A United States of Europe- is that possible? Would you like to see it happen?

we are too many ethnicity and with an ancient hystory back to form a federal state.. with different mentalities..
 
European countries must collaborate between others... but making a single country is a big mistake. Look what happen in Italy or Spain... the north regions are discontent with the south because they feel they are the only ones who work for the country. Some regions even want to be independent. I think the same would happen in Europe but in a big scale.
 
No, the real problem is we justify our bad habits by calling them mentality.

Ignoring the traits of character that define us as separate nations is a big mistake. Nationalism is there to stay, thinking your own experience could become mainstream is an utopia. And calling nationalism a bad habit is a lack of respect for people who genuinely love their homeland and value their national traditions.
 
European countries must collaborate between others... but making a single country is a big mistake. Look what happen in Italy or Spain... the north regions are discontent with the south because they feel they are the only ones who work for the country. Some regions even want to be independent. I think the same would happen in Europe but in a big scale.

Collaboration is what has been tried since 1947. Having 27 memberstrying to take balanced decisions has been a disaster. There is always someone who feels ripped off. Now that Germany is in charge by default, everyone is complaining. I have read horrible things in the press about Merkel and "the Fourth Reich". If it were not for Germany and its economy, we would never have experienced such a high lifestyle as Germany has been Europe's wallet since the 1970es. You are right when you mention Italy and Spain (why not Belgium?). Oil and water do not mix and never will. Time for the big shots in Brussels to understand that...
 
we are too many ethnicity and with an ancient hystory back to form a federal state.. with different mentalities..

This would actually question the existence of the USA, as it is comprised of even more ethnicities and mentalities. But I know what you mean!

After having read other comments in this thread, I could find my personal views here and there again.
My conclusion is that single European nation states are not competitive on the long run against the rest of the world. Especially against China, India and other Asian nations, European nation states will have nothing much to offer against. Same applies to other rising nations of LatAm, and on a political, strategic scale, the Muslim world. The USA aswell, will soon be busy enough dealing with it's own problems than standing behind Europe all the time. So the question is not, how to prevent giving up some nation's sovereignity, but giving it to whom? Of course I would rather prefer being ruled by a pan-European commitee than by a Chinese commitee.
On the other hand, especially in times of crisis like this, I can see that many people are not willing to accept this. People of richer regions fear to be betrayed of their properties, while people of poorer regions feel to be financially, politically and culturally enslaved, and both views are understandable. The EU has in so far missed it's aim to overcome these disparities and build up some trustment.
Right at the moment there is nothing much to predict as practically everything is possible! So I am curious to know how the future will evolve.
 
I wouldn't poke at Serbs, they know how to stir serious sh!t. Your comment is pretty presomptuous, as you deny that some parts of Europe would prefer to keep away from standardisation and dilution into a heartless (and brainless) institution. This thread should be called "A USSR of Europe? It is possible, actually, that's what is happening...
The right to chose another path than wild capitalism and integration into a structure that leaves no place for national sensibilities should be an inalienable right. Seems like Mosc..., sorry, Brussels tends to forget that. I am just very relieved Berlin and paris do not take advantage of the crisis to push for more integration.
Goulag and Internationale, anyone? :)

I wholeheardly agree.
Yet I'd like to mention the Warsaw pact model which was very much different from the USSR itself. These countries differed alot from each other. In particular there was never a common currency. I was especially apalled by the tight frontiers. That was ironic considering the notorious announcement of friendship and cooperation. The west european countries were much more interconnected to each other already (EG, open frontiers, laws, Media, Life style, travel, McDonalds,...). The only uniting force of Warsaw pact was the authority of the USSR, which dictated exclusively the common politics towards the enemy.
The EU now in contrast tries to "homogenize" its members using the EURO currency, banana standards, surveillance and other diseases. I'd not be surprised if the US (IMF?) soon becomes the de facto supervising authority for this headless bunch of morons.
 
Ignoring the traits of character that define us as separate nations is a big mistake. Nationalism is there to stay, thinking your own experience could become mainstream is an utopia. And calling nationalism a bad habit is a lack of respect for people who genuinely love their homeland and value their national traditions.

