United States of Europe, or else disintegration of the Euro

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

I do appreciate this point - it falls in line with my own preference, which is also for accountability through decentralisation of power. Unfortunately, I don't consider the hyper-centralised Irish state preferable to the EU in that regard, since what I've seen over the last few years suggests strongly to me that the European Parliament is far more responsive than the Irish government and the meaningless Oireachtas - nor do I oppose the EU on the basis that it is responsible for the ongoing destruction of local cultures and regional differences, because it isn't. Pan-European 'approximation of laws' primarily governing issues that would never be left to the local level in any case has never struck me as a force for cultural homogenisation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ok let's take an example here. Imagine the government wants to introduce a regulation, let's say on minimum alcohol prices.
Do you accept that it is much easier to fight this on a local level through lobbying of local politicians than on a pan European level? The voting area covered by each of our MEPs is so much bigger, that a far bigger and more complex campaign would be required to lobby them - and even if you got 100% of Ireland behind it, 100% of Ireland wouldn't be nearly enough to stop the law going through.

Note that I absolutely disapprove of the centralized Irish state, as I've argued many times before I would absolutely love to see far more power being delegated to local government. My point is, that becomes meaningless if most issues are governed by European level laws rather than national ones. It's taking democracy in exactly the opposite direction to the one I want to see it going in.
Of course, if that's not the way you want to see democracy going, there's nothing wrong with supporting further integration. But I don't understand how anyone can claim to favour a more empowered citizenry and then go on to suggest that ceding sovereignty to the EU will do anything other than make the Irish people even more helpless to control the laws they have to follow than they already are.

hatrickpatrick

FullBeard wrote: »

Indeed I do, and to me this is a legitimate concern, but not an insuperable one. Things like defense, currency, environmental and communications policies (for example) are best handled at a high level in my opinion by a democratically appointed and accountable technocracy (for example, appointed by and accountable to parliament). This should help to maximise expertise and minimise clientelism, parochialism, and pork-barrel projects. It would also serve to ensure that the executive is not very susceptible to being swayed by populism, which I do not respect.

Fair enough, but I fundamentally disagree there. Communications and defense in particular should be swayed by populism, it's out country and if we don't want our communications to be tapped or censored we shouldn't have to put up with it (coughcoughSeanSherlockcoughcough), likewise if we don't want our military to engage in certain actions then we should be able to stop them through pressuring the government. I guess we just disagree, I am very much in favour of the country being run, wherever possible, the way the general population wants it to be run.

But I see no reason why education, health, justice, and localised forms of taxation and transport, for example, cannot be kept at an appropriate level closer to the citizen. I do not think that the ability to vote directly for a TD who might be made minister for health is a good way of doing things, though.

Indeed, I've often said we should vote for TDs not into the general Dail but specifically into individual departments, so if I run on an education manifesto I get elected into the department of education and only make decisions on those policies. Would cut down on the "mixed bag" crap we have to put up with now, such as "Don't want EU integration? Your only choice is to vote for Sinn Fein to run the WHOLE country, not just the EU policies".

I agree - but with an appropriate system of accountability and checks and balances, this would not perturb me in the least and I can see merits in it, too.

Such as? The current system of accountability isn't even good enough, but I feel if things were delegated to a local level, and there was a mechanism for the population to impeach a government at any time instead of having to wait until the government calls an election, it would solve many problems.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ok let's take an example here. Imagine the government wants to introduce a regulation, let's say on minimum alcohol prices.
Do you accept that it is much easier to fight this on a local level through lobbying of local politicians than on a pan European level? The voting area covered by each of our MEPs is so much bigger, that a far bigger and more complex campaign would be required to lobby them - and even if you got 100% of Ireland behind it, 100% of Ireland wouldn't be nearly enough to stop the law going through.

But that's actually a very odd way of looking at it. Why would I worry about getting 100% of Ireland behind it, when what's needed is a pan-European campaign generating sufficient opposition in each country?

