EU countries should unite and form a single state

First I will address you very reasonable observation as to the nature of the super-state. I never actually defined it, as I said in round 1: "The exact nature of the super-state to be formed, I will leave to the Prop to define", however as we only have one round left, I will define it as a dominant central government and not as federal states, as making europe federal states wouldn't change anything. This round I will dedicate mainly to refutation and summation: 1: with regard to the Germany dispute, it seems to have left the point of reliance however I would like to insert one last comment: "It united the people, it created a task: To help their fellow Germans in the East." I would like to focus on 2 words in this excerpt from my opponents speech: united, and fellow. West and East Germany is not proof that uniting Europe would be good. It was rather crossing the divide which had been formed recently. Europe which has never been united and in fact has often been fighting each other would not work like this. 2. " If you mean as the superstate as a whole, the need to 'bail out' would be nulled, there is no more countries to bail out, there is no other federal government to loan money to." I know that the need to bail out, in a super state wouldn't be the same, but that's not the point, the point is that in the actual act of joining this state, the commitment to share funds with poorer countries would be made, thus being effectively a commitment to bail them out permanently. 3. "A prime example is the United Kingdom, each with their own countries located inside of the British Isle: Wales, Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland each with their own culture. They all are under a Union as well. They are all difference in their own ways, but yet pulled together for the greater cause." Yes, these separate cultures have united, but I would like to ask my opponent when? Deep into the middle ages, and what have we seen since then, constant strife and wars between the scots, english, and welsh (don't let me even get started on the northern irish). The UK is a great example of contrasting mentalities and cultures uniting, in that it is a bad idea. Sure it worked ultimately, but the objective that I laid down was that the super-state would hold together i the long term AND short term. If Europe responds like the UK did historically, there is no way it would survive in the short term. A quote to conclude this: "History repeats itself because nobody paid attention the first time." 4. Ah yes Switzerland, the problem is that Switzerland is not in the EU and making an EU super-state leaves this bubble in the middle and surrounded, quite messy! 5. Nationalism: I must disagree about your claim that: "nationalism only start popping its ugly head when two things happen: One if the people are being opposed or treated as 'second class' compare to the main accepted culture. Or when the people face a massive government problem: government failed, famine, bloody civil war, etc." One thing I will add to your list is when a people have been historically persecuted. Take Ireland, at the time when it finally succeeded in its revolution in 1922, that was the point in which (prior to the actual war) England was treating them better than ever before. Historical grievances will be enough to awake nationalism whenever things are not going a countries way in such a state, (e.g. a mass legalization of abortion may be interpreted by Ireland as oppressive as they are against it) The main thing to note is that Nationalism is not an entirely rational emotion. 6. Next my opponent goes on about taxes, under the logic that if EU countries unite, there are more people to tax which means more money is available, which means taxes can be lowered which is good. One little (no quite big actually) problem here, is once you unite EU countries, not only do populations and hence taxes go up, but expenses go up by the same margin. Now the expenses for England are added to those for Italy, Spain, ect.. Therefore the creation of a super-state will not result in more money for the people as my opponent argues. 7. The business of different laws in different states: this may work for certain minor laws, but it would never work for entire economic systems (capitalism vs socialism). Besides this is drifting back in the direction of if a super state doesn't change laws, or effect the countries economically (positively) then what is the point of uniting these countries in the first place. There is quite simply no problem with the current system which requires fixing. So now I will give a general conclusion from my arguments throughout this debate The creation of a super-state can only effect a country economically,politically or legally Legally: if you standardize things, you make countries unhappy, if you leave it alone, then there is not point. Economically: If you form a common fund, previously richer countries have to carry the system on their backs and thus wont be happy. If on the other hand you leave each 'province' to manage itself economically, there is no change and hence no point. Politically: small countries, by becoming a minority in the new state effectively lose all individual power and importance, and hence would be unwilling to join this state. In addition to the rational, the irrational reason of nationalism due to past offences would make them unwilling to join their previous oppressors. Therefore in conclusion, at best such a reform does nothing except provoking nationalism, and while at worst is makes many parties unhappy whether for economic or legal reasons, hence asking for trouble. Therefore this reform is clearly a bad idea! Vote Con! Once again thanks Mouzie for this debate, it was a lot of fun. You were neither rude nor difficult to understand, and I am grateful for you efforts to preserve the humanity of this debate!