I think you are confusing nationalism with partriotism, they are not always quite the same thing.

pa·tri·otism(p
amacr.gif
prime.gif
tr
emacr.gif
-
schwa.gif
-t
ibreve.gif
z
lprime.gif
schwa.gif
m) n.
Love of and devotion to one's country.

nationalism [ˈnæʃənəˌlɪzəm ˈnæʃnə-] n 1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a sentiment based on common cultural characteristics that binds a population and often produces a policy of national independence or separatism
2. loyalty or devotion to one's country; patriotism
3. exaggerated, passionate, or fanatical devotion to a national community
 
No, Antigone, actually, the left everywhere in Europe is crying wolf every time patriotism is mentioned. Does putting the interests of Greece and its people before the EU and its bankers-technocrats mean you are a nationalist? Does the fact that you want Greek political decisions to be made in Athens and not in Brussels mean you are nostalgic of the colonels era? The left has demonized patriotism beyond reason, the rise of nationalism is just a normal adjustment to the nonsense we have witnessed since 2008. What really saddens me is to read in the press all over Europe that Germany is about to take over the continent. If wanting my country's future to be decided by my fellow countrymen in my country's democratically elected parliament makes me a nationalist, then nationalist I am and I make no excuse for it. You, Antigone, among all, should be the most aware, your prime minister having been removed and replaced by a Brussels puppet to make sure he wouldn't come with more crazy ideas like a national referendum... Asking the people to take a decision concerning its future, isn't that the essence of democracy?
 
We must be living in different Europes then because the one you are describing is totally alien to me Cimmerianbloke. Personally, I'll always be a patriot, but a nationalist? Never. Nationalists are extremists and extremists will inevitabely cause more harm than good to the very nation they profess to love.

Papandraeu cut his own throat with the announcement of a referendum at that stage, he was clutching at anything that would keep him in power because of the enormous pressure he was under to step down, both from parliament and by the people. The Greek people themselves didn't want a referendum and thought it was too late to take decisions to a public vote after the deals had already been agreed. And many were saying they that they would make their protest to a referendum known by not voting, if a referendum had been called at the begining, all well and good but it wasn't.

Papandraeu then barely survived a vote of no confidence and only on the promise that he would form a unity government, the main opposition leader (Samaras) flatley refused to compromise nor form any alliance with the ruling party, and the arguments continued for 3 days. The result of our politicians drive to ever serve themselves and not their country, is the very man who helped orchestrate this mess, the banker Papadimos. Sorry, but you are misinformed if you think Brussels could have orchestrated all that on their own.
 
Ignoring the traits of character that define us as separate nations is a big mistake. Nationalism is there to stay, thinking your own experience could become mainstream is an utopia. And calling nationalism a bad habit is a lack of respect for people who genuinely love their homeland and value their national traditions.

I am not ignoring it and I wouldn't describe as a bad habit (like corruption is), because humans in general like to categorize themselves, as they do others. In other words it is simply a natural trait ... a label for us, a label for them, that's the way it has always been. So nothing new under the sun.

However saying this, nationality as an identity or better the scale of it is actually a relatively new phenomenon. In the past people were far more used to multicultural/regional states as we are now. This changed drastically when "monoculture" states called nations with only one dominating language or ethnic were founded in the 19th and 20th century.
Like Germany 1871, Italy 1815, Greece 1832, Hungary 1918, Norway 1908, Finland 1917 etc....Some dynastical /conquestical grown states were falling apart because of this. It is a miracle that Belgium still exists.

Before the appearance of national states people were far more regionalistic orientated then nationalistic. Where there was no linguistic consensus as in Spain and France the dominant culture had been enforced on others.
No wonder some ethnic minorities are still seeking independence from their "alien" mother-states even today. The EU could be a binding factor that allows a more peaceful and smoothly autonomy or independence of those regions without the need to change them their currency or legislation.

Well it might not become mainstream, but the freedom to choose residence as EU-citizen within the EU will produce simply more and more mixed EU backgrounds. So I wouldn't call that fiction.
 
