Why so much fear of a federal Europe

ChocolateSauce

Before I begin, this is nothing to do with Lisbon, which in no way created a federal Europe, so please, keep Lisbon debate out of it.

People have been decrying the idea of a 'superstate' without any form of debate on wheather or not such an entity would be good or bad. The general concences is that it would be some undemocratic monster which would be run by the big states to the detriment of the small states.

Honestly, I find unintelligent screams from people who don't live in a federal country to be a bit rich.

There is one example which everyone automatically thinks of: the United States. Now, the current situation in the US leaves a lot to be desired, but let me focus on the structure of the country.

Firstly, it is not a superstate. China is a superstate (ie one vast state), The US is a federation of 50 states, each with their own parliaments, their own senates, and a governor who acts like a local president. All these are directly elected by the people of each state, and no state has the power to interfere in the affairs of another.

On a federal level, there is a double majority required to pass federal laws, where 50% of upper and lower houses must pass legislation. Congressmen are elected based on a states' population and every state, regardless of size, elects 2 senators. Not unlike the proposals of Lisbon, but with a simple majority instead of 55%/65%.

In reality, the federal government passes very few laws which affect the population, and is mostly concerned with national and international issues. Most laws are laid down by the state governments, in keeping with the constitution. Each state has a supreme court, and each state has a state constituion.

Now, if you ask any American who isn't totally politically iliterate do they think they are oppressed by the federal govenment, they'll probably say no, unless they're a looney lefty who thinks the military-industrial complex rules the world. They may say their state government is pissing them off, or that the federal government's foregin policy pisses them off, but if you suggest to a Hawiian that those damn New Yorkers are trying to force laws down their throats, they'd laugh.

If Europe ever became a federation, for one, unlike the US (which is 50 states, one nation), it would be 27+ states, 27+ nations. Each state would have more power to decide their own laws than american states have, which is considerable.

Now, nobody wants loosers like Bush in charge of Europe, but I think we're smarter than that. Bad government aside, the structure of the US is very good. It has freedom and democracy hard-wired into it (guns are allowed specifically to ensure governments fear their citizens). Why is this something to be shunned? Shouldn't we set aside narrow national interests and cooperate so that we can work together more easily to build a better world?

The EU is already based on mutual cooperation and respect, and this would not change in a federal EU.

nhughes100

How come you left out the bit where one person(the president) has a ridiculous amount of power and has an entirely un-elected cabinet? Or was that because it didn't suit your argument?

marco_polo

nhughes100 wrote: »

How come you left out the bit where one person(the president) has a ridiculous amount of power and has an entirely un-elected cabinet? Or was that because it didn't suit your argument?

Define a ridiculous amount of power.

nhughes100

The ability of veto and the ability to appoint an unelected cabinet. Not to mention Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

sink

Interesting topic. One thing I would correct you on is the definition of a superstate. A superstate is a similar to a federal state but unlike any federal state in existence today the citizens to not consider themselves citizens of the federal state but of the constituent member states. So if America was a superstate people form California would consider themselves Californians and not Americans. For this reason the USA is not considered a superstate and neither is China although for the first few decades of the USA's existence it was considered a superstate.

I don't think it would ever be suitable to have a directly elected leader of the EU mainly due to the language barrier. You could however have a Prime minister elected by the European parliament. Having a PM is better than having a President in my opinion, because a PM relies on the support of the parliament to remain in power. If the PM looses support they can be removed by the parliament. If a president looses support from the people there is nothing anyone can do about it until the next election. As a result a PM is usually more reserved and rules with more consensus than a president.

I do not have a problem with the EU becoming a superstate. So long as the boundaries of the central government are well laid out and national governments are still sovereign when it come to purely domestic matters. This is also the only way a superstate would ever be created because it will rely on the consent of all it's members and most members would not be willing to give all power to the central government.

mike65

No truly federal state would have an unelected comission and president.

Mike.

marco_polo

nhughes100 wrote: »

The ability of veto and the ability to appoint an unelected cabinet. Not to mention Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

Sorry. Clearly from the thread title we were talking about the US. :rolleyes:

VoidStarNull

mike65 wrote: »

No truly federal state would have an unelected comission and president.

