Secret Federalists

Coriolanus

So, yes won the day, yay etc.

I've kept my opinions fairly close to my chest the last few weeks. Argued the more reasonable arguements for the treaty etc etc but secretly, in my heart, I'm a Federalist. I've loved the idea of a pan-European, if not state, then at least more substantial political body than the EU currently stands as, since I was first able to comprehend this whole politics malarky.

Now, not for some wierd WW3 fantasies of EU vs Megacity1 vs SinoCit in 100 years time but because I honestly believe that the course of human history will be marked by greater and greater political hegemony and that for me at least is a Good Thing.

So who else voted yes because they actually do want to be ruled from Brussels?

Mario007

Nevore wrote: »

So, yes won the day, yay etc.

I've kept my opinions fairly close to my chest the last few weeks. Argued the more reasonable arguements for the treaty etc etc but secretly, in my heart, I'm a Federalist. I've loved the idea of a pan-European, if not state, then at least more substantial political body than the EU currently stands as, since I was first able to comprehend this whole politics malarky.

Now, not for some wierd WW3 fantasies of EU vs Megacity1 vs SinoCit in 100 years time but because I honestly believe that the course of human history will be marked by greater and greater political hegemony and that for me at least is a Good Thing.

So who else voted yes because they actually do want to be ruled from Brussels?

i don't think eu is ready to be federalist and i don't think it will be ready for another 100 years at least. there are too many relatively new states in the eu who only got their independence recently so USE wont work.
having said that i'd be sympathetic towards the idea...a litte...but still i like the way eu will be run under lisbon. i think eu is a model for every union of nations how it should be run

Coriolanus

Oh, definitely not before I'm an old old man, no. I didn't mean that I voted Yes because it was going to turn us into the USE overnight.

prinz

I don't know. It's definitely something that is way outside the scope of our lifetimes tbh. In the long run it probably wouldn't be such a bad idea in theory but in practice would lead to more strife than not (depending on the countries involved, yes UK that means you ). That said I do consider myself as having a very strong European identity, and definitely have lots of opinions on what the EU should do etc. tbh I love being an EU citizen.

Dinner

I'd love there to be a proper United Europe, and ultimately, once we (as humanity) cop the **** on, a United World. Not in an NWO "lets control everybody" everybody way. I've always thought of it as natural progression. We've moved from tribes all the way up to nation states so far so it seems logical that further unification follow.

There's a lot of obstacles in the way though. Nationalism will be on thats hard to overcome. But one day, maybe.

But I know that nothing like that will ever happen in my lifetime. Probably not for centuries yet. And in case anyone jumps on me, Lisbon doesn't make this closer to reality. And my dreams for the future had no bearing on my decision on Lisbon.

prinz

Dinner wrote: »

And in case anyone jumps on me, Lisbon doesn't make this closer to reality. And my dreams for the future had no bearing on my decision on Lisbon.

+1 meant to include this in mine. If Lisbon hadn't been passed I actually feared there would be a move towards a 'federation' between some of the member states within the EU, and ultimately that the EU would actually collapse in the next few years. tbh it's still a fear I have, and will be until Lisbon is fully ratified and operational.

My name is URL

Dinner wrote: »

There's a lot of obstacles in the way though. Nationalism will be on thats hard to overcome. But one day, maybe

How will it be overcome? By forcing people into a world in which they do not want to live?

How could that world ever be considered a United one?

I hate the idea to be perfectly honest. National identity is hugely important imo, as was tribal identity back in the day

granite man

Nevore wrote: »

So, yes won the day, yay etc.

I've kept my opinions fairly close to my chest the last few weeks. Argued the more reasonable arguements for the treaty etc etc but secretly, in my heart, I'm a Federalist. I've loved the idea of a pan-European, if not state, then at least more substantial political body than the EU currently stands as, since I was first able to comprehend this whole politics malarky.

Now, not for some wierd WW3 fantasies of EU vs Megacity1 vs SinoCit in 100 years time but because I honestly believe that the course of human history will be marked by greater and greater political hegemony and that for me at least is a Good Thing.

So who else voted yes because they actually do want to be ruled from Brussels?

I voted no because I completely disagree with being ruled by Brussels. Our lots bad but at least we can vote them out and change things if the will was there, that won't be the case once this is ratified.

johnnyskeleton

Nevore wrote: »

So who else voted yes because they actually do want to be ruled from Brussels?

I did, but ultimately I want the European parliament to be the main legislative body in europe whereby MEPs are like US senators with dail eireann being more like a powerful local authority.

I also think that, logically, a united European army would be a good thing:
1) it would be significantly cheaper than every member state maintaining an expensive and largely redundant army
2) it would turn war between memberstates from being highly unlikely to being administratively impossible, which is the ultimate aim of the European project
3) it would allow countries like Germany and France to have greater staying power over the likes of the UK when they want to, for example, decide to invade Iraq on scant evidence.

