The United States of Europe - Federal Europe, demanded by common sense

http://www.euronews.com/2012/11/16/britain-and-europe-in-or-out/

 

And after the european states establish this federation between themselves, what happens when some of them later decide they wish to withdraw from the treaty? Will a european lincoln arise to kill the rebels, burn their cities to the ground, and reconquer them?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N53IfS_hxis

Good point Mr. President! I wish I could add mine to all this already strong applause.

And yeah... a country that has invested this much into something, note the numbers mentioned by Barroso, would only have to lose if it quit now... when the project is halfway through...

 

THat was 200 years ago. Pls accept my invitation into the present world.

...so what if the Scots choose independence from London? Do you just as strongly expect England to go to war with Scotland? And the British Empire that keeps diminishing was once much larger than the US in Lincoln's time.

 

Idea's been present for a very long time. Can also be found in the foundations of European popular culture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBGNlTPgQII

With the occasion of a Kraftwerk album release in October 2009, a remastered version of the 1977 Trans Europe Express, we got the review:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/fgfd



I too like these guys quite much and I give them credit for that without them, we would have never got bands like Depeche Mode (my idols) or musicians like Apex Twin.

And at least among Germans the idea predates the 20th century by far. The Holy Roman Empire they created is proof of it. It didn't work though indeed because the peak of Middle Ages followed and Europeans back then were as backwards as they could ever get. That's why I don't think Merkel today should be associated with dictatorship tendencies resembling the 30s like many euroskeptics do. That was just an ages old idea perverted by national socialists and mixed up with other ideals regarding races. But regarding the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire, what's ironic is that it is the Germanic tribes among others that contributed to the decline of the true original Roman Empire. Maybe in creating the Holy Roman Empire they were sorry and wanted to bring back what they had destroyed??

Getting back to music, why a genre called euro pop/euro dance emerged all over Europe? Anyone wondered about that or about what some of the lyrics in some songs mean? Some of them are very encoded indeed!

 

What you seem to be saying very strongly here is that what you actually want is one european 'Empire'.

 

How many times did I mention on this forum that I hate imperialism? I think many many times. I'm just talking about the principle that has been implemented before, or at least attempted, limited though by the tools of that era... Imperialism is all they knew back then... A 'holy' God appointed monarch, but in this case for more than one nation. But that was more than 1000 years ago... You talk as if it was the 80s...

While imperialism and federalism obviously do have, overall, some things in common, federalism is fundamentally different.

Anyway the original Roman Empire was quite ok regarding human rights, given the times. Most court/ judicial terminology and procedures in America today are copied, more or less as a Roman tradition intended to be kept alive, from the Roman Empire. In American courts you see Roman symbols, words in Latin and insignia all over the place.

 

I think Romania is by far the most corrupt EU member in terms of high and medium officials. Last summer Romania came close to being expelled from the EU:

(the video description also worth reading)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VdgjhtDlVI&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLZ-WQxZFOYjggN3AyaONMXQ

... ... !!!

I can confirm that indeed the EU is working in the interest of Romanians a thousand times more than the most powerful politicians here.

 

Perhaps it is, but the fact that your country is suffering so badly from political corruption doesn't mean that that is common to every other country in Europe, and nor does it mean that the whole of Europe should become effectively a single Empire under another name in order to stop the corruption problems that are being suffered in Romania. Romania is a democracy - it's up to the people of Romania to vote out the corrupt people and vote in others. Inviting a whole new level of distant politicians, the vast majority of whom will never even have been to Romania and will never be accountable at all to the people of Romania, to run things instead of them is not the way to go about it. Assuming that there's no corruption within the EU organisation itself would be a mistake anyway - for a start, look at how many years their own auditors haven't been able to sign off their accounts as being accurate.

