Quote Originally Posted by mojo
It's like the entire idea of uniting states is anathema to you, ong.
Well observed.

I'm not putting up the USA as a paragon of anything, but these united states are not living with any feeling of missing democracy or freedom.
American democracy is heavily flawed, as we saw when Trump won an election with less votes than Clinton. And you of all people know that "freedom" in USA is bullshit, USA have more people in prison per capita than everyone except China and possibly some small shithole countries.

If it works for USA, all power to you guys. But I do not want to see Europe "uniting" into one superstate, or at least I don't want the UK to be a part of it.

There's a big difference between the USA and Europe... culture. I appreciate USA is a mix of various cultures, but the people primarily speak one language. Texas has more in common with Montana than the UK does with Italy. Europe is a continent containing lots and lots of different cultures and languages.

It's hard enough balancing internal interests within the UK, which is itself a union of multiple cultures. But at least we all speak the same language here and have much in common. But even the UK is struggling and possibly won't exist in its current form for much longer.

If your arguments are putting forth that this kind of superstate is bad for the UK for some reasons specific to the UK, then cool.
It's bad for the UK because we are a sovereign state and have been for a very long time. Texas isn't a sovereign state, nor has it ever been. The USA was formed as a union when they declared independence from the UK. The UK is used to ruling itself. Texas is not.

It's not that I have a problem with the American system, it's that I don't think that can work in Europe because Europe has suffered many wars, some very recent, Europe is a continent of cultures that don't historically get on very well. Enforced unions won't resolve those problems. Mutual respect for each others' sovereignty is a better plan imo.