Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Eu - federation or not federation?

Recommended Posts

Don't know if this was said before...

We need some kind of "loose federation". Every country in Europe has it's own identity, culture and history, therefore it's hard to create an artificial federation.

Imho we don't need an european parliament. Every country has it's own administration, why waste money? If there are questions of foreign policy, the foreign ministers meet. If there are questions of education, the ministers of education meet. If there are questions how to head, the presidents/chancellors meet. etc.

Magic word: coordination (of the member states).

What we need first are:

- common laws

- common social insurance system

- common pension insurance system

- common taxes

- common prices

- common wages

- an "official" language: English

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, I find myself surprised at the British reluctance towards the EU. If I was stuck on a bloody island I'd be looking for alliances everywhere. Apparently not so for the British.

How exactly do you expect to survive? It's not like Britain is a colonail superpower any more. The major part of your trade is with the EU. At the same time you have a 200 years old industrial and residential infrastructure (apart from the big cities). Face it, Britain needs the EU more than the EU needs Britain.

That is perhaps the exact reason for reluctance. The whole, island thing tends to breed an attitude of self-reliance (even whilst this is not the case) in the general public. Although it won't really matter much as apparantly the public will not be given the choice. rock.gif Issues such as tax, I belive should not be handled centrally as there are too many differences between the economies of the member states, and that would be an issue which is guaranteed to cause uproar. However other things, such as a common defence force and foreign policy are a good idea, as the split over Iraq showed, unity on those sort of issues is important.

The general opinion (and possibly the reality) is that of, "we are surviving quite well as we are now, why the heck do we need to be absorbed into Europe?"

It'll be down to the government to calm fears and explain exactly what will and what won't change. But knowing the UK government, they won't, and the bandwagon of anti-Europe feeling will begin to roll. smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@der bastler: we need the european parliament if we want to have ONE federational european state. u cant give the european paliament all power from one day to the other. u have to do it in a very slow and carefull way. but this is an ongoing process... and one thing: we dont need one language. have u ever heard about cultures? i wouldnt have to travel away from if i want to see other things if we all had the saem culture. to be one state doesnt mean to have one culture and one language!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Der bastler- "

Quote[/b] ]We need some kind of "loose federation". Every country in Europe has it's own identity, culture and history, therefore it's hard to create an artificial federation.

Imho we don't need an european parliament. Every country has it's own administration, why waste money? If there are questions of foreign policy, the foreign ministers meet. If there are questions of education, the ministers of education meet. If there are questions how to head, the presidents/chancellors meet. etc.

Magic word: coordination (of the member states)."

Good post and i agree at least in the short/medium term.The european parliament is a joke at the moment (and a gigantic waster of money).

But:- common laws

- common social insurance system

- common pension insurance system

- common taxes

- common prices

- common wages

This will be very hard to agree upon. Whose system is best? Whose Legal system is best? Whose social or pension or tax or wage system is best? There are major differences right now so whos system loses out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This will be very hard to agree upon. Whose system is best? Whose Legal system is best? Whose social or pension or tax or wage system is best? There are major differences right now so whos system loses out?

God I hope the finnish "control every goddamn thing with legislation since people are too dumb to understand anything"-attitude is one of the losing attitudes. I'd pretty much prefer the southern european "who cares what the man says"-attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't know if this was said before...

We need some kind of "loose federation". Every country in Europe has it's own identity, culture and history, therefore it's hard to create an artificial federation.

Imho we don't need an european parliament. Every country has it's own administration, why waste money? If there are questions of foreign policy, the foreign ministers meet. If there are questions of education, the ministers of education meet. If there are questions how to head, the presidents/chancellors meet. etc.

Magic word: coordination (of the member states).

What we need first are:

- common laws

- common social insurance system

- common pension insurance system

- common taxes

- common prices

- common wages

- an "official" language: English

Who has the right to pass common laws if not a common parliament? The important word in all your cases is "common". There's only one way to get those common things in a democratic fashion. A democratically legitimated Federation.

Now to the British: Honestly, I don't understand your problem. You always complained when you were not part of the EC back then and felt left out and now that you're in the only thing you do is try to block it because you don't want to lose souvergnity.

Either you share the idea of a united Europe and you're in or you dont want to be part of it and stay out. But being in and blocking it is annoying and rather unfair to the rest of us.

With all that British anti-european attitude you'd better leave the EU.

I realize this sounds harsh but judging from your posts and your tabloids I get that impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm English (or British, but lets not go there), and i would rather be English then European

That's just silly. It's like saying "I'd rather be a Londoner than an Englishman!". You're both English and European.

