadvantages of a Federal Europe"

In a way, we are already in a Federal Europe and a bad one at that. We could either attempt to work together to make it into a good Europe, or we could just fight over mundane arguments let idiots get away with making the Europe a place we don't want to be in. A divided enemy is easier to conquer.

[Beskar]

Because it's rebuilding the conditions.

You mean a right-wing nut case is in control of a Super Power?!? I hope the legacy of Bush Jr and Putin and Chairman of China put a stop to them!

[Furunculus]

1. The advantages of Europe are pretty much known and given, especially in the economic area and the majority of these are done. However, the problem starts when we talk from a political angle. There are many many advantages, in the age of globalisation as well, the world is getting smaller and smaller and what used to be big isn't so big anymore. The thing is, you have to remember, most of these arguments against Europe can be seen at a far more local level. You ever seen when for example, Blackpool and Preston are at Football? They are arch-rivals and if you say to them "Will you ever work with Preston?" those in Blackpool will say no. However, they are both in Lancashire and Lancashire has their rivalry with Yorkshire, dating back years and years to the big conflict known as the War of the Roses. However, they are both in England. Then on the bigger level, you got England versus Scotland and again, it all starts over again, then they are part of Britain. Then you got Britain versus France, then again, they are part of Europe.

2. So in this world of conflict, how is the conflict dealt with? It is done by looking at the bigger picture and working together, instead of fighting over the mundane differences. People have all sorts of identities, from their most local identity, to regional, to state, to nation and even to super nation. Instead of just fighting amongst ourselves, if we work together for the benefit of the whole, then wouldn't the world just be a better place then concentrating on ridiculous conflicts?

3. As for things like Defence. If all of Europe is under one military power, how strong would Europe be? We would be set for life, as it were, in terms of defence without having to worry about foreign powers and if anything, everyone in Europe would reduce their military spending and this spending can be spent on better things for everyone.

4. If you are saying "I dislike how this Europe is currently looking and the way it is being brought about and the style it is being done with" I will agree with you on this point entirely. However, this is a different argument to "Potential advantages and disadvantages of a Federal Europe"

5. In a way, we are already in a Federal Europe and a bad one at that. We could either attempt to work together to make it into a good Europe, or we could just fight over mundane arguments let idiots get away with making the Europe a place we don't want to be in. A divided enemy is easier to conquer.

1. so your answer to the levels of local, regional, and national repression would be to add yet another layer of federal repression?

2. it may surprise you to hear this, but europe has been getting just fine already without a federal state, because we already have free trade, multilateral agreements, regional forums etc.

3. the answer is already here, its called NATO and it binds north america with europe in collective defense, that is enough for me. particularly as a brit whose nation is on an island and has one of the worlds largest defence budgets.

4. no, it is the same question because we are on the road to ever deeper union to no net benefit to the UK.

5. agreed, but this is the whole fear thing again, i for one am not afraid, britain has all those bases covered quite adequately. individual nations on the continent may feel differently and i will cheer them on as they choose to integrate.

why do it?

[Beskar]

1. so your answer to the levels of local, regional, and national repression you would like to add yet another layer of federal repression?

That wasn't my point, my point is we should stop thinking so individualistic and think more on a whole. It is nothing to do with repression, it is to do with how people always have these imaginary arguments against those on the other side of the hill and we should stop doing the silliness of it all.

2. it may surprise you to hear this, but europe has been getting just fine already without a federal state, because we already have free trade, multilateral agreements, regional forums etc.

Why would that surprise me when I just said that? You got people arguing the Europe is the devil and its all bad, except all this stuff is benefiting us and going even more will benefit us all.

3. the answer is already hear, its called NATO and it binds north america with europe in collective defense, that is enough for me. particularly as a brit whose nation is on an island and has one of the worlds largest defence budgets.

We are an island with a great drain of a defence budget. You have nations such as Russia which are 20 times our size, and if they are having smaller defence budget than us, you must really have to think "possibly we are spending too much here".

