# The United States of Europe



## Bullgrit (Jul 10, 2015)

Given that the USA was early on more a confederation of independent states than one unified country, sort of kind of like what Europe has become with the European Union, what are the chances that the EU will eventually become a single united nation of states? In the US, it pretty much took a war, (the ACW), to really solidify the nation as one instead of a collection of many. Might the European nations combine peacefully? How far down the road might we see a "President of Europe"?

Is it possible? Is it impossible?

If possible, what nations would be included? What nations would not be included?

Bullgrit


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 10, 2015)

Various wars have been fought to bring about a united Europe. The nationalism (or perhaps national identity might be a less connotation-heavy term) is too strong and runs too deep.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 10, 2015)

Pretty much zero possibility. Nobody wants it. Many countries don't even consider themselves "European" (the UK included). The cultural differences are immense. We don't even speak the same languages.

We've had a lot of warfare over the centuries.  Let's hope that's something on the decrease rather than the increase!  A mass pan-European 21st century war would be pretty much impossible these days, I imagine.


----------



## Janx (Jul 10, 2015)

Isn't this basically what the EU is?  They just call things different with prime ministers and such.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 10, 2015)

Janx said:


> Isn't this basically what the EU is?




My understanding is that, legally speaking, EU is by no means as unified as even the original 13 states were.  So, not really.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 10, 2015)

The last decades have seen the breaking apart of nations in Europe; Balkanization, if you will. I think that it's very unlikely that people who don't want to be in those nations would ever want to be in a larger one.


----------



## nerfherder (Jul 10, 2015)

Janx said:


> Isn't this basically what the EU is?  They just call things different with prime ministers and such.



No, not at all.

Many have different constitutions, laws, languages, traditions, values, currency (even if many use the Euro).
Just look at the UK & France, which differ in all those things.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2015)

I'm thinking it's got a probability between 0-10% in my lifetime, and I come from pretty long-lived stock:  I have a good chance of doubling my 47 years.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 10, 2015)

Janx said:


> Isn't this basically what the EU is?  They just call things different with prime ministers and such.




No, not even slightly.  There are vast differences between a country and a US-style state.  The most powerful of which, of course, is the ability to legally declare war, make a foreign policy, sign a treaty, close its borders, levy taxes (although that one's weaker, as most countries have local taxes as well as national ones) etc: Minnesota can't declare war on Argentina. But there are many, many more differences.  They're countries which have signed a treaty (or treaties).

And culturally, too.  There's a reason you can be "un-American" but you can't be "un-European".  There's an American national identity; there isn't a European one.  And that's not even starting on the languages!

The closer analogy is the various Pan American stuff.  The US, Canada, Mexico, etc. aren't states in a single big American; they're independent countries with various trade agreements and treaties, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 10, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> The last decades have seen the breaking apart of nations in Europe; Balkanization, if you will. I think that it's very unlikely that people who don't want to be in those nations would ever want to be in a larger one.




I am no geo-politicist, but I do get the sense that that's the trend - and the long term future.  Which is fine, as long as people are able to self-determine.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 10, 2015)

Maybe a crisis or a threat like Russia. Certainly more stable economies to make it appealing again. Better wealth distribution between rich states and poor ones. Maybe just time. Who knows what it will look like in 100 years with a bunch more of treaties that work slowly toward more unification.

Even if there are people who want a more unified Europe with a central guvernment, you have strong nationalistic sentiments and politicians who will be hesitant to lose their powers. 

Pressure from business folks is high though for a unified Europe and some countries like Germany have vested interests in Europe.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 10, 2015)

goldomark said:


> some countries like Germany have vested interests in Europe.




Historically, that appears to be the case, yeah.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 10, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Historically, that appears to be the case, yeah.




*rimshot*

I was talking how the Euro and the lifting of trade barriers let them sell more of their goods to the rest of Europe. Or how the EU not only gives it legitimacy* to act on the international level, but the EU also gives Germany an identity and role. 


*Needed because of that adventure with the little Austrian.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2015)

Jack Unterweger?


----------



## delericho (Jul 10, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> Given that the USA was early on more a confederation of independent states than one unified country, sort of kind of like what Europe has become with the European Union, what are the chances that the EU will eventually become a single united nation of states? In the US, it pretty much took a war, (the ACW), to really solidify the nation as one instead of a collection of many. Might the European nations combine peacefully? How far down the road might we see a "President of Europe"?




The EU actually already has a president - currently Jean-Claude Juncker.



> Is it possible? Is it impossible?
> 
> If possible, what nations would be included? What nations would not be included?




At present it looks more likely that the EU will start to fragment again - Greece may be on the way out, in which case Italy and Spain will likely follow. And the UK are having a referendum on leaving in the next couple of years (pretty sure we'll stay in, though).

But Morrus (and others) have called it dead right. Despite the EU's stated goal of ever-closer union, there is basically zero chance of us ever formally becoming a single coutry. There's just too much history, and too many cultural differences, in the way.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 10, 2015)

delericho said:


> At present it looks more likely that the EU will start to fragment again - Greece may be on the way out, in which case Italy and Spain will likely follow. And the UK are having a referendum on leaving in the next couple of years (pretty sure we'll stay in, though).
> 
> But Morrus (and others) have called it dead right. Despite the EU's stated goal of ever-closer union, there is basically zero chance of us ever formally becoming a single coutry. There's just too much history, and too many cultural differences, in the way.




From where I sit, I think it almost certain that Greece will be cast adrift, to founder on its own. Their failure to meet their perceived responsibilities and subsequent failure should serve as an effective lesson to Italy and Spain, with respect to how they should deal with their obligations.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 10, 2015)

Umbran said:


> My understanding is that, legally speaking, EU is by no means as unified as even the original 13 states were.  So, not really.






Morrus said:


> No, not even slightly.  There are vast differences between a country and a US-style state.  The most powerful of which, of course, is the ability to legally declare war, make a foreign policy, sign a treaty, close its borders, levy taxes (although that one's weaker, as most countries have local taxes as well as national ones) etc: Minnesota can't declare war on Argentina. But there are many, many more differences.  They're countries which have signed a treaty (or treaties).




IMNSHO, the EU is academically a more powerful form of government than the Articles of Confederation (the original document that formed the USA in 1776, that Bullgrit was referring to).  Under both, the nations/states are/were all recognized as sovereign, with full independence on foreign policy and pretty much every example Morrus gives.  But under the Articles, the USA had no federal regulation on trade or finances.  The states all had their own currencies, and the USA couldn't even tax at the federal level.  Conversely, the EU has a unified currency and lots of control over trade.  

The one power that the Articles gave that the EU doesn't is the ability to form an army, and it didn't do a very good job of it (there were provisions to ask states for soldiers but the feds couldn't draft any of their own).

But the intents, as well as the global political background, behind the two systems are completely different.


----------



## delericho (Jul 10, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> From where I sit, I think it almost certain that Greece will be cast adrift, to founder on its own. Their failure to meet their perceived responsibilities and subsequent failure should serve as an effective lesson to Italy and Spain, with respect to how they should deal with their obligations.




I'm pretty sure Germany and France are actually absolutely desperate to avoid casting Greece adrift. Not only does that pretty much guarantee a default of loans owed to those two, but it also would strike a very strong blow against the stability of the Euro.

If there is any way they can avoid it, they will. Indeed, I strongly suspect they'll end up writing off a not-insignificant chunk of Greek debt to do so.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 10, 2015)

delericho said:


> I'm pretty sure Germany and France are actually absolutely desperate to avoid casting Greece adrift. Not only does that pretty much guarantee a default of loans owed to those two, but it also would strike a very strong blow against the stability of the Euro.
> 
> If there is any way they can avoid it, they will. Indeed, I strongly suspect they'll end up writing off a not-insignificant chunk of Greek debt to do so.




There is a long history of more financially viable governments giving 'loans' to less stable ones in order to obtain some sort of political compliance, and then later forgiving these loans. The money may well have been considered a dead loss at the outset. Forcing compliance from two much larger powers, by burning relatively minor Greece, would then be a win for the EU.


----------



## delericho (Jul 10, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> There is a long history of more financially viable governments giving 'loans' to less stable ones in order to obtain some sort of political compliance, and then later forgiving these loans. The money may well have been considered a dead loss at the outset. Forcing compliance from two much larger powers, by burning relatively minor Greece, would then be a win for the EU.




In this situation, Germany and France pretty much _are_ the EU. They're very much the big powers in this situation. And Angela Merkel (German Chancellor) has _considerably_ more clout than Juncker (EU president).


----------



## Staffan (Jul 10, 2015)

goldomark said:


> *rimshot*
> 
> I was talking how the Euro and the lifting of trade barriers let them sell more of their goods to the rest of Europe.



The Euro has been shown to be a big mistake, and I'm glad that Sweden isn't part of it (even though younger me voted in favor of it way back when). A significant portion of Greece's problems come from not having their own currency, or rather that those problems would be much easier to solve with their own.

Normally, when nations differ in productivity and such, this will be reflected in the value of their currency. This makes their exports cheaper and imports more expensive, which stimulates the local economy. Currency fluctuations is a much smoother way of handling that kind of thing than renegotiating wages would be. But now, Greece has to use the same currency as Germany while having nowhere near the same productivity (Germany's GDP per capita is about twice that of Greece), which leaves them completely unable to compete.

In addition, there are many economists who say that Greece has been completely mishandled from the start of the crisis. When your economy is contracting, austerity measures are pretty much the *worst* way of handling things. Greece's economy has contracted by about 25% since 2007. Certainly, things needed to be done to deal with the widespread tax evasion and mismanagement in Greece, but the heavy-handed cutting of social services, pensions, and the like has only contributed to the crisis. It's like telling someone with weight problems and lung cancer at a hospital that he needs to go on a starvation diet while on chemotherapy - that will just reduce his ability to deal with the more urgent problem. Once the cancer is dealt with, sure, then a diet would be good, but first things first.

Of course, this is massively simplified, but it does give an overview of the problem.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2015)

> When your economy is contracting, austerity measures are pretty much the worst way of handling things.




Yep.

While "something must be done", most austerity measures tend to do one very bad thing for an unstable economy: they greatly reduce the amount of money in circulation.  Additionally, in a situation like Greece's, the measures also reduced the number of government employees- IOW, unemployment was increased.  

IOW, the austerity program imposed on Greece contracted the money supply, reduced fluidity, and spiked unemployment.  Nice job! 

The geniuses who came up with this either forgot or didn't care that a good portion of what drives economics- at any scale- is human psychology.  By aggressively protecting Greece's creditors, they made the people of Greece extremely uncertain...and thus begins a potential economic death spiral.  The'd have been better off in the long run giving the creditors a "haircut", negating a portion of the debt, downgrading Greece's credit a bit, and adjusting their future lending models to make it easier for borrowing nations to repay their loans.

Don't get me wrong- Greece's politicians did a great job setting their country up for a fall.  But in a real sense, the creditors gave the country a nice shove in the back.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 10, 2015)

Staffan said:


> The Euro has been shown to be a big mistake



It was good for Germany. Its previous currency was worth a lot, so adopting the Euro, with the trade barriers going down, ment German goods were cheaper to export to other Euro zone countries.  



> A significant portion of Greece's problems come from not having their own currency, or rather that those problems would be much easier to solve with their own.



Printing money to pay the debt. Yup. It comes with its problems, but the human suffering the Greeks are going through would be alleviated.  



> Normally, when nations differ in productivity and such, this will be reflected in the value of their currency.



Consider the title of the thread. The US of E. In the US, states like California or Texas have great GDP compared to say Alabama [banjo music]. The US still has only one currency and avoids some of the EU problems tied to the Euro. It does so in part with federal transfers of money that help balance the whole act and maintain the union. This is what the EU is lacking. In part. 



> In addition, there are many economists who say that Greece has been completely mishandled from the start of the crisis.



It simple economics. Austerity is the product of neoliberal ideology, not actual economic science.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2015)

> It does so in part with federal transfers of money that help balance the whole act and maintain the union. This is what the EU is lacking. In part.



On top of that, the US doesn't just have one currency, it has one entity in charge of the money supply- states can't print their own stuff.

The EU, OTOH, doesn't have that centralized control over the money.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 11, 2015)

goldomark said:


> *rimshot*
> 
> I was talking how the Euro and the lifting of trade barriers let them sell more of their goods to the rest of Europe. Or how the EU not only gives it legitimacy* to act on the international level, but the EU also gives Germany an identity and role.
> 
> ...




did someone say rimshot?


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 12, 2015)

I think it's possible (no one really knows what the future holds), but I think it's extremely unlikely.

Probably the best thing that I could compare it to would be the likelihood of the U.S. joining a federalist world government.  The U.S. is not going to cede authority to a world government the way that the U.S. states did to the U.S. federal government.  Now, it certainly could happen (because, again, no one really knows the future), but I wouldn't place any money on it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2015)

I think of the many futurists who talk about a global government, the ones who say that it will arise from the existence of a global threat are correct.  That's about the only way something like that would happen in the foreseeable future.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 12, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think of the many futurists who talk about a global government, the ones who say that it will arise from the existence of a global threat are correct.  That's about the only way something like that would happen in the foreseeable future.




Even in the face of a global catastrophe, I don't think the U.S. would join a global government unless it were simply a matter of adding other countries to the list of U.S. states.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2015)

I think it depends highly upon the nature of the global threat- the USA might not have a choice...not in a meaningful sense, anyway.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 12, 2015)

Never say never, I guess, but it is not looking like it is to happen anytime soon, and I think even if it would happen, it would still be very different from the United States of Europe.

I think the EU is overall a good thing, but it lacks in some areas - for example, the democratic legitimation of its decision is very weak. The European parliament has very little influence and power, but that is the only place where all the citizens of the EU can actually directly vote for the members.
The main power is with the commission and the ministers of the different states, and many of those are not directly elected. 
I think without a better democratic legitimization, it would be in everyone's best interest if the member countries retain their self-identity and integrity. Maybe the EU will get such reforms, but maybe it won't. 

The relations between the EU states is quite different from those of most other states however, and for many practical purposes of the different nations citizens and their businesses, the EU is very close to a "united states of Europe". And at least in the business aspects where that isn't already the case, it's only likely to become more so. 


But, there are even counter-trends. The UK for example has a significant minority (or maybe it's a majority even) that wants to get out of the UK. I doubt that it's actually in the interest of the British, but several of my friends and co-workers say they could leave and the rest of the EU wouldn't suffer for it. I don't know. The UK likes to isolate itself from the rest of Europe, or so it sometimes sees, but what has the UK actually left to offer other than it's financial business (aka banks?) It seems most of its big industry companies have been dismantled or sold. Will the people of the UK really fare better without easy access to the EU? Or do they believe this is a chance for UK's industry to rebuild itself? What do the banks think? Getting out of the EU a chance to avoid regulation? Or is it a greater risk?

Greece is in trouble, and I think a lot of the mutual trust and respect has eroded there. I don't think Greece is treated well here (particularly not by Germany and German media), but I also don't think the Greek government (and probably media) is handling it well, either.
And Greence might just be the first country in trouble -Spain and Italy aren't doing that great either.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 12, 2015)

goldomark said:


> It simple economics. Austerity is the product of neoliberal ideology, not actual economic science.



And it's really, really popular with German politicians for some reason. And part of its people, too. 




> It does so in part with federal transfers of money that help balance the  whole act and maintain the union. This is what the EU is lacking. In  part.



Well, there are transfers of money between the EU members. So it seems more that the transfers are insufficient for the differences between the nations perhaps.


--

Someone mentioned the "Balkanization" before.. It's an "interesting" trend (or maybe I should also say "trend", because it's not new). There are countries with separatist movements that wish their region to split off the country (not the EU usually however). 
It's an interesting movement - in many cases, it's the economically strong regions that want to leave the country. Probably in part because they feel (or are) the people that "pay" the poor part of the country. 

It seems sometimes there is a lack of solidarity - and the lack of understanding that this can lead to even bigger problems. Disparities between countries is what caused many of the previous European conflicts, isn't it?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 12, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But, there are even counter-trends. The UK for example has a significant minority (or maybe it's a majority even) that wants to get out of the UK. I doubt that it's actually in the interest of the British, but several of my friends and co-workers say they could leave and the rest of the EU wouldn't suffer for it. I don't know. The UK likes to isolate itself from the rest of Europe, or so it sometimes sees, but what has the UK actually left to offer other than it's financial business (aka banks?) It seems most of its big industry companies have been dismantled or sold. Will the people of the UK really fare better without easy access to the EU? Or do they believe this is a chance for UK's industry to rebuild itself? What do the banks think? Getting out of the EU a chance to avoid regulation? Or is it a greater risk?




I don't think so.  While there will always be small but loud Brexit movements, I don't think it's what most people want, and it's certainly not what the government wants. I don't think I actually know anybody who thinks it's a good idea to leave the EU.  Guess we'll find out in the referendum!


----------



## Morrus (Jul 12, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> Even in the face of a global catastrophe, I don't think the U.S. would join a global government unless it were simply a matter of adding other countries to the list of U.S. states.




I don't think it'll happen either, but bear in mind that the US in a hundred years won't necessarily be the superpower it is today.  A century can bring about massive global reconfiguration.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2015)

Exactly.


----------



## Enkhidu (Jul 12, 2015)

I find the Greece situation fascinating - they are the Nevada to Germany's California. It gives a glimpse of "what might have been" in my country.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 12, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Someone mentioned the "Balkanization" before.. It's an "interesting" trend (or maybe I should also say "trend", because it's not new). There are countries with separatist movements that wish their region to split off the country (not the EU usually however).
> It's an interesting movement - in many cases, it's the economically strong regions that want to leave the country. Probably in part because they feel (or are) the people that "pay" the poor part of the country.
> 
> It seems sometimes there is a lack of solidarity - and the lack of understanding that this can lead to even bigger problems. Disparities between countries is what caused many of the previous European conflicts, isn't it?




That would be me and, if it's the more prosperous regions that wish to separate, something that I have my doubts about, then it would tend to indicate that prosperity falls along cultural lines. Czech vs. Slovac. Serb. vs. Croat, vs. Albanians. No, I would say that things break down on ancient tribal lines. If one group is more prosperous than the other(s) then that's about bigotry, not prosperity.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 12, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> Might the European nations combine peacefully? How far down the road might we see a "President of Europe"?




It could happen, but I don't really know enough about the European character to speak intelligently on it. To my mind, I think that might be happen around the time that we're moving past the idea of the bordered top-down nation-state.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 12, 2015)

WayneLigon said:


> It could happen, but I don't really know enough about the European character to speak intelligently on it. To my mind, I think that might be happen around the time that we're moving past the idea of the bordered top-down nation-state.




Like I said, there isn't a "European character". England and Greece are no more similar than are the U.S. and Colombia, or other American countries.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 13, 2015)

So the United States of Europe is as likely as the United States of the Americas? Sounds about right.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 13, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> So the United States of Europe is as likely as the United States of the Americas? Sounds about right.




Compared to Europe as a whole, the United States of America was born of a far more homogeneous group. They shared common language. Many were outcasts from the UK, which gave them common cause to draw them together. As other mother nations drew back, they grew to fill the power vacuum.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 13, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Compared to Europe as a whole, the United States of America was born of a far more homogeneous group. They shared common language. Many were outcasts from the UK, which gave them common cause to draw them together. As other mother nations drew back, they grew to fill the power vacuum.



 I understand that. And I realize how varied of peoples are in Europe, causing the anti-unification troubles.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 13, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> I understand that. And I realize how varied of peoples are in Europe, causing the anti-unification troubles.




Sorry, to me your previous post implied the opposite. Unless it was sarcasm, which we all know doesn't travel well in text.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 13, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Sorry, to me your previous post implied the opposite. Unless it was sarcasm, which we all know doesn't travel well in text.




You misread it.  He said "of the Americas" not "of America".


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 13, 2015)

Morrus said:


> You misread it.  He said "of the Americas" not "of America".




You're right. I did.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 13, 2015)

Thank you Morrus. Yes indeed.  That nailed it. 

But It does not take much to miss a small detail of one letter. I have been forgiven of much worse gaffs in a post, so It behooves me to readily forgive this small speck of a miss. It has been written "somewhere" (read: religion based statement) Why worry of the speck in my brother's eye when I have a beam in my own.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 13, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Compared to Europe as a whole, the United States of America was born of a far more homogeneous group. They shared common language. Many were outcasts from the UK, which gave them common cause to draw them together. As other mother nations drew back, they grew to fill the power vacuum.




Yep The Mythology of America with its Frontier Pilgrims, Founding Fathers and War of Independence has created a unified identity of 'Freedom', Self Reliance and Group Heroism (American Democracy) which binds the States into a common nationality. The Civil War, the Freeing of the Slaves, the 'Freeing' of Texas and California and the Civil Rights Movement have all added to the Uniting of the States.

The Mythology of Europe however is much older and is regional in its focus, and despite the fact that the Monarchs are in fact related has emphasized the separate sovereign identity. More Over the traditional divides between Britain and the Continent, Northern and Southern Europe, Western and Eastern, Protestant and Catholic still hold sway and means that though cooperation, common trade and military alliance work as a central tenant of European peace and civilisation, full political unity will not be achieved without a fundamental shift in European culture and European psychology. Short of a new plague or an apocolyptic war I don't see that happening.

Europe wont follow the US model simply because their mythic origins are entirely different


----------



## Umbran (Jul 13, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> Europe wont follow the US model simply because their mythic origins are entirely different




Unless need drives them to do so.

One can imagine, for example, that, in the near future, the world will need far more unified policies on resource use, under which individual nations simply could not be allowed to forge their own paths.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 13, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I don't think so.  While there will always be small but loud Brexit movements, I don't think it's what most people want, and it's certainly not what the government wants. I don't think I actually know anybody who thinks it's a good idea to leave the EU.  Guess we'll find out in the referendum!



So what is the reason for the calls of the referendum? Is it to shup up the minority in the UK that's want the Brexit?

Unless the government really thinks a Brexit is a good way to go, it seems to me they are risking a lot here. If the people call for a Brexit, they'd basicaly have to implement it. Which they don't actualyl want.
If they don't call for it, the government's negotiation position towards the EU seems weakened - as the EU knows the threat of leaving is empty. 

But maybe that's okay for the UK?

I mean, the Greece situatin is just as weird now. The government asks for a referendum on whether the austerity politics the EU and others demand are to be followed or not. The people vote against it. And suddenly Greece provides an offer that seems to go considerably beyond their previous ones. I had expected the opposite to happen.


Things seem a bit weird in politics these days, I guess. 
Heck, there was just a mail service strike in Germany. Several weeks went by with many post office workers not working. The strike ended with a deal - which was barely compensating the inflation, and the major point of contention - outsourcing to sub-contractors / union rates for sub contractor employees remains unresolved. 
The last negotiation between the company I work for and the union got a result that's even a bit better, without any big points of contention. And it required no strikes.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 13, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So what is the reason for the calls of the referendum? Is it to shup up the minority in the UK that's want the Brexit?
> 
> Unless the government really thinks a Brexit is a good way to go, it seems to me they are risking a lot here. If the people call for a Brexit, they'd basicaly have to implement it. Which they don't actualyl want.
> If they don't call for it, the government's negotiation position towards the EU seems weakened - as the EU knows the threat of leaving is empty.




To be honest, you're asking the wrong person.  I may happen to live here, but I'm far from an astute political theorist.

The referendum - which is currently slated for October 2016 - is to find out what the public wants.  The job of the government is to act on behalf of the people.  I assume the current government is fairly confident about it, but there will obviously be a lot of campaigning between now and then just like there was for the Scottish referendum.


----------



## nerfherder (Jul 13, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So what is the reason for the calls of the referendum?



It was at least partly to neutralise the UKIP vote at the last general election.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 13, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Unless need drives them to do so.
> 
> One can imagine, for example, that, in the near future, the world will need far more unified policies on resource use, under which individual nations simply could not be allowed to forge their own paths.




Yes, for example water is already becoming an issue. California is having a fairly hard time of it (that'll teach 'em for building their largest city in a desert) and on more than one occasion, in the past, there's been talk of pipelining water down from the Canadian border to there. The Great Lakes are another sticking point.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 13, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Unless need drives them to do so.
> 
> One can imagine, for example, that, in the near future, the world will need far more unified policies on resource use, under which individual nations simply could not be allowed to forge their own paths.




even then I done see a full Political Union happening, the EU as it is now has common policies for resource use and distribution across the whole region, taking that next step to a singular European sovereignty is too much. It wont happen before the World Government happens


----------



## delericho (Jul 22, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So what is the reason for the calls of the referendum? Is it to shup up the minority in the UK that's want the Brexit?




As Nerfherder said, it was partly to stop UKIP from winning votes from the Tories. Partly, it was also to keep the anti-EU members of the Tory party on-side (they're more prevalent in the Tory party than in the population as a whole). And partly it was just a really easy promise to make - almost nobody expected the Tories to win an outright majority in the General Election, and it would have been the first thing "extremely reluctantly" conceded in negotiations with the Lib Dems.

But in fairness to him (and much as it pains me to say it), one of the few things I have to credit David Cameron with is that he does truly seem to be a democrat. Twice now he's allowed political opponents to have referenda on key issues that he himself doesn't agree with, and twice he's won. And, as a consequence, electoral reform is now effectively a dead issue, and Scottish Independence is likewise probably done for a similar time (despite a lot of noise to the contrary).

So he'll hold this referendum, he'll win (however he defines that), and thereafter every time the issue is raised the response will be "well, we had a referendum, and that's what people decided."

And it's just as well, really. The Tories have won UK politics for the foreseeable future. So without this referendum it would be boring.


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 22, 2015)

I can understand why Britain might feel distant in terms of psychology from the mainland, but I will always regard the notion that Britain is not part of Europe as just silly. The only contintentally misplaced country I can think of that might have a good claim to not being considered part of its own continent is Greenland. And that is a country with exceptionally little contact with North America relative to Britain and mainland Europe. I cannot imagine any North America saying, "Well, some of my ancestors were British and some of them were European." People would look at them like there was something seriously wrong with their heads.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 22, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> I can understand why Britain might feel distant in terms of psychology from the mainland, but I will always regard the notion that Britain is not part of Europe as just silly.




On behalf of all 65 million of us, we are all deeply sorry to hear that you feel that way. We were waiting anxiously for your validation! You're mentioned in prophecy in Henry VIII's diary. 

In other news, why did you Americans try to invade the Falklands a while back?

It's not about geography.


----------



## delericho (Jul 22, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> I can understand why Britain might feel distant in terms of psychology from the mainland, but I will always regard the notion that Britain is not part of Europe as just silly.




Almost nobody thinks of us as not being part of Europe, since that's just a matter of geography. But that's rather different from not wanting us to be part of _the EU_, which is just a political entity. Indeed, Switzerland are considerably more central in Europe, but not part of the EU.


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 22, 2015)

Morrus said:


> In other news, why did you Americans try to invade the Falklands a while back?




Didn't Rockhopper discover some oil that needed liberating?


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 22, 2015)

Morrus said:


> On behalf of all 65 million of us, we are all deeply sorry to hear that you feel that way. We were waiting anxiously for your validation! You're mentioned in prophecy in Henry VIII's diary.



Good, most of my ancestors were the British variety of European. So there is a version of "us" that includes me, though it is rather larger than 65 million,  .



> In other news, why did you Americans try to invade the Falklands a while back?



That is a semantic game no one is going to win any points on. There is simply no straight comparison between the term American and European. I do not think there even is a widely used term to refer to all people from the Americas. Such as why the games being held in Toronto as we type are qualified as the Pan-American games. I mean, calling us all Pan-Americans is comprehensible, but not popular. Certainly rolls off the tongue better than "New Worlders" though.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 22, 2015)

Morrus said:


> In other news, why did you Americans try to invade the Falklands a while back?




Why did you guys try to defend them?  Penguin liberty?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 22, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Why did you guys try to defend them?  Penguin liberty?




The right to self-determination. And more importantly, the principle that you *never* allow someone to invade you, for any reason.

Would you defend Alaska if Canada or Russia said "hey, it's next to us, so it logically belongs to us"?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 22, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> Good, most of my ancestors were the British variety of European. So there is a version of "us" that includes me, though it is rather larger than 65 million,  .




I don't know you, so I'm going on a limb when I say this but: nope. You're American. We do not include you in that 65 million. 



> That is a semantic game no one is going to win any points on. There is simply no straight comparison between the term American and European.




It was just a joke. I don't seriously think Argentina and Canada are the same place.  Similarly, the UK, Russia, and Greece are not remotely similar. 




> I mean, calling us all Pan-Americans is comprehensible, but not popular.




Is it OK if I brand you all as "silly" for thinking so? Seriously, though, cultural identity is an issue of self-determination and *really* important. You can't look on from the outside and proffer opinion. Well, you can, but it holds no weight any more than my opinions on your culture do.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 22, 2015)

Morrus said:


> The right to self-determination. And more importantly, the principle that you *never* allow someone to invade you, for any reason.
> 
> Would you defend Alaska if Canada or Russia said "hey, it's next to us, so it logically belongs to us"?