Again, I find myself surprised at the British reluctance towards the EU. If I was stuck on a bloody island I'd be looking for alliances everywhere. Apparently not so for the British.

How exactly do you expect to survive? It's not like Britain is a colonail superpower any more. The major part of your trade is with the EU. At the same time you have a 200 years old industrial and residential infrastructure (apart from the big cities). Face it, Britain needs the EU more than the EU needs Britain.

Well in my opinion (and remember thats all everyone elses is) Britian is dumped on by the EU, Let me take the example of Beef, the french blocked the sale of British Beef after the EU allowed its sale in Europe, not this went against some law and the French for every day they blocked it, built up a fine now when they stoped the blockade of British Beef the sum was up to a few hundred million but the french refused to pay and the EU did nothing, go EU, You also say that Britian is not the worst when it comes to immigrants, well it is.

The EU cant even keep its promises to deliver Aid to ethiopia on time, so i dont trust them on the Common Currency or One state of Europe, Also when it comes to a Common Army the UK would probally have to seploy a larger number than most other countries and tbh id rather have them Defend My country and its allies rather than is Apeaser neighbours.

I mean France pulled out there deployments of troops in the Defence of Europe in the cold war because they wanted to develope nukes IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NurEinMensch -Believe it or not there are and always have been multiple opinions in Britain as to what should happen regarding Europe and so a little thing called a 'debate' is necessary. I dont happen to think its unreasonable to have a debate about something as unbelievably huge as the future of the EU and our national sovereignty. Believe it or not there are also competing visions of the future of europe. I dont see that there is one single overriding vision as i think this thread makes clear. Different people want different things for the future of europe. Perhaps Britain and a few other countries just have slightly more different ideas than most.

In fact from this side of the channel many people in europe seem, how can i put it....a bit complacent about the future of europe, content to just 'let it happen' without further thought.

I realise this sounds harsh but judging from your posts and your tabloids i get that impression wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
The EU cant even keep its promises to deliver Aid to ethiopia on time, so i dont trust them on the Common Currency or One state of Europe,

Britain is a part of EU. It's not some magical abstract thing. EU's failures are Britain's failures. Nobody claims that EU is perfect and should remain as it is. The point people are making is that working together is far better than standing alone. None of the European countries are strong enough to stand by themselves.

Quote[/b] ]Also when it comes to a Common Army the UK would probally have to seploy a larger number than most other countries and tbh id rather have them Defend My country and its allies rather than is Apeaser neighbours.

You mean that you would rather lick Bush's arse than participate in the decisions. In the EU Britain has a decisive role. In its relation with America it does not.

Quote[/b] ]I mean France pulled out there deployments of troops in the Defence of Europe in the cold war because they wanted to develope nukes IIRC.

That was before the EU and what they did was to pull out of a part of NATO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With all that British anti-european attitude you'd better leave the EU.

I realize this sounds harsh but judging from your posts and your tabloids I get that impression.

You'll probably find that there are quite a number of people that would find that perfectly acceptable. smile_o.gif You can't judge the opinions of a nation by a few posts on a message board or some trashy tabloid stories.

As has been said before, the best way for any decision to be made would be to thrash it out through debate, and potentially a referendum on the issue. Although the evidence I've been seeing suggests that the British public will not be given that option, wheras most other nations are? rock.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MLFs complaints are common in this country and there is quite a lot of frustration felt by many people regarding the EU. Surely the EU should try to reach out and appeal to EU citizens who are frustrated with the organisation instead of dismissing them. When someone gets taken to court according to EU law for selling produce in both imperial and metric measurements or something similar it is a PR disaster (exploited to the maximum by tabloids) and make the EU unpopular here for little gain.

Denoir- "Britain is a part of EU. It's not some magical abstract thing. EU's failures are.."

The EU seems pretty abstract and faraway at the moment. And yet at the same time there IS an existing EU superstructure, an EU bureaucracy which although a synthesis of our nations is really quite seperate in its institutional cultural from any particular nation (or at least the UK) in some ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have to apologize, I was a little bit frustrated and I generalized too much! Sorry for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well in my opinion (and remember thats all everyone elses is) Britian is dumped on by the EU, Let me take the example of Beef, the french blocked the sale of British Beef after the EU allowed its sale in Europe, not this went against some law and the French for every day they blocked it, built up a fine now when they stoped the blockade of British Beef the sum was up to a few hundred million but the french refused to pay and the EU did nothing, go EU, You also say that Britian is not the worst when it comes to immigrants, well it is.

