Eu - federation or not federation?

[Guest]

As you perhaps know they're in the last stages of forming the first EU constitution. As always interests go wide apart and it's become a good old fashioned power struggle.

The two main lines are:

1) Federation: Strong European centralization. Common set of laws. Common foregin policy. An EU president. Common defence.

2) Leave as is: Strong independence of the member countries. Few common laws, separate forgein policies. Rotating presidency. Separate defence.

Italy, Germany, Spain, France and Belgium are strong advocates of a federal style EU.

Britain is confused.

Smaller countries like Finland, Portugal and the soon-to-become-members from Eastern Europe fear that a federation will mean that they'll have no say - that the federation would be dominated by the larger countries.

Links:

EU online

EU prepares to battle for power (BBC)

Q&A: Europe's constitution (BBC)

[acidcrash 0]

as you said, people i know seem to be divided on this issue... i dont think some people would be happy having one law or whatever passed for all of europe, that was not legal(or whatever) when they were independant...might sound superficial, but i think names for things is abit of a hang up there as for example:

a while back (about a year i think) there was talk of changing the names of fish here in the UK to that of the rest of europe...fair enough, in theory it would be ok, but then some people prefer the names as they are now and not in latin...another example would be the name of the new "unified europe"; "United States of Europe" i believe...not to sound anti-american, but that name just sounds...well...crap, wheres the originality?

anyway before i go too far offtopic my view: not entirely happy with the idea

edit: on a side note...would this finally mean we would standardise weapons and military equipment?

[Jamesia 0]

If the EU became a federation then the not so good countries would pull it down and countries would not be able to economically thrive.

The problem with the Euro is that it loses value because of the poorer european countries and it sort of mucks up the german and other rich countries economies.

[kegetys 2]

I'll rather say I live in Finland than in the EU. Anyway the language problems are already causing problems in the EU parlament (or whatever it is) so if the EU would be just "one big country" everyone should have a common language too, and that aint going to change soon.

[MP Studio 0]

But what should be the "EU language"? English? No not really. German? Ok one third of EU citizens speak german why not?

Spanish?

We could reintroduce latin, but its difficult.

[Tovarish 0]

But what should be the "EU language"? English? No not really. German? Ok one third of EU citizens speak german why not?

Spanish?

We could reintroduce latin, but its difficult.

Wasn't Esperanto created for just such a purpose? .

Anyways I'm not sure a Federation is a good idea....do you really want to Supersize and centralize the government for a number of distinct countries? Hmmm, where have I seen this fail before

[Die Alive 0]

My suggestion

THE EU COLLECTIVE.

We are EU, You shall be assimilated

Maybe after, we can get all of Africa to be one country too.

-=Die Alive=-

[Oligo 1]

Smaller countries like Finland, Portugal and the soon-to-become-members from Eastern Europe fear that a federation will mean that they'll have no say - that the federation would be dominated by the larger countries.

Politicos of small countries are whining, because they are fearing for their power.

Without a federal europe there will be no counter-power to US ultra-far-right-religious world domination. Not good.

[Tovarish 0]

Without a federal europe there will be no counter-power to US ultra-far-right-religious world domination. Not good.

That's the only quasi-positive side I see to it. But does that mean Cold War II?

[Jamesia 0]

But what should be the "EU language"? English? No not really. German? Ok one third of EU citizens speak german why not?

Spanish?

We could reintroduce latin, but its difficult.

I think it should be the most powerful language in the world.

English.

the first language of the european song contest is english. Sorry to have to speak about such things but it is true.

However German would be an aceptable choice,

[Necromancer- 0]

I say its not the time right now for the EU to become a federation.

IF so... the process should be very slow, so that the EU citizens have the time to adapt.

EU language??? Lets keep it to English as it is a world language already.

[Oligo 1]

That's the only quasi-positive side I see to it. But does that mean Cold War II?

