The United States of Europe

[Ethel mermania]

And for most of human history we have not had nuclear weapons, for a nation to base its policies based on nukes non existence would be asinine at best, suicidal at worst.

I am saying that being different from the status quo is not a basis for rejecting change, especially since this status quo is a small blip in history which wouldn’t have happened without change. Permanence is unnatural as far as civilization goes.

All politics is temporary, all humanity is for that matter. We can only deal with the here and now. the political and cultural differences between European states do not lend themselves to political union. In 100 years time, who knows maybe it will make sense.

[Fifth Jellian Republic]

Personally, I think the USE (United States of Europe) could come about in steps rather than all at once.
First, try to unify countries that are more inclined to make the process go smoothly, like Spain and Portugal for instance. But importantly, keep these larger “countries” within the large EU framework until they are all ready to come together. At that point, it should be easier to coalesce all the EU member states into a single entity, the United States of Europe.

As for as governance, I think the EU should strongly lean into federalism, breaking up old borders and creating new states that can represent similar cultures and geographies, instead of just making each country a state.

If the EU successfully turns into a country, it would instantly become a superpower, a peer to the United States.
I think this would have positive global ramifications, not least the trans Atlantic cooperation we could have between these two unions.

All politics is temporary, all humanity is for that matter. We can only deal with the here and now. the political and cultural differences between European states do not lend themselves to political union. In 100 years time, who knows maybe it will make sense.

But they have already come so close,
Why stop now?

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

Personally, I think the USE (United States of Europe) could come about in steps rather than all at once.
First, try to unify countries that are more inclined to make the process go smoothly, like Spain and Portugal for instance. But importantly, keep these larger “countries” within the large EU framework until they are all ready to come together. At that point, it should be easier to coalesce all the EU member states into a single entity, the United States of Europe.

As for as governance, I think the EU should strongly lean into federalism, breaking up old borders and creating new states that can represent similar cultures and geographies, instead of just making each country a state.

If the EU successfully turns into a country, it would instantly become a superpower, a peer to the United States.
I think this would have positive global ramifications, not least the trans Atlantic cooperation we could have between these two unions.

All politics is temporary, all humanity is for that matter. We can only deal with the here and now. the political and cultural differences between European states do not lend themselves to political union. In 100 years time, who knows maybe it will make sense.

But they have already come so close,
Why stop now?

The Euro nations as a Union of European nations are an economic superpower. They should be a military power through a union of military forces, the Euro Army, Navy, Air Force and the Euro Armed Forces.

Since many nations of Europe like España La Madre Patria have Kings and Queens, I think Europe will never become The United States of Europe. They will stay as a Union of European Nations like they should.

I am 100 % against any Euro Nation becoming part of The United States of Europe.

I am 100 % against any of the Monarchies of Europe becoming part of The United States of Europe.

I am 100 % against España - Spain, becoming part of The United States of Europe:

I honor the Spaniard Royal Family and and the Españoles, with my real world based nations of Madrid España and Madrid Spain - Viva España La Madre Patria - GMS with Pride and Honor.

[Fifth Jellian Republic]

Personally, I think the USE (United States of Europe) could come about in steps rather than all at once.
First, try to unify countries that are more inclined to make the process go smoothly, like Spain and Portugal for instance. But importantly, keep these larger “countries” within the large EU framework until they are all ready to come together. At that point, it should be easier to coalesce all the EU member states into a single entity, the United States of Europe.

As for as governance, I think the EU should strongly lean into federalism, breaking up old borders and creating new states that can represent similar cultures and geographies, instead of just making each country a state.

If the EU successfully turns into a country, it would instantly become a superpower, a peer to the United States.
I think this would have positive global ramifications, not least the trans Atlantic cooperation we could have between these two unions.


But they have already come so close,
Why stop now?

The Euro nations as a Union of European nations are a superpower economically, they should be a military power through a union of military forces, the Euro Army.

Since many nations of Europe like España La Madre Patria have Kings and Queens, I think Europe will never become The United States of Europe. They will stay as a Union of European Nations like they should.

I am 100 % against any Euro Nation becoming part of The United States of Europe.

I am 100 % against any of the Monarchies of Europe becoming part of The United States of Europe.

I am 100 % against España - Spain, becoming part of The United States of Europe:

I honor the Spaniard Royal Family and and the Españoles, with my real world based nations of Madrid España and Madrid Spain - Viva España La Madre Patria - GMS with Pride and Honor.

Why are you against?
You even say they should have a military, which is one of the defining features of a country
Is it just the naming you have a problem with?

[Durius]

Personally, I think the USE (United States of Europe) could come about in steps rather than all at once.
First, try to unify countries that are more inclined to make the process go smoothly, like Spain and Portugal for instance. But importantly, keep these larger “countries” within the large EU framework until they are all ready to come together. At that point, it should be easier to coalesce all the EU member states into a single entity, the United States of Europe.

As for as governance, I think the EU should strongly lean into federalism, breaking up old borders and creating new states that can represent similar cultures and geographies, instead of just making each country a state.

If the EU successfully turns into a country, it would instantly become a superpower, a peer to the United States.
I think this would have positive global ramifications, not least the trans Atlantic cooperation we could have between these two unions.

All politics is temporary, all humanity is for that matter. We can only deal with the here and now. the political and cultural differences between European states do not lend themselves to political union. In 100 years time, who knows maybe it will make sense.

But they have already come so close,
Why stop now?

That sounds like a terrible proposition. First there's no way Portugal would accept a union with Spain. Being equal partners in the same European Union is one thing, but being dissolved into Spain is a big no-no. Furthermore, those large "countries" will alter the geopolitical dynamics in the continent. You can't predict that countries that support European unification before being enlarged will still want it after it.

Second, the point of federalism is to not break up old borders. The only reason you'd want to do that is to erase the local identities, which goes against the point of the EU. "United in diversity"? Doesn't sound like it, if your point is to kill the local culture in favor of a more diluted one. I really wished that this fringe movement of breaking up countries in the EU would die. Its extremism is killing the federalist project.

Finally, of course the EU wouldn't instantly turn into a superpower if it united. Certainly not a peer to the US, not the least because the US is not interested in seeing its leadership challenged, thus you can very much expect that they would try to control as much as possible the rise of the European Union.

[Durius]

The Euro nations as a Union of European nations are an economic superpower. They should be a military power through a union of military forces, the Euro Army, Navy, Air Force and the Euro Armed Forces.

You can't be a economic superpower without a political union. The current EU will simply go from crisis to crisis and be easily defeated from within in trade dispute with the US and China. A common military is even a more ludicrous idea. Would they answer to whom if there's no political unity? The army would just sit on its collective butt while the council of 27~35 leaders debate if it should or not be deployed to counteract a threat. The current EU would even have a hard time unanimously deciding to defend a member state. If you don't want a political union, forget the ideas of European army and European economic superpowerness.

Since many nations of Europe like España La Madre Patria have Kings and Queens, I think Europe will never become The United States of Europe. They will stay as a Union of European Nations like they should.

The Spanish monarchy is one of the most ditchable. Opinion on wheter it should be kept is very divided and the monarchy is riddled with so many scandals that killing it wouldn't be such a bad idea.

That being said, there's no reason why a member state can't keep their monarchy in a "United States of Europe". The monarch should be only a ceremonial role for the most part so it's inconsequential if it is kept or not. Your argument that it is impossible is completely baseless.

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

The Euro nations as a Union of European nations are a superpower economically, they should be a military power through a union of military forces, the Euro Army.

Since many nations of Europe like España La Madre Patria have Kings and Queens, I think Europe will never become The United States of Europe. They will stay as a Union of European Nations like they should.

I am 100 % against any Euro Nation becoming part of The United States of Europe.

I am 100 % against any of the Monarchies of Europe becoming part of The United States of Europe.

I am 100 % against España - Spain, becoming part of The United States of Europe:

I honor the Spaniard Royal Family and and the Españoles, with my real world based nations of Madrid España and Madrid Spain - Viva España La Madre Patria - GMS with Pride and Honor.

Why are you against?
You even say they should have a military, which is one of the defining features of a country
Is it just the naming you have a problem with?

I mean all Euro nations armed forces, should unite like they do eonomically, as a union of nations. I love to keep Europe as a union of nations. Like I said many nations of Europe have Monarchys of Kings and Queens, which sound cool too me.

