European Superstate

[Arch Stanton]

On 22/12/2023 at 19:07, Richey Edwards said:

I would like to see a European superstate within the next decade.

Would you?

 

 

[Michael W]

2 hours ago, Suspect Device said:

Pourquoi?

It riles them that English is preferred to French within international institutions and it's important that a superstate reinforces the status quo. 

[Richey Edwards]

4 hours ago, Michael W said:

It riles them that English is preferred to French within international institutions and it's important that a superstate reinforces the status quo. 

How about we compromise and say German?

[Michael W]

2 minutes ago, Richey Edwards said:

How about we compromise and say German?

Ja, das ist gut. 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

1 hour ago, Richey Edwards said:

How about we compromise and say German?

[itzdrk]

14 hours ago, Trogdor said:

Define superstate.

Well if it's the EU then everything will just exist to benefit corporations. 

[Salt n Vinegar]

10 hours ago, itzdrk said:

Well if it's the EU then everything will just exist to benefit corporations. 

As opposed to the UK, where the interests of the rich, the powerful and the corporations couldn't be further from the Government's collective minds... .

Merry Humbug.

[itzdrk]

57 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

As opposed to the UK, where the interests of the rich, the powerful and the corporations couldn't be further from the Government's collective minds... .

Merry Humbug.

Two awful choices we have, yes. 

[coprolite]

I think that France is super

[The Other Foot]

Define European. Are the Aussies involved, like in Eurovision? They’ve got lots of minerals but they’re fucking annoying when they’re drunk. What about the Israelis? I hear they’re having some issues just now. 

Edited December 25, 2023 by The Other Foot

[Richey Edwards]

57 minutes ago, The Other Foot said:

Define European. Are the Aussies involved, like in Eurovision? They’ve got lots of minerals but they’re fucking annoying when they’re drunk. What about the Israelis? I hear they’re having some issues just now. 

Australia and Israel are not in Europe.

 

[The Other Foot]

2 hours ago, Richey Edwards said:

Australia and Israel are not in Europe.

 

Fine. What about Russia?

[Arch Stanton]

8 minutes ago, The Other Foot said:

Fine. What about Russia?

Part of it is, most of it isn't .

Same with Turkey.

Edited December 25, 2023 by Arch Stanton

[The Other Foot]

Just now, Arch Stanton said:

Part of it us, most of it isn't .

Same with Turkey.

Yes I know. I’m asking if they’re allowed in our superstate

[Richey Edwards]

2 minutes ago, The Other Foot said:

Fine. What about Russia?

No. The European Superstate needs to put Russia's gas at peep. 

[Fullerene]

On 25/12/2023 at 21:56, The Other Foot said:

Fine. What about Russia?

Fun fact: European Russia is larger in area than the next 19 largest countries (by area) in Europe combined.  What we call Eastern Europe should really be called Central Europe.

Fun fact: Istanbul and Moscow are the two largest cities in Europe.

[SandyCromarty]

On 22/12/2023 at 19:07, Richey Edwards said:

I would like to see a European superstate within the next decade.

Would you?

The idea is far from new, the groundwork was laid in 1958 when Konrad Adenaur and Charles De Gaulle met at De Gaulles house in Colombey-les-Deux-Eglise, the meeting was instigated by De Gaulle who wanted European supremacy involving only major Countries on the European landmass, the UK was not one of those countries.

Fast Forward and the situation as of now is clearly a Europe led in the main, as the major contributors, by France and Germany.

Is this a Superstate then the answer is no clearly given that Europe is divided by cultures and languages.

Then the question to ask is does a Superstate exist today?

I could be said that Russia is one but we know that the Russia that existed fifty years ago no longer exists, even Stalins Georgia is making noises to join the EU.

So we look to the United States of America, where we here see this as one undivided country, however the Answer is in Americas title where the country is only United by 50 separate states all with their own little senates and laws and many of them opposed to Federal Governmental jurisdiction, we see two states with maybe more to follow removing a possible presidential candidate from the ballot paper, then we also had the riots in Washingtons Capitol buildings, and lets not forget the North and South divide.

So with human nature being what it is there will never be a world Superstate until humanity is wiped out and AI technology rules.

[coprolite]

15 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

The idea is far from new, the groundwork was laid in 1958 when Konrad Adenaur and Charles De Gaulle met at De Gaulles house in Colombey-les-Deux-Eglise, the meeting was instigated by De Gaulle who wanted European supremacy involving only major Countries on the European landmass, the UK was not one of those countries.

Fast Forward and the situation as of now is clearly a Europe led in the main, as the major contributors, by France and Germany.

Is this a Superstate then the answer is no clearly given that Europe is divided by cultures and languages.

Then the question to ask is does a Superstate exist today?

I could be said that Russia is one but we know that the Russia that existed fifty years ago no longer exists, even Stalins Georgia is making noises to join the EU.