 

I never said Europe should transform for the sake of this one country. I did however show how the phenomenon is taking place all over this half of Europe... in different forms. In Bulgaria for example, their politicians are a little better but they have terrible problems with organized crime, some say it rivals Sicily. In Greece you have tax evasion on a scale higher than all others in Europe. In Latvia and Lithuania they have strong influences from Moscow and its ruler for life Vladimir Putin. There you have those who symphatize with the old regime so much. Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are somewhat better than these but are no exception.

What I said is that a European management combined with a European democracy for the entire continent would stimulate the economy of these countries to the real benefit of all EU members. East Europe economy is scheduled to resurface soon, much in the same way communist China's did. And China is still communist... there's no speaking of European ways there.

Speaking of democracy, the precisely local democracy you keep mentioning can not be a democracy. The very definition of democracy is in contradiction with what you say, or at least with a subjective democracy of yours that should favor only some and leave others outside. The very definition of democracy says that all people, be they random citizens or businessmen or politicians must enjoy the same rights and be all accountable to justice regardless of religion, gender, sexual orientation, regardless of race, of where they are from, of what their profession is and of what their nation is!!!! Saying that members of different nations can not co-exist and be productive together is as flagrant as saying that Catholics and Anglicans can't co-exist in the same place and should be divided by a border or that members of the different protestant Churches, because they are few, should be put in a ghetto, to separate them from others.

When they bring you into court, when or where in any decent democracy do they ask you of your nationality? In America judges often don't even raise their nose, doesn't even look at who is in front of him. He doesn't raise his nose from the papers and just listens to what people around are telling him. I know you may have been educated in the spirit of seclusion but having been accustomed with something doesn't mean that what you got used to is also just, correct. I know, the truth often does seem upsetting because it can seem full of contradictions.

A democracy that flows along lines of nationality, that compares how people do here with how they do there is the absolute example of the subjective social flaw.

 

None of that economic stimulation requires everyone to live under a single European super-state with a single central government. All that it requires is european Economic Community and a Common Market, which was the original intention of the EU. It doesn't require any kind of full political union at all.

I realise that the hangover from communism in Eastern Europe is a significant issue, but when coming out of one Empire that develped into corruption and authoritarianism, handing yourselves over to a new Empire becuase that one seems a bit better than the old one at the moment really isn't a good idea, especially when the warning signs of corruption and central control are already clearly visible in its ruling Commission. The answer is to solve the problems within those countries themselves, within a wider context of cooperation with other countries, not to expect a new European-wide Empire to bypass them from above 'for the benefit of the people' - that's really not likely to actually happen in the long term.

No, it doesn't. Democracy does not require everybody in the world, or in a region of the world even, to be under the same huge governmental organisation. It requires a particular area, state or nation to be run according to the will of its population (all of its population, regardless of race, gender, etc.), and the government to be accountable to the people - nothing more. One area run by its people next door to another area run by its people, operating as independant democracies, isn't against the definition of democracy at all. If the area of a democracy reaches too large a size, it effectively becomes not a democracy anymore, because the people do not have sufficiently direct a voice in the central government that they actually exercise effective control over it - the government becomes unaccountable to the people, and that is what is against the definition of democracy.

 

A certain level of corruption must of course exist within the EU. Everywhere you have politics at all you get some corruption. Give me one good reason why I should believe London, Paris or Berlin are any better and why the crisis should ever end by itself...

Democracy does not require indeed a huge government over a continent, but nor does it forbid it. It remains open to it. As far as democracy is concerned you could have borderlines drawn horizontally or vertically or diagonally or spirally across any continent or the world. What is important is what happens within the borders, be they very long or very short ones and democracy never ever mentions that size has anything to do with its quality. Europe so far (the part that didn't fall under communism) hasn't had major undemocratic phenomena... Why would it happen just now?

