An Emerging E.U. Superstate?

Discuss the latest news in the media and voice your own opinions about the news.

An Emerging E.U. Superstate?

Postby Henri » Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:25 pm

According to various political commentators and journalists, the European Union, is slowly becoming a unified superstate. A reasonable definition of a superstate, is as follows: "an agglomeration of nations, often linguistically and ethnically diverse, under a single political-administrative structure". Therefore, the United States does not fall into the category of a 'superstate', since all of its federated republics owe their allegiance to the nation as a whole.

I am of mixed opinion on this. If indeed, a European superstate was created, it would provide numerous benefits to each and every one of its nation states. I am uncertain over the current economic situation of the European Union, but I am reasonably sure that, in the given situation, a unified Europe would be mutually beneficial in terms of trade. A fusion of culture could also be perceived as a positive attribute of unification. A European identity, and the free movement of peoples across the continent, would expose us to a range of cultures and give us the freedom of movement we so desire. Europe would also be considered a superpower in its own right, therefore, it would create a balance of international power which is at present, unequally in the favour of the United States, who appear to have gained 'Hyperpower' status.

On the other hand, some have argued that it could lead to mutual disaster. The loss of national sovereignty would be unbearable for a large number of patriotic citizens, and could possibly lead to widespread discontent.

What is your opinion?
Henri
Forum Master
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Reading, U.K

Postby intowiz » Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:56 pm

Im all for a more unified europe and am a big fan of the eu. if pushed i would have to say i like the euro. but i agree with you there would be some "Patriotic" parties who might pose a problem. Still under a more unified europe it cuts down the chance of war between countries and helps stop certain countries starting illegal wars.
"Dance on, lads, you're young; I was once."
Old manx sailor, Moby dick
User avatar
intowiz
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:43 am

Postby Cartouche » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:43 pm

Try finding a languages student who is also eurosceptic. I honestly believe that if these people going on about the Evil of Brussels would actually spend some time in Europe (real Europe, not Spanish beaches covered in Brits), they'd feel a lot less hostile.

I've decided to put myself as a European before a Brit, especially as I've now lived in Germany for over three months. I'm actually dreading going back to England, because I am now so used to things over here (plus, I now feel guilty when I talk in English in public!). Yes, I was in Stockholm last week, but that wasn't actually all that different from Germany...

Travel broadens the mind, they say. This is utterly true. That, MontyDyspraxia, is why Michael Palin is now one of the wisest people around when it comes to talking about global issues (his statement on Iraq was a joy to read).

Plus, a closer integrated Europe would be the only way to ensure this corner of the world keeps its political weight in a world where China and India are on the ascent. Having said that, I do think the EU should stop adding new bits. If it spreads out too much, it loses its purpose in the same way a Facebook group with hundreds of thousands of members says less about its members' nature than one with twenty members. The EU should be European, and not Central-Asian.
Look Again
User avatar
Cartouche
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:20 am
Location: Egham, Surrey

Postby Henri » Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:11 am

Cartouche wrote:The EU should be European, and not Central-Asian.



It would seem so, but there are countries within Europe that are not part of the European Union, as well as nations that fifty years ago, would not have been considered part of Europe at all.

Personally, I support the accession of Turkey into the E.U. Turkey is a developed nation, with a strong economy; attributes which can only benefit the Union as a whole. Also, why should the E.U be a closed christian club, and not branch out and embrace Islam, and other religions also.

I'd also like to see Russia become a member, and support closer co-operation with the North African nations also.
Henri
Forum Master
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Reading, U.K

Postby Cartouche » Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:10 am

It's got nothing to do with religion. Albania is predominantly Islamic, as is Bosnia, and I have no issue with either joining up, albeit it in a few years time once they have their countries a little more under control. Besides, certain countries in the EU are only nominally Christian these days, and are more secular than anything else (and we're one of them).

However, if the EU accepts Turkey, then why not go into the Caucusus? Georgia has been considered part of Europe by some geographers for some time. If Russia joins, then the EU would stretch to the Sea of Japan, which just seems odd (although, there is absoutely no way Russia would join, not for at least 30 or 40 years). Where do you draw the line? If the EU grows well outside of Europe, it becomes far too diluted. In theory, it could keep growing and become like a World Government, but such a deal is far too utopian and idealistic for our world. It simply wouldn't work.

Turkey may well be developed and with a strong economy, but they're still killing Kurds in the East, and there is the little matter of Cyprus still to sort out. West Turkey around Istanbul and Ankara is not the same as the Turkey of the East, bordering Iraq.
Look Again
User avatar
Cartouche
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:20 am
Location: Egham, Surrey

Postby Henri » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:36 pm

I agree: Georgia, and the Ukraine should join the Union. Does it really matter if Russia stretches that far? The main political and economic centres of Russia have always been situated in the West; in European Russia.


Could you explain why a world government is too "utopian and idealist", and why it would not work? I think that World-spanning governmental organisations are a natural - and positive progression from the current system. In order to secure the future of our world, there needs to be a consensus of opinion amongst nations, with regard to climate change and warfare ; world organisations would only foster this.

Personally, if it was to be extended, I'd like to see Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand, Russia, and the North African nations joining. [/i]
Henri
Forum Master
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Reading, U.K

Postby Cartouche » Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:36 am

Henri wrote:I agree: Georgia, and the Ukraine should join the Union. Does it really matter if Russia stretches that far? The main political and economic centres of Russia have always been situated in the West; in European Russia.