Last edited:
Well it might not become mainstream, but the freedom to choose residence as EU-citizen within the EU will produce simply more and more mixed EU backgrounds. So I wouldn't call that fiction.

Good post Christiaan. And you are quite correct, there are already millions of mixed background within the EU and it is only likely to increase. This really really annoys those who like to categorise everyone, as they simply cannot find a suitable box or compartment to place those of mixed background.
 
Again, the "mixed background" and economic migrants are a tiny minority, and who doesn't always have the right to vote in their host country. It's not a couple of thousands Erasmus students who are going to change the face of Europe. Migrations have always been part of human history, and it has nothing to do with nation-states. The modern map of Europe is the result of hundreds of years of wars, tensions and bargaining between countries that have been allied, foes and neighbours. The fact that every single country in Europe has at least one linguinstic minority proves that uniformization, even on a small scale, is extremely difficult to obtain. Trying to dilute national identities into a huge pan-European space is only going to reinforce them. The 2004 referendums in France, Ireland and Holland, all three heavily pre-European are the best proof European integration has its limits and people are not going to abandon their national sovereignty overnight. I suppose people prefer to get screwed by their own kind rather than by pen-pushers in Brussels. While I am 100% behind a common market, I think everything that came after the Maastricht treaty was a mistake and has to be dealt with for the sake of the balance of the continent. The sooner will be the better. The actual crisis had the merit to show there are leaders that can lead and other that can barely follow. When the dust will settle, we'll have to think about adapting the system to the political reality and not the other way around.
 
It would be just the "Holy Roman Empire III" neither holy nor Roman. :bored::LOL:
 
I think the United States of Europe is inevitable. Its not going to come in our life time but I am optimistic it will be a reality in the next 200 yrs. The reason is ethnicities will disappear and people of New Europe will not see themselfs different. For instance Germany one of the most stubborn ethnic groups in Europe will cease being Germany in the near future. They have 15 mil nongermans in a span of 40 yrs. Imagine how many will be in 200 yrs. So Germans will be a minority in Germany. I don't want to say Muslims will be a majority because I can't predict it. England will procede Germany by 100 yrs in becoming a multynational nation. They are promoting it. France and Spain will share their countries with Arabs. Albania will be the last to fall. Albanians will not leave anybody in their country since they don't have enough food sources to feed anyone. So all Europe will be inhabited by different races with no ethnic majorities. So it will be hard to see any differences and this will lead to unification. It will happen. Be happy!!
 
No. I don't want my country being swallowed by another/new country and I do not think the majority of the Europeans would want that, even not in 100 or 200 years. We already have the globalism what kind of kills our cultures. We are many countries having many different cultures, languages, mentalities, interests, prosperities and so on in Europe. As long as these things do not change in a big way, I see no future for the "United States of Europe" or something like that. And I hope they do not change. We all should keep our cultures et cetera. This is what makes Europe very interesting, the most interesting 10 million square kilometers in the world I think.

We Europeans all should live side by side in peace like most of us do today. We can work together very close on economy, business and other sectors like we do today, but one united country? I'd say "NEIN", "HALT", "VERBOTEN".
 
I can't see that a United States of Europe could exist or succeed, because of (mainly) two things: Europe is divided into (too) many old and different cultures, and there are great language barriers. It's quite impossible to compare with the USA, because the US is mainly an English idea, with English language and culture as the bottom line. Yes, there are minority cultures (Irish, German, Spanish, French, Chinese and others) in the US, but they are exactly that; minority cultures. In Europe there is no such Umbrella culture as the English, and we know what has happened when a few European nations have tried to force others to become like themselves. So, no, I would not like to see that happen.
 
Don't forget all those who left were outcasts or couldn't make it so they went to the USA to give up their nationalities to become Americans. In Europe those who remained fought for their nationalities. You got the winners and they ain't gonna give up easy.
 
I thought that that was the whole idea behind the theory of the European Union.
 
I thought that that was the whole idea behind the theory of the European Union.
I suspect that, at least in some minds. But then theyhave closed their eyes to all the potential obstacles! But with all thetroubles there has been the last few years, I think that a United States ofEurope is further away than ever.
 

This thread has been viewed 67560 times.

Back
Top