Talk:Federalisation of the European Union

Ollder comments

Does the Herbert Armstrong stuff really belong in this article? --69.231.251.39 22:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I think not; the last two paragraphs seem to be completely non-sequitur.--24.115.31.119 14:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure almost every nutsack televangelist has this kind of drivel about anything, remove

I removed a paragraph which described the level of support given in referenda on accession to the EU by various countries - this had little to do with the subject of the entry, 'United States of Europe'. I was going to integrate the contents into Euroscepticism and History of the European Union, but it turns out the stuff is all there already. Toby W

Woo! U.S.E., U.S.E.! I hope there is a Untied States of Europe one day.

If there really must be I hope it has a more original name. --JamesTheNumberless 11:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? It would be refreshing to have something which obviously shows that the United States can influence Europe. Look at the American Revolution article. It's actually contested that the American Revolution influenced the French Revolution although some of the main players were the same, and the French Revolution occurred shortly after the American one. Chiss Boy 12:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed all the Herbert W. Armstrong related material - the paragraph and two links.

Strauß

What is the deal with this? This is English Wikipedia. English does not use eszet. --Tysto 05:16, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Strauß is not an English name. There are all kinds of diacritic and non-Latin characters that English doesn't use, but of course they belong in the English Wikipedia. Wombat 08:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have referred this question to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#German_eszet. --Tysto 03:29, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Proposals for creation

I'm really unsure about this section, and I’m glad it has already been flagged. There appears to be no link to a source and hence it is just wild speculation of what may happen. I don’t think this should belong in an encyclopaedia unless these ideas can be attributed an a relevant person or organisation. Any feedback would be appreciated as I'm not sure I can make an informed decision, to remove this section, alone. --zerorpm 23:11, 2006 May 10 (GMT)

Churchill's opinion

Is there really any basis for claiming to know exactly what Winston Churchill 'meant' in his speech? Shouldn't Wiki confine itself to presenting facts, not interpretations of them? Perhaps a better way to qualify Churchill's speech would be to point to another speech where he clarified that he didn't see Britain as part of this potential U.S.E.

user:Paul11 cites a good article that attempts to decipher what Churchill might have meant by reference to his other speeches. My reading of that article is that it says that he was being deliberately vague and kept his options open. He didn't rule it out and he didn't rule it in. It certainly does not reach the conclusion that Paul11 added to the article. --Red King 00:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Role of Arthur Salter

I added a brief mention of Arthur Salter, who in 1931 also published a book by that title (cf. http://www.raphaelvishanu-world.at/europeancommunity.html)

Russia

Is Russia a 'predominantly European country'?. Is this not a huge sweeping statement, ignoring the age old debate as to whether Russia is more Asian or European?

Most of the population is in the Europe part, but most of its area is in Asia. Chiss Boy 12:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Russia is a people and culture unique unto itself.

-G

That's about as useful as saying Germans are unique. No one disputes either. However, with Europe and Asia considered as imagined political regions, it seems fairly useless to consider Russia as Asian simply because large, sparsely inhabited tracts of land are on the other side of the Urals. Russians are traditionally Christian, speak a language very similar to countries that no one doubts as being 'European' (all the Slavic Eastern European languages), and often have light complexions. Also historically, 'Russia' was traditionally situated ONLY in the European part. Wasn't the expansions east and south part of empire building by Catherine the Great et al?

Finally, how can one discuss European history, economy, politics and culture without including Russia? Can the same be said, to the same extent, of the far or middle East? Sorry Europe, I think we're stuck with Russia. (jk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storleone (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

From the Roman Empire to the United States of Europe

Look at the images of those four superpowers. What do you think?The Anonymous One 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Roman Empire

British Empire

United States of America

United States of Europe?

About what? The images aren't really very thought-provoking... 203.51.237.72 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To try and draw some parallel between the Roman Empire and the EU in the article would violate its objectivity. This is a common slur used by those with anti-EU sentiments. However, it would be permissable, at a stretch, to include the experience of the Roman Empire in some vaguely historical sense concerning the shared history of European states. In other words, you could use it to make a point that Europe hasn't always been composed of separate nation states but has at times been a unified block. You cannot say that the EU is the political descendant of the Roman Empire however, that's a politically motivated point based on guilt by association. Blankfrackis 15:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Romans thought themselves ABOVE europe. All they saw Europe was a bunch of savage Celtic tribes to the West, Germanic tribes to the North and Slavic tribes to the east. Rome shouldn't be seen as a past european empire/union.