Could you explain why a world government is too "utopian and idealist", and why it would not work? I think that World-spanning governmental organisations are a natural - and positive progression from the current system. In order to secure the future of our world, there needs to be a consensus of opinion amongst nations, with regard to climate change and warfare ; world organisations would only foster this.

Personally, if it was to be extended, I'd like to see Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand, Russia, and the North African nations joining. [/i]


You continue to go under the assumption Russia has any desire to join the EU. Historically, Russia has always kept its distance from European affairs if it was able to, preferring not to invade the rest of Europe but let it invade them, with the sole exceptions of the USSR after WW2, and the attempted Russian seizure of the crumbling Ottoman Empire. Russia at present sees itself as a different power core to the EU, and whilst that remains European, it is very definitely East European. Just because Russia's power core lies in the West does not mean its aspirations lie further in that direction.

World organisations and world government are not the same thing. WOs already exist, with the United Nations by far the most prominent. However, the UN is also a good example of why, for a long time yet, a World Government could not hold water. The UN does a good job, but it is riveted with infighting. During the Cold War, the USSR's veto meant that its capacity to act was severely limited. The EU as it is has its strife enough (just look at what Poland did last year under its nationalist leaders), and organisation the size of the UN cannot escape internal quarrels. That in itself is to be expected, yet if that were to stretch to a government, it would lead to real trouble. What if, for example, there was no American in the cabinet, yet the US continued to be a major world power? How would the government be decided? How effective would it be on a national level?

A consensus is indeed required, but that will only come about by being hammered into shape. A genuine consensus amongst all nations can only be reached by extreme topics. Climate change is close to reaching that point now, but the US, and more recently India and China, have held a lot of other countries back.

I'm not saying a World Government isn't desriable. I'm saying it won't work.
Look Again
User avatar
Cartouche
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:20 am
Location: Egham, Surrey

Postby Bladen » Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:45 pm

if it becomes just Europe, how can anyone call themselves citizens of their country when they're being overruled by one giant political presence?

Nothing's wrong with it, it's just that country's have to surrender their image and independence as a price. A price so stupid.
User avatar
Bladen
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Tyneside

Postby Cartouche » Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:47 pm

Bladen wrote:Nothing's wrong with it, it's just that country's have to surrender their image and independence as a price. A price so stupid.


You realise the concept of a nation is something only developed by zealous politicians and romantics in the 19th century?

What do people from Grimsby and Plymouth really have in common, although we are so used to the idea of the UK as a seperate nation, we accept this. People from Emden and Groeningen (a few miles apart) are more alike than people from Emden and Munich, yet Emden and Munich are both part of Germany.
Look Again
User avatar
Cartouche
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:20 am
Location: Egham, Surrey

Re: An Emerging E.U. Superstate?

Postby chocolatefudgecake » Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:18 pm

I don't really know that much about it, and I realise a superstate/world government would have it's advantages, but I don't like the idea. but thats probably because I'm not a fan of big changes.

I don't think a world government would work. To start with, not all countries would want to join, so even if it could work, I don't think it would happen.


Henri wrote:A fusion of culture could also be perceived as a positive attribute of unification.


If all cultures fused together, then there wouldn't be any cultural difference, which may seem like a good thing, but would mean you couldn't experiance a different culture which wouldn't be as good. I haven't been to many countries out of the uk, but if i were to, I'd like to be able to experiance a different culture.

plus, what parts of what cultures would be in the 'fusion of cultures' and what would be lost?
-ChocFC-
A badger! a badger! My Kingdom for a Badger!
User avatar
chocolatefudgecake
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Hampshire, England

Re: An Emerging E.U. Superstate?

Postby Henri » Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:37 pm

chocolatefudgecake wrote:I don't really know that much about it, and I realise a superstate/world government would have it's advantages, but I don't like the idea. but thats probably because I'm not a fan of big changes.

I don't think a world government would work. To start with, not all countries would want to join, so even if it could work, I don't think it would happen.


The prospect of a world government will become, in the - most likely distant - future, necessary in order to distribute the resources of the nation fairly and equally. A common consensus on the direction of humanity is highly desirable.



If all cultures fused together, then there wouldn't be any cultural difference, which may seem like a good thing, but would mean you couldn't experiance a different culture which wouldn't be as good. I haven't been to many countries out of the uk, but if i were to, I'd like to be able to experiance a different culture.

plus, what parts of what cultures would be in the 'fusion of cultures' and what would be lost?


And how do you think that your present culture developed? The 'British' culture evolved through a fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Jute, Roman and French culture, and has received considerable input from other sources since then. Assimilation is the process through which cultures can expand and progress with time; it is a natural process which has occurred all throughout history.
Henri
Forum Master
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Reading, U.K

Postby Cartouche » Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:43 pm

A common consensus is desirable, of course it is, but not very likely. Humans are very good at creating disagreement out of nothing.

Cultural fusions are useful, provided that it doesn't steamroll over other cultures. The gradual assimilation of various cultures into what is now British culture has had both its positives and negatives, but away from the UK, countries such as France are worried about the gradual takeover of American culture. Would you want to see a French fishing village with a Starbucks, Burger King and Subway, with R&B and Indie music playing out over the bay? That's an extreme example, but cultural takeover is underway.

In my opinion, things ought to be preserved, but at the same time, holding onto something too closely is undesirable. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Look Again
User avatar
Cartouche
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:20 am
Location: Egham, Surrey


Return to News and Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron