Martin Schulz, head of the German party SPD, wants the United States of Europe until 2025 [article in German]

Martin Schulz, head of the German party SPD, wants the United States of Europe until 2025 [article in German]
Martin Schulz, head of the German party SPD, wants the United States of Europe until 2025 [articl...

wants the United States of Europe until 2025

What does he want after 2025, then?

I knew I'd screw this up somehow...

Don't feel bad. This is maybe the #1 mistake Germans make with English, in my experience. When you say "bis" in this instance, you want to say "by".

I always laugh in my head in the office when someone says something like "can you send me that until Friday?" I'm thinking... should I just send it on a loop over and over, flooding their inbox? :)

Of course, in German, I'm sure I say all kinds of ridiculous things.

Alternative names for the United States of Europe:

European Union

More of a cultural difference. Contemporary English tends to frown on redundancy in speech (going back all the way to Strunk and White). German, much like Latin (such as in the famous Cicero quote: "abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit."), frequently uses redundancy, especially as part of a rhetorical figure, for emphasis. Some rhetorical figures, like a pleonasm ("frozen tundra", which Vince Lombardi supposedly disliked for the redundancy), anaphora ("it was the best of times, it was the worst of times, ..."), or hendiadys ("sound and fury") exist just for the purpose of expressing redundancy; others (alliteration, homeoteleuton, homeoptoton, polysyndeton) are often coopted for that purpose (see the Cicero quote above).

Aside from cultural divergence, this probably also has linguistic reasons; the role of suffixes and compound words, for example.

On top of that, "social democracy" is not just a democracy that is social; it is a narrower term, and the usage here is structured much like an ascending tricolon, like "veni, vidi, vici." See also Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (cited in the Wikipedia article): "But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground."

Holy European Empire

Full Quote for context (Translated by DeepL):

We need a social Europe, a democratic Europe, a social democratic Europe, and that is what we are fighting for. Only this Europe does not currently exist. We must ensure that it is capable of action. We need European finance ministers to put an end to the unspeakable tax evasion in Europe. People, Europe is our life insurance. Don't be under any illusions, other regions of the world are debating differently than ours, there is an unrestrained exploitation of resources and people, of course they are cheaper than us. And there are wise people who demand that you become like them. Then I say: No. If you want to enter our market, you must also accept our standards, that is how we make Europe a protection for the people of this continent. Why do we not intend to create the United States of Europe by 2025? For this purpose, we need a Constitutional Treaty that will be drawn up with the people. Let us have the courage to move Europe forward and not just turn things around.

Why not stay with "European Union"? To me, this doesn't have to mean, that its not a state. Also the name and our flag are pretty original too, I guess

You are a good soul, thank you

The german "Sozialdemokratie" implys something different than just social and democratic combined. It's a more broad term.

It's worth noting that he was talking to SPD supporters here. I think he's trying to drum up support for another grand coalition, because despite the SPD's refusal it's looking like the only way to avoid another election. He wants to make it seem like the SPD is going back to fighting for social democratic ideas, but ultimately they'll be doing it from underneath Merkel's pantsuit again.

How about "Europe!" The exclamation point would make it extra fun.

Surely you mean by 2025? Or does he want it to end after that date?

Europa Universalis

I think 2025 is too early, since there are several steps to be made before that. Nonetheless, I think we should start right now thinking on different names. United States of Europe sounds boring and too much copy-cat.

S.P.Q.E.

Not the right time? Depends. The economic indicators are the best in years, and polls show that Eurozone enjoys the highest approval ratings in its 20 year history. On the other hand you indeed do have South Italy, Greece, etc. not really feeling any particularly positive economic swings, and a political opposition from Poland, Hungary, and to a smaller degree Netherlands, Denmark and Czechia.

The real question is: what would the right time even look like, and will USE tackle the issues that the current EU has?

You are right, English isn't my strong suit sorry

Worth noting that what he wants (A EU constitution) was already on the works in 2005 and got shot down by France and the Netherlands (Spain and Luxembourg voted in favour, everyone else didn't get a referendum)

Granted, the EU of 2005 was and is very different to the one of 2017 but I don't think it's become more open to integration

Rename it to Großdeutschland.

We need European finance ministers to put an end to the unspeakable tax evasion in Europe.

If the United States of Europe happens, The Netherlands has fucked themselves beautifully. Stopping anti tax evasion laws in the European Union and letting companies evade tax in The Netherlands.

The day before the United States of Europe becomes a reality is the day I move from The Netherlands to Germany.

