How does the EU expect to achieve a Federal Europe?

padser12345

To the best of my knowledge, various Commentaries and Advocates of the EU over the years - including some of it's founding fathers, have mooted the EU (one day) to being a Federal Europe.

The notion has always been there and by all accounts and purposes it has acted like one....indeed' various opponents over the years have questioned it's legitimacy in this regard. And, any legally functioning entity needs to be legitimate, otherwise it's not genuine.

Commentaries suggest, that at the moment, it will take advantage of the current crisis (a beneficial crisis) to implement it.

But assume we were not in crisis then....

......how would the EU expect to achieve a Federal Europe?

later12

The crisis is a perfectly legitimate vehicle for federalism, especially since divergence and inco-ordination were partly to blame for that very crisis. In that sense, federalism is as much a cure as it is an aspiration.

padser12345

Hi again

As much as what I said....but the question still remains.

It is one of 'Democracy' or lack of it.

Such an imposition via crisis should serve to be only temporary......alas something so profound would surely not be reversible.

Scofflaw

"The EU" can't achieve federalism, at least the way the OP has put it in terms of the institutional EU (or "it"), because the EU doesn't write its own treaties - a fact available to even the casually curious. Nor does the institutional EU expect any such outcome in the foreseeable future, and it has made it clear that it's barely ready for the additional powers likely to be thrust into its hands as a result of the current crisis.

"The EU" in the sense of the Member States could achieve federalism at any point they want by creating a treaty that creates a federal Europe and corresponding EU. They could not, as things stand, ratify that treaty in any other way than democratically, so the answer to the only meaningful version of the OP is that a federal Europe can only be created by the consent of the people of Europe. There is currently no way of 'imposing a federal Europe' that bypasses such consent - such a step would require a drastic change in the legal character of the EU and of every member state.

As to how federalist political elements within "the EU" in the broadest sense - that is, political elements anywhere in the EU territories who advocate a federal EU - expect to create a federal EU, the answer is by persuading the people of Europe to favour federalism and the governments of the member states to contemplate it. At this point, though, such federalist political elements are notable primarily by their absence - here in Ireland, for example, we have only one Euro-federalist political figure, the repeatedly unelected Declan Ganley.

So the real answer to the OP is that the question is meaningless as posed, and results from confusing the various different meanings of "the EU" or ignoring how the EU operates. Most probably, all the OP means is that the crisis has given rise primarily to further integration as a solution, something that takes Europe further in a federal direction only as long as "federalisation" is synonymous in every respect with "integration", which is not in fact the case - walking from Blackrock to Dun Laoghaire takes you in the direction of Cork, but doing it doesn't mean you'll end up in Cork.

regards,
Scofflaw

padser12345

Hi & thank you for your interest in my post.

I do, understand the various operating elements of 'the EU', institutions etc....and convey federal europe in a complete sense of how it would be or how "it's" progenitor's envisaged.

I acknowledge the individual 'member states' can effect 'any' treaty once it has been 'democratically' achieved. This is highly contentious though, regards the Nice Treaty I/II in Ireland. The net result of not accepting Nice Treaty (I) nullify's any contention that we live in a truly democratic European Union. We worried about our neutrality and lost our freedom. This is fact! All else, to what we subscribe to, "the EU" or otherwise, is subject to what is merely virtual.

"by persuading the people of Europe to favour federalism"
If Salesmen sell poor quality goods... then, are they not 'good' Salesmen?
Boom... !

If the founding fathers envisaged 'it' and advocates like Charlie McCreevy and other favouring Academics of the 'the EU' and otherwise, convey positive sentiment towards 'it' - then, where is the 'headed paper' containing 'it's' implimentation? (Nowhere I suspect!)
Contrary to my tireless efforts' researching europa.eu. I have yet to find any thing that bear's the title '(A) Federal Europe' and it's implementation......but found plenty of 'bluster' by it's mooted!... and 'off the cuff' meanderings at County Council meeting's about the need for "Centrally Controlled Fiscal Governing" in abundance.

Nowadays' a lot of people take public transport from A to B........they'd better not fall asleep!

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

Respectfully
padser12345

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote: »

Hi & thank you for your interest in my post.

I do, understand the various operating elements of 'the EU', institutions etc....and convey federal europe in a complete sense of how it would be or how "it's" progenitor's envisaged.

