Talk:United States of Europe


George Washington quote


The link to the source of the George Washington quotation is broken and no such quote can be found at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/ . Jaia (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)jaia

The quote should actually just be removed completely, since it is more than merely "disputed", but has actually already been completely debunked as a misattribution from a French author, who was using the idea of "George Washington" to give voice to his musings about the possibility of European federation.[1]  Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C445:5989:9817:8548:C8B:D0B (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal


In January, Vivianne Reding, has proposed the transformation of the EU into United States of Europe.--89.128.236.143 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Map


I think the map is wrong as Russia is a possible member of the EU, so should be shaded green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.196 (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

lol  Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.83.137.87 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Section "small power" in section "predictions" ist about the EU, not the USE


The section "small power" describes present day EU, not the subject of the article, which is about the United States of Europe being possible in the future. Anything in the section "predictions" should predict something. I haven't read the original source, but if its authors is drawing conclusions from the EU to any possible USE, it should be pointed out here as well. Otherwise I will delete the section. --JakobvS (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States of Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States of Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger Proposal


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was the merge. The name of this page is in question though.

I believe this article overlaps much with the European superstate page. I think they can be merged. I personally believe the term European Superstate is a more neutral term, but I am not super knowledgeable about the subject. It is clear that this page is more established. Thoughts? Oldag07 (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I agree with the RtM. The only real issue is which name should take precedence going forward. Neither term is "official" so we can't take the easy way out.
    • The term "United States of Europe" is much used in fact and fiction books going back many years (see the USofE article), European Superstate is of far more recent coinage.
    • The term USofE is the one used and recognised more widely world-wide, if only by adaptation from USofA. As evidence, there are 27 articles in other language wikipedias - all those I understand are straight translations of USofE and the others have an equivalent syntax.
    • As far as I've observed, the term "European superstate" is very much a pejorative term / straw man used by one side of the debate on the UK's relationship with [the rest of] the EU - I don't understand why you would consider it NPOV?
    • I can't see any evidence to support the contention that the ES page is "more established" - it is substantially shorter and relies heavily on a single source (Daily Telegraph).
    • I don't believe ES has any recognition outside the UK: the ES article has precisely zero corresponding articles in other language wikipedias.
    • According to Wikipedia:Web statistics tool's Pageviews Analysis, invocations of USofE is many times more that of ES.
IMO, therefore, the merged article should be called United States of Europe. --Red King (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment- "This page" in my comment refered to United States of Europe page, not European superstate. I agree with Red Kings argument. Oldag07 (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment What about an entirely new name? 'Potential European Unification', or 'Speculative European Federalism'? Neither of those are amazing, but something that acknowledges the hypothetical nature of the article would be good.A.D.Hope (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Per my notes above, I suggest that US of E already has recognition so I'd hesitate to invent something new. I guess many people would already recognise it as a speculative concept and the remainder would learn something! --Red King (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree. There is a lot to be said for separating material that describes credible plans from mere kite flying. In each case of course, we would have to police rigourously for reliable sources and notable people doing the prediction. Some of the current material in the articles you mention would certainly be better placed here. --Red King (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the proposed merge.
I think there are two topics we need to keep distinct:
  • Federalisation of the EU under its current supranational model (covered at Federalisation of the European Union, which possibly should be moved to "European federalism" to make clear it refers to a political idea/movement rather then necessarily something that is actively happening progressively);
  • and the concept of forming a European superstate as a conventional sovereign federal state a la the United States (both historically and contemporarily)
I don't think "European federalism" necessarily refers to the desire to abandon the current EU model and form a European Superstate. Rather the phrase tends to refer to a political movement who want to further the European Union in a way that would make it resemble more closely a conventional federation, e.g. unifying the armed forces, expanding the single currency, increasing the role of the EU, etc. Whereas the idea of forming a European superstate is a much broader topic that includes hypothetical proposals beyond the EU, including from a historical perspective (Napoleon seemed pretty big on the idea).
I personally don't like the title "United States of Europe" though. It's not very precise or descriptive. I'd prefer something like "Formation of a United States of Europe" or "Formation of a European superstate".
Rob984 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment I could wouldn't mind a different name. I don't see a consensus for that at the moment.
Comment I have been trying to figure out what to add from the European Superstate article and I can't find anything that isn't already on this page. Any thoughts? Oldag07 (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment, I feel I have merged all additional information from the superstate page into this one. I know we are still debating the name for this page, but I believe we all agree the two pages should be merged.Oldag07 (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References


Is there any reliable source that says that the EU Council's nominations of July have the clear intention to establish a US of E?


Per WP:BRD, I reverted an edit by User:זָרַח which reports the Daily Telegraph as saying "four advocates of European federalism were nominated to top posts in the EU". While there might be a case to include that statement in Federalisation of the European Union (where the assessment would still need to be corroborated by a more neutral source than DT), it seems to me to be a clear leap of imagination to suggest that it presages a US of E, and is thus WP:SYN in my opinion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge with 'Federalisation of the European Union' and 'European integration' articles?


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Though the pages ostensibly cover different topics, much of the content is actually the same. Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.40.102 (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There is scope overlap to the point of WP:CFORK, the articles should either be merged or else be more closely, ahem, integrated with one another by WP:SS. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest this article overlaps heavily with European integration, which both cover the broad historical idea, and should be merged into it. Federalisation of the European Union is a specific instance within that, and much of the EU specific information in European Integration should be moved over into that specific article (the European Integration article is currently quite unwieldy). CMD (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The "US of E" Is a fictional concept and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. "Federalisation of the EU" is a real-world motivation for a significant minority and has been happening a little at a time: some commentators suggest that it already has most of the characteristics of one. It is important to keep fiction and reality separate, even if each article is informed by the other. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This article does not really devote much space to the fictional concept though, it's a mixture of a history of the concept (and similar concepts) and recent EU information. CMD (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, extraneous material keeps getting added. Each little bit extra doesn't seem much but over time it accumulates into a wp:fork. So IMO the solution is a clear out of the EU material (we have an article for that). There remains a strong case for an article about the fiction and Grand Plans. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
That still leaves the question of how to differentiate this article from European Integration, what belongs on this article, and what this article should be called. Do we include the speech about a European Federal Union, the plans for a Paneuropean Union, and other ideas for which the names are different? A few fiction entries also don't use the current article name. CMD (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it best expressed that USE describes an imagined end state, whereas integration and federalisation describe a process that has been long underway and with a long run ahead. It is unavoidable OR/SYN to say that USE is inevitably its end point: it is not. (It is not as far-fetched an idea as Eurabia but is still well out there).
Integration and federalisation should be merged. "Integration" is the less POV term and should be the one that continues. It might make sense then for "federalisation" to become a dab article suggesting each of the other two? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The Integration and Federalisation articles should definitely not be merged because they cover different topics. The Federalisation article is only about the EU. It is a natural subtopic of the current Integration article, which has a far vaster scope. As for USE, your response doesn't address my questions, which are based on the content within the article right now, which includes end-states that are not called USE. CMD (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.