The EU cant even keep its promises to deliver Aid to ethiopia on time, so i dont trust them on the Common Currency or One state of Europe, Also when it comes to a Common Army the UK would probally have to seploy a larger number than most other countries and tbh id rather have them Defend My country and its allies rather than is Apeaser neighbours.

I mean France pulled out there deployments of troops in the Defence of Europe in the cold war because they wanted to develope nukes IIRC.

Aint that more reasons for a stronger EU? Without EU every country can block your beaf or everything else anytime they want. With an EU they don't really have that freedom.

The EU did nothing because it is weak and France didnt want the EU to interfere, much like you don't want the EU to interfere with Britain.

Is it so hard to understand that we need to get together more closely to prevent incidents like that?

I think the current exchange rate of the euro shows you can trust it pretty well.

A common Army doesnt mean Britain has to do all the hard work, the opposite is true, a common Army would force other countries to contribute as well, plus today the number two peacekeeping troops sender (right after the US) is *cough* Germany *cough*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The EU cant even keep its promises to deliver Aid to ethiopia on time, so i dont trust them on the Common Currency or One state of Europe,

Britain is a part of EU. It's not some magical abstract thing. EU's failures are Britain's failures. Nobody claims that EU is perfect and should remain as it is. The point people are making is that working together is far better than standing alone. None of the European countries are strong enough to stand by themselves.

Actually Britian has delivered its aid outside of the EU IIRC, its the EU run donation that is lacking.

Quote[/b] ]You mean that you would rather lick Bush's arse than participate in the decisions. In the EU Britain has a decisive role. In its relation with America it does not.

Erm okay i think ill leave you and ur bush ass licking fetish out of this one, why does it have to come to bush, it seems whenever i disagree witht he EU and want to stay out of it you bring Bush into it, hey at least Bush tells you will happen (i may not like him but) i remember him saying at the begining of his presidency that Sadham was going to go.

NurEinMensch

I'm afriad that more of that EU beurocratic BS would be more common, Especially with situations with the Beef, and the common army would proballt force the UK to commit a certain % percentage from each country dependent on there strength and tbh im sure the British would have to commit more, i also don't want to Have prices higher due to the Euro, and with tax harmonisation i tbh dont want to be paying for another EU countries failure to crap running of there country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]God I hope the finnish "control every goddamn thing with legislation since people are too dumb to understand anything"-attitude is one of the losing attitudes.

That bad attitude isn't just restricted to Finland. I'm not trying to bash anyones political beliefs here, but it seems to me that leftists in general follow that pattern of: "legislate our lives from cradle to grave". We have people in Canada calling for a way to regulate (install a speed govenor in) all cars to a 100kp/h speed limit because people keep speeding. I also hear people talk of birth licences. Pathetic, eh?

Britains' attitude doesn't suprise me at all. While they may not be econmically independant of Europe, they have that feeling that they are an island and have never been conquered in all their existance (since the middle ages anyway). They seem to pride themselves on strength and independance, they don't want to be absorbed by the "big guy" and I respect that. At least the English have determinable differences from the rest of Europe, like language, culture, history, etc. Here in Canada we really don't have those advantages (except Quebec, but they're not *real* Canadians anyway :P ). So people here try very hard not to be identified as Americans because we, like England, don't want to be absorbed by the "big guy". Even though corporate America owns our ass anyway, no thanks to weak Canadian politicians.

Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]As has been said before, the best way for any decision to be made would be to thrash it out through debate, and potentially a referendum on the issue. Although the evidence I've been seeing suggests that the British public will not be given that option, wheras most other nations are

Why should the public have a say w hen their all simple minded cretins brainwashedd by tabloids rock.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should the  public  have  a say w hen  their all simple minded cretins brainwashedd by  tabloids  rock.gif

So why should you have a say? With a comment like that, that's a pretty fitting avatar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NurEinMensch

I'm afriad that more of that EU beurocratic BS would be more common, Especially with situations with the Beef, and the common army would proballt force the UK to commit a certain % percentage from each country dependent on there strength and tbh im sure the British would have to commit more, i also don't want to Have prices higher due to the Euro, and with tax harmonisation i tbh dont want to be paying for another EU countries failure to crap running of there country.

Then join us make it less beurocratic and help boosting EU's decision-making strenght.

Now leave the beaf out of it, i think i showed you how every country making its own decisions hurt your beaf export more.

And please, can you back up your fears that Britain would have to contribute more with any fact? Or is that just what the tabloids spoon fed you?

Higher prices because of the euro? We currently on our way into a deflation, that's quite the opposite.

Ok, you dont want to pay for other countries. Want to take a look into the EU finances and who used to pay and who used to recieve? I mean, do you have any idea of that or is that fear of the unknown too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of articles from The Times(UK), one posted in full as an example of the kind of opinionated (non-tabloid) somewhat conservative objections being raised in the UK. I agree with some of them.

