Former German leader calls for United States of Europe

Well, in the reality I live in (which is of course not the only one) cultural fusion has already happened.

I live in a town whose university has a well-established Erasmus-programm which means that the place is crawling with students from all over Europe and elsewhere. The only way to tell them apart from their German fellow-students is their accent.

I'm married to a Brit whom I met years ago at a music-festival. Soon we'll be going to another one. I'm especially looking forward to meeting friends that will not only come from Germany, but also from England, the Netherlands, France, Spain and some even from the USA for the occasion.
All of us are culturally "fusioned", we share similar interests, a similar taste in music, dress pretty much the same way, hold similar ethical and political views, eat fairly international cuisine and exchange each others unique little cultural quirks in a rather friendly manner.
Thanks to easy-jet and co. meeting up isn't a big problem, thanks to all of us speaking half-way decent English conversation isn't a problem either. Tomorrow my hubby and I will be off to visit a friend in Barcelona. I don't expect any disparaging remarks.
A lot of people ten or 15 years younger than me are probably even more international than my generation is. The world is getting smaller by the day.

So from my point of view the problem of Europe isn't that our cultures are so very different, but that the political structures of the EU are so inexplicable and in many ways more bureaucratic than democratic. It's this that makes the prospect of a "United States of Europe" slightly scary even for people who have been seeing themselves as "Europeans" for years.

 

Looks like Germans will finish the job Hitler left unfinished.

 

What makes you think smaller nations of Europe have had more conflicts with immigrants?

 

I added my comments in bold. Format went a bit whacky! Sorry.

On this logic we may as well still be bartering. It would be safer but the rewards are not as great.

I do not agree. Geographically countries retain their identities and need not worry about that changing soon. I do not think that anyone can say that the advent of the Eurozone has changed anyone's cultural identity. More the influence of Hollywood.

Well if the problem is that the structures aren't democratic a United States of Europe would alter that and we would all be voting for a president of the EU! In my view the problem is that there is too much diversity of economics to make a simple United Europe possible. Merkel recently spoke against the Euro bond because she doesn't want Germany to be paying as much for debt as Greece is. Economics are the biggest hurdle right now. And let#s not forget the English who have stuck with the pound.

I don't.

 

Bang on.

Additionally, it's easier to maintain "democracy" when the ratio of politicians to the public is narrow. The larger the state, the higher the ratio, where corruption thrives.

I'm in favour of splitting the UK back to its components, and reducing the EU to mroe or less a free movement of goods and services (as was the initial intention).

 

The initial intent of the Iron and Coal agreement was peace following WWII. It works and should be extented to the free movement of goods and people, but there is no need for an EU court and EU directives on health and safety etc... etc...

Further unification will result in more corruption, as Europeans as a whole simply do not care about the EU elections and there is a consolidation of power amongst a relatively small number of EU politicians.

Additionally, further unification will not uncrease peace, where do you get that idea from? Is there any evidence of political unrest within Euriope, which could possibly result in military action? No. Plain and simple.

Furthermore, the banks are of course global in nature. Show me one major bank, which pays 100% of its corporation tax to one government - you cannot.

 

A cultural greyness in Europe is centuries away, this will always prevent a closer working union. I work with Europeans from many countries (have done for a decade) and each country has a significantly different mindset to the others (except Belgium), where the north (Flanders) is very similar to the NL, and the south (Walloon) where they are very similar to the French.

 

Switzerland is not in the EU.

English is the business (therefore overall) second language of Europe.

You are barking up the wrong tree. This is nto the US in the 60's and 70's where politicians thought they needed to unite the nation. We thrive on difference.

 

Kraft Werk?

But on the whole she's reasonably correct?

 

I'm not sure I agree. Ireland is seeing an upsurge in people learning galic and has not lost its musical heritage. Meanwhile England is wanding aimlessly, wondering "what are we" and "what is it to be "English"".

 

There's always one idiot who can't stop being a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Only somebody without a knowlege of the importance German music had to the development of rock, would claim that it sucks.

 

Or a teenager...

 

I'll give a few examples.

The Danish Mohammed cartoon controversy was pretty big. The Netherlands has had multiple conflicts high profile conflicts including what happened to Theo Van Gogh and the ongoing controversies involving Geert Wilders. In Sweden, Lars Vilks has had to deal with threats to his life over cartoons. And in Norway, there would appear to be a rape problem involving immigrants targeting Norwegian women.

 

Ireland gets a lot less immigration per capita than England though, right?

 

I can agree with that. The Schengen Area idea was decent enough.

But yes, more regional autonomy leads to better representation on an individual level.