I acknowledge the individual 'member states' can effect 'any' treaty once it has been 'democratically' achieved. This is highly contentious though, regards the Nice Treaty I/II in Ireland. The net result of not accepting Nice Treaty (I) nullify's any contention that we live in a truly democratic European Union. We worried about our neutrality and lost our freedom. This is fact! All else, to what we subscribe to, "the EU" or otherwise, is subject to what is merely virtual.

I'm afraid that's not fact. It represents a failure to understand democracy on your part, not a failure of democracy. A second vote is a legitimate as the first because it's likewise a free vote, undertaken in the understanding that a Yes produces a change to the status quo.

Outlawing repeat votes - now that would be genuinely anti-democratic, but it seems to be what some people want simply because they disagree with the result of the second vote.

padser12345 wrote: »

"by persuading the people of Europe to favour federalism"
If Salesmen sell poor quality goods... then, are they not 'good' Salesmen?
Boom... !

If the founding fathers envisaged 'it' and advocates like Charlie McCreevy and other favouring Academics of the 'the EU' and otherwise, convey positive sentiment towards 'it' - then, where is the 'headed paper' containing 'it's' implimentation? (Nowhere I suspect!)
Contrary to my tireless efforts' researching europa.eu. I have yet to find any thing that bear's the title '(A) Federal Europe' and it's implementation......but found plenty of 'bluster' by it's mooted!... and 'off the cuff' meanderings at County Council meeting's about the need for "Centrally Controlled Fiscal Governing" in abundance.

Nowadays' a lot of people take public transport from A to B........they'd better not fall asleep!

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

Respectfully
padser12345

What?

regards,
Scofflaw

padser12345

Quote:Irish Independence Democracy and Neutrality www.pana.ie

"When the Irish people rejected Nice, the Government refused to accept their decision, and told the other EU Governments to proceed with their respective ratifications, a decision of dubious constitutionality. It may now plausibly be argued that the Irish Government is acting in breech of the Constitution by not conducting this area of foreign policy in accordance with the people's will."

Quote: The Irish Constitution: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Article 40:
3. 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

padser12345

Originally Posted by padser12345
"by persuading the people of Europe to favour federalism"
If Salesmen sell poor quality goods... then, are they not 'good' Salesmen?
Boom... !

Sorry for being so cryptic......there is a part that you mention about 'member states' being persuaded (sold) the idea of a federal europe:
If the 'salesmen'(EU) are selling a 'federal europe'(poor quality goods)

then the (EU) are indeed good salesmen in a sense that they have 'actually' sold something which is poor in quality - on the other hand the (EU) are bad salesmen for selling something which is arguably useless

& the Boom....! part was just thrown in - in a fit, denoting 'like' "salesmen" which caused the collapse of our banking system (Boom - Bust)

(a lesson from the logically challenged)
padser12345

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote: »

Quote:Irish Independence Democracy and Neutrality www.pana.ie

"When the Irish people rejected Nice, the Government refused to accept their decision, and told the other EU Governments to proceed with their respective ratifications, a decision of dubious constitutionality. It may now plausibly be argued that the Irish Government is acting in breech of the Constitution by not conducting this area of foreign policy in accordance with the people's will."

Quote: The Irish Constitution: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Article 40:
3. 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

If PANA believed that, it was up to them to take such a case. But I imagine they were put off by the repeated failure of similar challenges, because those show that they're unequivocally wrong in this claim- the argument is clearly not plausible. The Supreme Court, not PANA, determines what is constitutional.

Continuing to argue that something is "unconstitutional" after it's been decided in the Supreme Court that it isn't is a meaningless waste of time.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote: »

Originally Posted by padser12345
"by persuading the people of Europe to favour federalism"
If Salesmen sell poor quality goods... then, are they not 'good' Salesmen?
Boom... !

Sorry for being so cryptic......there is a part that you mention about 'member states' being persuaded (sold) the idea of a federal europe:
If the 'salesmen'(EU) are selling a 'federal europe'(poor quality goods)

then the (EU) are indeed good salesmen in a sense that they have 'actually' sold something which is poor in quality - on the other hand the (EU) are bad salesmen for selling something which is arguably useless

& the Boom....! part was just thrown in - in a fit, denoting 'like' "salesmen" which caused the collapse of our banking system (Boom - Bust)

(a lesson from the logically challenged)
padser12345

That doesn't make very much more sense, since the Member States have clearly not been sold on the idea of a federal Europe. Again, you're failing to distinguish between any integration at all on the one hard, and federalism on the other. The two are not synonymous - if they were, then we clearly already have a federal Europe, and your question again becomes meaningless, but for a different set of reasons.

