In all honesty I'm ambivalent about USE. And it has no relevance to the Brexit discussion as we would (if remaining) hold a veto. So it would only happen if out democratically elected government agreed to it.
What I do care about is that we are already poorer as a result of brexit, and will continue to be so for years (decades?) to come. I'd rather spend that money on something that adds value, rather than higher interest on our debt, more civil servants and worst of all David fu£king Davis.
As for schultz. His party has just polled its worst numbers since WW2, it's only natural he'd want to grab some headlines and try to avoid becoming a political irrelevance. German coalition king-maker possibly, future leader, I doubt it. Also, I thought the whole point of the Eu was that it wasn't beholden to governments. Or is that only true when it's the uk government?
MIGV6, states retain the power if veto on matters of common foreign and security policy as well as harmonisation of social security. And several other things which would be required to make a USE. Anyone used their veto, no agreement. Pretty much like article 50, which is why I don't think we'll get a deal that's anything close to acceptable.