We want a United States of Europe says top EU official

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10559458/We-want-a-United-States-of-Europe-says-top-EU-official.html

We want a United States of Europe says top EU official

Voters must decide for or against a United States of Europe during EU elections this spring, says vice president of the European Commission


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02785/euflag_2785022b.jpg
In the run up to the springtime pan-European vote, the EU is gearing up to mount an unprecedented campaign for the hearts and minds of voters


A campaign for the European Union to become a "United States of Europe" will be the "best weapon against the Eurosceptics", one of Brussels' most senior officials has said.

Viviane Reding, vice president of the European Commission and the longest serving Brussels commissioner, has called for "a true political union" to be put on the agenda for EU elections this spring.

"We need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission as government and two chambers – the European Parliament and a "Senate" of Member States," she said last night.

Mrs Reding's vision, which is shared by many in the European institutions, would transform the EU into superstate relegating national governments and parliaments to a minor political role equivalent to that played by local councils in Britain.

Under her plan, the commission would have supremacy over governments and MEPs in the European Parliament would supersede the sovereignty of MPs in the House of Commons.

National leaders, meeting as the European Council, would be reduced to consultative, second chamber role similar to the House of Lords.

Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, said that Mrs Reding had revealed the true choice for British voters to make at polling stations.

"For people in power in Brussels that is the only choice on offer, no reform just a United States of Europe. On 22 May the British people must ask themselves if they want this and vote accordingly," he said.

"I am sure people will say no to this centralist fanaticism."

Mrs Reding's comments illustrate the growing gulf between a Europe committed to "ever closer union" and Britain, which is pushing to reduce the EU's powers.

"We assume Britain's leaving the EU so we don't even bother thinking about British sensitivities at the moment," said an official.

While Britain may have been written off, concern is mounting because hostility has reached unprecedented levels across continental Europe and anti-EU parties are leading the polls in France, the Netherlands and Greece.

Senior EU figures, such as Mrs Reding, want the European elections in May to move beyond debates over eurozone austerity by embracing a grand vision of Europe.

"This debate is moving into the decisive phase now. In a little more than four months' time, citizens across Europe will be able to choose the Europe they want to live in," she said.

"There is a lot at stake. The outcome of these elections will shape Europe for the years to come. That is why voting at these elections is crucial.

This will be our best weapon against the Eurosceptics: to explain to our citizens that their vote really matters."

In the run up to the springtime pan-European vote, the EU is gearing up to mount an unprecedented campaign for the hearts and minds of voters.

Speaking in Athens, José Manuel Barroso, the commission president, signalled that the EU would use the centenary of World War One to warn that Euroscepticism, far-Right and populist anti-European parties could bring war back to Europe.

"No other political construction to date has proven to be a better way of organising life to lessen the barbarity in this world," he said.

"It is especially important to recall this as we will commemorate this year the start of the First World War. We must never take peace, democracy or freedom for granted. It is also especially important to remind this as in May the peoples of Europe will be called to participate in European elections."

The attempt by Mr Barroso and Mrs Reding to raise the stakes in the EU elections have not been well received by all governments.

"Federalist hyperbole about a United States is the opposite of helpful to the majority of countries who want a reformed EU to work better," said a European diplomat.

When you vote Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat you are voting for this. When say you want to stay in the European Union then you are saying you want this to happen. Because that's what is going to happen unless we get out, and the latter cannot occur without ceasing to vote for the former.

If these people get their way before 2020, and a thousand years of British sovereignty come to an end - then I would gurantee war on the European continent within a decade or so. These people are so hellbent on this crazy idea that we're looking at the formation of a new Yugoslavia but on x10 as big. If you force people together and try to create a new country then it usually ends in total disaster and bloodshed. History proves it.

There is no reform, there's no status quo - that's not how the EU works. It's in or out.

Thoughts? With five months to go, who are you planning to vote for in the EU elections?

[lucaskf390]

Name means nothing if you don't chage your attitude.

[GommeInc]

I'm not voting for any of the main parties. The Conservatives are pathetic when it comes to EU matters and the Lib Dems and Labour just want to be in it and remain within it yet do not state why, and tend to ignore clearly important concerns.

