Which is most likely to occur first, if the European Union becomes a country:
- It implodes and breaks apart.
- Secession, by peaceful means.
- Secession, by civil war/revolution.
- The EU becomes authoritarian.
- The EU becomes the European Empire.
1, 2 and 3 seem very unlikely, unless individual countries become strong enough to overcome the fear that EU propaganda has put over their people.
4 and 5 are part and parcel of the purpose of the EU.
- Otto von Habsburg said back in 1989 that the EU "is living largely by the legacy of the Holy Roman Empire"; Jose Manuel Barroso called the EU an "empire" in 2007. Helmut Kohl stated that the "future will belong to the Germans . . . when we build the House of Europe" and that EU integration would become "irreversible", back in 1995; he also said that "(a) European army and a European police force lie at the end of the road to European Union" . . . and everything said by these people agree with what Konrad Adenauer said about a united Europe back in 1951, compiled in a book titled Germany Plots With The Kremlin written by T.H. Tetens (copyright 1951).
- The EU is already authoritarian: its parliament (the only elected body in Brussels) has no power to make laws; only the unelected Commission can (and they're supposed to be the executive branch). The unelected Council of Ministers holds whatever executive and legislative power they wish, in addition.
- The aforementioned EU military is enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon; member states are obliged to give their civilian and military might up to the Union for the realization of this purpose. Furthermore, there's a "mutual solidarity" clause that obliges all member states to come to the aid of any single member state that's been attacked either by terrorists or outside armies.
- Look up the so-called "principle of subsidiarity" that is in every EU "accession treaty". This is something from Catholic social teaching, and the EU likes to throw that phrase around as though it were some kind of democratic principle. It's actually thorougly antidemocratic, since the definition of being a subsidiary implies top-down government. It's the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution stood on its head!
(Never mind that "ever closer union" phrase.)