Whatever that may turn out to mean (e.g inviting Russia inside for example, if the aim is peace in Europe) - why isn't UK leading that debate within what is now our monster neighbour, instead of being dragged along by history?

I personally don't have a problem with one central government ruling the whole of Europe. Not as if we have creditable governments ruling us at the moment, or for the last 50 years or so.
I think they would have a PR system too, which people still try to convince me is best.

So take Canada (second physically largest country I think), a huge land area, many dispersed and different people, different economies and it survives with one central government no problem. Why should the EU not be able to do the same. What is the UK currently offering the world at the moment, Boris!

Are UK voters not aware of this?!?

Posted By: Ed DaviesWhere is it stated?

I think it comes from musing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_superstate
Not actual policy.
One should never allow fact to get in the way of a good story.

Wow this is interesting. I wonder what percentage voted in the referendum with out this knowledge.

My experience of living in the USA, which was over 20 years ago, was that the 'State' managed most of its internal affairs, including local budgets, sales tax, business rates etc. Not so different from our local governments. When I moved to Cornwall, it had lots of local departments, now it is a unitary local government. The services I pay for and use (a limited list) has not changed as far as I can see (so rubbish is collected on a Friday rather than a Monday, big deal). There has been changes, such as charges for some rubbish at the local tip, but I think they are national, not local.


Having a quick look at the results from my local elections (2013) I notice that for the County elections there was a 33.33% turnout, for the Town and Parish (17 uncontested, 9 contested) there was a 34.61% turnout.
In the General Election (2015) there was a 70.13% turnout.
The EU elections (2014) there was a 36% voter turnout.
In the Referendum, there was a 76.3% turnout.
I am not sure what those figures show, there does seems to be a lack of interest at the local level and the the EU level. That could possibly change if were were part of an EU voting/federal block.

It's why I asked the question who is driving it.
Let's assume the worst, in my eyes that is, that there is a master plan. Why would you put that on paper for all to see. No, you'd play the much more canny game of creeping federalisation that is happening right now.

Article 50 would be the next to go, or at least made very difficult, to thwart any other rogue, i.e. UK type dissenters. The whole show would them resemble the Cosa Nostra, once you're in you can't get out. All done in the best possible taste (sic), of course.

Subsidiarity is a sop to the masses. Let them think they are in control, Village fetes, rubbish collection, etc.. We'll still take their taxes and re distribute them to suit our end game. Whilst on that subject I was amazed during the campaign how many delusional individuals, BBC too, were quoting how EU money had built "this bridge", "that community centre", " yonder flood defence" etc.. No it didn't, the EU doesn't have any money, the Bureaucrats, (sorry tom foster), gave you back your money.

If there is no master plan then why is the EU on this track, that for me is the 64 dollar question, Is it liberal thought, the forces of globalisation. If there is a greater truth to the end result then say it out loud, and be judged.

The EU is becoming a State, you can't deny it, Flag, Anthem, Single Market, Passport, Import restrictions, regulations by the truckload, et al; Soon.... President, Airline, Army, Navy, Airforce, The Bomb. And all done without any of the usual interference from those pesky voters.

Nein Danke

"Small and mean"??
I suggest you look at UK Foreign Aid. Add to that the EU protectionist policies, that damage many third world countries.

P.S. I know why it's given, what I objected to was the terminology "EU" money. The distribution of which is just another example of buying allegiance into the eventual Super-state, -- bribery.

Posted By: bot de pailleWow this is interesting. I wonder what percentage voted in the referendum with out this knowledge.

Since you refuse to cite a source we can reasonably come to the conclusion that you're bullshitting, can't we?

As billt says, there are plenty of people, including some quite important ones within the EU bureaucracy, who want more federalization. It doesn't follow that it's any sort of official policy, that they'll get it or, especially, that they'll get it against the will of the majority of the countries or voters in the EU.

(Personally, I'd want to read the small print quite carefully but, in principle, more federalization doesn't seem awful. The prospect of some moves in that direction would not have put me off voting remain. E.g., a European “army” in the sense of a purely EU command structure within/alongside NATO would make some sense, particularly if the US moves to a more isolationist position.)

This debate does seem to have stirred up occasional bad behaviour, I guess I'm to blame for starting the thread.

Ed's bullshit remark was mild, although uncalled for. Remember what I was called.....................

"And if I were to characterise you, I'd say you were in the same group as the old, half illiterate, dreaming of "old England", flag waving idiots."

That's how you really demean yourself.

Welcome to the club.

Posted By: Ed Davies
As billt says, there are plenty of people, including some quite important ones within the EU bureaucracy, who want more federalization. It doesn't follow that it's any sort of official policy, that they'll get it or, especially, that they'll get it against the will of the majority of the countries or voters in the EU.

And that last bit is key. To get the federalism that **some** politicians within the EU would like, they would require another Treaty. To which ALL member states would need to agree. And at that point it would likely fail. (and would certainly be the point at which the UK could have got out of the "federalism of Europe").

It's just an idea that some EU politicians would like to see. Like some UK politicians would like to see the return of the death penalty, or removal of employment rights etc. Doesn't make it a hard solid plan. Doesn't mean we wouldn't get a say in if it will happen or not.

I just can't see it happening. There are too many nationalists in each country. To try for federalism now would risk putting a hard line right wing government into power in one or more countries, possibly even France or Germany. Remember EVERY country would need to agree, or leave the union.
A full political union would also mean the Germans will be completely (unlike the partial responsibility they have now as part of the Euro) on the hook for bailing out PIGS countries, permanently. It ain't gonna happen.

And where is the legislation to create a European Army? That's just another leave scare mongering tactic.
https://fullfact.org/europe/hunt-eu-army/

I agree that the remodelling of the EU you describe above is the most likely outcome. I think this would have happened anyway (the Eurozone is too imbalanced), Brexit is making it more likely. Trouble is, that we are unlikely to be allowed back into the resulting "good bit" after throwing our toys out of the pram.

According to todays Sunday Times the government department with responsibility for Brexit doesn't yet have a phone line. Apparently business leaders trying to call them have been passed around from one office to the next.

Openreach will get around to it eventually :-)

is this finally your proof for stating that "The eventual stated aim is the creation of a federal super state ruled from Brussels…"?

Case proven - lets all move on.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: jfb</cite>is this finally your proof for stating that "The eventual stated aim is the creation of a federal super state ruled from Brussels…"?

Case proven - lets all move on.</blockquote>

I have always known that the EU was a Federal political project and not just economic in scope. From discussions with UK voters in the EU referendum is was clear that there was very little knowledge of what the final aims of the EU were, including the creation of an EU army. Everyone responded with incredulity that an EU army was coming. This is now turning out not to be the case and that an EU army is and has always been on the agenda. The rest will follow.