Consider, for example, ACTA and our own similar little Sean Sherlock piece of legislation. There were equally vociferous campaigns (particularly online) against both - the response of the European Parliament to that pressure has been very different from the response of Minister Sherlock. The EU Parliament's committees have voted against it, and the plenary may well do so as well - from Sherlock we got, well, what exactly? A brief public appearance where he explained how he was right and we were wrong, and a demonstration that he didn't have to pay any attention to our views really - or anyone's, in fact, since the legislation was signed by Ministerial order without even a Dáil vote, for all that that's worth with the Whip system.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Note that I absolutely disapprove of the centralized Irish state, as I've argued many times before I would absolutely love to see far more power being delegated to local government. My point is, that becomes meaningless if most issues are governed by European level laws rather than national ones. It's taking democracy in exactly the opposite direction to the one I want to see it going in.
Of course, if that's not the way you want to see democracy going, there's nothing wrong with supporting further integration. But I don't understand how anyone can claim to favour a more empowered citizenry and then go on to suggest that ceding sovereignty to the EU will do anything other than make the Irish people even more helpless to control the laws they have to follow than they already are.

You're confusing two things, though - empowerment as an Irish voter and empowerment as a voter full stop. I don't particularly care about the former, I care about the latter. Theoretically, you do too, because you're arguing for the regional demos as against the national one - yet your arguments presuppose some special status for voting at the national level.

Both of your arguments are based on that - to me - fundamentally flawed premise. You point out how Irish voters have less weight in a European context - but why is it an Irish matter? If the vote is on minimum alcohol prices, why is my opinion on that somehow "Irish"? Am I not simply someone who would agree with one half of European voters on the matter - how is my nationality relevant?

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

But that's actually a very odd way of looking at it. Why would I worry about getting 100% of Ireland behind it, when what's needed is a pan-European campaign generating sufficient opposition in each country?

Because that's a lot harder to organize? It's much easier for the people to take control when the number of people being governed is smaller. I find this an incredibly obvious, almost mathematical, fact - so I'm afraid I'm finding it quite hard to explain it. See my shareholder example above for instance. If I own one share and each of my 100 fellow shareholders own one share, then each share counts for 1% of the vote. If the number of shareholders is increased to 1000, then the original 100 shareholders have far less of a voice.
In the case of EU integration, this means each Irish voter's weight going from 1/4,000,000 to 1/502,000,000 (estimation of EU population from Jan 2011).

Is it honestly not obvious how this leads to a less democratic scenario?

Consider, for example, ACTA and our own similar little Sean Sherlock piece of legislation. There were equally vociferous campaigns (particularly online) against both - the response of the European Parliament to that pressure has been very different from the response of Minister Sherlock. The EU Parliament's committees have voted against it, and the plenary may well do so as well - from Sherlock we got, well, what exactly? A brief public appearance where he explained how he was right and we were wrong, and a demonstration that he didn't have to pay any attention to our views really - or anyone's, in fact, since the legislation was signed by Ministerial order without even a Dáil vote, for all that that's worth with the Whip system.

That's a different issue. Sherlock should not have had the authority to make such rules without democratic approval, and in the political system I envision, he would not have had.
Let's suppose he'd had to ask the Dail for permission, do you not agree that once again, it's more democratic for 4 million Irish people to decide for themselves which laws they want to follow in their own country, than for 4 million Irish people to unanimously reject it but have it imposed on them because the rest of the EU is in favour? It's the same point as above - the more local a democracy is, the more democratic.

You're confusing two things, though - empowerment as an Irish voter and empowerment as a voter full stop. I don't particularly care about the former, I care about the latter. Theoretically, you do too, because you're arguing for the regional demos as against the national one - yet your arguments presuppose some special status for voting at the national level.

The special status is that it's more local, ergo each voter has more power. If I had my way, far more would not be decided as an Irish voter, but as a voter from the Dublin constituency, the Dun Laoghaire constituency etc. And I intend to campaign for that, incidentally.

Both of your arguments are based on that - to me - fundamentally flawed premise. You point out how Irish voters have less weight in a European context - but why is it an Irish matter? If the vote is on minimum alcohol prices, why is my opinion on that somehow "Irish"? Am I not simply someone who would agree with one half of European voters on the matter - how is my nationality relevant?

Nationality is totally irrelevant and I never suggested that it was - what's relevant is constituency and citizenship. The Irish population is a group of people in a particular country, if 100% of the people in that country reject alcohol pricing then that's a democratic decision. It's fundamentally undemocratic if they are powerless to stop it because even 100% of their voices only count for a couple of percent in some bigger international forum.

Again, it's simple maths - the more you dilute each shareholder's voting percentage, the less democratic it becomes.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because that's a lot harder to organize?

It tends to be more a case of linking up than organising. The Irish opponents to ACTA didn't have to go and organise the Polish opposition to ACTA.

I can't think of an issue on which it would be legally possible to legislate in Europe where the Irish would think as a nation entirely differently from everyone else in Europe - and that's the bizarre scenario your argument encompasses.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's much easier for the people to take control when the number of people being governed is smaller. I find this an incredibly obvious, almost mathematical, fact - so I'm afraid I'm finding it quite hard to explain it. See my shareholder example above for instance. If I own one share and each of my 100 fellow shareholders own one share, then each share counts for 1% of the vote. If the number of shareholders is increased to 1000, then the original 100 shareholders have far less of a voice.
In the case of EU integration, this means each Irish voter's weight going from 1/4,000,000 to 1/502,000,000 (estimation of EU population from Jan 2011).

Is it honestly not obvious how this leads to a less democratic scenario?

No, because, frankly, numbers don't make democracy. If you follow the numbers argument to its mathematical conclusion, you'll find that there's no point in voting at all - and that's not me saying that, but the research consensus. Look up, say, the "paradox of voting" - the chance of having a decisive vote in any real election is so vanishingly small as to make the difference between 4m voters and 500m voters entirely meaningless. It's not a numbers game - and if you reduce it to one, the entire point of it actually disappears.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's a different issue. Sherlock should not have had the authority to make such rules without democratic approval, and in the political system I envision, he would not have had.

It's hard for me to argue against the perfect democratic system you have in your mind - but we have our system, not yours, and my choice is between the EU system we have and the Irish system we have.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Let's suppose he'd had to ask the Dail for permission, do you not agree that once again, it's more democratic for 4 million Irish people to decide for themselves which laws they want to follow in their own country, than for 4 million Irish people to unanimously reject it but have it imposed on them because the rest of the EU is in favour? It's the same point as above - the more local a democracy is, the more democratic.

No, that's not the case, I'm afraid. Local systems are preferable because the individual has more input into them, but that's not the outcome of voting.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The special status is that it's more local, ergo each voter has more power. If I had my way, far more would not be decided as an Irish voter, but as a voter from the Dublin constituency, the Dun Laoghaire constituency etc. And I intend to campaign for that, incidentally.

I'm glad to hear it.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nationality is totally irrelevant and I never suggested that it was - what's relevant is constituency and citizenship. The Irish population is a group of people in a particular country, if 100% of the people in that country reject alcohol pricing then that's a democratic decision. It's fundamentally undemocratic if they are powerless to stop it because even 100% of their voices only count for a couple of percent in some bigger international forum.

No, you've actually, again, given the national vote a special place - I don't think you can even see you're doing it!

If the vote on alcohol pricing is held at the European level, then people in Ireland are voting on whether to make it legal in Europe or not, and their decision is part of the European decision - there is no "Ireland" unless we give "Ireland" a special place. What you're saying is that only the people in Ireland should be able to vote for things to apply or not in Ireland because what happens in Ireland should be determined by the people in Ireland, and that it's wrong if they aren't - but the argument you're advancing for that being the case is perfectly circular.

You're saying that if 51% of the people in Ireland voted against alcohol pricing, then that is the decision that should apply in Ireland...because...well, because because. Because the national level has a special and privileged place according to you.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, it's simple maths - the more you dilute each shareholder's voting percentage, the less democratic it becomes.