 

Of course a certain level of corruption is almost inevitable, as we see in the UK with ome of the expenses claims made by Members of Parliament. The EU is set up undemocratically, though, with most of the power actually residing in the undemocratic and unaccountable Commision - in the4 case of corruption there, they aren't really accountable to anybody (and certainly not to an electorate who can simply vote them out if they don't like what they are up to). Couple that with the scale of the whole organisation and the consequent inevitable remoteness of it from the people themselves, and the problem can all to easily become massively multiplied - we already have evidence of this from the fact that their own accounts repeatedly failed their audits for year after year. If I, or anyone in business or working at a lower level within government organisations (certainly in the UK) failed an official audit on my accounts, I could be in very, very serious trouble (possibly sacked, prosecuted or both) - they did it for many years, and yet still they are all there, the same people with ever increasing power, carrying on regardless.

But with too great a size, it can't effectively have the quality. Democracy as a theoretical concept doesn't have restrictions on scale, but in practise the issue of size becomes important. If each representative is too remote from the people they represent because they represent too many, they aren't effectively able to represent them - multiply that accross a continent and you end up with a very remote and unaccountable government, even though it is theoretically an 'elected' one. At the moment, of course, the EU isn't democratic anyway - it has an elected parliament, but the real power is in the hands of the Commision anyway!

It has had many such phenomena, just thankfully not in the last 60 years or so. A large pert of the current EU formerly fell under communism, as you say, but prior to the alot of parts fell under Nazi dictatorship, authoritarian monarchies of various kinds, the Napoleonic empire, and so on. The possibility of another undemocratic situation occurring in future should never be ignored, and we shouldn't wander blindly in to such a situation. Look at Borroso himself, for example - he's not actually elected by the people, but appointed by the parliament as President of the European Commission. There are more than one 'President' within the EU, appointed by various means, not directly elected by the people of Europe, competing for power between themselves, and pushing for federalism despite the fact that they themselves are 'undemocratic'. In fact, Barosso himself said this:

That's not the kind of language that I find reassuring from a man in such a position of enormous real power, especially when he's unelected, and has a history of possibly dubious personal contacts with Greek shipping billionairs. He's currently driving the EU towards forming a single government, and styling himself as the unelected head of that government and 'President', to the extent that he's giving an annual 'State of the Union Address' - this is an unelected official of the organisation, not 'Head of State' elected by the people at all, but that's not how he is behaving. The language of his 'federalism' agenda at the moment is all very 'the best thing for the people of Europe' kind of 'people's revolution' stuff, but then that's straight out of the textbook of language to push the people away from democracy, and exactly the kind of thing said by the Communists in Russia, Napoleon, Hitler and many other people who tried to use their charisma to give themselves positions of power while the people below them welcomed them with open arms as some kind of 'savour' - it's somethign to be very, very wary of. I'm not saying necessarily that Borusso has some kind of personal dictatorial ambition for himself, but the potential is there for it within an EU (set up undemocratically as it is now, and moving further down the road of gaining more and more executive power over all of the nations of the organisation) and that is not something that should be ignored.

As I have said here several times, I am not 'anti-European', and I am not 'anti-EU' - I am fully in favour of a Europe-wide organisation of of partners, friends and allies, all working together where they agree, in the common interest of all Europeans. However, I do not believe that the current EU serves that purpose as it shoudl do, and I do not believe that increasing the power of the EU over member states is the answer, and most especially I do not believe that we should be handing important elements of our individual sovreignty to unelected and remote officials like Barosso who are attempting to style themselves as 'President of Europe' (and I believe we should firmly shut the door on any such possibilities for other ambitious individuals in the future).

 

They, especially Hollande are actually more pro-European than I thought. Although they were very cautious about using the 'federation' word, François Hollande said that Europe needs to become as united as America, actually even more than America in the sense of taking over from USA as the world's 1st peacekeeper, with a true European army and shifting politics to a more European level. For 30 minutes of interview, both he and Monti have repeated federalist tones, with Monti's no less clear. It's likely it was agreed beforehand to avoid the f* word though as this is the premiere episode of this new Euronews show called Global Conversation and I guess it would have caused a lot of unnecessary reaction and accusations of the EU being obsessed with this by showing the word on the very first episode of Global Conversation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJWjk60kP5E&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLZ-WQxZFOYjggN3AyaONMXQ

The video is also an 'all about austerity and bailouts guide', presented by Mario Monti in particular, whose country is suffering and euroskeptics here would argue it's because of the EU. Monti and Hollande explain in math it is not. So Merkel is not alone at the center of the EU supporting it from there. Hollande also says how important is that France and Germany keep it close and together.