regards,
Scofflaw

padser12345

Nowadays' a lot of people take public transport from A to B........they'd better not fall asleep!

again......in contrast to your truism about walking from Blackrock to Dun Laoghaire takes you in the direction of Cork, but doing it doesn't mean you'll end up in Cork....
.....denoting 'a lot of people' who subscribe to all that is "the EU" who's belief that they are going to where they intended...lest they 'fall asleep' and end up somewhere else

(I'll keep it simple in future)
padser12345

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote: »

Nowadays' a lot of people take public transport from A to B........they'd better not fall asleep!

again......in contrast to your truism about walking from Blackrock to Dun Laoghaire takes you in the direction of Cork, but doing it doesn't mean you'll end up in Cork....
.....denoting 'a lot of people' who subscribe to all that is "the EU" who's belief that they are going to where they intended...lest they 'fall asleep' and end up somewhere else

The analogy doesn't work in a democracy, because each citizen's vote is more akin to a private car. Everything also suggests that the citizenry are already wide awake across the EU, and vote for only what they see it as worth voting for, so you need only fear everyone disagreeing with you.

padser12345 wrote: »

(I'll keep it simple in future)
padser12345

Keeping it logical and relevant would help more. Not basing arguments on claims that have already been decided and discredited in court would also help.

regards,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Do you accept the existence of creeping federalism, Scofflaw?

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Do you accept the existence of creeping federalism, Scofflaw?

That falls into exactly the same tautological hole as padser's arguments. If you believe that every integrative step is by definition federalisation, whether or not it actually leads to a federal EU in the end, then integration necessarily = 'creeping federalism'.

The problem is that that's just a tautology.

A meaningful question might be "do you believe that current integrative steps either will, or are intended to, bring about a federal EU?", to which the answers are "not in themselves/no" and "no" respectively. They are not intended to do so, and are, as a result, hedged about with a large number of national-government safeguards that would have to be removed to make even those mechanisms federal ones as opposed to joint decision-making mechanisms. As such, they also aren't even really steps on the road to federalism - they're steps on an existing path which attempts to provide integration without federalisation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

padser12345

At this stage, it may well look like I am fighting a losing battle. Your seemingly infinite wisdom' versus, my scrappy excuse of an argument. Do I continue to plead ignorance, on the premise that "the EU" (apparently) violated a fundamental right of the Citizens of Ireland via the Nice Treaty.... and just say all else doesn't matter (if they stole my right's - then I won't agree to anything they want me to) ....or do I continue to argue my original point of how "the EU" hoped to achieve a federal europe?

Maybe they are one of the same! A different context' perhaps, past & future!
Interesting......
.........hang on I'm just Googling "tautology"........that's what I taut it was !

padser12345

Scofflaw wrote: »

That falls into exactly the same tautological hole as padser's arguments. If you believe that every integrative step is by definition federalisation, whether or not it actually leads to a federal EU in the end, then integration necessarily = 'creeping federalism'.

The problem is that that's just a tautology.

A meaningful question might be "do you believe that current integrative steps either will, or are intended to, bring about a federal EU?", to which the answers are "not in themselves/no" and "no" respectively. They are not intended to do so, and are, as a result, hedged about with a large number of national-government safeguards that would have to be removed to make even those mechanisms federal ones as opposed to joint decision-making mechanisms. As such, they also aren't even really steps on the road to federalism - they're steps on an existing path which attempts to provide integration without federalisation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In that sense then: "Anything" collectively thought = integrative steps = "something" ? If so or not, in the same type analogy could you explain to me Nice Treaty I....what part failed?

Thanks
padser12345

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote:

At this stage, it may well look like I am fighting a losing battle. Your seemingly infinite wisdom' versus, my scrappy excuse of an argument. Do I continue to plead ignorance, on the premise that "the EU" (apparently) violated a fundamental right of the Citizens of Ireland via the Nice Treaty.... and just say all else doesn't matter (if they stole my right's - then I won't agree to anything they want me to) ....or do I continue to argue my original point of how "the EU" hoped to achieve a federal europe?

Maybe they are one of the same! A different context' perhaps, past & future!
Interesting......
.........hang on I'm just Googling "tautology"........that's what I taut it was !

The claim that '"the EU" (apparently) violated a fundamental right of the Citizens of Ireland via the Nice Treaty' rather neatly combines a misunderstanding of what the EU is with a misunderstanding of the Constitution.