By and large, the better legislative innovations have come from the EU and we have time and again proved ourselves to be incapable of running our government responsibly (granted other EU memberstates have been found wanting from time to time, but Ireland seems never to have learned from its mistakes and seem doomed to repeat them). So even if more power to Europe means that domestic politicians have to fight that bit harder to get things done, it will have a good impact on Ireland.

Dinner

My name is URL wrote: »

How will it be overcome? By forcing people into a world in which they do not want to live?

Well, thats why it would take such a long time. It wouldn't be a case of forcing us, that just wouldn't work. It would just require time for peoples opinions to change.

My name is URL wrote: »

I hate the idea to be perfectly honest. National identity is hugely important imo, as was tribal identity back in the day

National identity is important to you today. 2 thousand years ago tribal identity would have been important to you. Somewhere along the line tribal identity 'evolved' into national identity. In another 1000 years national identity might merge into continental identity and then into human/World identity.

BlitzKrieg

no

simply no

A federalist EU, will turn it more into a populist system and seeing as that is what got us our current government I rather avoid having the entire EU political enviroment get selected because one party ran a snazzy campaign across europe. Its easier when its 27 different populist governments working for what best suits their own electorate and comprimising between each other.

meglome

It would have it's benefits but I'm not crazy on the idea now.

K-9

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

no

simply no

A federalist EU, will turn it more into a populist system and seeing as that is what got us our current government I rather avoid having the entire EU political enviroment get selected because one party ran a snazzy campaign across europe. Its easier when its 27 different populist governments working for what best suits their own electorate and comprimising between each other.

True, the 27 countries are the checks and balances in the system.

If that goes and it becomes more democratic, it will lead to populism and we've seen what that means yesterday and last year.

prinz

K-9 wrote: »

True, the 27 countries are the checks and balances in the system.

If that goes and it becomes more democratic, it will lead to populism and we've seen what that means yesterday and last year.

Ah sure we're talking a hundred+ years and hypothetically into the future here. On an immediate level I do believe the Constitutional amendment requirement for ratifying treaties will really have to be looked at, the states should work out a uniform ratification process across the union.

SkepticOne

Nevore wrote: »

So who else voted yes because they actually do want to be ruled from Brussels?

I hope I'm not misrepresenting BlitzKrieg and K-9 here, but would it be true to say that you don't want to be ruled from Brussels for fear that it might end up being too democratic?

K-9 wrote: »

If that goes and it becomes more democratic, it will lead to populism and we've seen what that means yesterday and last year.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

A federalist EU, will turn it more into a populist system

granite man

SkepticOne wrote: »

I hope I'm not misrepresenting BlitzKrieg and K-9 here, but would it be true to say that you don't want to be ruled from Brussels for fear that it might end up being too democratic?

Sounded like that to me as well. There could be some major disappointments with the juicy yes vote, ie, the juice runs out, a bit like wrigleys then they get fined for not disposing of it correctly.

BlitzKrieg

I hope I'm not misrepresenting BlitzKrieg and K-9 here, but would it be true to say that you don't want to be ruled from Brussels for fear that it might end up being too democratic?

Populism, not democracy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism) I have nothing against an EU that would be democratic, but I would worry about how a pan european election campaign would be run. (it would also go a part of the way of explaining my position on the referendum that just passed and the european election.)

K-9

SkepticOne wrote: »

I hope I'm not misrepresenting BlitzKrieg and K-9 here, but would it be true to say that you don't want to be ruled from Brussels for fear that it might end up being too democratic?

No. I think the checks and balances are the 27 Govts. We all hear about how difficult it can be to get agreement on Treaties and the problem the EU faces is reaching that agreement.

That is the brake on a more federal Europe.

What some overlook is Govts. don't want a Federal Europe.

Personally, I was comfortable in the changes to the QMV this time.

On the next Treaty, changes to QMV, if any, will be my first concern.

BlitzKrieg

On the next Treaty, changes to QMV, if any, will be my first concern.

pesonnally I wont make my decision until I know whats being changed to QMV if anything is.

nesf

SkepticOne wrote: »

I hope I'm not misrepresenting BlitzKrieg and K-9 here, but would it be true to say that you don't want to be ruled from Brussels for fear that it might end up being too democratic?

Well the issue for Irish people would always be that we'd have far far less say in a truly representative EU democratic superstate than we would in the present set up. It's why I can't ever really see it happening in my lifetime. The smaller countries (and the bigger ones) would stand to lose far too much by such a union.