[Fifth Jellian Republic]

Personally, I think the USE (United States of Europe) could come about in steps rather than all at once.
First, try to unify countries that are more inclined to make the process go smoothly, like Spain and Portugal for instance. But importantly, keep these larger “countries” within the large EU framework until they are all ready to come together. At that point, it should be easier to coalesce all the EU member states into a single entity, the United States of Europe.

As for as governance, I think the EU should strongly lean into federalism, breaking up old borders and creating new states that can represent similar cultures and geographies, instead of just making each country a state.

If the EU successfully turns into a country, it would instantly become a superpower, a peer to the United States.
I think this would have positive global ramifications, not least the trans Atlantic cooperation we could have between these two unions.


But they have already come so close,
Why stop now?

That sounds like a terrible proposition. First there's no way Portugal would accept a union with Spain. Being equal partners in the same European Union is one thing, but being dissolved into Spain is a big no-no. Furthermore, those large "countries" will alter the geopolitical dynamics in the continent. You can't predict that countries that support European unification before being enlarged will still want it after it.

Second, the point of federalism is to not break up old borders. The only reason you'd want to do that is to erase the local identities, which goes against the point of the EU. "United in diversity"? Doesn't sound like it, if your point is to kill the local culture in favor of a more diluted one. I really wished that this fringe movement of breaking up countries in the EU would die. Its extremism is killing the federalist project.

Finally, of course the EU wouldn't instantly turn into a superpower if it united. Certainly not a peer to the US, not the least because the US is not interested in seeing its leadership challenged, thus you can very much expect that they would try to control as much as possible the rise of the European Union.

Well, firstly I think I am simply more optimistic about cooperation than you,

But about the breakup. I’m not saying to erase any identity. I just don’t think a system of states would work if you keep the original borders. There’s nothing stopping states from voting in blocks, for instance.

But I think this process of making states can localize a cultures and shift the national identity to the EU.
When I say that, I think of places like Alsace–Lorraine, which is definitely French but also shares some things with Germany. In a system of states, you can have a more nuanced and local culture, so if anything, this will do the opposite of what you say.

[Fifth Jellian Republic]

Why are you against?
You even say they should have a military, which is one of the defining features of a country
Is it just the naming you have a problem with?

I mean all Euro nations armed forces, should unite like they do eonomically, as a union of nations. I love to keep Europe as a union of nations. Like I said many nations of Europe have Monarchys of Kings and Queens, which sound cool too me.

But you say you like the USA
we fought a revolution because those monarchies were oppressive, and is that really the only reason to want to keep Europe from advancing together?
If you think economic and millitary cooperation is a good thing, well that’s pretty close to a country…
But also, if you like a “Union of nations”, I mean, that’s what a country is, especially ours.
A Union.

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

I mean all Euro nations armed forces, should unite like they do eonomically, as a union of nations. I love to keep Europe as a union of nations. Like I said many nations of Europe have Monarchys of Kings and Queens, which sound cool too me.

But you say you like the USA
we fought a revolution because those monarchies were oppressive, and is that really the only reason to want to keep Europe from advancing together?
If you think economic and millitary cooperation is a good thing, well that’s pretty close to a country…
But also, if you like a “Union of nations”, I mean, that’s what a country is, especially ours.
A Union.

The USA is a union of US states called The United States. I don't want Europe loose the concept, language and culture of Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, French, Germans, Hungarians, Slovaks, Slovenians, Norwegians and other ethnic groups. They should unite their economies as much as possible. All their armed forces should be united as a union of the Euro Armed Forces. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary is the leader of the Pro Euros right wingers, despite his current strong opposition to EU sanctions on Russia, he is for Hungary First and for Europe second, he is great Prime Minister of Hungary and the Hungarian People and a Masterful Politician. I honor him with the nation of Budapest Hungary. I have all the Euro nations and a few EUs, like NS Europe, as a Union of European Nations. As I said many these Euro nations have Monarchies, I don't want them to loose them, it sounds cool.

[Durius]

snip

You say optimistic, I would say naive. But that's not an argument.

I don't see why the current states can't work. Voting in block is perfectly fine and even expect (look at the US for instance). It would still happen even if you break them and redo them, simply due to the fact that wherever states exist have different interests that might be more in line with other states. States bordering Russia would still be preoccupied with military defense. States in the south of Europe with be preoccupied with illegal crossings of the Mediterranean. States with large agricultural industries would be preoccupied with agro laws that impact those states. And voting in block would emerge anyway, as it is more of a social and economic fixture than cultural.