Or Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher und Diverser Anderer Nationen

or short HeRöReDeDiANa.

Bring affordable mobile data please

A federation can be a superstate, given that all federations are states (Germany, USA, Russia are all federations). Even a confederation with a common constitution and sovereignty of the entity would be essentially a decentralised state.

Neither a guy nor a linguist, sorry. :)

I did take Latin in school, though, and while it's impossible these days for me to be an actual Renaissance woman, I think it's still an ideal worth striving for.

I am aware it is unrealistic to expect a USE itself, but I admire that the will to integrate is still alive and strong.

Shh!

You would still border to Liechtenstein.

I would prefer Imperium Rōmānum personally.

Big words for a politician who got gobsmacked with his party's worst electoral result since 1949.

How about asking your own society first and I mean without withholding the costs we'd have to shoulder and th foul compromises that are part of that package, Martin? But then you and your ilk never cared for those you ought to be serving, tight?

Now we have the salad

I'd love it

Have you heard of Justin Bieber?

Nope.

I think it is a good long term vision. But nothing within reach of the next 20-30 years.

here

in /sub/europe? Before it became default sub, around 90%.

"Members who don't accept this federal constitiion, must leave the EU, says Schulz." "Mitglieder, die dieser föderalen Verfassung nicht zustimmen, müssten dann automatisch die EU verlassen, sagte Schulz auf dem SPD-Parteitag in Berlin."

How to fuckover the European Union in less than 10 years? Step 1 have an ideologic goal and rush it. Step 2 dispose of those who don't agree or see problems.

Maybe if they didn't rush the Euro we had less problems on that front, too. In a defensive manner many people were glad that TTIP died by default to avoid a possible rushed risk. Schulz is not a leader. He is an ideologic fool and the SPD did not profit from placing him where a leader was needed.

Don't feel bad. This is maybe the #1 mistake Germans make with English, in my experience.

I always thought the #1 would be become<->bekommen, e.g. "Could I become a sausage, please?"

Holy European Empire of German Nations? :D

Or rather the Irish people were systematically questioned about their concerns, while those that could be corre.... Thus Ireland was asked to vote on an updated treaty, changed to fit their concerns. That, however, would not sound quite as edgy I suppose.

In 2008, more than 53% of Irish voters rejected the Treaty, posing a major problem for the EU. Without Irish agreement, Lisbon was ‘dead’. Detailed polling after the referendum identified a series of ‘allergic issues’, which, in addition to the impenetrable nature of the Treaty itself, lead a majority of voters to ‘reject Lisbon’.

The Irish voters’ concerns were addressed in a series of ‘legal guarantees’. These guarantees were included in a Protocol, in order to “give full Treaty status to the clarifications (agreed) to meet the concerns of the Irish people”.

Edit: Why you should be in favour of a European Constitution even if you think the EU has too much powe...

This guy linguistics

That fucking flag is atrocious.

We need a social Europe, a democratic Europe, a social democratic Europe

That awkward moment where you need to pad out your speech, so you just glue together two things you've already said.

I'm pretty federalist, but if that's going to be the flag I'm voting out.

Lets pray for Swexit before this

To be fair, the Lisbon treaties are not that different from the constitution treaty. The difference was mainly in the semantics. I was very surprised it only went to referendum in Ireland.

You mean a Canadian soul lol

To be honest, this is the primary reason I support Schulz, only that we need a better name than United States of. We need more Schulzes. (Schülze?)

You have the problem that "right side" is ambiguous; it can mean both the "correct" or "proper" side, but also the side to your right; "right-hand side" removes the ambiguity. And then, "left-hand side" makes things symmetric. Semantically, "in 5 minutes' time" is indeed unnecessarily redundant and it is generally recommended to just use "in 5 minutes" instead. However, grammatically, "in 5 minutes' time" uses the possessive case (note the apostrophe) and thus "time" cannot be removed from the phrase without making the sentence ungrammatical; "in 5 minutes" is a grammatical restructuring, not just a removal of "time".

I think it's not possible until 2025.

But I think we should get EU wide elections for office like President of the European Council or President of the European Commission until 2025!

To decrease costs it would be best to hold those together with elections for European Parliament.

They’ll shoot it down immediately. Central/Eastern Europe certainly isn’t interested, and I doubt there’s much support for it in Western Europe either. As much as I’d like to see it someday it just ain’t a realistic vision.

Not all Canadians are good. Have you heard of Justin Bieber?