The EU didn't - couldn't - require a second Nice vote, and the Constitution does not in any way frown on such a repeat vote. The EU doesn't actually, for obvious reasons, get involved in the process of passing EU treaties, although other EU countries may make what remarks they like.

padser12345 wrote: »

In that sense then: "Anything" collectively thought = integrative steps = "something" ? If so or not, in the same type analogy could you explain to me Nice Treaty I....what part failed?

Thanks
padser12345

I have absolutely no idea what that means.

regards,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

That falls into exactly the same tautological hole as padser's arguments. If you believe that every integrative step is by definition federalisation, whether or not it actually leads to a federal EU in the end, then integration necessarily = 'creeping federalism'.

The problem is that that's just a tautology.

A meaningful question might be ...

Let me just stop you there and congratulate you on your mastery of the evasive politician's ploy of seeking to firstly claim the question is illegitimate and then seeking to answer your own question instead.

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Let me just stop you there and congratulate you on your mastery of the evasive politician's ploy of seeking to firstly claim the question is illegitimate and then seeking to answer your own question instead.

Sadly, your question is almost certainly tautological as posed, so the substitution of another question that doesn't include your preferred conclusions as its premises remains necessary.

Was there some way in which you weren't about to define any integrative move as federalisation? If so, what criterion do you use to distinguish the two?

After all, if we can agree that there's such a thing as integration that's not federalisation, then we can discuss whether the EU is integrating with or without federalisation - otherwise, alas, your question collapses to mere rhetoric, since the integration=federalisation equation necessarily implies that by doing anything integrative, the EU is automatically federalising. And since it makes only occasional and usually small integrative steps, that will automatically, in turn, give you the 'creeping federalism' you're asking about. Is there some point to someone else answering a question that answers itself?

amused,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

By parsing your evasions, I've been able to conclude that you do not accept the existence of creeping federalisation because you don't believe that any of the integrative measures amount to moves towards federalisation.
That makes you somewhat risible, I'd have thought, especially in light of innumerable comments about the necessity of federalisation from key EU figures.
But thanks for answering, even if it was by way of evading the question.

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

By parsing your evasions, I've been able to conclude that you do not accept the existence of creeping federalisation because you don't believe that any of the integrative measures amount to moves towards federalisation.
That makes you somewhat risible, I'd have thought, especially in light of innumerable comments about the necessity of federalisation from key EU figures.
But thanks for answering, even if it was by way of evading the question.

Well, you seem determined to conduct your own conversation without reference to what I say, although I note that you apparently can't deny that you're simply equating any integration with federalism, which, as I said, makes your questions tautological.

So, although I'm really talking to myself here: the current set of integrative steps seem to me to be hedged around with safeguards in a way that leaves the nation-states of the EU firmly in control. The steps may be integrative, therefore, but I wouldn't consider them federalising, because the extent of the changes to those integration mechanisms required to remove the powers of the nation-states in favour of the centre would require the mechanisms to be fundamentally altered.

You, on the other hand, don't distinguish between integration and federalism, making your conception of federalism meaninglessly weak.

politely,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

I never mentioned integration at all. I asked you a simple question relating to federalism, which you have evaded answering, albeit providing an answer by that very evasion.
It is not the concept of EU federalism I find weak, so much as the concept of EU integration as you seek to define it. Having introduced it as a distinct concept from federalism, it would be incumbent on you to present the differences.
Irreversible treaties, democratic deficit, the replacement of democratically elected governments at EU demand, the imposition of fiscal sanctions - all these indicate to me that integration as you use the word in the EU context is indistinguishable from a march towards federalism.
I only wanted to know if you accepted that reality or not. I suspect that, as with many fervent EUphiles, you do, but you're not prepared to admit it.

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I never mentioned integration at all. I asked you a simple question relating to federalism, which you have evaded answering, albeit providing an answer by that very evasion.
It is not the concept of EU federalism I find weak, so much as the concept of EU integration as you seek to define it. Having introduced it as a distinct concept from federalism, it would be incumbent on you to present the differences.
Irreversible treaties, democratic deficit, the replacement of democratically elected governments at EU demand, the imposition of fiscal sanctions - all these indicate to me that integration as you use the word in the EU context is indistinguishable from a march towards federalism.
I only wanted to know if you accepted that reality or not. I suspect that, as with many fervent EUphiles, you do, but you're not prepared to admit it.

Sure, yes, great, very on-message there. "EUphiles". Uh-huh. Yes, it must be federalism because it's integration - I got that before you even said it. I just can't see that it's federalism because I'm in denial, even though I'm presumably a federalist because I like the EU. I just don't know how I live with the internal contradiction, but presumably the need to deny any possibility of federalism is very strong because federalism is so evil.