Finally, I don't see why Alsace-Lorraine need to change state to get more than what they are getting. France has already created the European Collectivity of Alsace which is tasked, among other things, to preserve the distinctive Alsacian culture and the German language in the territory. Nobody there seems to be part of Germany either and Germany doesn't seem interested in having Alsace anyway. And with an ever closer union with open borders and easy flow of workers, why does anyone even decide for Alsace in which borders they ought to be?

[Durius]

But you say you like the USA
we fought a revolution because those monarchies were oppressive, and is that really the only reason to want to keep Europe from advancing together?
If you think economic and millitary cooperation is a good thing, well that’s pretty close to a country…
But also, if you like a “Union of nations”, I mean, that’s what a country is, especially ours.
A Union.

The USA is a union of US states called The United States. I don't want Europe loose the concept, language and culture of Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, French, Germans, Hungarians, Slovaks, Slovenians, Norwegians and other ethnic groups. They should unite their economy and armed forces as much as possible, as a Union of European Nations. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary is the leader of the Pro Euros right wingers, despite his current strong opposition to EU sanctions on Russia, he is for Hungary First and for Europe second, he is great Prime Minister of Hungary and the Hungarian People and a Masterful Politician. I honor him with the nation of Budapest Hungary. I have all the Euro nations and a few EUs, like NS Europe, as a Union of European Nations. As I said many these Euro nations have Monarchies, I don't want them to loose them, it sounds cool.

Orban is not pro-EU in the least and he certainly is not the leader of the right-wingers in Europe. In fact, his not so well hidden pro-Russian stance is leaving him increasingly isolated inside the EU. Not even V4 allies like Poland associate with him (and Poland is way more relevant inside the EU than Hungary). Your simping would be funny if it weren't so factually wrong. Instead it's just sad.

[Risottia]

First, try to unify countries that are more inclined to make the process go smoothly, like Spain and Portugal for instance. But importantly, keep these larger “countries” within the large EU framework until they are all ready to come together.

Because of course the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic becoming one (which will be basically an annexation of Portugal by Spain, given the population and GDP difference) is going to be smooth, while an unification between the French Republic and the Italian Republic (two countries roughly with the same population and GDP) is going to be a mess.

Wtf?

[Risottia]

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary is the leader of the Pro Euros right wingers

Orban is a Kremlin-funded Douche wannabe and his country, BY HIS OWN WORDS, is staying in the EU only as long as they're net budget recipients.

[Fifth Jellian Republic]

First, try to unify countries that are more inclined to make the process go smoothly, like Spain and Portugal for instance. But importantly, keep these larger “countries” within the large EU framework until they are all ready to come together.

Because of course the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic becoming one (which will be basically an annexation of Portugal by Spain, given the population and GDP difference) is going to be smooth, while an unification between the French Republic and the Italian Republic (two countries roughly with the same population and GDP) is going to be a mess.

Wtf?

I made the assumption based on how similar the countries are but it’s a good point you have

[Hirota]

First, try to unify countries that are more inclined to make the process go smoothly, like Spain and Portugal for instance.

Given Spain is having to almost force the catalan and basque regions to stay, I'd question the wisdom of forcing yet more disparate parts together.

[Fifth Jellian Republic]

snip

You say optimistic, I would say naive. But that's not an argument.

I don't see why the current states can't work. Voting in block is perfectly fine and even expect (look at the US for instance). It would still happen even if you break them and redo them, simply due to the fact that wherever states exist have different interests that might be more in line with other states. States bordering Russia would still be preoccupied with military defense. States in the south of Europe with be preoccupied with illegal crossings of the Mediterranean. States with large agricultural industries would be preoccupied with agro laws that impact those states. And voting in block would emerge anyway, as it is more of a social and economic fixture than cultural.

Finally, I don't see why Alsace-Lorraine need to change state to get more than what they are getting. France has already created the European Collectivity of Alsace which is tasked, among other things, to preserve the distinctive Alsacian culture and the German language in the territory. Nobody there seems to be part of Germany either and Germany doesn't seem interested in having Alsace anyway. And with an ever closer union with open borders and easy flow of workers, why does anyone even decide for Alsace in which borders they ought to be?

