We want a United States of Europe says top EU official

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-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

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/worl...osceptics.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.