I don't see why we need the current EU model when the ECC was perfectly fine and may have saved countries from entering recessions and bankruptcy - because they wouldn't have to be forced to become economic powerhouses when the culture of many of these countries has always been to live within your means. Spain, Italy, Southern France, Greece and Ireland are countries/areas which simply cannot work with the EU framework, because their individual cultures both at a society and political level have never been economically minded. It's an expensive, wasteful organisation which just seems to spout out propaganda these days than to bring a sense of friendship amongst EU member states. We only need to share ideas, not modify a country beyond their control to accept a single view and belief by people who wouldn't know democracy if it slapped them in the face purely because quite a lot of these people are failed politicians anyway and have never really understood what they country needs. It's a bit of a selfish organisation, that doesn't want to help but to change and leech off each country, and nothing more.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Agreed Ryan, in short: intergovernmentalism > supranationalism.

Germany's new Foreign Minister has just called we eurosceptics who want out of the EU as 'brainless'; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10561999/German-foreign-minister-attacks-brainless-Eurosceptics.html

From a man and his ilk who brought us the Euro, that's a bit rich.

[Aiden]

I can't vote but I don't like the sound of that :S I'm pretty stupid so I don't really get it but would that be like Britain is no longer in charge of their own country lol? Sorry for more idiotness

[-:Undertaker:-]

I can't vote but I don't like the sound of that :S I'm pretty stupid so I don't really get it but would that be like Britain is no longer in charge of their own country lol? Sorry for more idiotness

It would mean Britain and the nations of Europe would no longer be sovereign and our 'government' would officially be the European Commission in Brussels. In other words, Jose Manual Barroso would be our Prime Minister and Herman Van Rompuy would be our Head of State (a President instead of a Queen).

Our national flag would become the EU flag as we all sing Ode To Joy as Mr Van Rompuy is sworn in as President.

Wonderful isn't it? It's so great that we've got to this point yet haven't been asked once whether we wanted this.

[Aiden]

That doesn't sound very good to me. I like the Queen. :(
If it did happen, would USE become more powerful than USA ?

Plus wouldn't that just be taking away us and expanding europe into one thing. :'(?

[-:Undertaker:-]

That doesn't sound very good to me. I like the Queen. :(

Well the Queen would probably remain for a bit, but she'd have an utterly useless role from what she has now because she would no longer be sovereign and thus wouldn't be the sovereign of an independent realm. In any case, past federations such as the United States, India and Germany have eventually moved to abolish regional monarchies as time has gone by.

Nigeria still has monarchies for example locally but they aren't sovereign monarchies. So Her Majesty would literally be demoted to the same level roughly as a Nigerian monarch - whoever they may be.


If it did happen, would USE become more powerful than USA ?

Plus wouldn't that just be taking away us and expanding europe into one thing. :'(?

It'd never be as powerful as the United States as the USA is a real country firstly - so it works, whereas a USE would not and secondly, the US of A is miles ahead in technological advancements specifically in military hardware.

If a USE did come into being then it'd end up in a bloodbath and revolutions within a decade or two. A 'nation' can only be a nation when it has a unified demos or a 'people' - if it does not then it falls apart, UNLESS held together by force like the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Mali, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India and so on. :)

[Chippiewill]

I'm not really sure what the problem here is.

[Hannah]

This government makes me feel sick. ;_;
Everything they do just pees me off.

[The Don]

I'm not really sure what the problem here is.

Nor am I. I used to jump on the 'I hate the eu bandwagon' a few years ago when I was less informed and basically took everything dan posted as truth (which should not be the case). I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives, the only legitimate concern would be the unelected commission however that can be compared to the house of lords. Dan keeps saying "we never asked for this" which is a bit silly since we have a representative democracy where elected peers act on behalf of the public which is what's happened. I find it laughable that dan complains because it's undemonstrative when the queen is the embodiment of everything undemocratic, yet dan seems to adore her, as well as the unelected House of Lords. I think moving award from nationalism is a good thing although i don't disagree that there are some faults with the eu.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not really sure what the problem here is.

Why?


Nor am I. I used to jump on the 'I hate the eu bandwagon' a few years ago when I was less informed and basically took everything dan posted as truth (which should not be the case). I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives, the only legitimate concern would be the unelected commission however that can be compared to the house of lords. Dan keeps saying "we never asked for this" which is a bit silly since we have a representative democracy where elected peers act on behalf of the public which is what's happened. I find it laughable that dan complains because it's undemonstrative when the queen is the embodiment of everything undemocratic, yet dan seems to adore her, as well as the unelected House of Lords. I think moving award from nationalism is a good thing although i don't disagree that there are some faults with the eu.

Wow well you clearly don't understand it do you, despite having claimed to have read more into it. The House of Lords and the Monarchy are completely different in that they do not propose legislation like the European Commission or the House of Commons do. The second difference is that the House of Lords (and House of Commons) are composed out of our political culture - no such political culture exists on a European level or can exist because there is no European demos. Therefore, even if the Commission was 'elected' from a European parliament it still could never be a real parliament as there's no European political culture and never will be. Margaret Thatcher understood this and was famous for refusing to call the European parliament a parliament and insisted on calling it an assembly.