(I would still call it optimistic )
But to give an argument,
The peoples of the USA and EU, generally, Have a favorable view of each other
We work together on all sorts of things already
We share the same values
We have similar problems
So why couldn’t we cooperate?

I believe the current states won’t work because I think the the power imbalance would be too great.
imagine the USA but with a state twice the size of California. That state could theoretically exert undue influence over its neighbors as well as the federal government.
I think for the EU to truly be a single country, the “big power” should be the federal government and the “local power” should be the states. But France at its size could fight the EU directly as a “big power” and could hardly be called a “local power”

And when the states are smaller, you get a better “resolution” of regional priorities.
Instead of just “Italy” for instance,
Parts of northern Italy would maybe join with parts of Switzerland on climate change because the Melting snow caps could cause problems, and parts of southern Italy could join with parts of other Mediterranean
States to push for immigration reform.
So I don’t think the blocks will just keep things the same,
They can really improve things

And Alsace-Lorraine was just an example. I don’t think there is a neat resolution to every A-L like location, and I France and Germany become states, then would this become a sub state?
More generally, what about states the countries already have?
Things would get tricky fast.

I think a federalism similar to the US could be just what this hypothetical USE would need to succeed

First, try to unify countries that are more inclined to make the process go smoothly, like Spain and Portugal for instance.

Given Spain is having to almost force the catalan and basque regions to stay, I'd question the wisdom of forcing yet more disparate parts together.

Would a system of states fix that issue then?
They would get their very own administrative region.

[Fifth Jellian Republic]

But you say you like the USA
we fought a revolution because those monarchies were oppressive, and is that really the only reason to want to keep Europe from advancing together?
If you think economic and millitary cooperation is a good thing, well that’s pretty close to a country…
But also, if you like a “Union of nations”, I mean, that’s what a country is, especially ours.
A Union.

The USA is a union of US states called The United States. I don't want Europe loose the concept, language and culture of Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, French, Germans, Hungarians, Slovaks, Slovenians, Norwegians and other ethnic groups. They should unite their economies as much as possible. All their armed forces should be united as a union of the Euro Armed Forces. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary is the leader of the Pro Euros right wingers, despite his current strong opposition to EU sanctions on Russia, he is for Hungary First and for Europe second, he is great Prime Minister of Hungary and the Hungarian People and a Masterful Politician. I honor him with the nation of Budapest Hungary. I have all the Euro nations and a few EUs, like NS Europe, as a Union of European Nations. As I said many these Euro nations have Monarchies, I don't want them to loose them, it sounds cool.

Becoming a single country doesn’t mean Europe will homogenize and loose individual culture
We have geographical cultural variations in the USA and Europe can take further steps to protect that, so it’s really not a problem
Also, Igoring the fact that in the grand scheme of things, PR monarchies are not that important, you could still maintain monarchies and unite Europe.
That way they can keep the monarchies and the common military, just the way you specifically like it.

[Ethel mermania]

Personally, I think the USE (United States of Europe) could come about in steps rather than all at once.
First, try to unify countries that are more inclined to make the process go smoothly, like Spain and Portugal for instance. But importantly, keep these larger “countries” within the large EU framework until they are all ready to come together. At that point, it should be easier to coalesce all the EU member states into a single entity, the United States of Europe.

As for as governance, I think the EU should strongly lean into federalism, breaking up old borders and creating new states that can represent similar cultures and geographies, instead of just making each country a state.

If the EU successfully turns into a country, it would instantly become a superpower, a peer to the United States.
I think this would have positive global ramifications, not least the trans Atlantic cooperation we could have between these two unions.

All politics is temporary, all humanity is for that matter. We can only deal with the here and now. the political and cultural differences between European states do not lend themselves to political union. In 100 years time, who knows maybe it will make sense.

But they have already come so close,
Why stop now?

Because centralized governments are a bad idea. Power should be close to the people, the bigger the state the further away its from the individuals.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Because centralized governments are a bad idea. Power should be close to the people, the bigger the state the further away its from the individuals.

The big tribe is the safe tribe.

At its most basic level states exist to protect their people, and they can't do that if they're weaker than the potential threats against that people.

Europeans enjoy things like customer rights and privacy regulations because a regulatory authority that controls 20% of the world economy can tell American multinationals to go shove their exploitative business practices where the sun doesn't shine and make that actually stick.