 

Michel Barnier uses the f* word for the first time. Yes Michel, federate, that's it!!! Finally... Been waiting for a long time for this from you!!

If the head of the Single Market and Services in Europe says it too it means time has come. Time has come for all to begin preparations, start thinking and planning for the in or out decision. This forecasts the broad public debate across Europe is due to start soon.

Enough of the days when some enjoy the benefits of the euro currency and the single market with poor consideration towards other nations!! They will soon be faced with the choice to either throw the euro out the window (which they wouldn't take with ease - otherwise they would've done it long ago if it didn't benefit them) or get ready for the efforts and sacrifices of solidarity that this transformation requires. This is the most impressive speech since Barroso's State of the Union Address:



TURN ON THE HD AND ENJOY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XlUpTNcBAo&list=HL1354922413&index=5

 

We must clarify who are those people you're talking about... The Welsh, the British? It seems the answer is yes... So stop putting them at the center of the issue and it will all make sense.

The most cruel dictatorships of the last 200 years were in medium and especially SMALL SIZED countries... I have countless examples for this.

2 years ago around this time in the European Parliament Nigel Farage was complaining as usual saying the EU is not democratically elected while ironically, as Barroso points out, the UK has been electing for a long time its executives in the exact same formula as the EU does. The only difference is that the EU version is at a European scale. Yes... election by representatives. That's how it is in the EU and that's how it is in the UK. The British have not known anything else in recent times yet Farage wakes up every morning to tell the rest of the continent that precisely all of it should do it differently...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jHaLUZP4eQ&list=LLZ-WQxZFOYjggN3AyaONMXQ

 

It doesn't seem that at all - what I was talking about is quite clear, and has nothing to do with any country or nation. 'The people' are ALL of the people of Europe - it applies equally to everyone. The elected representatives are too remote from the people that they represent, because they represent too many people. they are no longer in touch with the people of the electorate, their lives and their situations - that applies exactly the same to everyone when democracy is attempted on too large a scale. It's not about geographical location or distance - it's about connection between representatives and those that they represent.

Nonsense. there have been dictatorships in all sized states. However, two of the largest countries on the world - Russia and China - have NEVER managed to be effective democracies. The current corrupt Russian system is the closest that either have ever really been, and that is nothing more than a corrupt farce controlled centrally by a corrupt elite.

Even the USA has got to the point where some of its citizens are openly discussing issues like secession and resistance to the central government, precisely because their central government has become so disconnected from them and what they want, and both parties have become dominated by a self-serving elite that is largely run according to the interests of the big corporate and other wealthy and influential special interest groups. The connection between representatives and represented has been lost at the federal government level, and those voices raised against the government are only going to grow as the various groups and regions decide that their central government is no longer working for them at all, or reflecting their needs and opinions, but is now working entirely for themselves. That is in a place with far, far less variety of culture and political opinion than there is within the EU, of course.

It's not the same at all. In the UK we elect local representatives from parties, and the leader of the largest party becomes Prime Minister. In the EU, even in the context of its parliament, that is not the case - the parties are of their own countries, not universal to the EU, so you are never voting for your party's leader to become leader of the parliament. On top of that, though, is the power of the European Commission over all affairs, including legislation - they are not elected by anyone, but are appointed, and that is undemocratic (and isn't anything like what happens in the UK).

We can already see the result of this democratic deficit, and a developing elite that serves its own interests, in the budget negotiations. In demanding a huge increase in contributions at a time of austerity of one kind or another across the whole continent, they have proved beyond any doubt that they are not living in the real world in the way that elected representatives are forced to do if they are truly connected with the people they represent.

