Talk:Complete economic integration
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
[Untitled]
[edit]I strongly disagree with the assumption that UK is an example of complete economic integration, based on the following arguments:
- UK is itself an independent entity (state), and is not even considered a federation.
- Scotland, Ireland and England were "forced" (never by choice of the people) into the union which was in the first place a political (through a monarchy), and not an economical union. It was never an economic voluntary integration.
- An good example of distinct states that decided to create a complete economic integration would have been the 13 original states of the United States; several (by then recently) independent states that decided to fully integrate economically and (originally) voluntarily for economical reasons.The same is true of almost any true federation, like Canada and Australia and in a smaller degree in Brasil, Argentina and Mexico, countries that even experienced (temporary) seccession of some of the "free and sovereing" states (or provinces) that made up the union. In all these true federations the "free and sovereing states" (to use Mexico's phrase), have had since their inception, their own governmental powers (judicial, legislative and executive) as opossed to recently created parliaments in Scotland and Wales.
- This final step in the integration is paradoxical; a complete economic integration, as assumed in the UK, is not only an economical integration, but a full social and political (if not cultural through central education) integration. If that is the last step of economic integration, then the independent states that conform it cease to be (at least internationally) independent (all decisions are made up by the supranational state, and not by the individual states), making it just another federation, and thus one single political entity.