I don't know. What I do know is that I don't want to live in a world shaped by the politicos selected by the voters of U.S. of A. Their view of the world is way too simple to my liking.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Good thread topic, i have been planning to make an EU thread myself

BTW i dont think Britain is confused exactly, we're just wanting to play the balancing game as we always do. Moderation and caution, thats the key to winning Britain over more to the EU. If countries are to be or appear to be expected to throw all their sovereignty headlong into an emerging EU superstate then the British people (and many other nations populaces) will not be pleased with continuing with the endeavour.

As Tovarish says the countries of Europe are very much distinct entities and im not exactly clear on what it actually is that unifies us at the moment to the extent that all the countries could share a popular detailed constitution. One of the ideas of the EU is explicitly to bring us into greater union but as recent events have shown there is a long way to go. So at such an early stage of the EU, rushing things could prove to be highly counter-productive and could cause unnecessary fracturing.

[Guest]

The problem with the Euro is that it loses value because of the poorer european countries and it sort of mucks up the german and other rich countries economies.

 Euro hits all-time high (BBC)

Quote[/b] ]The euro has hit a record high against the dollar of $1.1914, passing the peaks reached just after its launch in January 1999.

Your theory Jamesia could not be more wrong. The new EU countries that have still developing economies are the best asset. They don't use their full economic potential yet but are on a good way of doing so and from that the entire EU will benifit.

Without a federal europe there will be no counter-power to US ultra-far-right-religious world domination. Not good.

Exactly. Counter-balance is needed to handle situations when somebody like Bush or worse comes to power. The Iraq crisis demonstrated both the need and the necessity of a united European foregin policy.

Let me give you an example. USA is today demanding of all the countries in the world to sign a contract not to extradite US citizens to the ICC (war crime tribunal). The ICC was founded on the initiative of the EU and all European countries think it is a good idea. If a split should arise as about the Iraq war we will all lose by it. USA has stated clearly that those that don't sign will get their economic and military aid withdrawn.

A couple of eastern European countries have after fierce discussion folded and signed it (fortunately a vast majority told Bush to shove that contract up his... ).

The EU should be able to defend its interests by first agreeing on a common policy and second by acting upon it. If USA threatens to withdraw economical and military support from, say Slovakia then the EU should step in and say "so what, we'll cover it instead". It's not a question of money, because we have it. It's a question of political concensus.

EU has many flaws today. It's vasty beaurocratized and very distant from the people. This is because each country has its own very strict agenda and everything that is decided is a ten fold compromise. We need to get away from that.

So yes, I am for a federalization in the long run. We have however a lot of work to do. First of all the "European identity" has to be boosted. You must connect the EU to the people. We should vote directly to the EU parliament, candidates from every country, not just our own etc etc

It needs a lot of work, but the end result will be good and it is desperately needed both economically and politically.

[MLF 0]

I dont want to be ruled from germany, britain can do without EU interfearence, trade with em yes, but let them rule us nope, Britain is already treated like shit by the French, so no i dont want a federation, and the idea also of a EU Military force is a joke.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I dont necessarily disagree Denoir but i do not trust the EU politicians of today to 'do it right'. There is too much pettiness and a lack of common sense existing in the structure of the EU today.

Also whilst i can see the arguments for creating a counter-balance to US power i do not think that a cold war style rift should be allowed to develop and i do not think that it is inevitably necessary.

I am not convinced anyway that there is anything like a consensus such that Europe as a whole can agree at this point on many of the existent major issues and i am wary of mere significant majorities being enough to give validity to EU policies when the subject may be of fundamental importance to the minority (who may number tens of millions or whole countries). It seems that the EU might act as a pool of 'coalitions of the willing' or unwilling for each different law or topic so that total european agreement is not necessary. The problem comes when universal enforcement of laws within the EU or mandatory requirements of participation in actions might be forced upon largely unwilling countries.

One of the big questions is, how much should the individuality and distinctiveness of nations be preserved within the EU and how far should the process of standardising go?