-G

That's funny. What continent was Rome in again? --Meridius (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to realized that , fo rall intenst an dpurposs Rome WAS Europe. You see all teh modern stes we consider part of "Europe" Orignte din fall , and susequential fracturing, of the empire, Fedral europe could be seen as a reunifction of those governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.171.153 (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

euhm no; Sweden, Ireland etc were never part of Rome. Todays Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, and Morrocco were. None of the latter are being "reunified" with the EU. The Roman empire was much more a mediterranean empire (indeed the Romans called this see Mare Nostrum - Our Sea) while the EU is a European land (as in not maritime) based union. Arnoutf (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map is pretty much the definition of original research. Completeley unsourced and arbritary. so ive removed it. Willy turner 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur, thanks. There's no reason to assume that the USE would occupy all of Europe any more that the USA stretches from Nunavut to Tierra del Fuego. samwaltz 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

European Space Agency is not a part of the EU

The European Space agency is not a part of the EU, it includes countries who aren't EU member states. The sentence at the beginning of the article suggests otherwise. I'll remove it if nobody objects, or maybe we could just rephrase the sentence a little so that it's not explicitly referring to the EU. There are after all many developments external to the EU which could be relevant to this article, though the EU is obviously the most important. Blankfrackis 15:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

One can be against a superstate and still be pro-Europe

This sentence - "People who oppose and criticize forming a United States of Europe or even a confederation of European nations are called Eurosceptics." is incorrect in my view. One can oppose the creation of a "superstate" and support EU membership. The idea that you either support a European superstate or you're a Eurosceptic is one of the biggest red herrings in debates on the EU. This isn't an obscure point of semantics, undoubtedly the largest percentage of European citizens fall into the category of supporting EU membership but not supporting a "United States of Europe". To call these people Eurosceptics, as this sentence does, is obviously to use the term too liberally. I'll change it if nobody objects. Blankfrackis 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

USA: AoC

I put the Articles of Confederation reference in the article for two reasons:

• people tend to forget that the US has not always been a centralist federation. The previous version of this article did not mention the change in the structure of the US. Because the US has one of the oldest constitutions in the world, we tend to forget that the system is dynamic, that it does change, and that there were previous relevant documents.
• to allow more of a comparison, showing the development of the US through various founding documents, in relation to the development of the EU and its documents, as the name of the USE is based on the name of the USA. We're seeing versions of the federalism/antifederalism debates playing out all over again.

I'm putting the parenthetic phrase back. However, if you still feel it is too tangential in light of these comments, please feel free to remove it. samwaltz 05:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I did remove it because I felt it wasn't really relevant to an article about the EU. In my view you shouldn't really correct myths, or add information about a subject which is only indirectly relevant to an article like this. Yes the phrase "United States of Europe" is in most cases a comparison with the United States of America, but it wouldn't be the case that changing your opinion about the U.S. would have any impact on how the term is used in the EU. The U.S. is the origin of the phrase, but it's not an explicit comparison with the way the U.S. is organised, it's just a general term and it could refer to a type of federation which is quite different from the way the U.S is governed.

For that reason I don't think we should go into correcting misinterpretations about the U.S. in this article, though we certainly shouldn't say things which are factually incorrect such as "the U.S. has always been a federation". However, I don't feel particularly strongly about it because it's not a POV question, it's just a minor issue of relevance and how the article reads. If anyone else wants to chime in then they can. Blankfrackis 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I should say that on a personal note I'm not that fond of the whole opposition section. The way it's written is a bit meandering and I'm not sure what its purpose is supposed to be, or what the original author was trying to say. It seems to give two points, firstly that a lot of people oppose a "United States of Europe" and that some of these people are Eurosceptics and secondly that the term can refer to both a confederation and a federation of European states. The first point may need to be said, but it hardly merits its own section alone unless we're going to add extra content and the second point seems to fall under the definition section. I think it's the sort of section that probably made sense in its original form, but has been steadily re-edited to correct certain issues to an extent that you're not entirely sure what the point in it is anymore. Blankfrackis 21:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

European Space Agency

The ESA was formed completely independent of the EC and the EU and it still has non EU member states as members. Is it really appropriate to cite the ESA as the EUs space agency? It seems a bit like citing NATO as the european defence agency.Zebulin (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ERROR!!!