This doesn't of course mean that we couldn't integrate further in other ways and on other topics but a true EU State Parliament would not be something many if not most pro-EU people in this country would want, myself included.

granite man

nesf wrote: »

Well the issue for Irish people would always be that we'd have far far less say in a truly representative EU democratic superstate than we would in the present set up. It's why I can't ever really see it happening in my lifetime. The smaller countries (and the bigger ones) would stand to lose far too much by such a union.

This doesn't of course mean that we couldn't integrate further in other ways and on other topics but a true EU State Parliament would not be something many if not most pro-EU people in this country would want, myself included.

So you voted yes anyway??? One day you will discover the implications of this.

prinz

granite man wrote: »

So you voted yes anyway??? One day you will discover the implications of this.

I think this can be summed up in one word *facepalm*

Sorry to lower to tone and all but I couldn't think of a better way to do it. There really is no point sometimes.:o

K-9

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

pesonnally I wont make my decision until I know whats being changed to QMV if anything is.

Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head there and the problem Federalists face.

BlitzKrieg

granite man wrote: »

So you voted yes anyway??? One day you will discover the implications of this.

I can understand quoting someoe out of context if its something they said 5 years ago or was translated from a different language.

But highlighting the 2nd half of a sentance and ignoring the statement before hand is a new one for me...

Daftendirekt

I hope it never happens.

Not for any nationalist reasons, of course. I fully support the increasingly closer union of the EU member states, and am incredibly pro-Europe (something I've learned about myself over over the course of the Lisbon debate).

I just think that as separate states, we'll always be an equal partner with the rest of the EU, but in a federal EU we'd simply be a fringe state with very little influence.

Interesting to see how many people are coming out of the closet now though.

SkepticOne

I hope it never happens.

Not for any nationalist reasons, of course. I fully support the increasingly closer union of the EU member states, and am incredibly pro-Europe (something I've learned about myself over over the course of the Lisbon debate).

I just think that as separate states, we'll always be an equal partner with the rest of the EU, but in a federal EU we'd simply be a fringe state with very little influence.

Interesting. Did you vote Yes to Lisbon?

Daftendirekt

SkepticOne wrote: »

Interesting. Did you vote Yes to Lisbon?

Yep.

SkepticOne

nesf wrote: »

This doesn't of course mean that we couldn't integrate further in other ways and on other topics but a true EU State Parliament would not be something many if not most pro-EU people in this country would want, myself included.

I'm not sure there is such thing as integration without some sort of pooling of sovereignty into a state-like entity at least in the areas that integration occurs. That state-like entity need not be democratic, for example unelected officials may make many of the decisions. I'm wondering is that what people want here?

The Corinthian

I won't say that it'll never happen, but with the present process of integration it won't.

Ultimately, there is absolutely no way that countries such as Germany, the UK or France (let alone the rest) would gleefully allow their national identity to be overridden by a supernational entity such as the EU. For something like that, we would require a serious socio-economic shock to the system, such as a war, to make it viable.

The best and closest historical example of something like this is Switzerland. Up until Napoleon, the old Swiss Confederation was very a loose one of independent sovereign states. While they tended not to go to war against each other (at least since the Reformation), they would often send mercenaries to fight on opposing sides in Europe's other wars, and thus had no coherent common foreign policy. Indeed, no real common policies to speak of. Not even a common currency.

In 1798 Napoleon invaded and easily overran the independent, sovereign and ultimately completely uncoordinated states of Switzerland and established the Helvetic Republic (and introduced the first Swiss Francs). Ultimately, Napoleon and the Helvetic Republic fell and things returned to business as usual, however the experience of the Helvetic Republic and Napoleon's easy conquest remained and eventually the Swiss decided to adopt many aspects of a centralized state by 1848 - forming what is now the modern Switzerland.

The point to the above history lesson, is that pre-Napoleonic Switzerland was composed of numerous fiercely independent states that while happy to have a loose series of treaties with each other, had no interest in allowing their national identities to be overridden by any supernational entity - just like the EU - and they probably would have continued with this view indefinitely, were it not for extraordinary events imposed upon them that caused them to re-evaluate their position.

And the EU will almost certainly do the same - will never become a federal state, unless some extraordinary event convinces the member states that it is in their self interest to do so.

My name is URL

Dinner wrote: »

Well, thats why it would take such a long time. It wouldn't be a case of forcing us, that just wouldn't work. It would just require time for peoples opinions to change.




National identity is important to you today. 2 thousand years ago tribal identity would have been important to you. Somewhere along the line tribal identity 'evolved' into national identity. In another 1000 years national identity might merge into continental identity and then into human/World identity.

As things are now, there's a natural progression in politics and and socio-economics. If that progression eventually leads to a one-world government then that's fair enough, still not something I'd be keen on seeing however.

But what about when it comes about? What happens to natural progression then?

Wouldn't the entire global economy begin to stagnate?

DeVore

Does this answer your question?



DeV.