Mike.

Germany is a federal state which has a president who is not directly elected, he/she is appointed by parliament.

No nation in the world has an elected "commission". (Equivalent to civil service in Ireland, US federal executive departments, etc).

sink

VoidStarNull wrote: »

Germany is a federal state which has a president who is not directly elected, he/she is appointed by parliament.

Germany has a Chancellor, a chancellor is more akin to a prime minister than a president.

SkepticOne

The problem is lack of democracy at the higher levels. How do we ensure that a small clique of countries or even certain individuals don't dominate decision making?

Somebody mentioned China. At the very bottom of the hierarchy there is an element of local democracy in China. Each layer elects the one above. But as you work up the hierarchy power becomes concentrated and individuals are able to use their power and influence to maintain their power and influence regardless of the will of the people at the bottom.

VoidStarNull

sink wrote: »

Germany has a Chancellor, a chancellor is more akin to a prime minister than a president.

In addition to the chancellor, they also have a president

He is the official head of state but doesn't have much power, that's why we don't hear of him very much over here.

sink

SkepticOne wrote: »

The problem is lack of democracy at the higher levels. How do we ensure that a small clique of countries or even certain individuals don't dominate decision making?

Somebody mentioned China. At the very bottom of the hierarchy there is an element of local democracy in China. Each layer elects the one above. But as you work up the hierarchy power becomes concentrated and individuals are able to use their power and influence to maintain their power and influence regardless of the will of the people at the bottom.

How can you even compare China to a democracy. In China there is only one party and all other parties are banned. Only members of the party can elect the leaders, and members can be kicked out if they do not conform to the party philosophy. As a result the people at the top can select who gets to elect them, hardly a fair system and nothing like the EU or any other democracy. The people at the top of the EU are elected by the people below them, but they have no say over who these people are a we get to elect them.

sink

VoidStarNull wrote: »

In addition to the chancellor, they also have a president

He is the official head of state but doesn't have much power, that's why we don't hear of him very much over here.

Sorry you are right I did not realise. But as you say he is merely a figurehead with no real power.

Nothung

Why so much fear of a federal Europe?

Just consider these two words: President Blair

sink

Nothung wrote: »

Why so much fear of a federal Europe?

Just consider these two words: President Blair

Why so much fear over an all Ireland Irish Republic?

Just consider these two words: Sinn Fein

Nothung

sink wrote: »

Why so much fear over an all Ireland Irish Republic?

I don't understand your question. Could you please explain.

sink

Nothung wrote: »

I don't understand your question. Could you please explain.

What i'm basically getting at is that you should not take into account who might be in power at some point when forming a new country because inevitably there will be someone you don't like in power at some stage. Unless you can honestly say that you liked every president/taoiseach that was ever on power here. Basically rejecting a EU superstate because you are worried Tony Blair might get into power is equivalent of rejecting the Republic of Ireland because Fianna Fail might get into power at some stage. (If you don't like Fianna Fail)

turgon

Well the case of the US is quite irrelevant to the EU, in my opinion. The people of the US mostly all come from Britain, they share a common culture and history. This is not the case with the EU.

sink

turgon wrote: »

Well the case of the US is quite irrelevant to the EU, in my opinion. The people of the US mostly all come from Britain, they share a common culture and history. This is not the case with the EU.

When the US was still evolving there were vast differences in the populations of different states and there were many different languages spoken (English, Spanish, French, Native American et al). Your argument against a Federal Europe could easily be applied to the US when it was formed, in fact it was. There was a large amount of resistance to a single country by nationalists from the different states, and there were even more who wanted a much looser union with separate states still retaining most of their sovereignty (confederates). The USA only looks like one country today after generations of evolution of culture.

turgon

But would it be fair to say that those who faught for "freedom" were mainly white British decendants? I mean you could hardly claim the africans or indians had any say in the US at the start.

murphaph

theozster wrote: »

The EU is already based on mutual cooperation and respect

lol. we'll see. so far the past week has led me to the opposite conclusion.

dresden8

turgon wrote: »

Well the case of the US is quite irrelevant to the EU, in my opinion. The people of the US mostly all come from Britain, they share a common culture and history. This is not the case with the EU.