I'm furious. Victor Hugo wrote about "les Etats-Unis d'Europe" in 1849 !!! Not Winston Churchill !!! This article is WRONG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.32.151 (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hugo reference is already in the article (See 19th Century). Churchill is referenced only as one of the people who spoke in favour of a European Union after WW2, which resulted in it becoming a reality. Can you be more specific about your concern? --Red King (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies to the anonymous editor. I failed to appreciate that you were complaining (rightfully) about some new text that another editor had bunged before the beginning of the article. He should not have done ths and he should certainly not have made such a controversial assertion as though it were the only perspective. --Red King (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the citation, it authoratatively claims that the United States of Europe was entirely from Churchill and documents that he did NOT want an EU (with a government but only a council), but lost, and that the United States of Europe movement dies at the first Congress of Europe, but that the European Court of Human Rights was created at this Congress. What exactly are you challenging? The text is relevant, cited, and when you delete it the burden of proof falls upon you.

I deleted it because it wildly inappropriate to disrupt an article by arbitrarily slamming your text before the beginning of it. --Red King (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the citation, it authoratatively claims on page 12 that the United States of Europe was a creation of Churchill. Edit in another citation if you dispute this, but please do not edit a cited claim that you have not first read Raggz (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have moved your text into the section about Churchill where it belongs. If it is a credible source, it may stay - but the manner of your edit leads me to read it sceptically. --Red King (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dinan is a credible authority, so the text and cite should stand.

Yes it is certainly true that Churchill was one of those responsible for the foundation of what today is the European Union, but he is certainly not the first to postulate a United States of Europe, which is what this article is about. --Red King (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I have read "Winston Churchill first called for a "United States of Europe""... (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_of_Europe&oldid=183317048) I have deleted "first". Thank you. This article in French is shorter but better. 86.217.32.151 (talk)

Yes, that text has been transferred (without the "first") to later in the article. But I think that FR.WIKI is wrong! See United States of Europe#History. Yes, it was a Frenchman who first proposed it, but it was Napoleon Bonaparte!! --Red King (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What's going on with this move?

This article used to be "United States of Europe", what's going on here? Why was the article moved/merged? I see that User:Ssolbergj has renamed/moved the article with the reason being "Removes controvercial link to the United States", what on Earth is this supposed to mean? As far as I can see Ssolbergj has not consulted anyone on this move, and the article is currently a mess. I think we need to seriously consider putting it back the way it was, especially seeing as there has been no explanation given or consultation offered. --Hibernian (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ssolbergj moved this article from United States of Europe to Federal Europe without any notice whatever. It is not at all appropriate to move an established article such as this to a new title without seeking discussion and consensus. The policy WP:Be bold does not justify such a high handed and unilateral behaviour. An explanation is expected. --Red King (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of the move -- "United States of Europe" is just one of many names given to the concept of a federal Europe, and therefore the article should naturally treat the concept and not one of its names. —Nightstallion 22:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I might well agree too, but that's not the point. Major changes should have at least some discussion beforehand. --Red King (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the idea of merging the articles is not necessarily a bad one (although I'm yet to be convinced of that), but the way it's been done is awful. The reason given is boggling, the people who wrote the article weren't even given the slightest notice and the merger has left both articles looking like a mish-massed mess. --Hibernian (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know that being bold renaming articles can be controversial. But I noticed that this article hadn't been edited by anyone other than me for more than two weeks, and I was (and still am) totally convinced that this title would work much better, per what Nightstallion said, so I didn't bother to write a move application on the talk page. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that we've agreed that how the change was implemented was not optimal, is there another issue at hand or was that about it? —Nightstallion 16:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at copy-editing, but it still lurches fairly violently from a discussion of European Federalism to historic proposals for a USE. It could do with fresh eyes. --Red King (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