Closer integration will only increase the ability of Europeans to determine their own future.

[Durius]

(I would still call it optimistic )
But to give an argument,
The peoples of the USA and EU, generally, Have a favorable view of each other
We work together on all sorts of things already
We share the same values
We have similar problems
So why couldn’t we cooperate?

First of all, I'm not saying there shouldn't be cooperation between the US and Europe. It should and likely would, as the geopolitical environment wills it. China is rising quickly and challenging the US, so cooperation between the US and Europe would naturally happen. That does not mean, however, that said relationship will be frictionless or that the rise of Europe would receive no opposition from the US. In the perfect world for the US, there's no need for a European Federation. I'll give two examples:

1. The US wants Europe to invest enough in their armed forces to secure the defense of the continent from the Russian threat, giving space for the US to turn its back and focus on containing China instead, but the US still expects Europe to buy American weapons and to be under a US dominated NATO, so that they can profit and, in the moment they look back to Europe, they still there ready to follow US orders (like following their lead regarding China, for instance). This challenges the federalist opinion of strategical autonomy that calls for greater independence of the arms industry and for a European Army that exists to serve, first and foremost, European interests. There is space for a European Army that cooperates with the US and takes a equal role in NATO (which would require it to be reformed to better fit the two spheres of influence), but that is something that built and earned by the Europeans, as the US would always chose the best scenario that fits them.

2. Regarding trade - which can already be said to be a federal competence of the EU - the US and Europe aren't without friction either. There are plenty of regulation concerns (sometimes based on differences of economic or environmental philosophy) that prevent trade deals from being signed. Trade wars were declared under Trump presidency and, more albeit more diplomatically, are being continued under Biden (e.g. the current proposed subsidies for US critical industries that cut out European companies and severely threaten the free market and the well-being of European critical industries). The US has an interest in seeing Europe prosper, but not to the point where they are strong enough to have a equal voice.

And similarly, the Europeans also see the US as a challenge whose influence in the continent needs to be replaced. In fact, that's one of the main arguments for European federation and something that can't be compromised, otherwise the project is meaningless. Again, replacing US influence with European influence does not exclude cooperation (although some more extremist federalist voices demand it), but it something that the US won't accept freely. That all being said, the challenge from the US is merely one of many challenges Europe faces: the Russian threat, what to do regarding China and the dangers it could pose to the European economy, and how to calm the tensions from within that seek to rip the Union apart are all problems that a Federal Europe will face and will have to solve (and that is also why it's pretty idiotic to create more, like proposing to redraw the European map or create a system that emulates the US when that is deeply unpopular).

I believe the current states won’t work because I think the the power imbalance would be too great.
imagine the USA but with a state twice the size of California. That state could theoretically exert undue influence over its neighbors as well as the federal government.
I think for the EU to truly be a single country, the “big power” should be the federal government and the “local power” should be the states. But France at its size could fight the EU directly as a “big power” and could hardly be called a “local power”

And when the states are smaller, you get a better “resolution” of regional priorities.
Instead of just “Italy” for instance,
Parts of northern Italy would maybe join with parts of Switzerland on climate change because the Melting snow caps could cause problems, and parts of southern Italy could join with parts of other Mediterranean
States to push for immigration reform.
So I don’t think the blocks will just keep things the same,
They can really improve things

So you propose a "United States of Europe" that essentially has nothing to do with the "United States". The USA can't break California, so why would the so-called USE would break France? And even if they did, the problems of the US aren't the problems of Europe, we have a more evenly distributed population, but more linguistically and culturally diverse. The inviolability of the member states by the federal government is even more important for the stability of a European Union. Furthermore, the EU already has (more proportional) systems where one or two countries can't decide everything for themselves. They simply need to be strengthened as integration increases. We have found our own solutions, we don't need to copy the US.

And Alsace-Lorraine was just an example. I don’t think there is a neat resolution to every A-L like location, and I France and Germany become states, then would this become a sub state?
More generally, what about states the countries already have?
Things would get tricky fast.

No resolution for Alsace-Lorraine is necessary, because there is no problem to begin with. The Schengen solved many of the problems communities separated by different borders could face, without the need for redrawings that would never be perfect and would always live someone on "wrong" side of the border. We could all see that during the pandemic when borders were closed and suddenly you couldn't visit your friends that lived on the other side of the border, a situation that occur all across Europe. In a federal Europe where borders between member-states are open, the problem does not exist.

