The first step along the EU route was the European Coal and Steel treaty, the first move specifically towards a Europe which would never again see a war between its constituent countries.
So far, it's worked.

As for genetically different, you need to learn a bit more about genetics, as your current grasp is tenuous at best and fascist at worst.
Ironic really, given your view of Germans.

The USA and the EU are quite different. The USA has a long history of being one country with one currency and a common language. They have one constituation and a strong belief in the American way.

Europe is a very different kettle of fish with a long history of rivalry and conflict with many different languages, customs and traditions.

The odds are against the EU as it stands becoming a true Federal State for many reasons.

Had the EU stopped when it was the EEC it would in my view have been a greater success that it is now. But as it moved on from being a free trading zone it appears to have become a vehicle to fulfill the greed of the politicians and bureaucrats and self interest still rules the day for most members.

The EU is undemocratic, hugely wasteful and uncompetitive and in need of a radical overhaul.

I do not believe the public of most member countries want to sign away their sovereign rights and identities... they are being led on with false promises of jam tomorrow.

Final proof you are nothing more than a troll.

From its earliest inception, the EU has been for ever closer union.
I keep hearing people saying that they voted to go into a trading arrangement not a political unity.
They are wrong ... they voted to remain in (not join) a group that was already committed to ever closer union.
Are you saying that greed of politicians and bureaucrats is worse in Europe than Westminster, if so where have you been the last few years?


Signing away of sovereignty? Surely you mean pooling of sovereignty?
The EU has been around for decades now and the identities of the member states are still as vibrant as ever.
What false promises of jam tomorrow?
Individually, member states have less and less clout globally, together they are immensely stronger.

What has that got to do with Federalism and Subsidiarity? It's not abut tradition or language. The USA is not as homogeneous as you make out in any case. There are very rich states and very poor states and many take very different views on a vast range of issues from religion to gun ownership. They can do this because of Subsidiarity and so can the countries of the EU. In fact Federalism and Subsidiarity are the means by which countries can retain their separate traditions and identities just as Utah and Nevada are at opposite ends of the spectrum in many ways.



Such as? Lack of understanding about what it means?



Again that has nothing to do with Federalism. Aspects of the EEC needed reform such as the common agricultural policy. It still does but then I am sure there are many reforms needed within the UK and that isn't used as an argument against the political system.

If there are politicians and bureaucrats in the EU who are acting in a self interested way then its kind of the way of the world st the moment in that since globalization took off that seems to pervade our own government and big business. I don't think I can remember a time when you get the impression of being ruled by a super-class of technocrats but again that has got nothing to do with Federalism. If we left the EU tomorrow the technocrats are going nowhere.

[quoteI do not believe the public of most member countries want to sign away their sovereign rights and identities... they are being led on with false promises of jam tomorrow.[/quote]

The whole point of the Federalism model is you don't sign away sovereign rights and identities. You cooperate on things that are for the common good, such as Interpol and you have Subsidiarity to do what the hell you like outside of the common interest provided its legal. And before you say the ECHR is what is taking away our sovereignty we created it and have always been subject to its laws since it was set up.

The government voted to join the EEC.... as in European Economic Community. A couple of years later the public voted to remain in the EEC but it was at the time understood to be what it was ie: an economic free trading club.

It is true that the political leaders of France and Germany harboured political and perhaps federalist ideas but not all members were committed to closer union and the European public were not given the chance to say if they were committed to a closer union.

The greed of the EU politicians and bureaucrats could well be worse than the in UK but as the EU accounts have not been independently signed off for many years we may never know! And we do not have unelected and unaccountable commissioners who wield enormous power and spend the public´s money like water.

By the way I have lived and worked in 3 different EU countries for 12 of the last 30 years






The performance, or should I say lack of performance, regarding the Euro crisis has shown the serious problems that have to be overcome before any talk of further integration.

The EU has grown uncompetitive in part due to its own stringent regulations on business and has serious problems of debt with no real plan to solve it other than real austerity.

After De Gaulle had repeatedly said "Non" to UK entry and when Pompidou became President of France, the French stance shifted towards allowing the UK in as a member but only as part of a deal deepening monetary union, co-operation on foreign policy and the CAP.
I doubt this ecaped the notice of the UK government or their negotiation team at the time.


See above and re-read your history.


After the above (which was widely reported), the UK public voted 2 to 1 to stay in.


As the commission is responsible for approx. 20% of the errors in the accounts and the member states for the other 80% ... and that the error rate is now down to about 4% (I may be slightly out on that last bit) and, as the auditors confirm that most of the errors are reclaimable, the non-sign-off is not all the EUs fault.
There may well be Commissioners claiming for moat-cleaning, duck-house repair and mortgages that they don't have but I don't see that as a reason to withdraw from the EU any more than I see it as a reason to withdraw from Westminster.


I have worked in Spain and Germany for more than a year each at a stretch and have made many, many business visits over the last twenty years ... and your point is ?

I think you are fairly isolated in that view as most economic literates agree that the lack of fiscal integration was what let down the Euro. i.e. The Euro cart was put before the fiscal integration horse.

Ah, a Farage favourite, this one.
The truth is that that the EU abolished and/or harmonised tens of thousands of individual nations' rules, regulations, tariff and non-tariff barriers making it far easier for them to trade within and outwith the EU. This enormous task was completed ahead of schedule and under-budget.
If you are referring to social and employment law, ask yourself why it is that when the UK had an opt-out for the working-time directive, Germany still out-performed it whilst complying with the directive ... strange eh?
Also ask yourself, why the UKs trade with both the EU and the USA rose during that time?
The idea that the UK is being strangled by EU red tape is actually the opposite of the truth ... EU harmonisation has been of enormous help.
However, I would agree that austerity is being relied upon far too heavily by the EU and I would (and often do, on this very message board) level the same charge against the UK government.


But we are straying from the topic of federalism and subsidiarity here.

Subsidiarity would push MORE power to the local level than we in England are allowed by Westminster at the moment.
Federalism is not solely an EU possibility, the UK could be a federation, this could be a political solution for the West Lothian question, for example.