Well no, it's not simple maths, because, as I said, if you follow the simple maths, you wind up with the paradox of voting, which is that the moment you run the numbers the point of voting disappears, and there's therefore no difference between any two elections over a very small size.

Voting isn't really what makes local government preferable - it's sort of a red herring in a way. What makes local government preferable is the influence of the individual over the government, but that influence is not related to voting, however counter-intuitive that seems.

cordially,
Scofflaw

poeticseraphim

The main obsticle to a federal Europe has always tended to be EU citizens.To be honest if you have the will of the people...all other issues can be managed. The will has to be there. And not just begrudingly.Would a referendum for a Federal Europe pass in Europe or even in the majority of the big players? Would the French German etc population go for it? We should stop pretending that it is anything more than that. The democratic deficit could be remedied. The only justifiable reason it would not work...is that people don't want it to. All this talk of we need a linking of this and a pan that.You need the desire for a federal Europe in the majority of citizens. Trying to convince people with valid arguments does not produce a willingness in society that is necessary to get something passed.


Do people want a federal EU ..would they vote for it ..realistically? Is there really an arguement to say its total Union or Break up? And would citizens vote for the former to prevent the latter ? Particularly in key countries.All else can be remedied the US works, it's different, but it works. The closest i can think to compare with a Federal EU is India in terms of a multitude of languages and culture. I am not sure it is a good comparison as socially, religously and linguistically it is even more diverse than the EU.


The real arguement against a Federal Eu or an Eu constitution or whatever is if the majority of people in key countries don't vote for it. And if they do decide to then really all other problems could be dealt with.

It's the bottom line ..would people vote for it? I would say they should stop trying to arrange it treaty by treaty and extract a firm commitment from the people in support for a Federal EU if they feel it's there (who knows it might be).

Interestingly the arguement that it is Union or disintegration seems to assume the EU may break up ..particularly if there is not further union something europhiles usually deny. If a referendum was held in each country asking for a Federal Eu now do people here think it would pass?Or are we talking years and years from now? Do most europeans want more europe ? And not simply because they must for such and such a crisis . There has to be a real willingness for something like that to work. That is the problem with the EU promises are extracted begrudgingly.

Scofflaw

poeticseraphim wrote: »

The main obsticle to a federal Europe has always tended to be EU citizens.To be honest if you have the will of the people...all other issues can be managed. The will has to be there. And not just begrudingly.Would a referendum for a Federal Europe pass in Europe or even in the majority of the big players? Would the French German etc population go for it? We should stop pretending that it is anything more than that. The democratic deficit could be remedied. The only justifiable reason it would not work...is that people don't want it to. All this talk of we need a linking of this and a pan that.You need the desire for a federal Europe in the majority of citizens. Trying to convince people with valid arguments does not produce a willingness in society that is necessary to get something passed.


Do people want a federal EU ..would they vote for it ..realistically? Is there really an arguement to say its total Union or Break up? And would citizens vote for the former to prevent the latter ? Particularly in key countries.All else can be remedied the US works, it's different, but it works. The closest i can think to compare with a Federal EU is India in terms of a multitude of languages and culture. I am not sure it is a good comparison as socially, religously and linguistically it is even more diverse than the EU.


The real arguement against a Federal Eu or an Eu constitution or whatever is if the majority of people in key countries don't vote for it. And if they do decide to then really all other problems could be dealt with.

It's the bottom line ..would people vote for it? I would say they should stop trying to arrange it treaty by treaty and extract a firm commitment from the people in support for a Federal EU if they feel it's there (who knows it might be).

Interestingly the arguement that it is Union or disintegration seems to assume the EU may break up ..particularly if there is not further union something europhiles usually deny. If a referendum was held in each country asking for a Federal Eu now do people here think it would pass?Or are we talking years and years from now? Do most europeans want more europe ? And not simply because they must for such and such a crisis . There has to be a real willingness for something like that to work. That is the problem with the EU promises are extracted begrudgingly.

There are, I think, pros and cons to an incrementalist approach to evolving the EU, as well as very strong reasons why it's always been the approach - and those reasons apply whether the outcome is a USE, or a looser federation, or a confederation, or even a step back to the EEC.