No one but Europe can colonize Europe.

We already called dibs.

What the fuck? Also, why the fuck are so much people here supporting the idea of United States of Europe?

Here's his tweet.

I admire his confidence, but it's not the right time, nor the right priority for the EU right now to be talking about a USE.

That was the best reddit post i read today.

Because a lot of people are drawn to the idea of a Federalised Europe?

I know I am. (just don't look at my flair...)

Nah, it'd be "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher und Diverser undeutscher Nationen wie Böhmen und Österreich" or HeRöReDuDuNawiBöunÖ"

Good.

To become the Senate.

The EU is looking to revoke by 2025 the absolute mad men.

To be fair, considering that in the EU only France has a presidential system, would EU commision elections work?

I do think they would make people at least care some when they find 2 people from foreign countries in the ballot, but still. I also wonder if people would vote "country over ideology" or not. Because if that's the case then everyone will just run German candidates (or with a few French and Italian ones).

Anschlusszeit of course! /s

What a moronic suggestion.

We are not even fully ready for the Euro yet, Spain is struggling to keep Catalonia and he wants to further deligate power to Brussels?

This whole "we need to grow together" bullshit needs to stop, we are not going to kill each other again like we used to in Europe. But this USoE might certainly lead to that. Europe's greatest strength its is diversity which needs to be protected, not destroyed. Yes, it's also its weakness but fuck the people who always want to artificially change society into what they believe is right (looking at you Merkel 2015). If we do this shit, the single person in Europe is going to lose a lot of power.

I once became a pizza in Dresden. And I used the verb 'receive' in my question first!

It's funny, when I see someone writing like that nowadays, I don't think "that's odd/wrong", I think "oh, a German". :D

This guy empires

The United Kingdom of Europe! Then a Republic.

We keep trying different models until something sticks.

Looking forward to when we colonize the Jovian moons. Then it'll be really confusing.

There's already a good one. European Union works fine with me tbh.

I hope they don't this time. I'm sick and tired of the GroKo. Fuck Merkel and her soul sucking idleness. I really hope the CDU crashes and we finally get some progressives in power.

What's more likely to happen is:

the CDU crashes and we finally get

AfD

in power.

And not use that hideous name. Keep the EU

USE! USE! USE!

Maybe try the French model where you keep beheading people until you arrive at a solution that kind of works?

only that we need a better name than United States of

something something Union perhaps

Why? So a smaller group of people can have even more centralised power and influence?

But if we mention Böhmen we can't call it just 'Heiliges' anymore.

"Heiliges und Unheiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher und Diverser undeutscher Nationen wie Böhmen und Österreich" or HeUnRöReDuDuNawiBöunÖ"

Crazy and dangerous zealot.

Wtf is this delusional fuck doing. That's how you make sure UK is not the last country to leave your union.

A superstate wouldn't work. A federation would. Let's make an european federation.

And ironically, most people agree that you can only make a common currency work with at least some form of common fiscal policy

No thank you. Bye.

No worries

The SPD leadership probably wants a coalition at this point, the base very much dislikes the idea. It's going to be interesting, but historically the base fell in line after all.

I actually DO like this idea, but I do not like him at all.

He probably meant 2125

Simply Europa/Europe. To add to the confusion when people talk

The right time will be when there is enough integration that becoming one country wouldn't be a blind leap of faith. If we have a properly integrated, functional Eurozone by 2025 I'll be happy. I'm not interested in further integration until we've shown that we can make a common currency work.

That is only half true. It's not a conincidence that he didn't use "liberal" for example because that would by the "thing" of the FDP. He also didn't use solidaric or any other words like that. He used social democratic because that is his party.

Think of other european languages please.

we should do that and call it "the EU parliament" or something like that

Fourth Reich

people who subscribe to a European sub are presumably more interested in internationalism.

This actually has by now infected even me. I've caught myself becoming things in English sometimes. I just did it the other day and actually argued in my head about whether it was actually right or not.

At the moment there is no European President, the Commission President acts like a Prime Minister (which I find pretty democratic), if you think the EU should be lead by a single elected person that's okay, but there would be people that want the EU to be a confederation and keep the Council of Europe as the leader out of sovereignty reasons.

European Europa.

I'm not a fan of that idea in general, I'm curious what other europeans and especially EU-members think of this

I'm pretty sure more europhiles are just going through the list of things Farage said would happen and making sure they happen.

Holy Roman Empire of German Slavic and Mongolian Nations.

Neither holy nor Roman