First- "Europe and the myth of America's Constitution" referring i think to some of the documents that Schoeler mentioned.

And-

"May 28, 2003

A document that reeks of a Napoleon complex

Can history teach us nothing? Is it really 'bunk', gossip, propaganda and the last refuge of losers and costume dramatists?

Yesterdays draft constitution for Europe was the eighth bid to fashion a union of European states in just half a century. As I grazed its parched prose my senses were alerted only by Britains negotiator, Peter Hain, telling me to trust everything to him. Until then I was mildly of his persuasion, that this was just a bit of tidying up. Mr Hains arrogance left me in no doubt. Not only should there be a referendum on the constitution but there should be one every day on whether Mr Hain should be got out of bed. For Tony Blair to display this man as Britains answer to Jefferson, Madison and Adams beggars belief.

I have always bought part of the European agenda. The free trade area that emerged from the postwar coal, steel and farming cartels was a good thing. It saw its apogee in the Single European Act of 1986 and came to a grinding halt halfway through the Maastricht treaty. Since then protectionism and corporate statism have become lodestars of European partnership. No UK government has done a thing to reverse it.

The architects of the new Europe refer to themselves as the founding fathers of a united states of Europe. I wonder how many of them let alone Mr Blair or Mr Hain have read the American Articles of Confederation, the 1778 Constitution or the Federalist Papers. American federalism was never intended to give Washington more power to interfere in states affairs, quite the opposite. It arose from a war of independence against the incompetence and insensitivity of government, British government. True, the federal Constitution was to help the Union conduct foreign policy. But it regulated only inter-state affairs, not state affairs. In Washington a congress of states was to control the presidency. Students of Montesquieu and Locke kept that ghost of colonial governorship, the President, chained by states rights.

If European integrationists recruit America to their cause, two can play at that game. I might cite Europe itself. In the year 800, Charlemagne stood on the steps of Rome and was crowned by the Pope as first Holy Roman Emperor (another precedent oft cited by European unionists). His Frankish imperialism ushered in perhaps the most barbarous era in Europes history. Hundreds of thousands died with him.

Where Charlemagne failed, others were sure they could succeed: Innocent III, the Habsburgs, the Romanovs, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin. Each conquered Europe by the sword and ruled by fear and bureaucracy. Each thought he could turn evil means to good ends. The papal hierarchy replicated the forms of the Roman Empire. The Spanish Inquisition blended ideological and political loyalty along lines adopted by later autocrats. The tsarist gulags were refilled by the Bolsheviks. The Austro-Hungarian police state was reused by the Nazis. Millions died defying the Europeanist ambitions of rulers in Madrid, Paris, Vienna and Moscow.

Europes few moments of joy and freedom have come with the throwing off of a supranational yoke, rarely in putting it on. Liberation came with the freeing of the Low Countries from Spain, of Italy from Napoleon, of most of Europe from Hitler and of the eastern states from the Soviet Union. We encourage peoples everywhere to defy supranationalism, in Tibet, East Timor, Kurdistan or Yugoslavia. Yet no sooner is a small nation born than we are eager to see it overruled. Europes ruling elite cannot stand smallness, let alone sovereignty. It derides small states as unviable (unless they are tax havens) and craves a strong leader of Europe. Every Eurocrat I have met suffers from a Napoleon complex.

The record of such constitutions in achieving stable government is appalling. They failed in former India, China and Soviet Russia. They failed in British creations such as the Federation of Malaya and the Central African Federation. The history of international relations shouts the same message, that trade treaties work but political integration does not. It runs against the grain of identity. It leads to the unwarranted accretion of power to the centre, an ever more intrusive civil service and prison camps.

This is all relevant for a reason. We should never ask the architects of a European constitution what is new. We should grab them by the throat, slam them against the wall of history and ask: What is not old?

The American federalists were out to affirm individual and territorial freedom from central authority. Yesterdays European constitution is their antithesis. It glories in what it calls central competence. It begins with a bizarre catalogue of platitudes, including a claim to respect the national identities of member states. It then asserts that states must unreservedly support the self-declared competences of the Union, and refrain from action contrary to the Unions interests;. Almost every article seeks to enhance central power, not just in defence and foreign affairs but in economic, social, legal and employment policy.

The draft has such classic imperialist touches as a public prosecutor able to arrest and imprison citizens for disobeying central competences. Article 1-35 allows Brussels the power to enact delegated legislation, enforceable by a court that can override national courts. Another measure suppresses participation rights in Brussels for smaller member states, to aid executive streamlining. Who cares for little Slovenia? cries the constitution. Imagine an American federalist saying that to Rhode Island or Delaware.