4. no, it is the same question because we are on the road to ever deeper union to no net benefit to the UK.

There will be more gains for the Britain and while some nations will obviously initially benefit more in the beginning, when we are one, the point comes invalid anyway, as we are thinking more collectively.




Oh, on another note, I think we should get rid of nations anyway. So there wouldn't be an added burden.

[Furunculus]

1. so your answer to the levels of local, regional, and national repression you would like to add yet another layer of federal repression?

That wasn't my point, my point is we should stop thinking so individualistic and think more on a whole. It is nothing to do with repression, it is to do with how people always have these imaginary arguments against those on the other side of the hill and we should stop doing the silliness of it all.

2. it may surprise you to hear this, but europe has been getting just fine already without a federal state, because we already have free trade, multilateral agreements, regional forums etc.

Why would that surprise me when I just said that? You got people arguing the Europe is the devil and its all bad, except all this stuff is benefiting us and going even more will benefit us all.

3. the answer is already hear, its called NATO and it binds north america with europe in collective defense, that is enough for me. particularly as a brit whose nation is on an island and has one of the worlds largest defence budgets.

We are an island with a great drain of a defence budget. You have nations such as Russia which are 20 times our size, and if they are having smaller defence budget than us, you must really have to think "possibly we are spending too much here".

4. no, it is the same question because we are on the road to ever deeper union to no net benefit to the UK.

There will be more gains for the Britain and while some nations will obviously initially benefit more in the beginning, when we are one, the point comes invalid anyway, as we are thinking more collectively.




Oh, on another note, I think we should get rid of nations anyway. So there wouldn't be an added burden.

1. we do, its called the European Community and involves many such worthy ideas as free trade, multilateral agreements, regional forums, etc.

2. i'm not arguing that europe is evil, i'm arguing that a federal eu is not in the spirit of demos-cratos, and will result in the peoples of europe getting LESS representative government.

3. no, we spend very little on the first duty of the nation state, about 2.2% of GDP (or 5% of government spending), as a proportion of government spending russia spends WAY more. and this doesn't negate the fact that security is taken care of already.

4. what benefit?

ah, another convert to transnational progressivism. you do realise that flies in the face of common sense as dictated by the whole of recorded history?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Edit: As I am curious, how is that a con in the long term ?

Making us all the same isn't a con? You're in favour of world government as well, I take it?

Edit2: As I am trully a curious person, I'm also wondering. How is that every anti-EU person keeps repeating that an european con/federation would lead to WWIII or to a bloodbath, knowing that WWI & II were caused by nationalistic feelings and century old-hatreds?

There is more than one way, depending how you look at it. You can say that "EU nationalism" is emerging, or is even established, and that could lead to it. You could also say that it won't work as all the European Union will cause in the long term is a resurgence in nationalist feeling and will bring the whole project down in flames. Finally, you could say that our current agreements, alliances, and NATO is enough to keep us together.

I firmly stand by the belief that it wasn't European unity that kept us from war after WWII, it was the Cold War and NATO. The EU hasn't given us peace, it has just taken credit for it.

For all I know, given historical examples, you, dear anti-EU crowd, are the main opponent to a lasting peace in Europe.

Yep, Hitler, Napoleon, they really must have been anti-European superstate types.

YOU are underlining your supposed differences and specific cultures (lol), and thus promoting an outdated nationalism that caused more harm than good so far.

Outdated? No.
Civic nationalism. Read.

See, I can make stupid arguments too.

Apparently yes, you can.

Why is it? Europe would forge its own foreign policy, which stops slave states or states being pressured by the grander states into doing their will. As far as I am aware, it is only Britain which is the most warlike in Europe and that is only because of the "Special Relationship" with America.

Britain is an independent nation capable of making its own decisions. Your proposal takes away that decision power from Britain and gives it to Europe. You claim that America controls Europe when nothing could be further from the truth. Even if you were correct and America did control European nations, you are merely replacing one controller with another.