POV challenge

User:BillCJ tagged the whole article as POV with the edit comment "Added {{POV}} tag - article paints a biased and often inaccurate views of the USA and its formation, and antagonism towards its system of govenment, with many sections of discussion unsourced entirely.", but did not open a discussion to explain his concerns. As far as I can guess, his objection is more specific to Federal Europe#United States of Europe, so I have moved the tag to that section. But really it is incumbent on him to explain his concerns or, better still, improve the article. I don't deny that this article has a lot of problems because it concerns speculative fiction, nationalism, utopianism and even xenophobia - but the charge of anti-US bias comes way off left field. Please explain. --Red King (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• BillCJ hasn't responded but after looking at States' rights, I can guess what he had in mind. The whole section was POV/OR "tilting at windmills", so I've cut it down to the bare citable minimum and removed the tag. --Red King (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical unifications of Europe

After reading this article many times, I am still not sure if the "Historical unifications of Europe" section really belongs to an article on "Federal Europe". None of the imperial conquests mentioned in that section unified Europe and none of them attempted to create a European federation. The section seems to be a bit out of place. I wonder what the most frequent editors of this article think about this issue. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I never liked it either. It has nothing to do with Federation or confederation or other free association of states. It always seemed to me that it was an attempt to tar the EU with "Guilt by association". Unless someone can produce a case to keep it, it should be deleted. --Red King (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has raised any objections in a week, I have just deleted that problematic section. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with colours in {{EU evolvement timeline}}?

{{EU evolvement timeline}} Inaccurately suggests Lisbon will establish the 'EU'. The 'EU' has been established since the Maastricht Treaty 1992 (adopted 1993).

Above comment by 78.158.98.244 moved here from article page. --Boson (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mitterand in 1991

Mitterand proposed this in 1991. Perhaps that might be a good addition to the article? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In fiction

"In the computer game Shattered Union, set in a future civil war in America, the European Union is portrayed as a peacekeeping force."

(from the article)

The EU already exists and has peacekeeping capabilities. I don't see why this concept is related to the idea of a future federal Europe any more than it is to the EU now. Of course, I haven't actually played the thing, so it's possible there's something that I (and the article) am missing. --Islomaniac 973 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any relevance to this segment as well, it seems to me that whoever wrote it just wants to promote a game. --Nizzemancer (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a conspiracy theory.

I distinctly remember the former prime minister of Greece (I'm from there) saying in a speech (of some sort I can't recall) something in the lines of "We all agree as members of the European community that the way forward is in the form of a federal administration for Europe .." or something in those lines. This is not some kind of crazy local politician, he said that after years as prime minister roaming the parliaments of Europe. He said it not in the way of some bold statement, it was just something thrown along the lines; i.e. He gave the idea he was saying something completely natural to him that is just accepted by European administration officials. Also; I was just listening to a historic speech of Thatcher where she distinctly says (at this youtube video towards the end) that the Economic union of Europe was a move towards a federation (with the British historically opposing for keeping their own power). --Leladax (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what your point is, as regards the article. I don't think anybody disputes that the EU has many features of a federation or that many within the EU have envisaged a natural path leading ultimately to something like a federal state. Walter Hallstein, the first Commission president even wrote a book referring to it as an "unfinished federal state" (Der unvollendete Bundesstaat).--Boson (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is - sorry, I haven't slept well and the previous message is quite scrambled - that a federal nature for Europe is not just a 'futuristic' idea as the article implies in certain sections or a conspiracy theory. It has been documented that Politicians involved actively in the cycles of the European community (such as Margaret Thatcher and the former prime minister of Greece I mentioned above) have clearly stated that at least a considerable proportion of politicians in Europe do actively seek a federal administrative nature for Europe. --Leladax (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I see your point now. Although I think the article is correct if you distinguish carefully between increasing integration towards a union which is increasingly federal in nature and something which is really a "United States of Europe", I can see that two or three sentences might make the general idea seem more speculative than it probably is.--Boson (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Europe is not federal Europe

I'm not sure of the relevance of the sentence "In the past, various empires and military powers have achieved control over large parts of the European continent, and often introduced imperial structures by force. Notable among these are the Roman Empire, the First French Empire, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union." My immediate reaction would be to interpret it as an attempt to taint movement toward European integration with imperial, dictatorial, and fascist associations that have nothing to do with the subject of the article.--Boson (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fiction section removed?

I notice the entire fiction section was removed in this edit. Either it should be reinstated (and probably rewritten to be less trivial), or the Category:Fictional governments should be removed. — sjorford++ 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)