Would you like to make it a bit clearer that we're just going through a pantomime here in which you have already formed your conclusions, and to which any real opinion I may have is totally irrelevant? Because it's, you know, quite late, and I have very much better things to do than this particular repetitive "debate".

The difference is set out in the post above. Feel free to re-read it if you like, although I suspect it's as much of a waste of your time as addressing your questions was mine, and for the same reasons.

bored,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

This is really the tragedy of the thing. You can't distinguish the two, and the mere thought of trying to do so is tedious for you.
This sentiment is couched in belittling and provocative language, dismissive of alternative opinion and ironically, almost amusingly, doctrinaire in its accusations of set opinion in others.
It's a mindset I've encountered many times in Brussels, especially in the Berlaymont. It's insidious in a way, because it automatically associates anyone who's not a true believer in the cause with the Eurosceptic fringe, depicting them as either mad, bad or dangerous to know.
The end result of this, of course, is to drive some merely concerned people into the fullblown scepticism of which they are erroneously accused. In the case of more temperate opinions, the damage is done to the EU itself, I believe, as the groupthink conflicts all too often with the reasonable expectation from the majority of national citizens within Europe for accountability, democracy, and a pause if not a halt of the march to federalism.

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is really the tragedy of the thing. You can't distinguish the two, and the mere thought of trying to do so is tedious for you.
This sentiment is couched in belittling and provocative language, dismissive of alternative opinion and ironically, almost amusingly, doctrinaire in its accusations of set opinion in others.
It's a mindset I've encountered many times in Brussels, especially in the Berlaymont. It's insidious in a way, because it automatically associates anyone who's not a true believer in the cause with the Eurosceptic fringe, depicting them as either mad, bad or dangerous to know.
The end result of this, of course, is to drive some merely concerned people into the fullblown scepticism of which they are erroneously accused. In the case of more temperate opinions, the damage is done to the EU itself, I believe, as the groupthink conflicts all too often with the reasonable expectation from the majority of national citizens within Europe for accountability, democracy, and a pause if not a halt of the march to federalism.

Meh. We started with your rhetorical question, and now we're on to full-blown rhetoric. When you can think of a discussion you actually want another person with a different viewpoint to you to have input into, do let me know.

If your equation of "integration = federalism" worked, we'd be in a federal system with the UN, whose central body (on which we do not have a permanent seat, and rarely any representation at all) determines whether the State can engage in military actions beyond its borders. We'd also be in a federal system in the WTO, the Council of Europe, most of the countries we have treaties with, and probably a significant proportion of the countries on the planet, as would nearly every other country barring North Korea, because some degree of integration between countries is the rule rather than the exception. As such, the equation renders "federalism" a meaninglessly weak term.

Also, while I'm not a federalist, I don't see what exactly is supposed to be so bad about it that anyone would bother being in denial about it. But the quirks of human belief are endless, I guess.

cheers,
Scofflaw

poeticseraphim

Scofflaw wrote: »

That falls into exactly the same tautological hole as padser's arguments. If you believe that every integrative step is by definition federalisation, whether or not it actually leads to a federal EU in the end, then integration necessarily = 'creeping federalism'.

The problem is that that's just a tautology.

A meaningful question might be "do you believe that current integrative steps either will, or are intended to, bring about a federal EU?", to which the answers are "not in themselves/no" and "no" respectively. They are not intended to do so, and are, as a result, hedged about with a large number of national-government safeguards that would have to be removed to make even those mechanisms federal ones as opposed to joint decision-making mechanisms. As such, they also aren't even really steps on the road to federalism - they're steps on an existing path which attempts to provide integration without federalisation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thinking that most or every integrated step is creeping federalism is a perfectly acceptable position. Similarly thinking that it is not is also acceptable.If you were to work back from the goal of a USE that is how it would be achieved.
Further and further integration without pause would lead to a USE.

The only way further integration could not become a USE is if it stops. ,

The fact is many politicians have openly called it a move towards a federal europe.

The term creeping federalism seems to be an issue. I don't see why though, it is apt and even if you take it away from integration it still stands.

We have seen the pushing of an EU constitution but it failed in several of the countries that had a ref on it so it was pulled.That is creeping federalism.It is not necessarily about integration.


But about integration:
Do people accept we have become further and further integrated and are set to do so even more? Do people that it is likely that is how federalism would be achieved?
Do people accept that without a 'no' here and there would be necessary to change that course?