This includes legal systems, laws ,constitutions etc

And which should be given more emphasis

A. The constituent nations

or

B. The international superstructure

It is interesting to note that even in the United States of America the individual states maintain a high degree of autonomy in certain areas.

[bn880 5]

Yep, fully agree with Denoir here. It is time to work together for European countries. If they do not it's hard to say how bright the future will be for most of Europe.

I'm glad if they do form a true federation, as it may get Poland back on it's feet and actually make it a contributing country. Right now everyone is pretty much thinking of their own pocket and short term goals in the Polish industry, it's disgusting, no progress since the communist party lost power.

[Goeth 0]

And what is so hilarious in EU military force, could you please explain.

[NurEinMensch 0]

I consider myself an European patriot, if something like that exists. I'm European and proudly so.

In my opinion we need a new, reformed EU badly. The current EU is nothing but an rather undemocratic, bureaucratic nightmare and every member country is doing its own thing which effectively prevents the EU to form a position on almost every global issue of importance.

The new EU should get a constitution that is worth its name, it should have a democratically legitimated parliament (2 houses maybe? ) that actually has any meaning and it should have a democratically legitimated (I'm talking about more direct democracy here) administration that is mainly responsible for foreign policy.

The "federation" should be centralized enough to lead, but not as centralized as some people from France might suggest.

It'd rather be similar like the USA, maybe even less centralized.

The member countries should keep as much sovereignty as possible for what's typically "their own business", except for foreign policy, defence etc. which should be a federal business.

Of course that's only a veeery brief description plus my english isn't good enough to discuss issues like this. (and no dont tell me my english is good, i know you liars always do that )

Why do I think this is the way to go?

1. Like I said before: Stupid patriotism (bigger is better)

2. In my book it's just growing together what belongs together anyways. We have our differences which is a good thing, but we also share alot.

3. It has been said before: We need a counterpart to the USA. There are many reasons for this and non of the includes anti-americanism. But an unipolar world is a bad thing for all of us, _including_ the USA.

4. The current EU lacks democratic legitimation and is not much more than a giant free trade zone. That sux. Europe can me so much more.

5. I know there was more but I kinda forgot...

About the "EU language": That's not really a question. Of course every country keeps its own language. And kids at school are learning english anyways in (almost? ) all EU countries, right? So there shouldnt be a real communication problem. German as EU language? As a German I can tell you: No way!!!

This all can't happen over night, especially since so many people don't really like the idea of a more coherent EU. Personally I think it means I'm not losing my home country, but I'm winning a new one. But that's just my opinion and people will have other opinions. So the idea of a "United States Of Europe" (lol what a name) or something like this will stay an idea for at least 50 years from now.

But if we lose focus we'll never achieve it.

[Schoeler 0]

Ah you Europeans, you're so funny.  Here you criticize the U.S. and the structure of the U.S. Constitution and yet you now encounter the same debates and problems with federalization that our founders did in 1787.  Read the Federalist Papers and George Washington's farewell address for some perspective on this debate.  Our smaller States too had a problem with losing sovereignty.  They were worried that the larger States would drown them out and they wouldn't have a voice in the new federal government, so we devised our bicameral legislature giving all States two senators and an equal voice in the upper house, while the lower house was apportioned according to population.  Not the most ideal of compromises, but I wouldn't be surprised if thats where you guys go too.  The tricky part of federalism is the system of shared powers between the member States and the federal government.  To properly balance that power you are going to need a third branch of some sort to act as referee in internal arguments.  We have the Supreme Court, and that too is not perfect.  You really should read the Federalist Papers, there are some interesting and very well made arguments on both sides of the issue that remain especially pertinent to you folks today.  Good luck with this project.  Remember, we Americans still haven't straightened it out after over 200 years of working on it and fighting a major civil war over the issue.

[Jamesia 0]

The problem with the Euro is that it loses value because of the poorer european countries and it sort of mucks up the german and other rich countries economies.