Do you get that son? A little bit more reading and thought required - although if you would like to demonstrate to me how EU membership benefits us and outweighs the negatives then i'd be happy to engage in such a debate.

As for the bogus nationalism is bad argument, er isn't what the EU is doing creating another nationalism? Nationalism will always exist and it's perfectly fine provided you have proud nations that do not step on one another. The Soviets and the Yugoslavs used exactly this line of argument though: they claimed that to stop war and move forward they needed to abandon the past and create new identities: the Soviet people and the Yugoslav people - and look where it ended. A thousand years of history cannot be swept away in 5 years, 10 years, 100 years or 500 years.


Dan keeps saying "we never asked for this" which is a bit silly since we have a representative democracy where elected peers act on behalf of the public which is what's happened.

And which, at election time, the main political parties constantly claim to want no more powers given to Brussels and still lie through their teeth about what the EU is about. It is not about a trading agreement as Edward Heath claimed when he took us in, indeed a few years later he admitted in an interview with Peter Sissons that it was about creating a United States of Europe. He and his party told bare-faced lies to the electorate and it's been the same way ever since: and the people who told the TRUTH at the time on both the left and the right (Tony Benn and Enoch Powell) were labelled as lunatics despite the fact that everything they warned of has come to pass.

If political parties stand there and promise X, Y and Z and then do the total opposite, you cannot simply say "oh well we elected them so they can do whatever they want" - pure arrogance and people are sick of it.

[The Don]

Wow well you clearly don't understand it do you, despite having claimed to have read more into it. The House of Lords and the Monarchy are completely different in that they do not propose legislation like the European Commission or the House of Commons do.

You clearly don't understand the comparison since it was not to compare legislation but to show that you are hypocritical since you are an advocate of a less democratic system in one instance yet against it for another. Does the Royal Assent ring any bells?



The second difference is that the House of Lords (and House of Commons) are composed out of our political culture - no such political culture exists on a European level or can exist because there is no European demos. Therefore, even if the Commission was 'elected' from a European parliament it still could never be a real parliament as there's no European political culture and never will be.

I did say that the EU isn't perfect however I don't see how you can say there will never be european political culture, it just takes time.



Margaret Thatcher understood this and was famous for refusing to call the European parliament a parliament and insisted on calling it an assembly.

Do you get that son? A little bit more reading and thought required - although if you would like to demonstrate to me how EU membership benefits us and outweighs the negatives then i'd be happy to engage in such a debate.

Free trade, free movement of workers, giant economy (rivals the us) all seem like huge benefits. Smaller countries will not remain relevant (on a global scale) in the future with the rise of other, huge, developing countries.


As for the bogus nationalism is bad argument, er isn't what the EU is doing creating another nationalism?

Yes but at the same time it's encouraging multiple countries to work together and removes the us vs them mentality. The EU could be a huge world power if successful, although I never said I was in favour of a federal europe, there are other options.



Nationalism will always exist and it's perfectly fine provided you have proud nations that do not step on one another.
I disagree, A cluster of individual proud nations will surely lead to friction. The EU wouldn't remove culture from individual nations but instead add to it. Again, if we want to stay competative on a global scale, individualism isn't the way forward.


The Soviets and the Yugoslavs used exactly this line of argument though: they claimed that to stop war and move forward they needed to abandon the past and create new identities: the Soviet people and the Yugoslav people - and look where it ended.

Last time I checked, the EU wasn't a dictatorship. Silly comparison.



A thousand years of history cannot be swept away in 5 years, 10 years, 100 years or 500 years.

Nobody is trying to sweep away history? As things progress they also change, refusing to do so simply because of tradition isn't a very convincing argument.


And which, at election time, the main political parties constantly claim to want no more powers given to Brussels and still lie through their teeth about what the EU is about. It is not about a trading agreement as Edward Heath claimed when he took us in, indeed a few years later he admitted in an interview with Peter Sissons that it was about creating a United States of Europe. He and his party told bare-faced lies to the electorate and it's been the same way ever since: and the people who told the TRUTH at the time on both the left and the right (Tony Benn and Enoch Powell) were labelled as lunatics despite the fact that everything they warned of has come to pass.

There are other options besides the main parties, if people were so adverse to the EU they would vote for a different party. WE WERE ASKED about the EU, and the majority voted in favour of it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_ref erendum,_1975)

[GommeInc]

You clearly don't understand the comparison since it was not to compare legislation but to show that you are hypocritical since you are an advocate of a less democratic system in one instance yet against it for another. Does the Royal Assent ring any bells?



