Secret Federalists

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

Um, you take them home with you?

Not a good solution if you have a partner at home.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why would anyone want to live in a federal Europe? Federalism = far less power to the citizens...

I presume that's not a general statement? I take it you mean that specifically a federal Europe would involve less power for citizens than the current arrangement.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why would anyone want to live in a federal Europe? Federalism = far less power to the citizens...

You might want to look into the idea of Federalism. One of its basic ideas is the concept of subsidiarity - that decisions should be exercised at the (lowest) most effective level. Interpetation of that concept does vary amongst Federal states as some (e.g. Switzerland) are a lot more decentralised than others (e.g. Germany).

To give a practical example, from having lived in 3 different Federal Countries, schools/schooling are typically controlled at a very local level. As such, it is not uncommon that local communities face elections or referenda where the choice is:
a) vote to raise your taxes by X% to pay to build a new local school for your kids, or,
b) reject the idea - save yourself the X% in additional taxes but have your kids going to school in old, sub-standard buildings.

Contrast that with the totally centralised Irish system where locals are effectively powerless to make such decisions as the decision to build/not build/upgrade a school in Donegal or Kerry is made by a Civil Servant or Minister in Dublin - people who, while they may well be well intentioned, will never set foot in the school.

By way of contrast, and to look at Lisbon/the EU, one of the area in which there are competence changes in Lisbon are climate change and space policy (formulation). Now, it certainly is true that we could totally decentralise these issues and have our local county councillors deciding them but they are not issues that can ultimately be "solved" at local level. It is all very well for Leitrim county councillors to decide on a policy of landing on Mars but there is not much point to such a policy, is there? To actually acheive ANY goal in that field would require that the members of the ESA (or multiple space agencies) set it as its (their) policy and then pursue it. As such, Leitrim's worthy goal would almost definitely be lost when the members of ESA (and/or the other space agencies) make their minds up.

Please don't be in such a rush to condemn Federalism - it does not equal the centralised ex-colonial state system that we use in Ireland. It may well be AN answer to how we could run the EU, whether it is THE answer is another question that will probably be decided some time in the distant future.

In the meantime, there are always more than enough issues to keep the member states and the EU busy...

MrMicra

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 am a secret federalist. I think that we should (the irish) should work aggressively to control the EU. the capital will be brussels but the decisions will be made in dublin!

More practically a federal europe will be more accountable and less corrupt than our little island (until we get control of it he muttered rubbing his hands)

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

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

You appear to be taking the fact that someone who wants a federal EU voted Yes, and extrapolating that to mean that a Yes leads to a federal EU - leading you to claim that the Yes voters who don't want a federal EU have been "duped".

By the same logic, if someone did vote No because of abortion, then abortion is in the Treaty.


cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

You appear to be taking the fact that someone who wants a federal EU voted Yes, and extrapolating that to mean that a Yes leads to a federal EU - leading you to claim that the Yes voters who don't want a federal EU have been "duped".

No I don't wish to imply that however it is interesting that no one appears to be arguing against the proposition that the EU is moving in a federalist direction with the exception of the Corinthian, though I'm not sure if his historical parallels are really valid in the current context. Instead people try and downplay the moves towards federalism e.g. that the changes to QMV are not that significant, etc.

No one on who feels that Lisbon goes in the direction of federalism (both Yes and No voters would be included here) is suggesting that the EU becomes a federal entity overnight with Lisbon but rather that it appears to be a small step along the way.

meglome

SkepticOne wrote: »

No I don't wish to imply that however it is interesting that no one appears to be arguing against the proposition that the EU is moving in a federalist direction with the exception of the Corinthian, though I'm not sure if his historical parallels are really valid in the current context. Instead people try and downplay the moves towards federalism e.g. that the changes to QMV are not that significant, etc.

No one on who feels that Lisbon goes in the direction of federalism (both Yes and No voters would be included here) is suggesting that the EU becomes a federal entity overnight with Lisbon but rather that it appears to be a small step along the way.

There are many people in the EU who would love a more federal setup and many who'd feel the opposite. Personally I'm not interested in anything more federal right now as I think we in Ireland punch above the weight we likely would in a proper federal system. Plus I'd be worried about loss of identity for our small nation. That said whether the EU actually does become more federal in nature will depend on the people of Ireland and the EU voting in the changes. I think it would be impossible to introduce this federalism by stealth and since the German constitutional court found nothing federal in Lisbon we've an awfully long way to go.

nesf

SkepticOne wrote: »

No I don't wish to imply that however it is interesting that no one appears to be arguing against the proposition that the EU is moving in a federalist direction with the exception of the Corinthian, though I'm not sure if his historical parallels are really valid in the current context. Instead people try and downplay the moves towards federalism e.g. that the changes to QMV are not that significant, etc.

The Treaty has the potential to lead to further treaties that may bring about Federalism but this is contingent on those treaties being written and being ratified and Lisbon could equally lead to a stable supra-national union like we have today. There is nothing in the Treaty that rules out either but equally there is nothing that guarantees either also. Moving in a federalist direction is also an extremely loose and vague term when doesn't help.

johnrey

prinz wrote: »

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.

If you want to know what's going on in europe check out " common purpose " you will find some info at <snipped by bonkey - no spam thanks>

extragon

National sovereignty is an illusion, fostered by the media, cultural xenophobes, and by political establishments, and hasn't really existed since the era of agricultural based self sufficient economies and colonialism. The big decisions, in economics, environment, security, are made abroad - often behind closed doors in Brussels, or unilaterally in Washington.

A federal Europe would recognize this - with the side effect of greater democracy, and citizen rights across the European "living space."
Unfortunately, Lisbon has very little to do with bringing this about.

Mark200

Just saw this topic now but I've been thinking about the idea of being ruled by Brussels for a while, and I think, eventually, it'd be a good idea. These days there's very little reason to have so many governments ruling what in reality is such small portions of the world.

Well I think I'm more a believer of globalisation than one big government ruling the world. A lot of people love their national identity and traditions and so on but if you think about it so many problems in the world are caused by people holding their nation and their traditions as superior to others. If we had true and sustained globalisation where you're constantly coming into contact with all nationalities and all traditions then people would realise that the differences between them are insignificant.

greendom

I don't think this will ever happen. With 27 nations there are so many different cultures and peoples involved that it would be impossible to fairly encompass in a single sovereignty. The European dream decided to go wide rather than deep and although there maybe further moves towards integration, each nation will continue to control their own respective sovereignty.

The original 6 nation EEC may have managed it, but the die was probably cast from the moment the UK got involved...

MrMicra

greendom wrote: »

The original 6 nation EEC may have managed it, but the die was probably cast from the moment the UK got involved...

The English joined it to wreck it:

Sir Humphrey Appleby, GCB, KBE, MVO, MA wrote:

We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.

extragon

greendom wrote: »

each nation will continue to control their own respective sovereignty.

Such as their currency, external trade, immigration, social policy etc. etc? I think many people are deliberately blind about the degree of federation that has already taken place.
Europe will probably never be a nation state, though there are many examples of multilingual nations in the world. ( I think India has about twelve major languages. ) But a federation would not have to involve much more central control of each State; it might just mean that the European parliament, for participating countries, initiates and decides on common European positions.

BTY the Nice treaty opened the possibility of any group of eight countries to go it alone in deepening the Union, so a way could be found for the UK and others to stand clear.