 

Those representatives are supposed to be many enough... no current politician be him big or small will lose his job. The local government is preserved as an intermediary between your people and the federal one. Some national politicians will move to Brussels - and wait to see the new treaty!!! there will be many more in Brussels from each nation than there are now. So some more national politicians will represent you from Brussels. Just wait to see the blueprint for the much anticipated treaty... It will take some years though. So do you expect national politicians to forget where they came from in a matter of hours while they move between the national land and Brussels? There won't be few for many... There will be many for many. Given the diversity in Europe you can't do it any way else...

Isn't this adding to my argument that the size of a democracy does not play a role in its quality?

This is ridiculous... Ancient and Medieval China gave its people rights and freedoms few imagined in Europe. While in Western Europe people were burnt at stake for cheating on their wife/husband, in China you had absolute sexual freedom, even gay one. While in Western Europe people were told to fear God and the church or they will burn in hell, in China people were told to have the fears of their own choice. You say China has never been a democracy? If the Taoist philosophy on which China is built is not one of the most just, most fair and honorable then I don't know what is.

And you totally neglect the progress that China made in the past 10 years regarding democracy. I think you really do and should look up how they live and feel about their individuality right now...

And regarding Russia. Russia in the very beginning was much smaller than it is now and the Slavic people were fragmented into many city states. Many of its current people were and are not related in any way (Siberian, Mongolic tribes etc). Ivan the Terrible showed up and and conquered all of them. And note that his political body at the start of the conquest was not that large... So it's not because they united that led them to elitism but it is because non-democracy emerged in one of these areas and happened to spread to the others who were not like that at all!!! If Russia united under Ivan the Terrible then of course the whole construct would be terrible. He founded the empire in that spirit so it takes Russia a long time to change.

Most cruel most inhuman dictatorships emerged in big empires as well as in medium and small sized countries. Some of them are extremely small:

Germany
Cambodia
North Korea
Rwanda
Vietnam
Romania
Yugoslavia
Iraq
Libya
Egypt
Cuba
El Salvador
Uganda
Ethiopia
Belgium

Yes, even Belgium with its Leopold II of Belgium from 1886 to 1908. Belgium is actually an outstanding example and deserves to be among the first on the list. And the list can go on...

So size doesn't matter. Diseases emerge anywhere. It's exactly like in nature. Both a cat and an elephant can contract a terrible virus.

Now I understand what are you so enthusiastic about regarding USA and secessionism there as I've been to the American forums more recently. It seems you haven't met as many Americans as I did. Americans don't worry about the unity of the United States so they don't bother to show up here that much. That's why you don't see them here. Those secessionists you see present here are simply fringe. They may seem many because of all American members that come here they are loudest and unhappiest but they are just a kind of American political EMOs. Their numbers did indeed increase recently but it's still a neglectable number. The most optimistic statistics show they currently are around 0.2% of the population of all America . So even if they had been right they still are not. What the majority wants... that's what's right. This secessionist dream is a revolution existing only on these forum pages on this server and in their authors' lonely heads.

Nevertheless I want you to read this:

So you elect representatives to whom you tell who to elect in turn and they finally elect the Prime Minister? I'm not sure I understand... or that doesn't sound like direct election at all.

Btw Barroso already announced: the next president of the EU Commission is to be elected directly by ALL citizens of Europe and there is going to be work on strengthening/increasing something that is to result in international European political parties. Maybe you were too lazy to watch all the State of the Union Address 2012?

What an appallingly sad comment. Watch the video I posted in post #164, a few post above... As I said, the video is an 'all about austerity, bailouts and EU Budget Guide ', presented by Mario Monti whose country is one of the most struck down. Did you bother to watch that one? I'd really love to hear some of your comments on his comments...