I did say that the EU isn't perfect however I don't see how you can say there will never be european political culture, it just takes time.



Free trade, free movement of workers, giant economy (rivals the us) all seem like huge benefits. Smaller countries will not remain relevant (on a global scale) in the future with the rise of other, huge, developing countries.



Yes but at the same time it's encouraging multiple countries to work together and removes the us vs them mentality. The EU could be a huge world power if successful, although I never said I was in favour of a federal europe, there are other options.


I disagree, A cluster of individual proud nations will surely lead to friction. The EU wouldn't remove culture from individual nations but instead add to it. Again, if we want to stay competative on a global scale, individualism isn't the way forward.



Last time I checked, the EU wasn't a dictatorship. Silly comparison.



Nobody is trying to sweep away history? As things progress they also change, refusing to do so simply because of tradition isn't a very convincing argument.



There are other options besides the main parties, if people were so adverse to the EU they would vote for a different party. WE WERE ASKED about the EU, and the majority voted in favour of it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_ref erendum,_1975)
I can only imagine you've never studied Public/Administrative Law. Royal Assent (the Queen/Crown), the Upper Chamber (House of Lords/Privy Council whatever you want to call it) do not create law - it's the lower chamber (a.k.a. The House of Commons, the democratically elected wing of the UK Parliament) which creates law. The House of Lords is commonly mistaken to create law when in actual fact it just sees it through. It cannot, or normally does not, create Bills. They can advise the Commons to create law but lack any substantial powers to do it themselves (the misconception that passing Bills is creation isn't creation, they start off in the Commons).

ALSO, the House of Lords can be ignored and Bills need not go through the Lords to become law. The Parliament Acts of 1910 and 1949 allows the Commons to bypass the Lords after 3 (or is it 2?) sittings.

The key difference between our unelected Lords and the Commission is that the Lords actually are from the UK, have some sort of interest within the country, and were chosen as Lords because they have contributed to the UK in some way or have some form of recognisable feat. (Lord Sugar, for example). The European Commission, however, is too diverse to fully understand the needs of the individual Member States. Fisheries, for example, is one controversial area and the latest craze is with problems with immigration - Denmark, France and even Germany have contrasting views. Then you get the laziness of Commissioners and even Parliamentarians in the EU, who do not bother to turn up because even they are finding it to be a waste of time.

Also, the idea that "smaller countries are getting a voice because they are within the EU" isn't true at all. Their voices are not being heard over the "puff" coming from the larger countries or the single organisation itself. It makes sense, considering an organisation with 28 nations won't be able to shout the views of these nations which all have different views and interests. It's a huge misconception. Also, you have to consider the "brain drain" countries in Europe are suffering, especially the small ones. Instead of developing these nations, they are being "drained" of their talent, and are being left to stagnate. Then you have countries which are not economically minded being made to be economically minded, causing problems - Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal etc.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ryan has summed up a response better than I could have done so and especially on the law part. I would however just pick up on a few things that Don, mainly regarding statehood and culture and reply..


Yes but at the same time it's encouraging multiple countries to work together and removes the us vs them mentality. The EU could be a huge world power if successful, although I never said I was in favour of a federal europe, there are other options.

One of the reasons why Europe as a continent of nations was said to have overtaken China and India hundreds of years ago was exactly because of that us vs them mentality. The competition between European nations meant that European countries developed to compete against one another and thus they drove eachother on whereas China and India were left behind as they became centralised.

As for the world power point, we could become part of a superpower if we became the 51st state - yet most patriotic Britons would find such a notion absurd as we are different from the US of A. The former President of the Czech Republic addressed this point too a few years back - he stated in his book that it's often said that without the EU countries like the Czech Republic will never be a world power. But as Klaus rhetorically asked in response: who in the Czech Republic said they wanted to be or had the ambition to be a world power?


Free trade, free movement of workers, giant economy (rivals the us) all seem like huge benefits. Smaller countries will not remain relevant (on a global scale) in the future with the rise of other, huge, developing countries.

Nonsense. The world has always had big and small economies, and always will. The economies of non-EU countries such as Switzerland, Norway, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and so on are all well off yet they are not members of a political union.

Besides, this argument doesn't apply to the United Kingdom anyway as we are the world's 6th/7th biggest economy and we are the ONLY European country that is projected to remain within the top 10 past 2050. I can find the source if you wish which I think was Goldman Sachs.


