Maticmaker
Full Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2018
- Messages
- 4,764
No of course not, but economies of scale come into it, also since we don't know as yet what we will actually have to do to live with actual climate change, (as opposed to preventing climate change) planning is difficult. The EU currently is able to function reasonably effectively in a 'steady state' situation, but it is not good in dealing with massive transient change, e.g. refugee problems/dispersal etc. and now agreeing rescue budgets for southern states (northern states reluctant to pay). We have seen the problems caused by HS2, the cost overruns, the planning schedules/dilemmas, the nibyism it attracts, imagine that writ large across the EU. Only by acting in concert through a USE will anything get done on the scale needed and the UK's needs will be low down the list and will get over rode and we will be stuck in a Union, with a common currency, (but not the one we had) and nowhere to go... perhaps the Scots feel a bit like this at the moment?This makes no sense whatsoever. First whether the EU become a United states of Europe is the sole decision of member states and an individual decision, secondly countries however they are organized do not manage their territories indiscriminately for example within the UK a region that is bordered by the sea won't have the same issues than a region that is landlocked would you make the point that these two regions shouldn't be in the UK because they have different needs?
But it won't be a theoretical USE it will be real ,with Brussels having federal powers like Washington in the USA.Any theoretical USE would be far too large, far too culturally different, far too populous, for an attempt to run everything centrally from Brussels.
Think future, not present!