As for the "substates" problem, those would simply become subdivisions of the member-state. A member-state should be able to set up its divisions the way it sees fit; there is no need for a uniform subdivision system since it doesn't get in the way of the good functioning of the federation.

I think a federalism similar to the US could be just what this hypothetical USE would need to succeed

I agree if that means that the federal government shouldn't have very limited power to mess with the member-states and no power to redraw their borders. But anyway, we don't need your hypothetical USE to succeed, because that is not the only possible successful federalization of Europe. We can do things our own way.

Given Spain is having to almost force the catalan and basque regions to stay, I'd question the wisdom of forcing yet more disparate parts together.

Would a system of states fix that issue then?
They would get their very own administrative region.

Spain is one of the most pro-EU nations. Breaking it up against its will simply gives rise to euroskepticism and threatens to derail the entire project. The Catalan issue needs to solve inside the Spanish state and Catalan and Basque independence ought to be agreed by Spain itself. It can't be anything imposed by the the EU or else Spain is out of the project. And many others would follow in similar grounds. The best the EU can and should do is too pass binding directives to ensure the rights of ethnic groups are protected and respected.

[Durius]

Because centralized governments are a bad idea. Power should be close to the people, the bigger the state the further away its from the individuals.

The big tribe is the safe tribe. At its most basic level states exist to protect their people, and they can't do that if they're weaker than the potential threats against that people.

You are entering a slippery slope that leads to the conclusion that all people except the leader are potentially threats and the only sensible government is a dictatorial one. The paranoid Russian autocracy really isn't fitting for a European government.

Closer integration will only increase the ability of Europeans to determine their own future.

This can only happen if you trust Europeans enough with making decisions without having them all centralized in a single "tribe" that rules in the name of all its members. If I take that the name of your nations isn't simple roleplay, but you actually believe in the socialist government, I guess this is a losing argument, but the fact is that nations and corporations are often more successful when you put trust on the people to make decisions for themselves (and suffer the consequences, when that's the case).

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

You entering a slippery slope that leads to the conclusion that all people except the leader are potentially threats and the only sensible government is a dictatorial one. The paranoid Russian autocracy really isn't fitting for a European government.

I want a strong state. That is what I said. Why are you equating strength to dictatorship?

I'm glad you brought up Russia, because right now in Ukraine the Russian Army is defending their thesis on the subject of what autocracy does to state power, and their conclusion is illuminating.

[Durius]

You entering a slippery slope that leads to the conclusion that all people except the leader are potentially threats and the only sensible government is a dictatorial one. The paranoid Russian autocracy really isn't fitting for a European government.

I want a strong state. That is what I said. Why are you equating strength to dictatorship?

I'm glad you brought up Russia, because right now in Ukraine the Russian Army is defending their thesis on the subject of what autocracy does to state power, and their conclusion is illuminating.

The Russian army is a prime example that having a strong decision center far from the front that gives no autonomy to its units to make autonomous decisions leads to bad consequences. Russian soldiers keep dying because the higher ups don't understand the situation on the field or because they don't know how to take action when they are suddenly cut from their chain of command. I'm not complaining too much, since the faster Russia is defeated and exists Ukraine, the better, but it's still a sad spectacle to witness.

And argument for why a unitary European state is a bad idea is exactly the same. A government in Brussels might make very good decisions about the free flow of goods across state borders, but likely won't have a clue of what would be the best way to manage the water crisis a broken pipe created in a small community in Bavaria and are likely to send a dispatch ordering a solution that will only cause more problems down the line, whereas a smaller local government could easily identify the problem and address its causes.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

The Russian army is a prime example that having a strong decision center far from the front that gives no autonomy to its units to make autonomous decisions leads to bad consequences. Russian soldiers keep dying because the higher ups don't understand the situation on the field or because they don't know how to take action when they are suddenly cut from their chain of command. I'm not complaining too much, since the faster Russia is defeated and exists Ukraine, the better, but it's still a sad spectacle to witness.

Yes. In short, autocracy makes a state less able to achieve its desired objectives, or in other words, it makes it weaker.

Hence my abject confusion at you interpreting "I want a strong state" as "I'd support dictatorship", considering this open air demonstration of how bad dictatorships are at building state power.