The main argument pro, and the reason it's always been the approach, is something you allude to - that Europeans need time to get comfortable with the evolution of the EU, and so do their politicians. With very few exceptions, the majority of EU politicians aren't committed federalists by any stretch - national politicians in national governments have gained power in their particular system and country, and aren't inevitably interested in creating a new system that stretches beyond their country, and in which their powers are far more circumscribed.

I appreciate that many people seem willing to simultaneously believe that politicians are only interested in power, but are nevertheless in a huge rush to give away the sovereign power of their own nations which they exercise - but that belief is frankly self-contradictory. However, the belief reflects a real truth, as these things sometimes do, which is that national politicians can, if inadequately accountable in their actions in Europe, hide from national accountability in Europe. That's an issue for each nation, though - we exercise virtually no control over the actions of our government either nationally or in Europe except through our press, and our press largely ignores European affairs unless something really exciting is happening.

So the 'big bang' approach to changing the EU tends to run into the opposition of both the people and their politicians, not always for the same reasons, while the incremental approach offers a safer set of smaller steps - whose directions are more easily adjusted to reflect the current wishes of the European people and governments, and which allow for both to get used to the current architecture before moving further, in whatever direction that may be.

The downside of the incremental approach is that it doesn't offer a vision of where Europe's going that people can either support or oppose, while the EU often appears to be not so much evolving in a particular direction as lurching drunkenly towards further integration without any idea as to how to bring people along with it or what the outcome of any step will be.

Even in this crisis, the majority of politicians aren't looking for a federal big bang - on the contrary, the majority of them are doing their best to solve the crisis while assiduously avoiding one. The logic of the crisis, however, is rather against them - in order to keep what they want to keep (the euro, the common market, etc), they all need the strong economies to help the weak, and the strong economies will only do so with a level of oversight and common bindings that strengthen the federal component of the union considerably, because that's what their people and parliaments not unreasonably demand of those governments. Those demands are not aimed at creating a more federal Europe, but do so because the logic of the situation makes their nationally self-protective demands an engine of federalisation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

Personally, I think the answer is confederation. It does not fundamentally alter the positive aspects of the EU, but bolsters the weaker issues whilst allowing Member States to retain more autonomy than a federal EU would.

Practically as well, I see a potential for reorganisation where the greater European Confederation can include all European countries that wish to participate in the area and abide by the rules - we could also allow for policy to be implemented whereby there is free movement of workers but that it is more strictly regulated by border controls. It would allow for individual countries to contract with eachother for border-free travel (i.e. UK and Ireland) but also allow for countries with larger immigration problems like France to control their borders whilst not preventing the free movement of workers and people in the Confederation.
This would also allow the Eurozone to be renamed the European Union and implement the single currency and its regulations and requirements.

Broadly this allows for countries to remain a part of the European Confederation but withdraw from the single currency. It would allow countries like Greece to adopt their own currency but perhaps float it against the Euro?

FreudianSlippers

Personally, I think the answer is confederation. It does not fundamentally alter the positive aspects of the EU, but bolsters the weaker issues whilst allowing Member States to retain more autonomy than a federal EU would.

Practically as well, I see a potential for reorganisation where the greater European Confederation can include all European countries that wish to participate in the area and abide by the rules - we could also allow for policy to be implemented whereby there is free movement of workers but that it is more strictly regulated by border controls. It would allow for individual countries to contract with eachother for border-free travel (i.e. UK and Ireland) but also allow for countries with larger immigration problems like France to control their borders whilst not preventing the free movement of workers and people in the Confederation.
This would also allow the Eurozone to be renamed the European Union and implement the single currency and its regulations and requirements.

Broadly this allows for countries to remain a part of the European Confederation but withdraw from the single currency. It would allow countries like Greece to adopt their own currency but perhaps float it against the Euro?

poeticseraphim

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are, I think, pros and cons to an incrementalist approach to evolving the EU, as well as very strong reasons why it's always been the approach - and those reasons apply whether the outcome is a USE, or a looser federation, or a confederation, or even a step back to the EEC.

