European super-state: the sooner the better

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

The E.U is not only about domestic consideration, it's the realisation that in a globalizing world europe ,as integrated as it is really needs coôrperation between it's member country's to strenthen to overall position of europe in this world.the E.U is something that will evolve.Within here and twenty years ,the E.U has realy (to my consideration) the potential to be powerfull genneraly.The fact that europe doesn't has a lot of troop's is it's low level of millitary coöperation and the lowel level military spendings.Really even today Europe is the second most powerfull entity in the world, and has a good potential to grow.Though america doesn't have to fear Europe.Europe and America will always have strong comman interests.for ex. Europe and America are economicly tied toghether.

 

[DaEezT]

k, since nobody here seems to see the real problem of a European Superstate I'll tell you:

Football would be boring!
No European Championship, no Champions League and boring World Cups. If you take the best players from England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain together to one Team it would make World Cups pretty boring. Especially because instead of 10+ teams (depending on how many states would ber in the Euro Superstate) there would be only one = less matches...

 

[Ashoka]

Well, I would say the violence around football games is the closest thing to inter-European military action we currently have.

If a USE eliminated that, what would all the hooligans do?

(We could give them all a liter of beer, an AK47 and a one-way ticket to Afghanistan, I suppose!)


Ashoka

 

[Rhye]

OK, let's write the 11 European players

I begin proposing italians:

1. Toldo
2.
3.
4.
5. Cannavaro
6. Nesta
7.
8.
9.
10. Totti
11.

 

[ComradeDavo]

hmm...i'll continue with the English (um, that will be Becks then, and i'm a Southampton supporter for crying out loud!!) and the Spanish. yeah, i know i put Becks in the middle but Mendietta is an a class act on the right.

1. Toldo
2.
3.
4.
5. Cannavaro
6. Nesta
7. Mendietta
8. Beckham
9. Raul
10. Totti
11.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

While the goal is idealistic, I don't think any European supranational entity will be possible in the near future. The trend in the past few years has been for the breaking up of political entities. Witness the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Even Chezchoslovakia broke up into two. Goes to show that nationalistic and ethnic feelings override practicality of political unifications.
While the EC may be nothing like the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, still it is composed of a lot of different countries with their own political, economic and cultural agendas. To get everybody to act together is hard enough. To become a single political organism may nigh well be impossible.

 

[Rhye]

Mendieta isn't playing well this season.
I would suggest Zidane or Nedved instead

 

[Mikoyan]

Zidane rulez!
None play football as good as we north-africans!

 

[Dell19]

I think if Europe did become all one country we would still be separate as nations and would still have individual national football teams. Take a look at the United Kingdom. We have four national teams from the same country... and we all speak the same language (Apart from some Welsh people).

 

[CornMaster]

I'm for a united World Government. So a united European state is the first stepping stone. Whether we will have a country called "Europe" or a bunch of independent states loosely ruled by a central government....it's all the same to me. Cooperation between countries is a must.

Edit: Forgot to meantion about the European army. Although I'm against military action (expecially FORCED military action such as the draft), a European Army would be an excellent step toward a united European State. Would also create cooperation, and understanding between countries.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Thank you for bringing this thread back to it's topic (damn soccer)

Cooperation between countries is a must.

i think so to ,especialy in a globalizing world!

Forgot to meantion about the European army. Although I'm against military action (expecially FORCED military action such as the draft), a European Army would be an excellent step toward a united European State. Would also create cooperation, and understanding between countries.

Excelent oppinion.Just a question to you American's ,if europe would become a second superpower ,could you live with it that they (we europeans) could criticize youre foureign policy more?and maybe that European's would take their own steps in foureign policy toward's other nation's ,and that those policy's wouldn't be always on the same line as America's foureign policy?

 

[CornMaster]

As a Canadian-American D) I'm against any foregin policy that aims to seperate or divide nations or peoples. And for any policy that attempts to bring them closer through non-violent means.

But I'm not your average American.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

I think you had best define who will be in this "EU" superpower and who won't.

Will it include the eastern and middle european states?

Will it be dominated by the "big three"? (Britain, France, Germany)

Can Europeans put aside centuries old grievences?

In my opinion, the first is no, the second is yes, and the third is no.

In other words, it's extremly unlikely.

I don't think countries like Poland and Hungary or Belarus will be allowed in the union, and as such, it would be doomed to failure.

 

[Glaurung]

bad idea, no question about it. very reminiscent of Orwell's Oceania...except the united states would never agree to join...

it would increase bureaucracy as well, no question about it. maybe someone who is more eloquent, eg, aoa or bluemonday, or lefty, explain why.

and, corn, united world will never happen. it is impossible. the mere weight of 'it' would cause it to topple before 'it' would even be completed. kind of like when you try to expand to far under despotism(in civ). definately will never happen.

"a European Army would be an excellent step toward a united European State. Would also create cooperation, and understanding between countries."

nothing could be further from the truth

it would be hated and feared in all countries. it would cause contention between all of the countries: "we have the biggest part of the army, we decide where it goes. its not fair we have to contribute the most." besides, it would most likely be spread too thin, considering the pathetic state of the armies already existant. it would be used to suppress dissenting countries, and force them to do the will of the big brother.

something i remember hearing while on a tour bus in new york last summer.

"New York City has about 39,000 police officers. to put that in perspective, Canada's armed forces only have about 40000 people serving. so, on a good day, New York could take Canada."

-new york city tour guide

 

[willemvanoranje]

You forgot to put Dutch in your super team!

1. Toldo
2. Stam
3. F. de Boer
4.
5. Cannavaro
6. Nesta
7. Mendietta
8. Beckham
9. Raul
10. Totti
11. Kluivert/Van Nistelrooy

And don't forget to NOT let them take penalties, you all know what happens. Be smarter than Manchester United and don't think: Aaah, he's a striker! (Van Nistelrooy)
And all of you, be prepared for the Dutch supeteam of young ones in 2006, 2008 and 2010! Rafael van der Vaart, Coutinho, Van Bommel, and lots more! They'll conquer the world! (Damn you english, your clubs will probably drag them out of here when they're transfer-free)
A better co-operation between football clubs in Europe, and especially between national teams could prevent the U.S. 2010-plan lol, the U.S. started a program with which they want to win the world cup in 2010!!! They really know **** about football when they think they can do it that easily!

 

[willemvanoranje]

I think in a later stage, the eastern countries can and will be allowed. But as you say, AoA, when they come now it will be a disaster. I think seriously that the European Superstate should control the countries from one government, have one army and one police force. But the other things, like national football competitions can stay the same. The national leagues are just as now the qualification for the play-offs (Championsleague, UEFA cup). And we can only benefit from 1 national team in the end I guess. Though I'm sure I'll get out of the European Union when Rafael van der Vaart won't be in before 2006.

 

[allan]

About a "world government": The problem I have with such an idea is, where would the dissenters go?

Throughout history, men have always had the ultimate, and sometimes difficult, option of immigrating to another country if circumstances get too bad where they are at (including government oppression). Under a world government, that option would cease to exist. That ALONE is to me more than sufficient reason to resist such a thing utterly. When and if interplanetary travel and immigration becomes possible for common people, then a "united Earth" government would be acceptable. But not before....

As for ability to happen, there will ALWAYS be rebellions against it, in many corners of the world, including areas where there normally is peace today--parts of the US included. So it would not establish itself peacefully.... What does that leave?

 

[adamsj]

I think that the EU and the rest of the World should join to form a SuperWorld state, so we can all work together to work for a better world.

 

[Aussie]

Watch out
Down in the Land downunder we are quitely building away and who knows in another 200 yrs maybe we will be the FORCE... then again maybe we'll just sit around the barbie have a few beers and have a good time

 

[joespaniel]

We Europeans could critcize US foriegn policy even more

I dont think thats possible!

Its OK, US foriegn policy is criticized at home, too. It's a good thing to question the motives and possible outcomes of actions by the government of the worlds most powerful nation. Accountability is a good thing.

I think the US and the EU will continue to enjoy a positive relationship, no matter what form the Union takes.

Once again, I caution against too much centralized power. Europe has much, much more diversity than the US, and it could get a little sticky.<---notice: I used the word "sticky" in Graeme's thread!