So we look to the United States of America, where we here see this as one undivided country, however the Answer is in Americas title where the country is only United by 50 separate states all with their own little senates and laws and many of them opposed to Federal Governmental jurisdiction, we see two states with maybe more to follow removing a possible presidential candidate from the ballot paper, then we also had the riots in Washingtons Capitol buildings, and lets not forget the North and South divide.

So with human nature being what it is there will never be a world Superstate until humanity is wiped out and AI technology rules.

The fact that the EU has multiple cultures and languages has no direct bearing on whether or not it's a unified "super-state". China is a state. India is a state. 

Not that "super state" (or even "state") is a well defined concept anyway, but those are defining characteristics more of nations than of states, and the two concepts aren't interchangeable. 

The Soviet Union probably was a "superstate" but was arguably more of a continuation of the Russian Empire. Modern Russia is nothing of the sort unless you believe that some of the remaining republics are state-like. Belarus is the only real client state left and that's as much part of Russia as the UK is of the US. 

There's a few big or biggish states with highly devolved local state or province government (US, India, etc) where the constituent parts don't have the true apparatus of a state and aren't externally recognised. 

There are fewer intergovernmental bodies that have some state like characteristics. Of those, i'd say the EU is most like a state. It has its own well developed legal system, some semblance of a unified defence policy. It is also represented at some intergovernment bodies (eg G7). 

Clearly it's not a Superstate yet, but it's about institutions, not culture. 

[SandyCromarty]

6 minutes ago, coprolite said:

The fact that the EU has multiple cultures and languages has no direct bearing on whether or not it's a unified "super-state". China is a state. India is a state. 

Not that "super state" (or even "state") is a well defined concept anyway, but those are defining characteristics more of nations than of states, and the two concepts aren't interchangeable. 

The Soviet Union probably was a "superstate" but was arguably more of a continuation of the Russian Empire. Modern Russia is nothing of the sort unless you believe that some of the remaining republics are state-like. Belarus is the only real client state left and that's as much part of Russia as the UK is of the US. 

There's a few big or biggish states with highly devolved local state or province government (US, India, etc) where the constituent parts don't have the true apparatus of a state and aren't externally recognised. 

There are fewer intergovernmental bodies that have some state like characteristics. Of those, i'd say the EU is most like a state. It has its own well developed legal system, some semblance of a unified defence policy. It is also represented at some intergovernment bodies (eg G7). 

Clearly it's not a Superstate yet, but it's about institutions, not culture. 

You're right in that countries within the EU are bound by set EU laws and shared currency but that is the only defining apparatus recognised throughout, having worked in and visited many of the smaller EU bound countries I was always made aware at all levels whether in Estonian generator factories, polish shipyards or tourist areas that nationals in all were very country first and EU second, national identity probably more to the fore than it was prior to EU entry, so from my experience culture and language has a direct bearing on any proposed superstate unification and I would say that there would be major opposition to such a proposal. 

This is how I would see Scotland within the EU framework.

EU policy would obviously always crow that different cultures do not matter with the EU as they will always preach the Unified Europe line, yet you have teh Hungarian government declaring the EU an oppressor comparable to the old Soviet union and trying to push anti immigration and anti LGBT laws, and Poland stating that their EU treaty was incompatible with their constitution.

Don't get me wrong I am, as is my family, 100% for the EU but my previous paragraph ending highlight why the EU could never nbe a Superstate.

China I have worked and lived in over many years from east to west and north to south and saw it come from Bicycles to the present day BMW and Mercedes consumer culture, within that Chinese label exists many many different cultures and peoples from the tall in the north to the smaller richer in the south. 

[coprolite]

12 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

You're right in that countries within the EU are bound by set EU laws and shared currency but that is the only defining apparatus recognised throughout, having worked in and visited many of the smaller EU bound countries I was always made aware at all levels whether in Estonian generator factories, polish shipyards or tourist areas that nationals in all were very country first and EU second, national identity probably more to the fore than it was prior to EU entry, so from my experience culture and language has a direct bearing on any proposed superstate unification and I would say that there would be major opposition to such a proposal. 

This is how I would see Scotland within the EU framework.

EU policy would obviously always crow that different cultures do not matter with the EU as they will always preach the Unified Europe line, yet you have teh Hungarian government declaring the EU an oppressor comparable to the old Soviet union and trying to push anti immigration and anti LGBT laws, and Poland stating that their EU treaty was incompatible with their constitution.

Don't get me wrong I am, as is my family, 100% for the EU but my previous paragraph ending highlight why the EU could never nbe a Superstate.

China I have worked and lived in over many years from east to west and north to south and saw it come from Bicycles to the present day BMW and Mercedes consumer culture, within that Chinese label exists many many different cultures and peoples from the tall in the north to the smaller richer in the south. 

Depends what you mean by super- state.

If you mean a unified entity that takes the place of current state level governments as a member of the UN etc then i agree that's unlikely. National identity is a big reason for that. 

If you mean something state-like that sits above the current states then they're part way there.