Why is it? You given no argument to support such a conclusion.

Partially explained above.

What drawbacks?

Blue and gold glasses off, Google on.

The benefits would be the free-trade zone

Got that already.

With standardisation, there would be more compatiability with technology.

At what cost?

What are the drawbacks compared to the situation now?

Lack of economic flexibility, lack of flexibility in regards to currency, lack of or too much of etc, etc.
Google. List is long.

Actually, it is not left or right, it is simply counter-balance. Military tactics 101.

Complete nonsense, the final paragraph you made was straight out of the left-wing and far-right anti-American playbook and you know it. Not to mention it is completely inaccurate.

[Beskar]

Even if you were correct and America did control European nations, you are merely replacing one controller with another.

One we didn't elect with one we did would be a obvious improvement.

Though, on another note, American Imperialism is pretty much a fact, backed up with statistics such as them having military bases in over 100 countries.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

One we didn't elect with one we did would be a obvious improvement.

Two things:

1) America doesn't control Britain. Or Europe. At all. A united Europe will control you by the very definition. That is a huge reason why I'm against the European Union. Right now (or at least before the whole unity mess began) I can (or could) choose to work with America or I can (could) choose to work with Europe, or I can (could) choose to do both. European unity takes that away, and the second your foreign policy goes your national sovereignty is gone. You are relegated to a dominion at best and a state at worst.

2) Who makes the real decisions in the European Union? The Parliament, or perhaps someone else?

Though, on another note, American Imperialism is pretty much a fact, backed up with statistics such as them having military bases in over 100 countries.

My God, drivel is certainly not the weak point of the left.

[Beskar]

1) America doesn't control Britain. Or Europe. At all.

I mean, we didn't jump in bed with America in two wars, fully support anything America says, even if it is just us and America. (See Lebanon war)

There isn't Trident with America having the codes for our own nuclear missiles which we paid for.

There isn't the countless references such as "Special Relationship" other musings.

2) Who makes the real decisions in the European Union? The Parliament, or perhaps someone else?

Now we just need the big lottery hand to come down from the sky and point going "or it could be you!"

My God, drivel is certainly not the weak point of the left.

According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries

What on earth are you on about? It is fact, now get over yourself. If having military bases in other countries means nothing, insert every Godwin-ism in having a base in Britain.





Then again, what do you even know about Britain and then again, being in Germany, aren't you even riddled with American bases all over your country?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_in_Germany

and yet you pretend that it means nothing?

I mean, having a foreign nations armed forces crawling all over your country has absolutely no influence at all, does it?

[Furunculus]

I mean, we didn't jump in bed with America in two wars, fully support anything America says, even if it is just us and America. (See Lebanon war)

There isn't Trident with America having the codes for our own nuclear missiles which we paid for.

Then again, what do you even know about Britain and then again, being in Germany, aren't you even riddled with American bases all over your country?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_in_Germany
and yet you pretend that it means nothing?
I mean, having a foreign nations armed forces crawling all over your country has absolutely no influence at all, does it?

had you considered the possibility that the powers that be deemed it to be in the UK's national interest to join america in those wars............................. no.

now that is foolish. we can unleash buckets of sunshine whenever we want. if we did so inappropriately then america would refuse to service our missiles which would render them inoperative within a year or two.
if they knew before hand then they could switch of the GPS forcing the missiles to rely on inertial navigation which would reduce accuracy from 30 feet to 100 feet.
none of which prevents the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent from fulfilling its purpose.

yes it means nothing, germany could ask america to remove those bases tomorrow, and at such point as leases expired those forces would be gone. and if those leases were set to last one hundred years then germany could just legislate the lease away, that's what being a sovereign nation state means.

do you define yourself by your fear of america?

[Sarmatian]

According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries

Wow, I knew they had a lot but I didn't know they had that much. That means that they have bases in about 75% countries in the world... Are you sure about this? Is that source reliable?