I disagree, A cluster of individual proud nations will surely lead to friction. The EU wouldn't remove culture from individual nations but instead add to it. Again, if we want to stay competative on a global scale, individualism isn't the way forward.

No, see the past history of Europe. Friction is good, especially when it comes to economics. A nation that is independent and individualistic will be able to cater trade deals to it's own needs and desires: the French for example are very protectionist and it's always been within their nature to be like that. A sovereign France is therefore able to follow his dreams and aims just as a sovereign Britain would be able to follow it's historically global and free trade ideals.


Last time I checked, the EU wasn't a dictatorship. Silly comparison.

Which is my point. When false nation states are created, the only thing that ever holds them together is a strongman/the use of force. That's why the EU has never been truthful with it's aims and that's why despite referendum after referendum telling them "no more" they simply continue onwards. The moment the European project comes up against the ballot box it loses.

Look at Iraq and Syria now that their strongmen are gone. They're failed states. Why? Because the people within those badly drawn borders do not feel they have much in common and feel resentful that the foreigners living in the other side of the country are making their laws for them when they do not approve of those laws.


Nobody is trying to sweep away history? As things progress they also change, refusing to do so simply because of tradition isn't a very convincing argument.

But this isn't progression in the slightest. IF people across Europe woke up in a hundred years time and all spoke the same language, shared the same culture etc - then political union would come about naturally in a similar way that political union of the United States, United Kingdom and Germany came about.

But this is all hypothetical utopian stuff because it isn't happening and is highly unlikely to happen given the very diverse cultures of Europe. Indeed you could argue, simply by looking at the maps of Europe from the 1800s onwards that the process has actually been the REVERSE: that Europe is becoming more diverse and more and more new countries are being created to cater to those said cultures.


There are other options besides the main parties, if people were so adverse to the EU they would vote for a different party. WE WERE ASKED about the EU, and the majority voted in favour of it.

And in that referendum (which they didn't want to give and we only were given because of a huge split in the Labour Party on the issue) we were told that joining the EEC was simply joining a trade bloc and that all fears about loss of sovereignty were unfounded. As I said earlier, only the left and the right warned about this - and Tony Benn and Enoch Powell were dismissed by the establishment as raving mad when they warned of a common currency, economic union and so on and so forth. But they were right.

IF we were to have a referendum on whether or not we should be reduced to a state in a United States of Europe and the people said yes after an honest debate - then that would sit fine with me. But I am not going to sit here and listen to this rubbish that we have agreed to everything that has been done because we have not.

[Aiden]

I'm confused someone answer my noob questions please!

When is this going to happen?

What key things will change?

Will laws like gay marriage, age of consent change for everyone?

Would a British person be called British lol?

Would Britain not exist anymore?

Will there be British people in high places in the law idk?

- - - Updated - - -

Also, would we get the euro? :'(

[GommeInc]

I'm confused someone answer my noob questions please!

When is this going to happen?

What key things will change?

Will laws like gay marriage, age of consent change for everyone?

Would a British person be called British lol?

Would Britain not exist anymore?

Will there be British people in high places in the law idk?

- - - Updated - - -

Also, would we get the euro? :'(
No one knows, although it may (hopefully) never happen.

The keys things will be:


Parliament will act as a proxy on behalf of the Commission. Countries will be able to make laws provided they work within the framework of the Commission and the Council (in the same way your County Council can make by-laws that affect only the land inside Council borders.
We will become a monist state, rather than a dualist country e.g. France immediate puts EU law into work while we debate and create Acts of Parliament before we give them any affect.
The Queen will just be a symbol rather than have any powers (she currently lacks any powers but is constitutional)
Laws like gay marriage, age of consent etc may vary depending on state much like what happens in the US as it would be insane to change the age of consent, seeing as Spain has it quite low (13 I think?) and it simply wouldn't work for everyone as different countries have different customs.
A British person would still be British, in the same way a Texan person is referred to as Texan BUT it wouldn't convey any additional meaning and we'd probably be labelled as European in the same way as a Texan is labelled American.
Britain would be a state. The United States of Europe (or Europa) needs states to exist - so Britain will be a state (or UK - Scotland may be an independent state - we don't know what the outcome of the referendum will be), France will be a state etc etc However, there's some debate that Scandinavia may just have its own Union as they all get along and they cannot see themselves mixing with the warm south.
Going by current standards. A Brit will be up in a high place in the European Courts - the European Courts of Justice reshuffle who is at the top quite frequently. Plus states will appoint people to represent them at the highest level in the Council of Europe - it may just be called the Senate eventually :P

[Demi]

A stupid idea, which will not happen.