The main argument pro, and the reason it's always been the approach, is something you allude to - that Europeans need time to get comfortable with the evolution of the EU, and so do their politicians. With very few exceptions, the majority of EU politicians aren't committed federalists by any stretch - national politicians in national governments have gained power in their particular system and country, and aren't inevitably interested in creating a new system that stretches beyond their country, and in which their powers are far more circumscribed.

I appreciate that many people seem willing to simultaneously believe that politicians are only interested in power, but are nevertheless in a huge rush to give away the sovereign power of their own nations which they exercise - but that belief is frankly self-contradictory. However, the belief reflects a real truth, as these things sometimes do, which is that national politicians can, if inadequately accountable in their actions in Europe, hide from national accountability in Europe. That's an issue for each nation, though - we exercise virtually no control over the actions of our government either nationally or in Europe except through our press, and our press largely ignores European affairs unless something really exciting is happening.

So the 'big bang' approach to changing the EU tends to run into the opposition of both the people and their politicians, not always for the same reasons, while the incremental approach offers a safer set of smaller steps - whose directions are more easily adjusted to reflect the current wishes of the European people and governments, and which allow for both to get used to the current architecture before moving further, in whatever direction that may be.

The downside of the incremental approach is that it doesn't offer a vision of where Europe's going that people can either support or oppose, while the EU often appears to be not so much evolving in a particular direction as lurching drunkenly towards further integration without any idea as to how to bring people along with it or what the outcome of any step will be.

Even in this crisis, the majority of politicians aren't looking for a federal big bang - on the contrary, the majority of them are doing their best to solve the crisis while assiduously avoiding one. The logic of the crisis, however, is rather against them - in order to keep what they want to keep (the euro, the common market, etc), they all need the strong economies to help the weak, and the strong economies will only do so with a level of oversight and common bindings that strengthen the federal component of the union considerably, because that's what their people and parliaments not unreasonably demand of those governments. Those demands are not aimed at creating a more federal Europe, but do so because the logic of the situation makes their nationally self-protective demands an engine of federalisation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No i disagree with some of your points. I think the perception is that policticans are incompetant and self serving within their respective political careers and terms which are short whereas buearrocrats are there longer and have a greater working knowledge of the EU. There is a huge difference between national politicians and EU commissioners, presidents civil servants and beaurrocrats the ECB etc.

It not that people think their politicians are giving way sovreign power to get more international power (which is actually not a contradiction). It is actually that they think politicians give power to the eu because they may not see the dangers of that in the long term.

It is those civil servants eu commissioners and the president that people fear they don't know them and have not voted for most of them. And it is those people they resent power being given to.

Also it is possible for politicians to give away sovreig powers to gain a bigger different power. Germany has gained power from this...but as a country has also lost sovreign powers ...but you can't deny the political power it has gained from that surrender. The issue is some countries gain more power from the surrender of sovreignty than others particularly small nations.


A step by step approach could be seen as a nagging approach by some ....partiuclarly if at every step one is chastised for deciding not to go along or asked to vote again..

People fear power being handed to technocrats

But mostly they fear incompetence and bad design...and political oversight

The problem with the step by step approach is people will have to keep voting no to everything to protect sovreignty rather than having a clear no to federalism or a clear yes ...they have to reject a lot more proposals than they possibly would if sovreignty was assured


If people are not prepared to ask the USE question ..then they know the answer

So the question is do we want more Europe..well the answer seems to be ....you cant go further without federaliam or confederalism or something along those lines.....

We seem to have reached a point where it may not be workable to go any further without that...and it may not even be sustainable as it is without that..there may not be any more baby steps we can take without federalism..

People fear the great plan.......but the reality is there may be no plan....

People are discoonected though.....politically even from the steps they can take to change the eu...The People's Initiative is something that got little press coverage and it was something that could have made people more politically aware of how they can change the eu

I think a step by step approach would mean to say no to a USE you would have to keep saying no to everything or at least to a lot more than you would otherwise.

