[Lord-Voldemort]

Are we just delaying the inevitable with all this talk about leaving the EU?

With globalisation and the growth of powers such as China and India - is an EU state an inevitability? Do you really see the UK surviving on its own in 100 years time?

[cl_steele]

we've survived for seversal millenia i doubt the rise of a new super power is going to make the UK extinct and either way who knows with things in the EU as they are currently the EU may well break apart who knows..

[seanfromtheblock]

(Original post by cl_steele)
we've survived for seversal millenia i doubt the rise of a new super power is going to make the UK extinct and either way who knows with things in the EU as they are currently the EU may well break apart who knows..

the UK's only about 300 years old

[Ra Ra Ra]

Now all I keep envisioning is groups of teenage jocks crying "U S E! U S E!" It doesn't quite have the same ring...

[MagicNMedicine]

No I think it is going to unravel.

If there is a United States of Europe then like the USA it will have to involve the richer states subsidising the poorer states by transfer payments. The Germans are the ones driving closer integration but they don't like this part of the deal, what they want is them to retain their high standards of living and the less well off countries to not require subsidising by enforcing tight austerity on them so they have crap public services, crap welfare and everybody in those countries has super low wages, to restore their 'competitiveness'. Which is fine apart from the fact you have free movement of labour so they will all go where they can get a better life which is Germany.

[Giant]

(Original post by Ra Ra Ra)
Now all I keep envisioning is groups of teenage jocks crying "U S E! U S E!" It doesn't quite have the same ring...

Plus the way many Europeans (French, Belgians, Italians etc.) say E is like "ay"

So it will be like "U S AY U S AY U S AY" etc. Haha, that would be funny

[Lipvig]

(Original post by Giant)
Plus the way many Europeans (French, Belgians, Italians etc.) say E is like "ay"

So it will be like "U S AY U S AY U S AY" etc. Haha, that would be funny

That just makes me think of a Canadian saying U S A!

Also, if we were involved, we would have to sacrifice the idea of James Bond, so that's a biiiiig no no in my books.

[cgraham15]

there's too much inequalities of wealth between the countries. The single-currency was bad enough, there is no way that economically, and culturally, different countries will be able to unite. The closest thing you will get is the top 5 countries uniting, which would be much more probable. Having said that, many people don't want to unite with other countries. For example, the French would never give up France to join one large country.

[Martyn*]

In order for there to be a USE the elites must want to breakdown national barriers and have a central government with one currency. This means New World Order. Of course, the New World Order is just a conspiracy theory, and so is the USE.

Only tin-foil hat wearing folk believe that there will be a United States of Europe.

[Lord-Voldemort]

(Original post by cgraham15)
there's too much inequalities of wealth between the countries. The single-currency was bad enough, there is no way that economically, and culturally, different countries will be able to unite. The closest thing you will get is the top 5 countries uniting, which would be much more probable. Having said that, many people don't want to unite with other countries. For example, the French would never give up France to join one large country.

Wasn't this the same for the individual colonies in the US? Haven't they become slightly more homogeneous and US-focused rather than just state-focused over the past two or so centuries?

[AverageExcellence]

No. Just looking now theres a whole array of disagreements and contradictons in the EU, EG UK not wanting to adopt transaction taxing or hand over any more powers to brussels; rather claw them back and Germany being unwilling to even lend a bailout. Its more likely to go the opposite way.

[cgraham15]

(Original post by Lord-Voldemort)
Wasn't this the same for the individual colonies in the US? Haven't they become slightly more homogeneous and US-focused rather than just state-focused over the past two or so centuries?

There's a difference, though. Unification of states happened not so long after the colonies were established, so you can't compare.
The closest thing to an example of a United Europe would have to be the idea of uniting Africa, or South America.

[Lord-Voldemort]

(Original post by Martyn*)
In order for there to be a USE the elites must want to breakdown national barriers and have a central government with one currency. This means New World Order. Of course, the New World Order is just a conspiracy theory, and so is the USE.

Only tin-foil hat wearing folk believe that there will be a United States of Europe.

That's heresy.

[Roaroaroar]

(Original post by Martyn*)
In order for there to be a USE the elites must want to breakdown national barriers and have a central government with one currency. This means New World Order. Of course, the New World Order is just a conspiracy theory, and so is the USE.

Only tin-foil hat wearing folk believe that there will be a United States of Europe.

But, you're acting like a United states of Europe is something negative. The Bilderberg group have been discussing a united Europe since their second meeting in 55' and even discussed a single European currency but look at how long it took for that to come into play 40 years. They most likely support it. If there is to be a united Europe it will only happen when nations are prosperous enough for there to not be much economic disadvantages.

It's not like it will help the Elites by much. After all, if they're very powerful and controlling Europe already then a united Europe is unnecessary considering they have power already. And isn't it that the Elites would rather divide than unite?

[Roaroaroar]

And it might happen but it will take a long time and by then I don't see the problem with a unification because the current economic disadvantages won't be as applicable.

[Psyk]

(Original post by cl_steele)
you know what i mean...

Well not really. How has the UK survived several millenia? 2000 years ago the island of Great Britain was made up of many tribal territories. Then most of it was part of the roman empire, then it was made up of several celtic and anglo-saxon kingdoms, which then coalesced into England, Scotland and Wales, then Wales was incorporated into the Kingdom of England, then that joined with Scotland, which then joined with Ireland, and then most of Ireland left.

Sure people have lived here for millenia, but over that time the States that exist on this island have changed considerably. And I'm sure they will keep on changing, whether that means splitting up again, or further union with other places.

[fuzznbass]

(Original post by Martyn*)
In order for there to be a USE the elites must want to breakdown national barriers and have a central government with one currency. This means New World Order. Of course, the New World Order is just a conspiracy theory, and so is the USE.

Only tin-foil hat wearing folk believe that there will be a United States of Europe.

I take it you wear tin hats then ?.... I've seen some of your threads

[chrisawhitmore]

India and China have been united single powers before now, and Europe became dominant through competition, innovation and the small state advantage. That is the way to be great again.

[bishbash72]

I can see a far more integrated Europe, probably a two-speed EU centred around the single currency.

Maybe the UK will stay on the outer-ring of the EU, maybe we'll leave altogether.

[CandyFlipper]

I don't give a stuff about the GDP of my country. I care about the GDP per capita of my country.

Think about it, would you rather be the average citizen of Norway or the average citizen of China?

No, we can't compete in terms of GDP with India or China. We don't have the natural resources or the population. But we can still be a country that is rich per capita and ultimately, isn't that a lot more important?