The scale of Brussels intervention in the domestic affairs of member states is already beyond anything conceived by Americas founding fathers. Members must defer to Brussels on the state of their beaches, the planning of their roads and the size of their vegetables. They are now faced with vague measures embracing economic and social cohesion.

American states jealously guard their right to determine social and employment matters, and determine the legal framework within which they operate. They run their own welfare programmes and levy their own taxes. The European constitutions much-vaunted subsidiarity protocol demands that before intervening, Brussels must merely show that a Union objective can be better achieved at Union level, rather than by a member government. Any Eurocrat could do that before breakfast.

The body language of the current European debate is the opposite of that which infused Americas federalists. The draft constitution could have been written only by oligarchs steeped in the production of big government, not its consumption. They will never have paid VAT or received a Euro-directive. Most have spent their careers away from nation states, if not actively fighting to reduce their sovereignty. Such people have an institutional distaste for national politics, and instinctively for democracy itself. One assured me, ten years ago, that national parliaments will soon have no more power than a local council.

I notice that whenever Britons go to work in Brussels, a scepticism towards supra-state government becomes a professional enthusiasm for it. Power runs in the blood and in the salary. Likewise did medieval popes invite the brightest monks to Rome, and send them back as bishops. The author of the constitution, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, lacks only a cardinals cap to be a priest of Mother Church. He could hardly have less in common with the argumentative rebels of the American Revolution. A new European Union needed an Erasmus to expose its faults and a Luther to pin Reform to the doors of Brussels. It has neither.

H.G. Wells distinguished communities of will from communities of obedience. The former were the restless, individualistic nations of the north, the latter the Roman Catholic and Mediterranean south. It is a good distinction. The US Constitution is a document of will, this weeks draft is a document of obedience, which is presumably why it is being so little discussed in Napoleonic Europe. The naturally obedient do not naturally protest.

Britain over the past 15 years has come ever closer to the community of obedience. A silver lining on the Iraqi cloud may yet be Mr Blairs bosom-attachment to America and alienation from continental Europe. He may have to give British electors their say, and that say may be 'no'. That should keep the nation aloof from this dangerous adventure, still in Europes true fast lane, free in the community of will."

-Simon Jenkins, The Times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should the  public  have  a say w hen  their all simple minded cretins brainwashedd by  tabloids  rock.gif

So why should you have a say? With a comment like that, that's a pretty fitting avatar.

because i don`t read tabloids and have an anti_bullshit screen fitted into my cereberal cortex thus saving me from the perversion of democracy by mass misinformation giving me the edge when my plans for world domination come into effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the whole thread, so this may have been mentioned already.

I think an EU Fedearation would be a good thing, if only for one reason: there might finally be an entity powerful enough to make the US toe the line tounge_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That bad attitude isn't just restricted to Finland. I'm not trying to bash anyones political beliefs here, but it seems to me that leftists in general follow that pattern of: "legislate our lives from cradle to grave". We have people in Canada calling for a way to regulate (install a speed govenor in) all cars to a 100kp/h speed limit because people keep speeding. I also hear people talk of birth licences. Pathetic, eh?

I hate the extensive legislation, because it forces me to break the law if I want to keep any of my freedom. Anything that can only harm the person doing it should not be banned.

Anyway, what do you mean with birth licences? Is it that you have to apply for a permission to have a child? That is actually one law I would very much like to see: No child if you cannot prove that you have resources to take care of it so that other people don't have to pay for your brats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A couple of articles from The Times(UK), one posted in full as an example of the kind of opinionated (non-tabloid) somewhat conservative objections being raised in the UK. I agree with some of them.

First- "Europe and the myth of America's Constitution" referring i think to some of the documents that Schoeler mentioned.

Those are indeed the very same papers. They are a fascinating read for persons interested in politics or just philosophy in general. No better public relations campaign has ever been conducted in my opinion and yet many of the tenets embraced in selling the Constitution to the American people were right on the mark. American federalism is an imperfect organism, but it remains the best example crafted by human minds to date. Lets hope you European folks can do us one better.

Also, Washington's fairwell address is an interesting read. In it Washington discusses the need for the people to craft a national identity from their diverse lines of thinking in order for the republic to succeed. Washington knew that it was vital for the American people to think of themselves as Americans first and members of their constituent States second in order for the Constitution to endure. He also explores some interesting ideas about the concept of a national morality. Good stuff, though it was never delivered and was actually written by Alexander Hamilton from remarks that Washington made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×