I refer you to the member countries they forced to vote again because they did not want to accept the democratic result. You are welcome to them, thankfully we are leaving these crooks behind.
Looked at another way 27 countries, including Britain, were prevented from doing something because one country voted against. I do not think these countries were 'forced' in the way you suggest - but it makes sense to take back the proposal, adapt it in some way until it is acceptable and then ask for a second referendum including any adaptations which have been added. This appears a more logical course than blocking the other 27 countries. You do not know what went on behind the scenes as regards Ireland - but there were alterations to the original draft. It would make more sense to talk about Britain, which has not been 'forced' to do anything - in fact has only profited from the EU. without paying it's full share, and being granted one concession after the other.
The eurocrats will not ask its subjects if they support moving towards a superstate because they will get a negative answer. You lot living in the occupied territory of the EU will just have to behave and accept your fate.
The Tories were so eager to praise themselves that they rushed out this - I think I can see at least five mistakes there...
Once again you have proved your complete inability to read and answer texts. As always there are only soundbites such as 'eurocrats' and 'superstate' without any attempt to actually explain what you mean by them. What you call a 'superstate' will be a constitution which clearly separates exactly which powers are best held at the supranational level and which are best done at the national - you can call that what you like but the aim is to raise and maintain living standards for all Europeans. The EU. has proved it can outperform units of similar size such as the USA. and China, and has also proved that it can distribute wealth far more evenly than those countries. Strangely enough very few Europeans actually feel that they are living under the dictatorship you describe - they are just getting on with their lives and, on the whole, avoiding the vast differences of wealth and chances found in the UK.
The large areas of Southern Europe with high unemployment and abject poverty in some areas may not agree with your rosy description. If the residents of the EU are prepared for more powers to be taken from their national governments then fine. The UK obviously identified this trend and decided it could not stomach being further controlled from Brussels. The long term survival of the eurozone is entirely dependent on total fiscal integration. I'm sure many current EU members will not sign up to that.
I don't think that you can measure, or compare, poverty SH. I agree that there are pockets of relative poverty in Europe - just as there are in Britain. How can you measue the one against the other - by unemployment statistics ? I don't think so. A person living on unemployment benefits in Denmark or Luxembourg is not under the poverty lines for those countries. Actually comparing the numbers of those living in poverty is not helpfull because most figures measure only income - they do not measure saleable assets, and the German rate of home ownership is one of the lowest in Europe. Actually, measured on assets, the Italians are richer than the Germans. You do have rather a distorted idea of Germany. The number of people under the poverty line in Germany is calculated as 15.5% - actually 5% higher than Poland ! And over double the result from France. There are actually about 25% of workers in Germany earning less than the French minimum wage, and a growing number of people who will have no measurable pension at the end. Germany is hardly the 'motor' of Europe which you describe. The countries with the lowest numbers of people living in poverty (Worldwide) are in the EU. and they are the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Austria and France. But still, despite these differences, wealth is more evenly distributed over the EU. than in any other comparitively large unit. There is nothing like the poverty found in the South of the USA or to compare with the 100,000 homeless found in NY.
I was highlighting the poverty in Southern European countries that are experiencing hard times comparative to their pre eurozone membership. They are paying the price for Germany's booming exports. These suffering countries conveniently keep the value of Germany's trading currency much lower than it would have been if standing alone.
Once again you prove your inability to actually read other people's texts. I agree to an extent about the Eurozone, and the 'problems' of Germany's imbalanced economy. I was not in favour of the Euro when we changed - it was unnecessary, and there were other possibilities, but the Eurozone is not the EU. and even if we all went back to national currencies (at least for internal commerce) the EU. would still exist in some form. Before membership of the EU. Spain, Portugal and Greece were all countries which had only just freed themselves from Fascism, and so I do not think any of them would look back with nostalgia.
I'm not sure you understand the financial problems many of these eurozone countries have suffered precisely because they were locked in a currency they were unable to control to help their individual circumstances. Many would have been helped by a devaluation of their currencies. Germany dominates the ECB, it has imposed austerity that Tories in the UK could only dream about.
I agree about Merkel and Schäuble's austerity politics but it is exactly that which Martin Schultz, and Macron want to end - we need investment in Europe, and a type of modern Marshall plan, which is only possible through closer integration.
It will be interesting to see how the multi millionaire former investment banker Macron squares his rush towards a superstate with a French electorate that is one of the most eurosceptic in Europe.
Cologne, I applaud your deliberate mistake to show how thoroughly superhorns reads your posts by including Switzerland in that list, given that it isn't in the EU: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries_en However, it is in the Shengen agreement.
Or to phrase that more accurately, one part of Europe for the other part ! We also need to comprehend that Germany's trade imbalance is at the heart of many of Europe's problems. Anyone living here knows that the infrastructure of Germany does not match up to it's international image - Schools, Health system, public transport, internet connections - all are either average, or below, by international standards, and worse still, the German public do not have the spending power which Europe needs. Germany could be acting as a central market for produce from the rest of Europe if its economy were more balanced. Germany is also the only country in the Western world where Co2 emissions are actually rising, which is a debate for another day.
Will the Germans and others from richer EU member countries be any more willing to subsidies the poorer nations under a more formal system?
Part of the reasoning behind the Marshall Plan was to try and get the European countries to co-operate with each other by getting rid of interstate borders. If you read the original aims and suggestions put forward you can see that the US didn't actually impose rules and regulations, but left it up to the countries to come together and create an up to date system that would enable the economies to function again in a more normal way. It was directly a major influence in bringing Europe together as it erased trade barriers and set up institutions to coordinate the economy on a continental level. Seems strange that all these years later it is the US and the main receiver of aid, the UK, that are no longer wishing to co-operate with other countries, but only think about their economies in isolation.
