this is false. very few european countries want a federal, unified state.

so nothing of meaning will happen until a lot of things change.

Having lived in several European countries myself (Spain, Germany, France, Netherlands, Switzerland) I can only agree with the first part of the statement. It is not like California and Kansas are very similar either, yet they are part of the same country.

To me the current issue is not the people but politics, and the desire of sovereign countries not to relinquish power to a supranational entity. This is a process that takes time (and typically requires a catalyzer).

Whether the union will succeed or not, time will tell, but in the last 15 years Europe has clearly been converging (Schengen and currency being important aspects, to which I would add Erasmus programs and low-cost flights).

It is not there yet, and with the financial crisis from the last few years, the situation is more difficult at the moment; however, in my opinion if Europe wants to play a relevant geopolitical role vs the US, China, Russia, etc. it will be forced to step up its union efforts.

Its currently impossible and would take decades - each country has seperate army that speaks a different language, has vigorous national identity. It has sovereign government and paliaments.

There is nothing EU can do to compell a member state to do anything it doesnt want to do. EU is like a big mega-trade deal more than a government.

Currently Hingary and Poland are flouting EU laws on democracy, the executive jas seized control of the courts and EU can do nothing about it.

I would go further than that, while you are absolutely right, long before we reach that point we have the "second core" of Belgium, Italy and Spain, none of which are actually leaving anytime soon. Can add Portugal, Austria and Luxembourg as a "sure takers" third wave.

Litterally all members of the same economic and political Union. The EU.

> It's as if we're watching the destruction of all the national identities.

You don't live in a federation, do you?

They voted to create the EU in the first place, which is why the EU exists. They can vote to leave the EU, and one country has. But most countries haven't, and won't.

Sorry, but I disagree. There is no consensus whatsoever in the EU about a federal Union. There is not even consensus on a budgetary union (as in shared debt, not just having a shared currency) because it will reflect badly on states that currently have stronger economies in the EU: https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-lithuania/merkel-say...

Actually, to be fair, every time there was a popular referendum even the EU Constitution has been rejected by the population (it only passed later by the parliament): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_European_Constitut... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Dutch_European_Constituti...

That's because EU is exactly that at this time: a close cooperation of countries and a bit more(i.e the cohesion policy).

Without a fiscal union and a common army you cannot talk about a federalisation. Just look how the Greek financial crisis was handled. Greece was pretty much regarded as a stand alone country that needs to pay alone for its mistakes or leave the union. In a federalisation the burden would be shared like it happened in the U.S. We would talk about european citizens not greek citizens.

The pros and cons of federalisation can be debated but I'm not sure if the poor states of the US would do better on their own.

We don't need to imagine that - it's exactly how the USA worked under the Articles of Confederation.

But the only solution to that involves significant transfer of sovereignty from member states to the federal structures. And it doesn't feel like most EU member states are willing to go there.

Very few current EU countries signed up for a "unification of Europe", it started as a trading bloc and escalated from there.

They won't be on board much longer. The EU is nonsense at its very core. It is a corrupt cesspool where a select group of unelected masters rule over the unwashed masses.

It is a farcical idealized fantasy. It doesn't exist the way the people idealized it to exist.

> The UK has always been an obstacle to tighter integration, and that obstacle will likely be gone soon.

Actually, the UK was a force for tighter integration. After all english and modern anglo culture is the dominant culture of the EU.

It is just shocking how naive people are. The problem with the EU is precisely france and germany. To have "integration", you have to have a common language, culture, history, etc. So will french or german be the language of the EU? That's just the basic first level aspect of a "union".

The only way the EU will ever work is if one dominant nation/ethnic group/etc conquers the whole thing and forcibly integrates the region. And that won't happen anytime soon.

Greece and Hungary are probably next to leave soon to be followed by everyone else.

Perhaps, don't?

If you can't take the people of a democracy with you on a project, perhaps it's best not to try and build such a thing anyway, and then end up with a hack?

On the rest - I would come to a similar state but from a different direction full autonomy for small democratic units, who voluntarily delegate some authority rather than get granted powers from "above"

Please show evidence of that statement. I'm not seeing anyone really pushing for federalism, in fact quite the opposite, holding the current group of countries model but with stronger ECB (bank) and ECJ (court) to prevent failures like Greece and Spain had.

Some slight moves to harmonize trade laws have happened, but not a lot. Some more in banking laws.

Not necessarily. There's no reason why the UK would have to be a vital part of that union. Quite the contrary, in fact: the UK has always been the biggest opponent of such a closer union. Without the UK, it's possible that the EU might actually be able to move ahead in that direction again.

What makes you think that? I'm pro-EU and ideally I would like to see it turn into a full fledged country. The issue is that the general population doesn't want this (yet).

>Once it's dissolved or enough countries quit, you'll probably see more real integration but on a smaller scale.

It won't be dissolved.

And that's precisely why it is failing, and will continue to fail.

Imagine combining Canada and the USA into a single country.

Only we never done that. We just allowed for easy border access, united a few laws, and had central bureaucrats and heavier countries step on the throats of lesser ones.

That really depends on the countries involved and the form of the union. Even in your version of events, with a reversion to an EEC-like state, I expect we would eventually see closer political union between France, Germany, the Benelux countries and whoever else wanted to join.

You also need to figure out what to do about the Eurozone. You cannot indefinitely sustain a monetary union without closer fiscal integration, which I assume you oppose, but dissolving it has its own issues both in the short and long term (there's a reason it was created in the first place, and that reason is not solely to facilitate closer political integration - even though that was indeed a goal).