 Euro hits all-time high (BBC)

Quote[/b] ]The euro has hit a record high against the dollar of $1.1914, passing the peaks reached just after its launch in January 1999.

Your theory Jamesia could not be more wrong. The new EU countries that have still developing economies are the best asset. They don't use their full economic potential yet but are on a good way of doing so and from that the entire EU will benifit.

I'm have no idea what i'm talking about really most of the time.

[NurEinMensch 0]

I dont want to be ruled from germany, britain can do without EU interfearence, trade with em yes, but let them rule us nope, Britain is already treated like shit by the French, so no i dont want a federation, and the idea also of a EU Military force is a joke.

The EU is not about Germany ruling Britain. At least not more than Britain ruling Germany.

Who rules your hometown? The mayor or Tony Blair? That's how you have to look at this.

[NurEinMensch 0]

Ah you Europeans, you're so funny.  Here you criticize the U.S. and the structure of the U.S. Constitution and yet you now encounter the same debates and problems with federalization that our founders did in 1787.  Read the Federalist Papers and George Washington's farewell address for some perspective on this debate.  Our smaller States too had a problem with losing sovereignty.  They were worried that the larger States would drown them out and they wouldn't have a voice in the new federal government, so we devised our bicameral legislature giving all States two senators and an equal voice in the upper house, while the lower house was apportioned according to population.  Not the most ideal of compromises, but I wouldn't be surprised if thats where you guys go too.  The tricky part of federalism is the system of shared powers between the member States and the federal government.  To properly balance that power you are going to need a third branch of some sort to act as referee in internal arguments.  We have the Supreme Court, and that too is not perfect.  You really should read the Federalist Papers, there are some interesting and very well made arguments on both sides of the issue that remain especially pertinent to you folks today.  Good luck with this project.  Remember, we Americans still haven't straightened it out after over 200 years of working on it and fighting a major civil war over the issue.

A very good point and exactly what I think is the way to go.

Personally I'd like to see something like "Founding Fathers II" happen here.

[Schoeler 0]

3. It has been said before: We need a counterpart to the USA. There are many reasons for this and non of the includes anti-americanism. But an unipolar world is a bad thing for all of us, _including_ the USA.

About the "EU language": That's not really a question. Of course every country keeps its own language. And kids at school are learning english anyways in (almost? ) all EU countries, right? So there shouldnt be a real communication problem. German as EU language? As a German I can tell you: No way!!!  

This all can't happen over night, especially since so many people don't really like the idea of a more coherent EU. Personally I think it means I'm not losing my home country, but I'm winning a new one. But that's just my opinion and people will have other opinions. So the idea of a "United States Of Europe" (lol what a name) or something like this will stay an idea for at least 50 years from now.

But if we lose focus we'll never achieve it.

I agree, a bipolar system is MUCH more stabile and this doesn't mean either side has to be hostile towards one another, so no, there won't be another Cold War, but two superpowers are necessary to balance each other out.

You should go with English or Spanish as your language. Other than Mandarin, these are the two most widepread and universal languages, and while each nation should maintain its own national language and heritage, its more economically and politically sound to have a common language.

[Guest]

Ah you Europeans, you're so funny.  Here you criticize the U.S. and the structure of the U.S. Constitution and yet you now encounter the same debates and problems with federalization that our founders did in 1787.  

We have a slightly bigger problem than that you had. Your country was new and had no history. You were just a British colony. You spoke the same language.

In Europe we have countries that have existed for many centuries with their own culture and language.

Bismarck's unification of Germany or Garibaldi's of Italy could perhaps be compared to the US founding (although not really, since the provinces had existed for centuries before too).

We do however have some advantages today, especially in the form of fast communication and the globalization trends.

Most of the European countries are federalized on the national level. Why do you think it is called "Bundesrepublik Detuschland"? Many have two chamber systems etc...

It's not federalization per se that is a problem but international federalization and it hasn't been done in modern history.