 

David Cameron slowly learns what his referendum really means: that he is against everyone. After the unprecedentedly direct voice from Washington D.C. telling London to stick with Europe, more voices from Europe and from all around him tell it to him. Cameron is surrounded by pro-European leaders: In the north Scottish Alex Salmond, in the west Irish Enda Kenny, in the south/south-east Francois Hollande, Angela Merkel and Brussels itself, not to mention, across the ocean, Obama himself who has showed such strong enthusiasm towards the EU.

Press the HD and enjoy:
[video=youtube;49jQbnMeRGc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=49jQbnMeRGc[/video]

 

And we are meant to care why? Explain to me why we should go along with EU (andUSA) dictat if we don't want to do that?

Treaties are not written in stone and are breakable, or at the least re-negotiable, as is any contract is(just ask the Scots now....or Maggie Thatcher in the past),

I read your posts,...and you come across like the EU equivalent of pro-Zionists on here, to be honest.

 

Destiny. That's why. UK today is just a voice among many. It's not a matter of authoritarianism, nor democracy. Smallness is smallness and when it disagrees with everyone else it only acts as a thorn in everyone's side.

In what way does this resemble Zionism? Anyway, what's wrong with Zionism?

 

Just when I thought that pro-European Brits are becoming extinct, I found out about the work of this guy... I have enormous respect for this guy. You should read his economics book: Open World: The Truth About Globalization

[video=youtube;eu3HH9Zctn0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&list=LLZ-WQxZFOYjggN3AyaONMXQ&v=eu3HH9Zctn0[/video]

 

You have enormous respect for a guy appointed by the European Commission to head up the personal think tank of its president, Jose Manuel Barroso and was policy advisor of the now defunct pressure group "Britain in Europe". He doesn't really have an unbiased view, does he? Legrain might be British by birth, but he doesn't seem to share the views of a majority of the British public. And the book you recommend was published ten years ago. Shame for him that his advice in the interests of the euro was soundly rejected by Angela Merkel.

Unfortunately, pro-EU Britons are in no way extinct and one of the most unashamed of them is actually our deputy prime minister. Most of the rest of them know their views are unpopular with the public and they keep them out of the public domain. It doesn't stop them acting on their views if they can do so without the public becoming aware of what they are doing.

[Britain in Europe was wound up after the referendum rejection of the EU Constitution in France and the Netherlands and its resources came under the European Movement UK which is itself a part of the European Movement ... which is funded by the European Commission, ie European tax payers.] It's great when the European Commission uses our money to persuade us that it is good for us, don't you think?

 

That's where you always get it wrong in regards to the attitude of Brits towards the EU. The attitude of most British towards the EU is a neutral one. You seem to think they can be either very much for it or utterly against it. Remember that I lived there for some time. I asked this delicate question most UK people I met. You mostly don't preoccupy that much with external stuff and you tamora just translate that into anti-Europeanism.

Again regarding pro and anti-European, if you want GB out of the EU, it is another source of British pro-EU votes that you should worry about rather than a possibly inadequately funded pro-EU campaign: It's the recent immigrants who have citizenship, particularly non-Europeans by origin (African/Arab/Asian). They are the ones who would feel so comfortable with an identity that embraces diversity like that of the USA.

There's anticipation that when Federal Europe is ready for launch there will be referendums in most member states about it and I tend to think that most of the above mentioned will play the decisive role in the UK Seems it's already way too late to de-diversify GB. And you will probably then say that the polls were rigged.

There is consequences too for having so many colonies around the world... Nevertheless, keeping a tight hold on the overseas territories you still have is actually good, because they will soon be European land. The European army might put them to good use as military outposts around the world.

 

Can recommend an even better read than anything an EU apologist can produce. Have a go at "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein.It at least deals with facts, mostly US oriented, tbh........though it, at least is not wishful thinking as anything about the EU always seems to be.....but is as scary as any scary thing existing now.

Personally, I think the only influence on the UK worse than that of the EU is that of the USA...and there isn't much to choose between them! But then I don't even call myself British, would cut out my tongue before I would say I was European...and would kill myself in the unlikely event that the UK would vote to become an American State!