I'd probably let Canada have it, then take it back after they fixed up the place.


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 22, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I don't know you, so I'm going on a limb when I say this but: nope. You're American. We do not include you in that 65 million.



Not in the 65 million with British citizenship. Rather in the 65+ with heritage that is English, Scottish, Welsh, et cetera. I think of my ancestors as European. If British is not European, then English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Manx (and Channel Islander?) are not European. So I would be mistaken about my ancestors if they were not European. But they are. 

Also, calling a Canadian an American is like calling a New Zealander an Aussie, and neither of those cases are like calling Brits Europeans. When you call a Brit European you are not mistaking or negating their Britishness. No one is mistaking you for a Frenchman or a Grecian or a Russian when they call you European. But call a Canadian or New Zealander one of those things to his face and it is only logical to assume that the person in question is mistaken about where you are from. 



> Is it OK if I brand you all as "silly" for thinking so?



I did not mean popular as in approved of but rather as widespread in this case, so I would actually totally accept being called silly for objecting to be called Pan-American.


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 22, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> I'd probably let Canada have it, then take it back after they fixed up the place.




We expect payment in the form of the Panhandle.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 22, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> We expect payment in the form of the Panhandle.




I'm out of panhandle.  Will you accept putin instead?


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 22, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> I'm out of panhandle.  Will you accept putin instead?




I do not think America can sell Putin.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 22, 2015)

Morrus said:


> The right to self-determination. And more importantly, the principle that you *never* allow someone to invade you, for any reason.
> 
> Would you defend Alaska if Canada or Russia said "hey, it's next to us, so it logically belongs to us"?




Alaska has a significant store of mineral and biological resources.  We make no bones about it.  

Now, the Falklands are (hopefully) sitting on a lot of oil.  That would be a reason to hang on to them.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 22, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> I do not think America can sell Putin.




Isn't that how you spell the food item pronounced poo-teen?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 22, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Alaska has a significant store of mineral and biological resources.  We make no bones about it.
> 
> Now, the Falklands are (hopefully) sitting on a lot of oil.  That would be a reason to hang on to them.




Would you defend Alaska if it had no resources?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 22, 2015)

Edit: never mind. Not worth it. I'm finding myself irritated, which is not a good reason to post.


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 22, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> Isn't that how you spell the food item pronounced poo-teen?




Poutine.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 22, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> Poutine.




Ah, okay.  Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 22, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> That is a semantic game no one is going to win any points on. There is simply no straight comparison between the term American and European. I do not think there even is a widely used term to refer to all people from the Americas. Such as why the games being held in Toronto as we type are qualified as the Pan-American games. I mean, calling us all Pan-Americans is comprehensible, but not popular. Certainly rolls off the tongue better than "New Worlders" though.




You want 'em? Those games are messing up my commute and I think that Gautier would relish the chance to rent out Shannonville for track and cycling events


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 22, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I think that this merely illustrates that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.  Look, dude, stop telling me about my culture.  Ancestors do *not* qualify you to do so, any more than my Viking ancestors allow me to tell Swedes about their own national and cultural identity. This conversation is becoming really uncomfortable, and I don't understand how you don't see how.  Please stop, huh?




Living in a colonial society might make one think of these things different. Be thankful that you do not have anyone telling you you do not belong in the country of your birth and the only one you have ever lived in. This is the reason why when some people float the idea of more open "borders" between the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada I think they are making a rather significant mistake by assuming the colonial difference is not fundamental; that the UK is sufficiently like the other three. Nope.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 22, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Would you defend Alaska if it had no resources?




All places have resources worth keeping.  If Alaska didn't have oil, gold, trees & the like, it would still have deep reserves of independence and crazy, both of which are held in extremely high value in the USA.  See also Florida, California, Montana and my home state, Louisiana.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 22, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> All places have resources worth keeping.  If Alaska didn't have oil, gold, trees & the like, it would still have deep reserves of independence and crazy, both of which are held in extremely high value in the USA.  See also Florida, California, Montana and my home state, Louisiana.




I think you understand what my question is, Danny. You're brighter than I am; you know exactly what my question is.


----------