A defined plan might reasure some...i think it is coming to the point i the practicality of the desig where they now have to bite the bullet or it becomes unworkable..it cant go anyfurther and work unless they ask

Scofflaw

poeticseraphim wrote: »

No i disagree with some of your points. I think the perception is that policticans are incompetant and self serving within their respective political careers and terms which are short whereas buearrocrats are there longer and have a greater working knowledge of the EU. There is a huge difference between national politicians and EU commissioners, presidents civil servants and beaurrocrats the ECB etc.

It not that people think their politicians are giving way sovreign power to get more international power (which is actually not a contradiction). It is actually that they think politicians give power to the eu because they may not see the dangers of that in the long term.

Which are...?

poeticseraphim wrote: »

It is those civil servants eu commissioners and the president that people fear they don't know them and have not voted for most of them. And it is those people they resent power being given to.

But power is not given to them - EU legislation goes through the Council (governments) and Parliament (directly elected MEPs). The EU is a framework for pooling sovereignty, not an alternative government for Europe.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Also it is possible for politicians to give away sovreig powers to gain a bigger different power. Germany has gained power from this...but as a country has also lost sovreign powers ...but you can't deny the political power it has gained from that surrender. The issue is some countries gain more power from the surrender of sovreignty than others particularly small nations.

I don't see what Germany has gained from pooling sovereignty. I see what it currently has in the way of clout by virtue of having the deepest pockets.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

A step by step approach could be seen as a nagging approach by some ....partiuclarly if at every step one is chastised for deciding not to go along or asked to vote again..

People fear power being handed to technocrats

Some do, and some don't - the Italians don't, for example, and have regularly had technocratic governments, most of which have been far superior to the elected ones. Monti got what Berlusconi didn't.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

But mostly they fear incompetence and bad design...and political oversight

Sorry - they fear political oversight, or the lack of it?

poeticseraphim wrote: »

The problem with the step by step approach is people will have to keep voting no to everything to protect sovreignty rather than having a clear no to federalism or a clear yes ...they have to reject a lot more proposals than they possibly would if sovreignty was assured

Individual national sovereignty can't be assured in a system that works by pooling sovereignty.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

If people are not prepared to ask the USE question ..then they know the answer

So the question is do we want more Europe..well the answer seems to be ....you cant go further without federaliam or confederalism or something along those lines.....

Who says?

poeticseraphim wrote: »

We seem to have reached a point where it may not be workable to go any further without that...and it may not even be sustainable as it is without that..there may not be any more baby steps we can take without federalism..

There are plenty, I'd say.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

People fear the great plan.......but the reality is there may be no plan....

Pretty much.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

People are discoonected though.....politically even from the steps they can take to change the eu...The People's Initiative is something that got little press coverage and it was something that could have made people more politically aware of how they can change the eu

I think a step by step approach would mean to say no to a USE you would have to keep saying no to everything or at least to a lot more than you would otherwise.

A defined plan might reasure some...i think it is coming to the point i the practicality of the desig where they now have to bite the bullet or it becomes unworkable..it cant go anyfurther and work unless they ask

You're putting forward an odd choice, though - either (a) have a plan for federalism, and be able to reject it, or (b) reject anything and everything in case it leads to a federal outcome.

The latter is, to be fair, the general position of a lot of the No sides in Eu referendums - reject it all in case. But you can't go anywhere that way - you have to oppose a banking union just in case. And does presenting things as part of a plan for federalism help?

Let's take the banking union - I'm in favour of it, but not in favour of federalism. How would presenting as part of a great leap forward into federalism help me get that banking union? I would vote for it on its own, but I would oppose federalism, and the banking union as part of a federal plan.

From my perspective, the big bang approach is no good - I haven't reached the limits of my tolerance of integration, but I don't want a USE next year. And obviously I'm someone who is pretty supportive of the EU.

There are very few federalists (I don't know whether their numbers are growing or shrinking, but I do know they don't show up a lot on the political radar) - so a plan for federalism isn't going to be widely supported, and linking useful integration moves to such a plan would prevent them happening. I can't therefore see the value of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw