Sick Leave Pool Donation Form - Texas A&M University-Texarkana: Fill & Download for Free

This question keeps getting renamed and bumped around so many times So I've sort of merged it with another, longer answer on the subject that I wrote over X Mas.There are no cons really none that matter anyway. So if you hate the EU with a passion and you don't have time to even consider a different view then don't read on, this is a long answer even by my standards. The EU is an attempt at nation building and most of the people who oppose it are unaware of where it came from, why it formed or where its going. It is a work in progress and as such, pointing to its deficiencies is a little like complaining that a car's performance is not meeting your expectations before anyone has put petrol in the engine. Is it perfect? No, not even close. Is it Europe's future? Hell yes.In order for the EU to Federalize it would have to pass many significant hurdles but chief among them would undoubtedly be nationalism. But before we address that point let's take a look at what the EU is and how it came to be. You'll have to bear with me though because there's really no quick way to go through this. I'm of the opinion that these things are not easy to understand and yet we have many, many people insisting that they understand what 's going on without having ever looked at the history and philosophy behind the project. If you are the kind of person that likes to know how things tick before you formulate an opinion, then please read on.Once upon a time, Europe was gripped with a sickness and the beginnings of the EU can be traced back to an attempt to find a cure.The painting above is of the Battle of Fortenoy which took place in 1745. The blue-clad French in the foreground are Gardes Francaises and they are looking upon the British forces commanded by the Duke of Cumberland. This battle took place as part of the War of Austrian Succession and it was something of a victory for France though it came at a high price."See how much blood a triumph costs!" lamented the french King Louis XV. " The blood of our enemies is still the blood of men!"The man had a point. This single battle produced almost 20,000 causalities of which 5000 were fatalities.That's a lot of death for just one days work.Immanuel Kant.This, thought one of the greatest thinkers of all time, was something of a problem. Kant was born in the 18th century, a particularly violent time to live in. From his perspective the sickness that gripped Europe was one of almost constant warfare and he took some to time off thinking big thoughts to see if there was a pattern he could identify.First he looked to the past.17th Century Warfare :Cost 10,0000 European lives.In just one year, 1638 there were five separate wars occurring in Europe.There were only 4 years free of warfare in the whole century. The other 96 years all saw conflict of some kind.The total number of separate wars was 42.18th Century Warfare:Cost 20,000,000 European lives. It also dragged many other parts of the world into its conflicts.The total number of separate wars was 43.Kant could not see an end to this violence. In his mind, it was set to increase as time went on; the 19th century he believed would be more violent than the 18th the 20th more violent than the 19th and so on. He of course had no way of knowing if this was the case since he died in 1804. We however, looking back from the 21st century, can check to see if he was right.19th Century Warfare:Cost between 45 and 90 million European lives. It also dragged many other parts of the world into its conflicts.The total number of separate wars was 52.20th Century WarfareCost, depending on who you ask,175,000,000 lives ( Zbigniev Brezinski.)225,000,000 lives ( Milton Litenberg)258,000,000 lives! ( Rudolph J Rummel)Needless to say, due the the nature of 20th century wars, this loss of life was not restricted to Europe.There were 79 separate European wars in the 20th century,So we can perhaps agree on one thing. Kant was right, things just kept getting worse and something had to be done. You don't have to agree with me that the EU is a solution to any of this of course, just that the European wars were bad and getting worse.Potentially much worse! for we know something that Kant did not, the next major war might look like this.The next 'Big one' might even end our species which would be something of a pity because we're a pretty good species.(Shit)Kant of course, being unimaginably clever decided that since there was a solution to most problems then there must be a solution to this one too and, being an amenable chap, he wrote his conclusions down for us to ignore in favor of listening to Republican quick fixes (which always seem to blame Mexico for most of what is wrong with the world.)In this, one of the most important political texts ever written Kant produced the cure for the sickness that ailed Europe. He prescribed the following remedies some of which were more evidently sensible than others.No Secret Treaties! Such things make states nervous. By being open with one another you can avoid states jumping to conclusions.Inheritance "No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation. So if the King of France dies you can't send a message to the King of England saying ' You now own France as well.' This might sound silly but as we saw at Fortenoy, inheriting a whole country was quite commonplace and caused major upheavals. ( we'll get back to why this was so later.)Limited Military: No standing armies. Controversial I know. But there is a work around for this one.Debt. You could borrow money all right but not as Kant put it ' with a view to the external friction of statesSovereignty. "No state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state"War needs Rules! "No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible: such are the employment of assassins (percussores), poisoners (venefici), breach of capitulation, and incitement to treason (perduellio) in the opposing state"Kant also offered three other points or 'definite articles' that are a little more difficult to fathom.The civil constitution of every state should be republican" ( Kings are capricious, Prime Ministers and Presidents less so. The latter are also much easier to replace."The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states" Or rather, all states should posses sovereignty but should be bound together in some way."The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality" Free travel from one are to another.So here we have a fairly definitive plan and we can summarize it as follows.The world should consist of free states that are ruled by elected officials and not kings since kings are assholes; their tendency to believe that they own entire countries by right of birth is also problematic.We should have no or at least very small standing armies. and we should never lend a country so much money that they are bound to default; if we did this we'd be tempted to invade to get our money back,.We should never interfere with a nation's sovereignty either by coercing or invading it. People don't like this and they will fight back with whatever weapons they can get their hands on ( Iraq, Vichy France, Vietnam etc.)If war does occur then behave yourself. It benefits nobody if people are still seething with hatred for your nation several generations after the war. Civilian massacres and other atrocities will beget more violence and perpetuate war.People should be able to move from place to place. This encourages understanding. Polish immigrants to the UK, once met with hostility are now friends, girlfriends, daughters in law, neighbors and colleagues. And British people have also discovered the delights of chocolate Babka.Federalism is good. ( more on that later. ) We can make deals with other countries but lets be honest about it.All good stuff!And nobody listened.Because war was fun! It had its winners and losers. It provided a nice place for the second sons of nobles to work, it allowed us to conquer, plunder and so on and so on. It was in our nature after all. Oh, as time went on some of the things Kant had suggested came to pass, but not in a structured way. We traded kings for prime Minister's here and there and several, many states in fact, did indeed Federalize.But we still had war. And lots of it at that.Until...WWI had been bad. Let's be absolutely clear about this one point. There were no winners, only losers. Our attempt to denude Germany of any kind of power base bit everyone involved in their frankly quite fat arses. The USA got the great depression and the other countries of Europe got politics so radical that it made Donald Trump look like a cast member from an early episode of Sesame Street; they either went left as in Russia, right as in Germany or else stayed in the middle and had to fight the extremists.But whilst the UK barely recovered from the economic and social trauma of WWI it neverrecovered from WWII. All of its vast wealth had been squandered. It won the war but at great cost. It went in to defend Poland but Poland was behind the Iron Curtain which wasn't much better than being in Nazi hands. War just wasn't fun anymore, it was bombed cities, death camps, economic ruin and people dead in the tens of millions instead of tens of thousands. Russia won WWII and got a devastated country as a victory present. Britain won WWII and got... nothing... aside from the moral high ground I suppose. Only the USA came out on top and even that was no good because...Remember?That's Big Ivan, better known as Tsar Bomba some 57 Megatons of Soviet might. That's 1,400 times Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined and ten times the entire combined fire power expended in WWII. In one bomb! One explosion! And, incredibly, that's only half of what it could have done. yes, had the variable yield been turned to max, it would have exploded with the force of nearly 3000 Hiroshima bombs.We had to put an end to war. More importantly, from a US perspective we had to put an end to European wars since they were doing all the damage.. The USA was and is, locked into a symbiotic relationship with Europe and had been dragged into just about every European war that anyone could think of. It had to stop.But how?Oh yes... Kant.Perhaps thought our Yankee friends, he'd been on to something after all. And it wasn't like Kant's ideas hadn't been tested before, they had, just not on such a large scale. Which is why we have to go off on another tangent and take a look at...A Short History of GermanyHere's a picture of Germany as it was in 1789, around about the time that Kant was writing Perpetual Peace. You might notice that it looks a bit like a Sydney Pollock painting what with all the splodges of reds, greens and... what is that, mauve? In the 18th century, the Holy Roman Empire consisted of approximately 1,800 territories, the majority being tiny estates owned by the families of knights though some being quite large Duchies or to use their fancy title Palatines.And yet, in lees than a century, most, if not all, would be united and Germany as we know it today would be born. This then, was the formation of the EU in miniature.How did this come to pass?Well it began with a confederation. Obviously...This here is the Confederation of the Rhine and it was set up in 1806 by the French Empire under the rule of the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. It lasted exactly 7 years.Now, you might notice that there are far fewer states, than in its direct predecessor, initially, only 9 although it eventually comprised of 28 different states. None of this was to last. At the treaty of Vienna, the Allies, victorious over France at last, put everything back more or less the way it had been.There were now only 39 states and they were joined in a loose confederation. But then, they always had been, so nothing really changed. All that much.That big green country on the right is Prussia and they knew exactly what the German Confederation was for and what it was worth. It acted as a buffer between the powerful states of Austria and Prussia. Britain approved of it because London felt that there was need for a stable, peaceful power in central Europe that could discourage aggressive moves by France or Russia. It was weak and ineffective and an obstacle to German nationalist aspirations. And it was up for grabs. Only two states had a chance of securing it. One was Austria and the other was Prussia.If you're wondering who won then let me point out two things. The capital of Austria was and is Vienna and the capital of Prussia was Berlin.It was Prussia then, that figured things out first. If one wanted to unify Germany then one must first attempt to develop economic ties. Such an idea was consistent with Kantian ideas of peace something that was beginning to develop into a theory of International Relations called Liberalism or Neo Liberalism in its more modern sense. ( This is not related to the Liberalism that Fox news gets so upset about, I apologize on behalf of political scientists everywhere for not having come up with a different name for it. )This union set up on 1834 was called the Zollverein and it was little more than a customs unions, a way to manage tariffs. But it brought German states together. With fewer tariffs came greater opportunities. It makes far less sense to start a war with a neighbor who is happily buying all your Hessian underthings, or your coal or building ships of commerce for you, or whatever. It was all one big happy family or rather one big happy commonwealth, a system wherein the aggregate wealth of member states is greater than the sum of its parts thanks to high levels of co-operation. Austria, poor Austria was precluded and suffered accordingly, in fact, it went in almost terminal decline. By 1870 the writing was on the cards. It took a war, the Franco-Prussian War to be precise, to really cement the deal but in 1871 a new country was born. Germany.Ah-ha! said the Americans! From economic co-operation to political union. What better way to stop Europeans fighting? I mean, Bravarians weren't fighting Prussians and we saw similar results with other unification. England joined with Scotland in 1801 putting an end to 100's of years of war. Italy had done something similar.The United States, then, unlike now, run by brilliant people, came up with several salient points.1) We must rebuild Europe. We are a country that makes stuff and we need to be able to sell this stuff to Europeans. As an added bonus, a rebuilt Europe will be less likely to turn to the radical politics of communism. Even better, money we give them will give democracies a head start, making capitalism look like a much better system.2) We need to make sure that we do this only once because it's expensive so now is a good time to make a few demands.The Marshall plan comprised of $13 billion (approximately $130 billion in current dollar value as of August 2015) in economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of WWII The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1947. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, make Europe prosperous again, and prevent the spread of communism.So they could sell us stuff.Communist states were welcome to the money but Stalin refused to let them take it.It was a good plan and it came with a little caveat.You had to join the OECD which was OK because both the Americans and many of the European leaders felt that European integration was necessary to secure the peace and prosperity of Europe. Although in some ways this effort failed, in a very real sense the EU we see today was the brainchild of American thought guided by Kant's genius.Because although the OECD was flawed, the idea was not. The separate European Coal and Steel board that excluded Britain was a run away success and offered a tantalizing possibility. A European commonwealth!A United States of Europe? Wow. How would that work? Well, let's take a look at the USA.Its economy is worth about 18 trillion dollars.The best median income you can find in an American state is to be found in Maryland which in 2014 reached $70,004. Well done Marlyanders!The worst Median income you can find is in an American State Mississippi at $36,919.That's not so great really but we can add in some caveats to this analysis.1) The first 25 states all make it over the $50,000 mark aside from number 24 Iowa that manages a median income of $49,427 and number 25 Texas at $49,392.2) Only the three poorest states dip below $40,000 as a median. Arkansas, West Virginia and the aforementioned Mississippi.And let's be honest. The USA economy has been heavily screwed in favor of the super rich. and is in desperate need of an overhaul. See Ian Jackson's answer to U.S presidential primary candidate Bernie Sanders says "It is profoundly wrong that the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95%" Why is that wrong? Is everyone entitled to the same amount of wealth?But for now, let's compare that to Europe.The richest country in Europe per capita is Luxembourg at around $ 111,716 per annum. Norway is surrounded by bountiful oil and gas reserves and happily for the Norwegians, there aren't that many of them. So they cap out at $97,013. The poorest country that we have statistics for is Moldova.They manage $2,222.I know.Holy-Fuck!What is with this massive income disparity and why should we care?Well I should start by saying that you should care just based on the principle that being poor sucks and we should do what we can to help those who have nothing. But since I'm something of a realist I realize that a lot of people might take an attitude not dissimilar to the following."I don't know where Moldova is, I don't care about Moldova. We have have plenty of needy people here to take care of before we start worrying about some people in a far off land of whom we know little."That last bit incidentally is from British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who used this argument to explain why he had no intention of stopping Hitler from invading Czechoslovakia. Dick-move Neville.I digress.The 'Clean up out own neighborhood first ' argument is very often promulgated and stems from natural human selfishness on the one hand and common-garden ignorance on the other.But OK, that's easy to say,but harder to answer so, why should we care?Well, let's imagine that you want to sell your house.Let's say you inherited the house from a relative and that she bought the House for $200,000. The house is situated in a town miles from anywhere that has no major industry to speak of. We'll call this town Slumsville.Nobody in Slumsville has a job and most of them have taken to living in flimsy cardboard boxes. There are loads of townspeople who want to buy your house, there's definitely a market for it, but no-one can afford it and you can't easily move into the house yourself because you work elsewhere. So you quit your job and start your own business selling, of all things, bespoke kitchens. Nobody in the town has a job so they are willing to work for peanuts and as property prices are low you manage to set up your businesses on the cheap. Nice!Of course, nobody in Slumsville can afford to buy your kitchens but you happen to know that just over the hill there's another town called Snootsville. The people who live there wouldn't be caught dead in an Ikea; they don't know what bespoke means but they absolutely love to buy really expensive stuff.The orders come flying in and you load up your trucks.Oh.That's right, you forgot. Slumsville has no roads. Because they have no money and why in the hell would Snootsville pay for their roads? T make things worse the dirt tracks are prone to banditry. You lose half your cargo. When it gets to the city limits corrupt officials constantly come up with creative new tariffs, bribes and add on expenditures. Not that we can blame them, they are living in flimsy cardboard boxes after all. By the time you have figured all this into the eventual price of the kitchen its too much even for the residents of Snootsville, You go bankrupt and move into a cardboard box of your own.Herein lies the basic problem to which a commonwealth is a natural solution. This is one of the main reasons why the USA was so successful for so long.The idea is simple, which is why it is so frustrating when people get it so wrong.Let's imagine you are the CEO of Mercedes Benz taking a look at the figures for the year.Looking over the USA you feel satisfied. You sell more cars in Maryland than Mississippi for sure but you at least sell some cars in the poorest state. You transport cars across roads that stretch from the very poorest states to the very richest. There is internet all over, freight trains and other infrastructure are available in all 50 states too. Some places are better developed than others that's for sure but there's not point where you just simply run out of road. Every part of the USA is connected to every other part. The workforce is reasonably well educated wherever you go too so if you need to be close to a natural resource then you can build a plant and fill it with workers. There are absolutely no trade barriers between states whatsoever and no hard borders either, so fewer delays are to be expected. If a natural disaster washes away a road or train line then the pooled sovereignty of the Federal State will step in and fix it. As a result, you create more wealth. You sell more cars, which means you hire more workers. Mechanics specializing in the Mercedes brand spring up all around the country and are able to make a n honest buck. They spend their money in cafe's and buy groceries. It's a little thing perhaps, but it all builds up. An extra vacation sold here, a few more presents bought at Xmas there. Bums on seats in cinemas, restaurants and furniture stores!And there is a further advantage. Trading as a block, US merchants get better deals. We all know that buying and selling in bulk confers advantages. This was the whole point of the European Coal and Steel Board. The rich states in America subsidize the poor. They build roads from A-B because they want to buy stuff at A and sell stuff at B. They redistribute wealth in sensible ways and when Apple releases a new iPhone it's national ubiquity is guaranteed.This is a Moldovan phoneThey are made to order by a man called Sergei who insists that they only explode with the force of a grenade when allowed to 'Overheat.'You then look at Europe.You have sold plenty of cars in Germany Italy, Norway and France but that's about it. You sold one in Moldova, possibly to the President himself. If you want to sell to Russia then be prepared for a wait. Taxes need to be paid and you have to unload your cars at the border since they use different sized rails in Russia. You are beset with difficulties and cannot expand your market. Granted, yours is a luxury product but even basic necessities are difficult to export. Growth is stunted everywhere you look.This was what the Europeans saw and what they wanted was something more akin to the USA's success story than to the fractious bickering states of the past. They wanted a single market, one that was close by and one that could afford to buy and sell on a more or less equal basis. Germany the UK and France could be Maryland and Moldova could be Mississippi.What if they asked each other, we were able to pool sovereignty like the USA? Would it not be better if all the countries of Europe were hovering round the $70,000 median income mark? The idea that we could make it as easy to sell a car in Moldova as it was in France. That was.. well irresistible.The EEC was created at the treaty of Rome in 1957 and it looked like thisIt was SUCH a good idea that others soon joined in and at the treaty of Maastricht in 1992 became the EU. The rich countries would get richer, the poor would get richer, everyone would be happy. And good news, the EU is now the largest economy in the world trumping both China and the United States.So it worked.Of course the EU has become much more than a simple economic institution. Since 1992 there have been moves, moves that have disturbed many, to turn into something very similar to the USA a Federal Europe in all but name.And I'm afraid the reason why so many have become seduced by this idea requires another lengthy explanation which I do apologize for but like I said these are complex issues.Why Federalize?The world has changed a lot since 1992. Some of it we could predict but much of it we could not. The USA was busily congratulating itself upon it's Cold War 'Victory' and nations like the UK were trying to come to terms with the idea that they no longer faced annihilation in the next World War. We began to prepare for the new world, we set up the IMF, the World Bank, redefined the role of NATO created institutions such as the G8 and so on. But no matter what we did, there was always something looming on the horizon.The Yellow Peril!No. I've not gone all racist, this was the name of the picture above and it was a warning of the threat Asia posed to European hegemony, possibly even its fundamental prosperity. The term Yellow Peril was coined by German Emperor Wilhelm II in 1895, but the theory that Asian peoples represented a menace to the West originated in the late nineteenth century. Of course, back then a little bit of luck and derring-do could forge the destiny of nations. Those days have gone, the threat of China has not.Let's take a quick look at the world.There we go. Now, forget everything you know about the world, in fact imagine you're an alien trying to to figure out where power might be concentrated.1) Africa is the obvious choice. It's central, and it's large."But," say's the human (who has been captured for interrogation purposes and at the threat of a sideways butt-probe has decided to spill the beans,) "Africa is weak. It lacks navigable rivers, it's prone to drought, it has lower population density than most places and suffers from tribalism."2) OK thinks the Alien. Then what about these two patches of paradise, Canada and Russia. They are both huge."Well," says the human " They are that, but in truth much of their land is a bit too cold for us humans. It's mostly tundra. These places are rich and powerful but they don't top the lists."3) The Alien is now getting frustrated because he looks like a bit of an idiot. He dismisses Australia as being too far away from everywhere else and Antarctica is obviously even more frozen than Canada. He decides power must be distributed across many countries so he lists them.a) The USA, large and protected by two oceans.b) Russia because he figures that it must have great natural resources.c) Brazil for it's size.d) India, large and in an excellent position to trade with the world.e) China even larger and also in an excellent position to trade with the rest of the world."Now you're cooking," says the human before pleading for the removal of the probe.We should note two things from this observation.1) The Alien has successfully identified the BRIC countries. Kudos. BRIC Countries - Background, Facts, News and Original Articles2) He didn't give Europe a second thought. It's small and it is fractious and its just so damnnorthern.In fact, if you told the alien that the largest empire that the world has ever known was ruled over by the British. He'd be at a loss as to how this happened. As he should be.( If you want to know why Europe was able to dominate the world for 500 years or so then check out this Macat Analysis , not one that I personally wrote but it's very good stuff. There's also a video below.)European dominance was an accident of history. It was never supposed to be in charge. The obvious choice is and always has been China and India. And as the 21st century loomed the accident of history ground to a halt. The 20th century had belonged to the the USA, but the 21st was China's.And here we are today,The modern world is made up of competing blocks of powers. You have a choice. You can be in one of those blocks or you can be marginalized by one.I'll give you an example.The Chinese economy is currently around three times the size of the UK's using nominal GDP figures. At that rate things are OK. We can get trade concessions, the Chinese pick up the phone when the PM calls and so on and so forth. Dealing with an economy three or four times larger than are own is not so bad, we've been doing it with the US for a while.You can study international relations all you like but when it comes down to it. Money is power.However.1. The USA are cultural and ideological allies and to be honest, that has helped us a along. Our relationship with China is less clear cut, we don't share the same values and our interests coincide less often.2. The Chinese economy in 2050 will be more like 10 times that of the UK. This is a massive shift in ratios and ratios are important. Imagine trying to fight off three guys. You'll probably lose but you might give a good account. Now imagine fighting ten guys at once.... Unless you are Batman.. and the UK is not Batman ( the USA is Batman, the UK is a bit like Ace, the Bat-Hound,) you're going to go down hard.3. The ten to one ration would give us the same negotiating powers as Moldova currently enjoys with the rest of the world.4. We are blessed in this country with being one of the richest countries in the world. Our life style, our standard of living... it's not really based on how much we have so much as how much we have relative to the rest of the world. We're 5th by nominal GDP today, 7th or 8th by PPP. By 2050 We'll be around 12th or 13th and France and Germany will not be doing much better. You might think that these league tables matter little. You'd be wrong to think so. Expect a lowering of living standards if the UK goes it alone.OR...5. What if instead of being kicked out of the top ten we could somehow POOL resources? How does the EU economy look in 2050? Well, it's the largest economy in the world for a start, in fact it already is. The UK would be senior partner in the largest economy in the world. Bigger than the USA, bigger than China. Yes, the German economy would be slightly bigger. And yes, France would be just a little bit behind. But still, The UK's voice would be loud, progressive and strong. It's GOOD to be on top. The USA at its peak had the highest standards of living the world had EVER seen. That's what we can build, even exceed in Europe of we can get over our ethnocentric ways.6. Germany and France can stay on top simply by pooling sovereignty themselves. And I'm telling you, they'd do so, even if the EU collapsed. In 2050 a Franco German state would have an economy that was around 3 or 4 times smaller than China's. Again, they could cope. The UK would have to survive by becoming either a tax haven ( bad idea, look what happened to Ireland,) or a sweatshop modeled on Indian standards.7. The reason for the last point is why so many rich white businessmen want out of Europe. Minimum wage? Maternity Leave? Working directives that put caps on hours worked? All EU legislation, and all scrapped, bit by bit by UKIP/ Tory governments if we leave the EU.In short. You could live in a small European country that is sour, poor and generally unpleasant, unless you yourself are exceedingly rich. Or you could live in the greatest, wealthiest political union the world had ever seen.So the EU project shifted to reflect the new geopolitical reality. Germany, France and the UK liked being rich and they intended to stay rich, By pooling sovereignty they would remain relevant for... well forever really.It was a good plan, a wholemeal plane with lots of roughage in it. One snag and one snag alone. People; because people are the worst.What are the things stopping the EU from forming a nation like the US?Like I said, Ignorance, fear and all that Jazz.Look at how long my answer was and I'm being brief here! I can't really see any way that people can truly understand the issues at hand without first understanding its historical, geopolitical and economic underpinnings. It would be like trying to fix a car engine without knowing what oil is. At the same time, I don't expect people to be as interested in these things as I am. This is why we have representative and not direct democracy. Alas, whilst my ignorance of the inner workings of the internal combustion engine leads me to call a mechanic when my car breaks down, far too many people think politics is the one field in the world that it is impossible to have any expertise in. Consequently they fall back on easily countered arguments that support their world view.1) We speak different languages so a Federal Europe will never be like the USA.Bit like this place then. Once four countries with four languages and now one country united in the most successful political and fiscal union of all time.2) It will destroy the individuality of states,There's room for diversity between cities let alone states. The French will still be French, the Greeks will still smash plates at weddings. We'll still have national football teams and TV shows. British weather will still be shit and Spanish weather will still... not be shit. French cheese will be better than German cheese and German sausage will still sell more than Russian sausage. We'll go skiing in Switzerland, sunbathing in Cannes and exploring in Italy. There will be death metal in Finland, Folk music in France and whatever the fuck they listen to in Belgium. Europe will look like Europe only richer and with a couple of extra elections to consider every year. The capital, when chosen will be the greatest city the world has ever known.3) I don't want to be ruled by bureaucrats in a far away city!Live in Whitehall do you?Why accept rule from London then? Why have a country at all? Why not form a government based on a simple premise. Pick a spot walk for three miles and then draw a ring based on that radius. Anyone inside gets a vote, and anyone outside can go fuck themselves. Just don't expect outside help if crops fail, if roads need mending, if there are floods, a horde of invading Visigoths or wolves. You want to be on your own then be on your own but don't pretend that your objection to pooled sovereignty is based on geography. You didn't mind us pooling sovereignty with NATO or with the World Bank or the IMF or even the UN for that matter.4) I don't want the UK to become more foreignYou're a racist. No really, you are. There are over a million Brits living in continental Europe. It's Quid Pr Quo and by the way, foreign people are people too.5) I like Britain the way it is.Tough, history doesn't care. It didn't care when the Romans took over or the Anglo Saxons butchered the Celts of even when the Vikings annexed Yorkshire. It didn't care when the Angevin Empire was split and France and England became two separate countries and it didn't care when Sardinia, the Papal states and Piedmont coalesced with some other states to form Italy. You don't get to live in the country of your youth because culture is a vicissitude. There were no curries when my mother was a child , no internet, no twitter, no rock and roll no three ply toilet paper and no TV. Even the concept of an avocado would have been lost on her and had you asked her to dress a salad she would have dutifully stuffed some lettuce in the sleeves of a coat.Britain has been transformed by all of these things with the possible exception of the avocado and in 50 years time it will have been transformed again.Change isn't always bad. and it's only really, truly scary when changed comes neatly wrapped in ignorance.You can follow me daily at Liberalamerica.org For general musings or indeed if you want to contact me / yell at me or ask for my phone number, you can contact me via Twitter.

I already answered this question in some depth and have cut and pasted below.This question keeps getting renamed and bumped around so many times So I've sort of merged it with another, longer answer on the subject that I wrote over Christmas.There are no real advantage to Brexit or none that really matter anyway. So if you hate the EU with a passion and you don't have time to even consider a different view then don't read on. This is a long answer even by my standards so rather than make it longer by adding in reams of text that present the idea of Brexit as a fresh new beginning for Britain I'll say only this. Leaving the EU would satisfy some mostly irrelevent jingoistic feelings and perhaps please some businessmen who object to certain labour laws. There is money to be made in a deregulated economy.Take a trip to India if you don't believe me.As for the negative consequences, I think that in order to fully appreciate the EU one has to understand the EU. One has to examine its origins and its eventual direction. By doing so we can understand what the EU does for us now, and what it will do for us in the future.The EU is an attempt at nation building; most of the people who oppose it are unaware of where it came from, why it formed or where it’s going. It is a work in progress and as such, pointing to its deficiencies is a little like complaining that a car is not meeting your expectations before anyone has put petrol in the engine. Is it perfect? No, not even close. Is it Europe's future?Hell yes.In order for the EU to federalize it would have to pass many significant hurdles and chief among them would undoubtedly be nationalism. Still, before we address that point let's take a look at what the EU is and how it came to be. You'll have to bear with me though because there's really no quick way to go through this. I'm of the opinion that these things are not easy to understand and yet we have many, many people insisting that they understand what 's going on without having ever looked at the history and philosophy behind the project. If you are the kind of person that likes to know how things tick before you formulate an opinion, then please, read on.Once upon a time, Europe was gripped with a sickness and the beginnings of the EU can be traced back to an attempt to find a cure.The painting above is of the Battle of Fortenoy which took place in 1745. The blue-clad French in the foreground are Gardes Francaises and they are looking upon the British forces commanded by the Duke of Cumberland. This battle took place as part of the War of Austrian Succession and it was something of a victory for France though it came at a high price."See how much blood a triumph costs!" lamented the french King Louis XV. " The blood of our enemies is still the blood of men!"The man had a point. This single battle produced almost 20,000 causalities of which 5,000 were fatalities.That's a lot of death for just one days work.Immanuel Kant.This, thought one of the greatest thinkers of all time, was something of a problem. Kant was born in the 18th century, a particularly violent time to live in. From his perspective the sickness that gripped Europe was one of almost constant warfare and he took some to time off thinking big thoughts to see if there was a pattern he could identify.First he looked to the past.17th Century Warfare :Cost 10,000,000 European lives.In just one year, 1638 there were five separate wars occurring in Europe.There were only 4 years free of warfare in the whole century. The other 96 years all saw conflict of some kind.The total number of separate wars was 42.18th Century Warfare:Cost 20,000,000 European lives. It also dragged many other parts of the world into its conflicts.The total number of separate wars was 43.Kant could not see an end to this violence. In his mind, it was set to increase as time went on; the 19th century he believed would be more violent than the 18th the 20th more violent than the 19th and so on. He had no way of knowing if he was correct; he died in 1804. We however, looking back from the 21st century, can check the numbers.19th Century Warfare:Cost between 45 and 90,000,000 European lives. It also dragged many other parts of the world into its conflicts.The total number of separate wars was 52.20th Century WarfareCost, depending on who you ask,175,000,000 lives ( Zbigniev Brezinski.)225,000,000 lives ( Milton Litenberg)258,000,000 lives ( Rudolph J Rummel)Needless to say, due the the nature of 20th century wars, this loss of life was not restricted to Europe.There were 79 separate European wars in the 20th century,So we can perhaps agree on one thing. Kant was right, things just kept getting worse and something had to be done. You don't have to agree with me that the EU is a solution to any of this of course, just that the European wars were bad and getting worse.Potentially much worse! for we know something that Kant did not, the next major war might look like this.The next 'Big one' might even end our species which would be something of a pity because we're a pretty good species.(Shit)Kant of course, being unimaginably clever decided that since there was a solution to most problems then there must be a solution to this one too and, being an amenable chap, he wrote his conclusions down for us to ignore in favor of listening to Republican quick fixes (which always seem to blame Mexicans for everything that is wrong with the world).In this, one of the most important political texts ever written, Kant produced the cure for the sickness that ailed Europe. He prescribed the following remedies some of which were more evidently sensible than others.No Secret Treaties! Such things make states nervous. By being open with one another you can avoid states jumping to conclusions.Inheritance "No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation. So if the King of France dies you can't send a message to the King of England saying ' You now own France as well.' This might sound silly but as we saw at Fortenoy, inheriting a whole country was quite commonplace and caused major upheavals. (we'll get back to why this was so later on.)Limited Military: No standing armies. Controversial I know. But there is a work around for this one.Debt. You could borrow money all right but not as Kant put it ' with a view to the external friction of states.’Sovereignty. "No state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state."War needs Rules! "No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible: such are the employment of assassins (percussores), poisoners (venefici), breach of capitulation, and incitement to treason (perduellio) in the opposing state."Kant also offered three other points or 'definite articles' that are a little more difficult to fathom.The civil constitution of every state should be republican" (Kings are capricious, Prime Ministers and Presidents less so. The latter are also much easier to replace.)"The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states" Or rather, all states should posses sovereignty but should be bound together in some way."The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality" Free travel from one area to another was a good idea as was treating visitors in a fair and open manner.So here we have a fairly definitive plan and we can summarize it as follows.The world should consist of free states that are ruled by elected officials and not kings since kings are assholes; their tendency to believe that they own entire countries by right of birth is also problematic.We should have no or at least very small standing armies. and we should never lend a country so much money that they are bound to default; if we did this we'd be tempted to invade to get our money back.We should never interfere with a nation's sovereignty either by coercing or invading it. People don't like this and they will fight back with whatever weapons they can get their hands on (Iraq, Vichy France, Vietnam etc.)If war does occur then behave yourself. It benefits nobody if people are still seething with hatred for your nation several generations after the war. Civilian massacres and other atrocities will beget more violence and perpetuate war.People should be able to move from place to place. This encourages understanding. Polish immigrants to the UK, once met with hostility are now friends, girlfriends, daughters in law, neighbors and colleagues. And British people have also discovered the delights of chocolate Babka.Federalism is good. (more on that later.) We can make deals with other countries but lets be honest about it.All good stuff!And nobody listened.Because war was, fun! It had its winners and losers. It provided a nice place for the second sons of nobles to work, it allowed us to conquer, plunder and so on and so on. It was in our nature after all. Oh, as time went on some of the things Kant had suggested came to pass, but not in a structured way. We traded kings for Prime Minister's here and there and several, many states in fact, did indeed Federalize.But we still had war. And lots of it at that.Until...WWI had been bad. Let's be absolutely clear about this one point. There were no winners, only losers. Our attempt to denude Germany of any kind of return to power bit everyone involved in their fat arses. The USA got the Great Depression and the other countries of Europe got politics so radical that it made Donald Trump look like a cast member from an early episode of Sesame Street; they either went left as in Russia, right as in Germany or else stayed in the middle and had to fight the extremists.But whilst the UK barely recovered from the economic and social trauma of WWI it never recovered from WWII. All of its vast wealth had been squandered. It won the war but at great cost. It went in to defend Poland but Poland ended up behind the Iron Curtain which wasn't much better than being in Nazi hands.War just wasn't fun anymore, it was bombed cities, death camps, economic ruin and people dead in the tens of millions instead of tens of thousands. Russia won WWII and got a devastated country as a victory present. Britain won WWII and got... nothing... aside from the moral high ground I suppose. Only the USA came out on top and even that was no good because...Remember?That's Big Ivan, better known as Tsar Bomba. It's packing some 57 Megatons of Soviet might. That's 1,400 times Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined and ten times the entire combined fire power expended in WWII. In one bomb! One explosion! And, incredibly, that's only half of what it could have done. yes, had the variable yield been turned to max, it would have exploded with the force of nearly 3000 Hiroshima bombs!(More on this here: In Opinion: Why do liberals tend to favor defense cuts?And for a look at the realities of nuclear was see here: Ian Jackson's answer to Why is Donald Trump telling Americans our nukes don't work?We had to put an end to war. More importantly, from a US perspective we had to put an end to European wars since they were doing all the damage. The USA was and is, locked into a symbiotic relationship with Europe and had been dragged into just about every European war that anyone could think of. It had to stop.But how?Oh yes... Kant.Perhaps, thought our Yankee friends, he'd been on to something after all. And it wasn't like Kant's ideas hadn't been tested before, they had, just not on such a large scale. Which is why we have to go off on another tangent and take a look at...A Short History of GermanyHere's a picture of Germany as it was in 1789, around about the time that Kant was writing Perpetual Peace. You might notice that it looks a bit like a Sydney Pollock painting what with all the splodges of reds, greens and... what is that, mauve? In the 18th century, the Holy Roman Empire consisted of approximately 1,800 territories, the majority being tiny estates owned by the families of knights though some being quite large Duchies or to use their fancy title Palatines.And yet, in less than a century, most, if not all, would be united and Germany as we know it today would be born. This then, was the formation of the EU in miniature.How did this come to pass?Well it began with a confederation. Obviously...This here is the Confederation of the Rhine and it was set up in 1806 by the French Empire under the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte. It lasted exactly 7 years.Now, you might notice that there are far fewer states, than in its direct predecessor, initially, only 9 although it eventually comprised of 28 different states. None of this was to last. At the treaty of Vienna, the Allies, victorious over France at last, put everything back more or less the way it had been.There were now only 39 states and they were joined in a loose confederation. But then, they always had been, so nothing really changed. All that much.That big green country on the right is Prussia and they knew exactly what the German Confederation was for and what it was worth. It acted as a buffer between the powerful states of Austria and Prussia. Britain approved of it because London felt that there was need for a stable, peaceful power in central Europe that could discourage aggressive moves by France or Russia. It was a weak and ineffective confederation and an obstacle to German nationalist aspirations. And it was also up for grabs. Only two states had a chance of securing it. One was Austria and the other was Prussia.If you're wondering who won then let me point out two things. The capital of Austria was and is Vienna and the capital of Prussia was Berlin.It was Prussia then, that figured things out first. If one wanted to unify Germany then one must first attempt to develop economic ties. Such an idea was consistent with Kantian ideas of peace, something that was beginning to develop into a theory of International Relations called Liberalism. This is not related to the Liberalism that Fox news gets so upset about, I apologize on behalf of political scientists everywhere for not having come up with a different name for it.)This union set up in 1834 was called the Zollverein and it was little more than a customs agreement, a way to manage tariffs more efficiently and with greater profit.It was no master plan to bring Germany together.And yet it brought German states together regardless. With fewer tariffs came greater opportunities. It makes far less sense to start a war with a neighbor who is happily buying all your Hessian underthings, or your coal or building ships of commerce for you, or whatever. It was all one big happy family or rather one big happy commonwealth, a system wherein the aggregate wealth of member states is greater than the sum of its parts thanks to high levels of co-operation and low levels of friction.Austria, poor Austria was excluded from all this thanks to the machinations and political maneuvering of Prussia. It suffered accordingly, in fact, it went into an almost terminal decline. By 1870 the writing was on the cards. It took a war, the Franco-Prussian War to be precise, to really cement the deal but in 1871 a new country was born. Germany.Ah-ha! said the Americans! From economic co-operation to political union. What better way to stop Europeans fighting? I mean, Bavarians weren't fighting Prussians and we saw similar results with other unification. England joined with Scotland in 1801 putting an end to 100's of years of war. Italy had done something similar.The United States, then -- unlike now -- run by brilliant people, came up with several salient points.1) We must rebuild Europe. We are a country that makes stuff and we need to be able to sell this stuff to Europeans. As an added bonus, a rebuilt Europe will be less likely to turn to the radical politics of communism. Even better, money we give them will give democracies a head start, making capitalism look like a much better system.2) We need to make sure that we do this only once because it's expensive so now is a good time to make a few demands.The Marshall plan comprised of $13 billion (approximately $130 billion in current dollar value as of August 2015) in economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of WWII The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1947. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, make Europe prosperous again, and prevent the spread of communism.So they could sell us stuff.Communist states were welcome to the money but Stalin refused to let them take it.It was a good plan and it came with a little caveat.You had to join the OECD which was OK because both the Americans and many of the European leaders felt that European integration was necessary to secure the peace and prosperity of Europe. Although in some ways this effort failed, in a very real sense the EU we see today was the brainchild of American thought guided by Kant's genius.Because, although the OECD was flawed, the idea was not. The separate European Coal and Steel board that excluded Britain was a run away success and offered a tantalizing possibility. A European commonwealth!A United States of Europe? Wow. How would that work? Well, let's take a look at the USA.Its economy is worth about 18 trillion dollars.The best median income you can find in an American state is to be found in Maryland which in 2014 reached $70,004. Well done Marlyanders!The worst Median income you can find is in the State of Mississippi at $36,919.That's not so great really but we can add in some caveats to this analysis.1) The first 25 states all make it over the $50,000 mark aside from number 24, Iowa that manages a median income of $49,427 and number 25 Texas at $49,392.2) Only the three poorest states dip below $40,000 as a median. Arkansas, West Virginia and the aforementioned Mississippi.And let's be honest. The USA economy has been heavily screwed in favor of the super rich. and is in desperate need of an overhaul. See Ian Jackson's answer to U.S presidential primary candidate Bernie Sanders says "It is profoundly wrong that the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95%" Why is that wrong? Is everyone entitled to the same amount of wealth?But for now, let's compare that to Europe.The richest country in Europe per capita is Luxembourg at around $ 111,716 per annum. Norway is surrounded by bountiful oil and gas reserves and happily for the Norwegians, there aren't that many of them. So they cap out at $97,013. The poorest country that we have statistics for is Moldova.They manage $2,222.I know.Holy-Fuck!What is with this massive income disparity and why should we care?Well I should start by saying that you should care just based on the principle that being poor sucks and we should do what we can to help those who have nothing. But since I'm something of a realist I realize that a lot of people might take an attitude not dissimilar to the following."I don't know where Moldova is, I don't care about Moldova. We have have plenty of needy people here to take care of before we start worrying about some people in a far off land of whom we know little."That last bit incidentally is from British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who used this argument to explain why he had no intention of stopping Hitler from invading Czechoslovakia.Dick-move Neville.I digress.The 'Clean up out own neighborhood first’ argument is very often promulgated and stems from natural human selfishness on the one hand and common-garden ignorance on the other.But OK, that's easy to say, but harder to answer so, why should we care?Well, let's imagine that you want to sell your house.Let's say you inherited the house from a relative and that she bought the House for $200,000. The house is situated in a town miles from anywhere that has no major industry to speak of. We'll call this town Slumsville.Nobody in Slumsville has a job and most of them have taken to living in flimsy cardboard boxes. There are loads of townspeople who want to buy your house, there's definitely a market for it, but no-one can afford it and you can't easily move into the house yourself because you work elsewhere. So you quit your job and start your own business selling, of all things, bespoke kitchens. Nobody in the town has a job so they are willing to work for peanuts and as property prices are low you manage to set up your businesses on the cheap. Nice!Of course, nobody in Slumsville can afford to buy your kitchens but you happen to know that just over the hill there's another town called Snootsville. The people who live there wouldn't be caught dead in an Ikea; they don't know what bespoke means but they absolutely love to buy really expensive stuff.The orders come flying in and you load up your trucks.Oh.That's right, you forgot. Slumsville has no roads. Because they have no money and why in the hell would Snootsville pay for their roads? To make things worse, the dirt tracks are prone to banditry. You lose half your cargo. When it gets to the city limits corrupt officials constantly come up with creative new tariffs, bribes and add on expenditures. Not that we can blame them, they are living in flimsy cardboard boxes after all. By the time you have figured all this into the eventual price of the kitchen its too much even for the residents of Snootsville, You go bankrupt and move into a cardboard box of your own.Herein lies the basic problem to which a commonwealth is a natural solution. This is one of the main reasons why the USA was so successful for so long.The idea is simple, which is why it is so frustrating when people get it so wrong.Let's imagine you are the CEO of Mercedes Benz taking a look at the figures for the year.Looking over the USA you feel satisfied. You sell more cars in Maryland than Mississippi for sure but you at least sell some cars in the poorest state. You transport cars across roads that stretch from the very poorest states to the very richest. There is internet all over, freight trains and other infrastructure are available in all 50 states too. Some places are better developed than others that's for sure but there's no point where you just simply run out of road. Every part of the USA is connected to every other part. The workforce is reasonably well educated wherever you go too so if you need to be close to a natural resource then you can build a plant and fill it with workers. There are absolutely no trade barriers between states whatsoever and no hard borders either, so fewer delays are to be expected. If a natural disaster washes away a road or train line then the pooled sovereignty of the Federal State will step in and fix it. As a result, you create more wealth. You sell more cars, which means you hire more workers. Mechanics specializing in the Mercedes brand spring up all around the country and are able to make an honest buck. They spend their money in cafe's and buy groceries. It's a little thing perhaps, but it all builds up. An extra vacation sold here, a few more presents bought at Xmas there. Bums on seats in cinemas, restaurants and furniture stores!And there is a further advantage. Trading as a block, US merchants get better deals. We all know that buying and selling in bulk confers advantages. This was the whole point of the European Coal and Steel Board. The rich states in America subsidize the poor. They build roads from A-B because they want to buy stuff at A and sell stuff at B. They redistribute wealth in sensible ways and when Apple releases a new iPhone it's national ubiquity is guaranteed.This is a Moldovan phoneThey are made to order by a man called Sergei who insists that they only explode with the force of a grenade when allowed to 'Overheat.'You then look at Europe.You have sold plenty of cars in Germany Italy, Norway and France but that's about it. You sold one in Moldova, possibly to the President himself. If you want to sell to Russia then be prepared for a wait. Taxes need to be paid and you have to unload your cars at the border since they use different sized rails in Russia. You are beset with difficulties and cannot expand your market. Granted, yours is a luxury product but even basic necessities are difficult to export. Growth is stunted everywhere you look.This was what the Europeans saw and what they wanted was something more akin to the USA's success story than to the fractious bickering states of the past. They wanted a single market, one that was close by and one that could afford to buy and sell on a more or less equal basis. Germany the UK and France could be Maryland and Moldova could be Mississippi.What if they asked each other, we were able to pool sovereignty like the USA? Would it not be better if all the countries of Europe were hovering round the $70,000 median income mark? The idea that we could make it as easy to sell a car in Moldova as it was in France. That was.. well irresistible.The EEC was created at the treaty of Rome in 1957 and it looked like thisIt was SUCH a good idea that others soon joined in and at the treaty of Maastricht in 1992 became the EU. The rich countries would get richer, the poor would get richer, everyone would be happy. And good news, the EU is now the largest economy in the world trumping both China and the United States.So it worked.Of course the EU has become much more than a simple economic institution. Since 1992 there have been moves, moves that have disturbed many, to turn into something very similar to the USA a Federal Europe in all but name.And I'm afraid the reason why so many have become seduced by this idea requires another lengthy explanation which I do apologize for but like I said these are complex issues.Why Federalize?The world has changed a lot since 1992. Some of it we could predict but much of it we could not. The USA was busily congratulating itself upon it's Cold War 'Victory' and nations like the UK were trying to come to terms with the idea that they no longer faced annihilation in the next World War. We began to prepare for the new world, we set up the IMF, the World Bank, redefined the role of NATO created institutions such as the G8 and so on. But no matter what we did, there was always something looming on the horizon.The Yellow Peril!No. I've not gone all racist, this was the name of the picture above and it was a warning of the threat Asia posed to European hegemony, possibly even its fundamental prosperity. The term Yellow Peril was coined by German Emperor Wilhelm II in 1895, but the theory that Asian peoples represented a menace to the West originated in the late nineteenth century. Of course, back then a little bit of luck and daring-do could forge the destiny of nations. Those days have gone, the threat of China has not.Let's take a quick look at the world.There we go. Now, forget everything you know about the world, in fact imagine you're an alien trying to to figure out where power might be concentrated.1) Africa is the obvious choice. It's central, and it's large."But," say's the human (who has been captured for interrogation purposes and at the threat of a sideways butt-probe has decided to spill the beans,) "Africa is weak. It lacks navigable rivers, it's prone to drought, it has lower population density than most places and suffers from tribalism."2) OK thinks the Alien. Then what about these two patches of paradise, Canada and Russia. They are both huge."Well," says the human, "They are that, but in truth much of their land is a bit too cold for us humans. It's mostly tundra. These places are rich and powerful but they don't top the lists."3) The Alien is now getting frustrated because he looks like a bit of an idiot. He dismisses Australia as being too far away from everywhere else and Antarctica is obviously even more frozen than Canada. He decides power must be distributed across many countries so he lists them.a) The USA, large and protected by two oceans.b) Russia because he figures that it must have great natural resources.c) Brazil for it's size.d) India, large and in an excellent position to trade with the world.e) China even larger and also in an excellent position to trade with the rest of the world."Now you're cooking," says the human before pleading for the removal of the probe.We should note two things from this observation.1) The Alien has successfully identified the BRIC countries. Kudos. BRIC Countries - Background, Facts, News and Original Articles2) He didn't give Europe a second thought. It's small and it is fractious and its just so damnnorthern.In fact, if you told the alien that the largest empire that the world has ever known was ruled over by the British. He'd be at a loss as to how this happened. As he should be.(If you want to know why Europe was able to dominate the world for 500 years or so then check out this Macat Analysis , not one that I personally wrote but it's very good stuff. There's also a video below.)European dominance was an accident of history. It was never supposed to be in charge. The obvious choice is and always has been China and India. And as the 21st century loomed the accident of history ground to a halt. The 20th century had belonged to the the USA, but the 21st was China's.And here we are today;The modern world is made up of competing blocks of powers. You have a choice. You can be in one of those blocks or you can be marginalized by one.I'll give you an example.The Chinese economy is currently around three times the size of the UK's using nominal GDP figures. At that rate things are OK. We can get trade concessions, the Chinese pick up the phone when the PM calls and so on and so forth. Dealing with an economy three or four times larger than are own is not so bad, we've been doing it with the US for a while.You can study international relations all you like but when it comes down to it. Money is power.However.1. The USA are our cultural and ideological allies and to be honest, that really does help grease the wheels. Our relationship with China is less clear cut, we don't share the same values and our interests coincide less often.2. The Chinese economy in 2050 will be more like 10 times that of the UK. This is a massive shift in ratios and ratios are important. Imagine trying to fight off three guys. You'll probably lose but you might give a good account. Now imagine fighting ten guys at once.... Unless you are Batman.. and the UK is not Batman (the USA is Batman, the UK is more like Ace, the Bat-Hound,) you're going to go down hard.3. The ten to one ration would give us the same negotiating powers as Moldova currently enjoys with the rest of the world.4. We are blessed in this country with being one of the richest countries in the world. Our life style, our standard of living... it's not really based on how much we have so much as how much we have relative to the rest of the world. We're 5th by nominal GDP today, 7th or 8th by PPP. By 2050 We'll be around 12th or 13th and France and Germany will not be doing much better. You might think that these league tables matter little. You'd be wrong to think so. Expect a lowering of living standards if the UK goes it alone.OR...5. What if instead of being kicked out of the top ten we could somehow POOL resources? How does the EU economy look in 2050? Well, it will be the largest economy in the world for a start, in fact it already is. The UK would be senior partner in the largest economy in the world. Bigger than the USA, bigger than China. Yes, the German economy would be dominat. And yes, France would be just a little bit behind. But still, The UK's voice would be loud, progressive and strong. It's GOOD to be on top. The USA at its peak had the highest standards of living the world had EVER seen. That's what we can build, even exceed in Europe of we can get over our ethnocentric ways.6. Germany and France can stay on top simply by pooling sovereignty themselves. And I'm telling you, they'd do so, even if the EU collapsed. In 2050 a Franco German state would have an economy that was around 3 or 4 times the size of China's. Again, they could cope. The UK would have to survive by becoming either a tax haven (bad idea, look what happened to Ireland,) or a sweatshop modeled on Indian standards.7. The reason for the last point is why so many rich white businessmen want out of Europe. Minimum wage? Maternity Leave? Working directives that put caps on hours worked? All EU legislation, and all scrapped, bit by bit by UKIP/ Tory governments if we leave the EU.In short. You could live in a small European country that is sour, poor and generally unpleasant, unless you yourself are exceedingly rich. Or you could live in the greatest, wealthiest political union the world had ever seen.So the EU project shifted to reflect the new geopolitical reality. Germany, France and the UK liked being rich and they intended to stay rich, by pooling sovereignty they would remain relevant for... well forever.It was a good plan, a wholemeal plan with lots of roughage in it. One snag and one snag alone. People; because people are the worst.What are the things stopping the EU from forming a nation like the US?Like I said, Ignorance, fear and all that Jazz.Look at how long my answer was and I'm being brief here! I can't really see any way that people can truly understand the issues at hand without first understanding its historical, geopolitical and economic underpinnings. It would be like trying to fix a car engine without knowing what oil is.At the same time, I don't expect people to be as interested in these things as I am. This is why we have representative and not direct democracy. Alas, whilst my ignorance of the inner workings of the internal combustion engine leads me to call a mechanic when my car breaks down, far too many people think politics is the one field in the world that it is impossible to have any expertise in. Consequently they fall back on easily countered arguments that support their world view.1) We speak different languages so a Federal Europe will never be like the USA.Bit like this place then. Once four countries with four languages and now one country united in the most successful political and fiscal union of all time.2) It will destroy the individuality of states,There's room for diversity between cities let alone states. The French will still be French, the Greeks will still smash plates at weddings. We'll still have national football teams and TV shows. British weather will still be shit and Spanish weather will still... not be shit. French cheese will be better than German cheese and German sausage will still sell more than Russian sausage. We'll go skiing in Switzerland, sunbathing in Cannes and exploring in Italy. There will be death metal in Finland, folk music in France and whatever the fuck they listen to in Belgium. Europe will look like Europe only richer and with a couple of extra elections to consider every year. The capital, when chosen will be the greatest city the world has ever known.3) I don't want to be ruled by bureaucrats in a far away city!Live in Whitehall do you?Why accept rule from London then? Why have a country at all? Why not form a government based on a simple premise. Pick a spot walk for three miles and then draw a ring based on that radius. Anyone inside gets a vote, and anyone outside can go fuck themselves. Just don't expect outside help if crops fail, if roads need mending, if there are floods, a horde of invading Visigoths or wolves. You want to be on your own then be on your own but don't pretend that your objection to pooled sovereignty is based on geography. You didn't mind us pooling sovereignty with NATO or with the World Bank or the IMF or even the UN for that matter.4) I don't want the UK to become more foreign.You're a racist. No really, you are. There are over a million Brits living in continental Europe. It's Quid Pro Quo and by the way, foreign people are people too.5) I like Britain the way it is.Tough, history doesn't care. It didn't care when the Romans took over or the Anglo Saxons butchered the Celts of even when the Vikings annexed Yorkshire. It didn't care when the Angevin Empire was split and France and England became two separate countries and it didn't care when Sardinia, the Papal states and Piedmont coalesced with some other states to form Italy. You don't get to live in the country of your youth because culture is a vicissitude. There were no curries when my mother was a child , no internet, no twitter, no rock and roll no three ply toilet paper and no TV. Even the concept of an avocado would have been lost on her and had you asked her to dress a salad she would have dutifully stuffed some lettuce in the sleeves of a coat.Britain has been transformed by all of these things with the possible exception of the avocado and in 50 years time it will have been transformed again.Change isn't always bad. and it's only really, truly scary when changed comes neatly wrapped in ignorance. Donald Trump is a great example of this. He’s a massive fan of Brexit. Ask yourself why, or read more about it here. Donald Trump Changes Name To Mr. Brexit -- Nobody Knows Why (Video)Nothing I can think of could be worse than a Donald Trump Victory.For general musings or indeed if you want to contact me/ yell at me or ask for my phone number, you can contact me via twitter.Disclosure: This answer links back to one or more articles I wrote.

Ignorance, fear and all that Jazz.In order for the EU to Federalize it would have to pass many significant hurdles but chief among them would undoubtedly be nationalism. But before we address that point let's take a look at what the EU is and how it came to be. You'll have to bear with me though because there's really no quick way to go through this. I'm of the opinion that these things are not easy to understand and yet we have many, many people insisting that they understand what 's going on without having ever looked at the history and philosophy behind the project. If you are the kind of person that likes to know how things tick before you formulate an opinion, then please read on.Once upon a time, Europe was gripped with a sickness and the beginnings of the EU can be traced back to an attempt to find a cure.The painting above is of the Battle of Fortenoy which took place in 1745. The blue-clad French in the foreground are Gardes Francaises and they are looking upon the British forces commanded by the Duke of Cumberland. This battle took place as part of the War of Austrian Succession and it was something of a victory for France though it came at a high price."See how much blood a triumph costs!" lamented the french King Louis XV. " The blood of our enemies is still the blood of men!"The man had a point. This single battle produced almost 20,000 causalities of which 5000 were fatalities.That's a lot of death for just one days work.Immanuel Kant.This, thought one of the greatest thinkers of all time, was something of a problem. Kant was born in the 18th century, a particularly violent time to live in. From his perspective the sickness that gripped Europe was one of almost constant warfare and he took some to time off thinking big thoughts to see if there was a pattern he could identify.First he looked to the past.17th Century Warfare :Cost 10,0000 European lives.In just one year, 1638 there were five separate wars occurring in Europe.There were only 4 years free of warfare in the whole century. The other 96 years all saw conflict of some kind.The total number of separate wars was 42.18th Century Warfare:Cost 20,000,000 European lives. It also dragged many other parts of the world into its conflicts.The total number of separate wars was 43.Kant could not see an end to this violence. In his mind, it was set to increase as time went on; the 19th century he believed would be more violent than the 18th the 20th more violent than the 19th and so on. He of course had no way of knowing if this was the case since he died in 1804. We however, looking back from the 21st century, can check to see if he was right.19th Century Warfare:Cost between 45 and 90 million European lives. It also dragged many other parts of the world into its conflicts.The total number of separate wars was 52.20th Century WarfareCost, depending on who you ask,175,000,000 lives ( Zbigniev Brezinski.)225,000,000 lives ( Milton Litenberg)258,000,000 lives! ( Rudolph J Rummel)Needless to say, due the the nature of 20th century wars, this loss of life was not restricted to Europe.There were 79 separate European wars in the 20th century,So we can perhaps agree on one thing. Kant was right, things just kept getting worse and something had to be done. You don't have to agree with me that the EU is a solution to any of this of course, just that the European wars were bad and getting worse.Potentially much worse! for we know something that Kant did not, the next major war might look like this.The next 'Big one' might even end our species which would be something of a pity because we're a pretty good species.(Shit)Kant of course, being unimaginably clever decided that since there was a solution to most problems then there must be a solution to this one too and, being an amenable chap, he wrote his conclusions down for us to ignore in favor of listening to Republican quick fixes (which always seem to blame Mexico for most of what is wrong with the world.)In this, one of the most important political texts ever written Kant produced the cure for the sickness that ailed Europe. He prescribed the following remedies some of which were more evidently sensible than others.No Secret Treaties! Such things make states nervous. By being open with one another you can avoid states jumping to conclusions.Inheritance "No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation. So if the King of France dies you can't send a message to the King of England saying ' You now own France as well.' This might sound silly but as we saw at Fortenoy, inheriting a whole country was quite commonplace and caused major upheavals. ( we'll get back to why this was so later.)Limited Military: No standing armies. Controversial I know. But there is a work around for this one.Debt. You could borrow money all right but not as Kant put it ' with a view to the external friction of statesSovereignty. "No state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state"War needs Rules! "No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible: such are the employment of assassins (percussores), poisoners (venefici), breach of capitulation, and incitement to treason (perduellio) in the opposing state"Kant also offered three other points or 'definite articles' that are a little more difficult to fathom.The civil constitution of every state should be republican" ( Kings are capricious, Prime Ministers and Presidents less so. The latter are also much easier to replace."The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states" Or rather, all states should posses sovereignty but should be bound together in some way."The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality" Free travel from one are to another.So here we have a fairly definitive plan and we can summarize it as follows.The world should consist of free states that are ruled by elected officials and not kings since kings are assholes; their tendency to believe that they own entire countries by right of birth is also problematic.We should have no or at least very small standing armies. and we should never lend a country so much money that they are bound to default; if we did this we'd be tempted to invade to get our money back,.We should never interfere with a nation's sovereignty either by coercing or invading it. People don't like this and they will fight back with whatever weapons they can get their hands on ( Iraq, Vichy France, Vietnam etc.)If war does occur then behave yourself. It benefits nobody if people are still seething with hatred for your nation several generations after the war. Civilian massacres and other atrocities will beget more violence and perpetuate war.People should be able to move from place to place. This encourages understanding. Polish immigrants to the UK, once met with hostility are now friends, girlfriends, daughters in law, neighbors and colleagues. And British people have also discovered the delights of chocolate Babka.Federalism is good. ( more on that later. ) We can make deals with other countries but lets be honest about it.All good stuff!And nobody listened.Because war was fun! It had its winners and losers. It provided a nice place for the second sons of nobles to work, it allowed us to conquer, plunder and so on and so on. It was in our nature after all. Oh, as time went on some of the things Kant had suggested came to pass, but not in a structured way. We traded kings for prime Minister's here and there and several, many states in fact, did indeed Federalize.But we still had war. And lots of it at that.Until...WWI had been bad. Let's be absolutely clear about this one point. There were no winners, only losers. Our attempt to denude Germany of any kind of power base bit everyone involved in their frankly quite fat arses. The USA got the great depression and the other countries of Europe got politics so radical that it made Donald Trump look like a cast member from an early episode of Sesame Street; they either went left as in Russia, right as in Germany or else stayed in the middle and had to fight the extremists.But whilst the UK barely recovered from the economic and social trauma of WWI it never recovered from WWII. All of its vast wealth had been squandered. It won the war but at great cost. It went in to defend Poland but Poland was behind the Iron Curtain which wasn't much better than being in Nazi hands. War just wasn't fun anymore, it was bombed cities, death camps, economic ruin and people dead in the tens of millions instead of tens of thousands. Russia won WWII and got a devastated country as a victory present. Britain won WWII and got... nothing... aside from the moral high ground I suppose. Only the USA came out on top and even that was no good because...Remember?That's Big Ivan, better known as Tsar Bomba some 57 Megatons of Soviet might. That's 1,400 times Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined and ten times the entire combined fire power expended in WWII. In one bomb! One explosion! And, incredibly, that's only half of what it could have done. yes, had the variable yield been turned to max, it would have exploded with the force of nearly 3000 Hiroshima bombs.We had to put an end to war. More importantly, from a US perspective we had to put an end to European wars since they were doing all the damage.. The USA was and is, locked into a symbiotic relationship with Europe and had been dragged into just about every European war that anyone could think of. It had to stop.But how?Oh yes... Kant.Perhaps thought our Yankee friends, he'd been on to something after all. And it wasn't like Kant's ideas hadn't been tested before, they had, just not on such a large scale. Which is why we have to go off on another tangent and take a look at...A Short History of GermanyHere's a picture of Germany as it was in 1789, around about the time that Kant was writing Perpetual Peace. You might notice that it looks a bit like a Sydney Pollock painting what with all the splodges of reds, greens and... what is that, mauve? In the 18th century, the Holy Roman Empire consisted of approximately 1,800 territories, the majority being tiny estates owned by the families of knights though some being quite large Duchies or to use their fancy title Palatines.And yet, in lees than a century, most, if not all, would be united and Germany as we know it today would be born. This then, was the formation of the EU in miniature.How did this come to pass?Well it began with a confederation. Obviously...This here is the Confederation of the Rhine and it was set up in 1806 by the French Empire under the rule of the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. It lasted exactly 7 years.Now, you might notice that there are far fewer states, than in its direct predecessor, initially, only 9 although it eventually comprised of 28 different states. None of this was to last. At the treaty of Vienna, the Allies, victorious over France at last, put everything back more or less the way it had been.There were now only 39 states and they were joined in a loose confederation. But then, they always had been, so nothing really changed. All that much.That big green country on the right is Prussia and they knew exactly what the German Confederation was for and what it was worth. It acted as a buffer between the powerful states of Austria and Prussia. Britain approved of it because London felt that there was need for a stable, peaceful power in central Europe that could discourage aggressive moves by France or Russia. It was weak and ineffective and an obstacle to German nationalist aspirations. And it was up for grabs. Only two states had a chance of securing it. One was Austria and the other was Prussia.If you're wondering who won then let me point out two things. The capital of Austria was and is Vienna and the capital of Prussia was Berlin.It was Prussia then, that figured things out first. If one wanted to unify Germany then one must first attempt to develop economic ties. Such an idea was consistent with Kantian ideas of peace something that was beginning to develop into a theory of International Relations called Liberalism or Neo Liberalism in its more modern sense. ( This is not related to the Liberalism that Fox news gets so upset about, I apologize on behalf of political scientists everywhere for not having come up with a different name for it. )This union set up on 1834 was called the Zollverein and it was little more than a customs unions, a way to manage tariffs. But it brought German states together. With fewer tariffs came greater opportunities. It makes far less sense to start a war with a neighbor who is happily buying all your Hessian underthings, or your coal or building ships of commerce for you, or whatever. It was all one big happy family or rather one big happy commonwealth, a system wherein the aggregate wealth of member states is greater than the sum of its parts thanks to high levels of co-operation. Austria, poor Austria was precluded and suffered accordingly, in fact, it went in almost terminal decline. By 1870 the writing was on the cards. It took a war, the Franco-Prussian War to be precise, to really cement the deal but in 1871 a new country was born. Germany.Ah-ha! said the Americans! From economic co-operation to political union. What better way to stop Europeans fighting? I mean, Bravarians weren't fighting Prussians and we saw similar results with other unification. England joined with Scotland in 1801 putting an end to 100's of years of war. Italy had done something similar.The United States, then, unlike now, run by brilliant people, came up with several salient points.1) We must rebuild Europe. We are a country that makes stuff and we need to be able to sell this stuff to Europeans. As an added bonus, a rebuilt Europe will be less likely to turn to the radical politics of communism. Even better, money we give them will give democracies a head start, making capitalism look like a much better system.2) We need to make sure that we do this only once because it's expensive so now is a good time to make a few demands.The Marshall plan comprised of $13 billion (approximately $130 billion in current dollar value as of August 2015) in economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of WWII The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1947. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, make Europe prosperous again, and prevent the spread of communism.So they could sell us stuff.Communist states were welcome to the money but Stalin refused to let them take it.It was a good plan and it came with a little caveat.You had to join the OECD which was OK because both the Americans and many of the European leaders felt that European integration was necessary to secure the peace and prosperity of Europe. Although in some ways this effort failed, in a very real sense the EU we see today was the brainchild of American thought guided by Kant's genius.Because although the OECD was flawed, the idea was not. The separate European Coal and Steel board that excluded Britain was a run away success and offered a tantalizing possibility. A European commonwealth!A United States of Europe? Wow. How would that work? Well, let's take a look at the USA.Its economy is worth about 18 trillion dollars.The best median income you can find in an American state is to be found in Maryland which in 2014 reached $70,004. Well done Marlyanders!The worst Median income you can find is in an American State Mississippi at $36,919.That's not so great really but we can add in some caveats to this analysis.1) The first 25 states all make it over the $50,000 mark aside from number 24 Iowa that manages a median income of $49,427 and number 25 Texas at $49,392.2) Only the three poorest states dip below $40,000 as a median. Arkansas, West Virginia and the aforementioned Mississippi.And let's be honest. The USA economy has been heavily screwed in favor of the super rich. and is in desperate need of an overhaul. See Ian Jackson's answer to U.S presidential primary candidate Bernie Sanders says "It is profoundly wrong that the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95%" Why is that wrong? Is everyone entitled to the same amount of wealth?But for now, let's compare that to Europe.The richest country in Europe per capita is Luxembourg at around $ 111,716 per annum. Norway is surrounded by bountiful oil and gas reserves and happily for the Norwegians, there aren't that many of them. So they cap out at $97,013. The poorest country that we have statistics for is Moldova.They manage $2,222.I know.Holy-Fuck!What is with this massive income disparity and why should we care?Well I should start by saying that you should care just based on the principle that being poor sucks and we should do what we can to help those who have nothing. But since I'm something of a realist I realize that a lot of people might take an attitude not dissimilar to the following."I don't know where Moldova is, I don't care about Moldova. We have have plenty of needy people here to take care of before we start worrying about some people in a far off land of whom we know little."That last bit incidentally is from British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who used this argument to explain why he had no intention of stopping Hitler from invading Czechoslovakia. Dick-move Neville.I digress.The 'Clean up out own neighborhood first ' argument is very often promulgated and stems from natural human selfishness on the one hand and common-garden ignorance on the other.But OK, that's easy to say,but harder to answer so, why should we care?Well, let's imagine that you want to sell your house.Let's say you inherited the house from a relative and that she bought the House for $200,000. The house is situated in a town miles from anywhere that has no major industry to speak of. We'll call this town Slumsville.Nobody in Slumsville has a job and most of them have taken to living in flimsy cardboard boxes. There are loads of townspeople who want to buy your house, there's definitely a market for it, but no-one can afford it and you can't easily move into the house yourself because you work elsewhere. So you quit your job and start your own business selling, of all things, bespoke kitchens. Nobody in the town has a job so they are willing to work for peanuts and as property prices are low you manage to set up your businesses on the cheap. Nice!Of course, nobody in Slumsville can afford to buy your kitchens but you happen to know that just over the hill there's another town called Snootsville. The people who live there wouldn't be caught dead in an Ikea; they don't know what bespoke means but they absolutely love to buy really expensive stuff.The orders come flying in and you load up your trucks.Oh.That's right, you forgot. Slumsville has no roads. Because they have no money and why in the hell would Snootsville pay for their roads? T make things worse the dirt tracks are prone to banditry. You lose half your cargo. When it gets to the city limits corrupt officials constantly come up with creative new tariffs, bribes and add on expenditures. Not that we can blame them, they are living in flimsy cardboard boxes after all. By the time you have figured all this into the eventual price of the kitchen its too much even for the residents of Snootsville, You go bankrupt and move into a cardboard box of your own.Herein lies the basic problem to which a commonwealth is a natural solution. This is one of the main reasons why the USA was so successful for so long.The idea is simple, which is why it is so frustrating when people get it so wrong.Let's imagine you are the CEO of Mercedes Benz taking a look at the figures for the year.Looking over the USA you feel satisfied. You sell more cars in Maryland than Mississippi for sure but you at least sell some cars in the poorest state. You transport cars across roads that stretch from the very poorest states to the very richest. There is internet all over, freight trains and other infrastructure are available in all 50 states too. Some places are better developed than others that's for sure but there's not point where you just simply run out of road. Every part of the USA is connected to every other part. The workforce is reasonably well educated wherever you go too so if you need to be close to a natural resource then you can build a plant and fill it with workers. There are absolutely no trade barriers between states whatsoever and no hard borders either, so fewer delays are to be expected. If a natural disaster washes away a road or train line then the pooled sovereignty of the Federal State will step in and fix it. As a result, you create more wealth. You sell more cars, which means you hire more workers. Mechanics specializing in the Mercedes brand spring up all around the country and are able to make a n honest buck. They spend their money in cafe's and buy groceries. It's a little thing perhaps, but it all builds up. An extra vacation sold here, a few more presents bought at Xmas there. Bums on seats in cinemas, restaurants and furniture stores!And there is a further advantage. Trading as a block, US merchants get better deals. We all know that buying and selling in bulk confers advantages. This was the whole point of the European Coal and Steel Board. The rich states in America subsidize the poor. They build roads from A-B because they want to buy stuff at A and sell stuff at B. They redistribute wealth in sensible ways and when Apple releases a new iPhone it's national ubiquity is guaranteed.This is a Moldovan phoneThey are made to order by a man called Sergei who insists that they only explode with the force of a grenade when allowed to 'Overheat.'You then look at Europe.You have sold plenty of cars in Germany Italy, Norway and France but that's about it. You sold one in Moldova, possibly to the President himself. If you want to sell to Russia then be prepared for a wait. Taxes need to be paid and you have to unload your cars at the border since they use different sized rails in Russia. You are beset with difficulties and cannot expand your market. Granted, yours is a luxury product but even basic necessities are difficult to export. Growth is stunted everywhere you look.This was what the Europeans saw and what they wanted was something more akin to the USA's success story than to the fractious bickering states of the past. They wanted a single market, one that was close by and one that could afford to buy and sell on a more or less equal basis. Germany the UK and France could be Maryland and Moldova could be Mississippi.What if they asked each other, we were able to pool sovereignty like the USA? Would it not be better if all the countries of Europe were hovering round the $70,000 median income mark? The idea that we could make it as easy to sell a car in Moldova as it was in France. That was.. well irresistible.The EEC was created at the treaty of Rome in 1957 and it looked like thisIt was SUCH a good idea that others soon joined in and at the treaty of Maastricht in 1992 became the EU. The rich countries would get richer, the poor would get richer, everyone would be happy. And good news, the EU is now the largest economy in the world trumping both China and the United States.So it worked.Of course the EU has become much more than a simple economic institution. Since 1992 there have been moves, moves that have disturbed many, to turn into something very similar to the USA a Federal Europe in all but name.And I'm afraid the reason why so many have become seduced by this idea requires another lengthy explanation which I do apologize for but like I said these are complex issues.Why Federalize?The world has changed a lot since 1992. Some of it we could predict but much of it we could not. The USA was busily congratulating itself upon it's Cold War 'Victory' and nations like the UK were trying to come to terms with the idea that they no longer faced annihilation in the next World War. We began to prepare for the new world, we set up the IMF, the World Bank, redefined the role of NATO created institutions such as the G8 and so on. But no matter what we did, there was always something looming on the horizon.The Yellow Peril!No. I've not gone all racist, this was the name of the picture above and it was a warning of the threat Asia posed to European hegemony, possibly even its fundamental prosperity. The term Yellow Peril was coined by German Emperor Wilhelm II in 1895, but the theory that Asian peoples represented a menace to the West originated in the late nineteenth century. Of course, back then a little bit of luck and derring-do could forge the destiny of nations. Those days have gone, the threat of China has not.Let's take a quick look at the world.There we go. Now, forget everything you know about the world, in fact imagine you're an alien trying to to figure out where power might be concentrated.1) Africa is the obvious choice. It's central, and it's large."But," say's the human (who has been captured for interrogation purposes and at the threat of a sideways butt-probe has decided to spill the beans,) "Africa is weak. It lacks navigable rivers, it's prone to drought, it has lower population density than most places and suffers from tribalism."2) OK thinks the Alien. Then what about these two patches of paradise, Canada and Russia. They are both huge."Well," says the human " They are that, but in truth much of their land is a bit too cold for us humans. It's mostly tundra. These places are rich and powerful but they don't top the lists."3) The Alien is now getting frustrated because he looks like a bit of an idiot. He dismisses Australia as being too far away from everywhere else and Antarctica is obviously even more frozen than Canada. He decides power must be distributed across many countries so he lists them.a) The USA, large and protected by two oceans.b) Russia because he figures that it must have great natural resources.c) Brazil for it's size.d) India, large and in an excellent position to trade with the world.e) China even larger and also in an excellent position to trade with the rest of the world."Now you're cooking," says the human before pleading for the removal of the probe.We should note two things from this observation.1) The Alien has successfully identified the BRIC countries. Kudos. BRIC Countries - Background, Facts, News and Original Articles2) He didn't give Europe a second thought. It's small and it is fractious and its just so damn northern.In fact, if you told the alien that the largest empire that the world has ever known was ruled over by the British. He'd be at a loss as to how this happened. As he should be.( If you want to know why Europe was able to dominate the world for 500 years or so then check out this Macat Analysis , not one that I personally wrote but it's very good stuff. There's also a video below.)European dominance was an accident of history. It was never supposed to be in charge. The obvious choice is and always has been China and India. And as the 21st century loomed the accident of history ground to a halt. The 20th century had belonged to the the USA, but the 21st was China's.And here we are today,The modern world is made up of competing blocks of powers. You have a choice. You can be in one of those blocks or you can be marginalized by one.I'll give you an example.The Chinese economy is currently around three times the size of the UK's using nominal GDP figures. At that rate things are OK. We can get trade concessions, the Chinese pick up the phone when the PM calls and so on and so forth. Dealing with an economy three or four times larger than are own is not so bad, we've been doing it with the US for a while.You can study international relations all you like but when it comes down to it. Money is power.However.1. The USA are cultural and ideological allies and to be honest, that has helped us a along. Our relationship with China is less clear cut, we don't share the same values and our interests coincide less often.2. The Chinese economy in 2050 will be more like 10 times that of the UK. This is a massive shift in ratios and ratios are important. Imagine trying to fight off three guys. You'll probably lose but you might give a good account. Now imagine fighting ten guys at once.... Unless you are Batman.. and the UK is not Batman ( the USA is Batman, the UK is a bit like Ace, the Bat-Hound,) you're going to go down hard.3. The ten to one ration would give us the same negotiating powers as Moldova currently enjoys with the rest of the world.4. We are blessed in this country with being one of the richest countries in the world. Our life style, our standard of living... it's not really based on how much we have so much as how much we have relative to the rest of the world. We're 5th by nominal GDP today, 7th or 8th by PPP. By 2050 We'll be around 12th or 13th and France and Germany will not be doing much better. You might think that these league tables matter little. You'd be wrong to think so. Expect a lowering of living standards if the UK goes it alone.OR...5. What if instead of being kicked out of the top ten we could somehow POOL resources? How does the EU economy look in 2050? Well, it's the largest economy in the world for a start, in fact it already is. The UK would be senior partner in the largest economy in the world. Bigger than the USA, bigger than China. Yes, the German economy would be slightly bigger. And yes, France would be just a little bit behind. But still, The UK's voice would be loud, progressive and strong. It's GOOD to be on top. The USA at its peak had the highest standards of living the world had EVER seen. That's what we can build, even exceed in Europe of we can get over our ethnocentric ways.6. Germany and France can stay on top simply by pooling sovereignty themselves. And I'm telling you, they'd do so, even if the EU collapsed. In 2050 a Franco German state would have an economy that was around 3 or 4 times smaller than China's. Again, they could cope. The UK would have to survive by becoming either a tax haven ( bad idea, look what happened to Ireland,) or a sweatshop modeled on Indian standards.7. The reason for the last point is why so many rich white businessmen want out of Europe. Minimum wage? Maternity Leave? Working directives that put caps on hours worked? All EU legislation, and all scrapped, bit by bit by UKIP/ Tory governments if we leave the EU.In short. You could live in a small European country that is sour, poor and generally unpleasant, unless you yourself are exceedingly rich. Or you could live in the greatest, wealthiest political union the world had ever seen.So the EU project shifted to reflect the new geopolitical reality. Germany, France and the UK liked being rich and they intended to stay rich, By pooling sovereignty they would remain relevant for... well forever really.It was a good plan, a wholemeal plane with lots of roughage in it. One snag and one snag alone. People; because people are the worst.What are the things stopping the EU from forming a nation like the US?Like I said, Ignorance, fear and all that Jazz.Look at how long my answer was and I'm being brief here! I can't really see any way that people can truly understand the issues at hand without first understanding its historical, geopolitical and economic underpinnings. It would be like trying to fix a car engine without knowing what oil is. At the same time, I don't expect people to be as interested in these things as I am. This is why we have representative and not direct democracy. Alas, whilst my ignorance of the inner workings of the internal combustion engine leads me to call a mechanic when my car breaks down, far too many people think politics is the one field in the world that it is impossible to have any expertise in. Consequently they fall back on easily countered arguments that support their world view.1) We speak different languages so a Federal Europe will never be like the USA.Bit like this place then. Once four countries with four languages and now one country united in the most successful political and fiscal union of all time.2) It will destroy the individuality of states,There's room for diversity between cities let alone states. The French will still be French, the Greeks will still smash plates at weddings. We'll still have national football teams and TV shows. British weather will still be shit and Spanish weather will still... not be shit. French cheese will be better than German cheese and German sausage will still sell more than Russian sausage. We'll go skiing in Switzerland, sunbathing in Cannes and exploring in Italy. There will be death metal in Finland, Folk music in France and whatever the fuck they listen to in Belgium. Europe will look like Europe only richer and with a couple of extra elections to consider every year. The capital, when chosen will be the greatest city the world has ever known.3) I don't want to be ruled by bureaucrats in a far away city!Live in Whitehall do you?Why accept rule from London then? Why have a country at all? Why not form a government based on a simple premise. Pick a spot walk for three miles and then draw a ring based on that radius. Anyone inside gets a vote, and anyone outside can go fuck themselves. Just don't expect outside help if crops fail, if roads need mending, if there are floods, a horde of invading Visigoths or wolves. You want to be on your own then be on your own but don't pretend that your objection to pooled sovereignty is based on geography. You didn't mind us pooling sovereignty with NATO or with the World Bank or the IMF or even the UN for that matter.4) I don't want the UK to become more foreignYou're a racist. No really, you are. There are over a million Brits living in continental Europe. It's Quid Pr Quo and by the way, foreign people are people too.5) I like Britain the way it is.Tough, history doesn't care. It didn't care when the Romans took over or the Anglo Saxons butchered the Celts of even when the Vikings annexed Yorkshire. It didn't care when the Angevin Empire was split and France and England became two separate countries and it didn't care when Sardinia, the Papal states and Piedmont coalesced with some other states to form Italy. You don't get to live in the country of your youth because culture is a vicissitude. There were no curries when my mother was a child , no internet, no twitter, no rock and roll no three ply toilet paper and no TV. Even the concept of an avocado would have been lost on her and had you asked her to dress a salad she would have dutifully stuffed some lettuce in the sleeves of a coat.Britain has been transformed by all of these things with the possible exception of the avocado and in 50 years time it will have been transformed again.Change isn't always bad. and it's only really, truly scary when changed comes neatly wrapped in ignorance.