Yeah, they shared a common civil war.

Anyway, the real question should be

"Why are they moving towards a federal Europe without actually asking the people if that's what they want?"

I know the OP said we shouldn't mention Lisbon but in the context of this debate I think it's impossible to avoid. This is part of a drip, drip affect leading towards a federal Europe, but it's the question they won't ask. I think (hope) enough people have seen the writing on the wall and voted no.

And as a real democrat, I will actually respect the outcome of that vote, I won't issue a proclamation of "respect" and then immediately begin to subvert the yes vote.

Ask the question, you may actually win. That's concensus.

tolosenc

I'm not entirly for the idea of a Federal Europe, but not entirely against it. It would have to be more state focused than the US, with us being allowed to make our own laws, under loose guidance from a European Central government. I have no problem with the philosophy behind the EU's ethics - so as long as we retained a large degree of autonomy, it wouldn't really be a problem. In fact, as we are such a small country, it's clearly in our best interests to seek out a stronger voice for ourselves.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Well the case of the US is quite irrelevant to the EU, in my opinion. The people of the US mostly all come from Britain, they share a common culture and history. This is not the case with the EU.

Not at all. US ancestries by county.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Yeah, they shared a common civil war.

Anyway, the real question should be

"Why are they moving towards a federal Europe without actually asking the people if that's what they want?"

You're begging two questions there:

1. what "a federal Europe" actually means

2. whether they are moving towards a federal Europe as defined in question 1

Mind you, I suspect one's answer to the second depends on one's answer to the first. Still, it would at least establish some kind of framework if you said what you actually meant by "federal Europe".

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Common Defence Policy

EU military (yes I know we're committed to a common military at some level, battlegroups practicing in Norway etc)

Common foreign Policy

As I stated earlier, (seems I'm fighting the good fight on every thread tonight.), We're not at the state where we're going to invade Iran or whatever, but enough is enough. Thus far and no more.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Common Defence Policy

EU military (yes I know we're committed to a common military at some level, battlegroups practicing in Norway etc)

Common foreign Policy

As I stated earlier, (seems I'm fighting the good fight on every thread tonight.), We're not at the state where we're going to invade Iran or whatever, but enough is enough. Thus far and no more.

So essentially it's a military/foreign policy definition....but since the UN authorises joint positions and joint military actions, is it not, by the same definition, also federal? Or is there actually somewhat more to your definition?

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

So essentially it's a military/foreign policy definition....but since the UN authorises joint positions and joint military actions, is it not, by the same definition, also federal? Or is there actually somewhat more to your definition?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm with many people on the UN, who define it as an organisation where western democracies are told by African despots how undemocratic they are.

Since it's inception the UN has been a corrupt organisation. I have no respect for it.

And it's a military/ foreign policy definition for me. I know people who have serious issues with unelected appointed Presidents/Commissioners/whatever.

Prime example being Mandelson, forced to resign twice in Britain but gets a commissioner job because he was Tony's mate. Stinks to high heaven to me, but what can I do? Eff all, that's what.

ShoulderChip

New World Order that's what we fear.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

I'm with many people on the UN, who define it as an organisation where western democracies are told by African despots how undemocratic they are.

Since it's inception the UN has been a corrupt organisation. I have no respect for it.

And it's a military/ foreign policy definition for me. I know people who have serious issues with unelected appointed Presidents/Commissioners/whatever.

Prime example being Mandelson, forced to resign twice in Britain but gets a commissioner job because he was Tony's mate. Stinks to high heaven to me, but what can I do? Eff all, that's what.

Even if Mandelson had been elected, you still wouldn't have been able to do anything about it, because it's the UK.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Even if Mandelson had been elected, you still wouldn't have been able to do anything about it, because it's the UK.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Believe me, that doesn't make it any easier to swallow. By the way the loss of the commissioner was not an issue for me. McCreevy is a plank. He single handed destroyed the Civil Service. Might be a good thing if the commission do throw him out.