Federalism is not a bad concept in itself....however the concept and reality is different.

Federalism is not a bad concept...the EU however in it's current form is and a Federal EU is even worse.

Escalating integration is not possible without becoming one. And infact it is silly to further integrate at this point without the goal of becoming one.
Currently the EU is a several headed strange animal with deeply flawed political and financial systems.

I don't want further integration or federalism at this point because it is a mess. And i separate the mess of the EU from the disruption in some sovereign states.

On a side point...Cavehill Red has you;)

oscarBravo

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Thinking that most or every integrated step is creeping federalism is a perfectly acceptable position.

Only if you can't distinguish integration from federalism, which - as Scofflaw has rightly pointed out - is begging the question.

Your argument is, in essence, that it's impossible to desire a more integrated EU without also desiring a federal EU. That argument strikes me as being either founded on a lack of imagination, or (more likely) on a desire to see neither integration nor federalism.

Whatever it's founded on, it ain't logic.

Scofflaw

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Thinking that most or every integrated step is creeping federalism is a perfectly acceptable position. Similarly thinking that it is not is also acceptable.If you were to work back from the goal of a USE that is how it would be achieved.
Further and further integration without pause would lead to a USE.

The only way further integration could not become a USE is if it stops. ,

The fact is many politicians have openly called it a move towards a federal europe.

The term creeping federalism seems to be an issue. I don't see why though, it is apt and even if you take it away from integration it still stands.

We have seen the pushing of an EU constitution but it failed in several of the countries that had a ref on it so it was pulled.That is creeping federalism.It is not necessarily about integration.


But about integration:
Do people accept we have become further and further integrated and are set to do so even more? Do people that it is likely that is how federalism would be achieved?
Do people accept that without a 'no' here and there would be necessary to change that course?

Federalism is not a bad concept in itself....however the concept and reality is different.

Federalism is not a bad concept...the EU however in it's current form is and a Federal EU is even worse.

Escalating integration is not possible without becoming one. And infact it is silly to further integrate at this point without the goal of becoming one.
Currently the EU is a several headed strange animal with deeply flawed political and financial systems.

I don't want further integration or federalism at this point because it is a mess. And i separate the mess of the EU from the disruption in some sovereign states.

On a side point...Cavehill Red has you;)

Not really - he has himself, and you, by virtue of a tautology you share. If integration is the same as creeping federalism, then any integration is obviously creeping federalism.

Given that equivalence, the question "is the EU undergoing creeping federalism?" is circular - you've defined any integration as federalism, so the undeniable fact that the EU undergoes integration means it's necessarily undergoing creeping federalism, because you've equated the two.

I think that's a completely pointless exercise, no matter how much it might appeal to those who either don't realise they're simply equating the two , or who, more likely, think that equating the two by simply assuming their equation makes some real point. It does make a point, but only about the person making the assumption.

Using that equivalence, in turn, makes the meaning of 'federalism' so weak as to be valueless. Clearly virtually anything that involves cooperation could more effectively be used with more or less modification as a federal building block compared to a complete absence of such cooperation or active hostility. But in that sense, as I said, virtually any multilateral treaty, such as a multilateral tax treaty, or the ECHR, is a federal building block, as is anywhere where the State defers in decisions to a centre not under its control, such as the UN 'triple lock' on defence or the WTO's control over trade. It should be obvious that if that's what 'federalism' means, it means next to nothing. It's like you're gasping with horror when someone picks up a butter knife because they're "holding a murder weapon!!!". Sure, a butter knife can be a murder weapon, so can a candlestick or a thermometer, or a cigarette lighter, but using the term that way reduces it to something meaningless.

As a result, I come back to the question of intent and outcomes: "do you believe that current integrative steps either will, or are intended to, bring about a federal EU?".

And again the answers are not in themselves, and no. The intention of the member states in the integrative actions they're taking in response to the crisis aren't intended by them to produce a federal EU, and would require major modifications before they could form part of a federal EU.

Having said that, some of the proposed steps, such as European banking supervision and a corresponding removal of powers from national regulators, clearly are both integrative and federalising in themselves. The intent of them is still not the production of a federal EU, though, at least as far as I can see, but a response to the cross-border dimensions of problems in banking so amply demonstrated by the crisis.

So, while we could certainly get to a federal EU from here, we could get there from anywhere. I don't see any serious will on the part of the member states to absorb themselves into a federal entity as yet, or on the part of the citizens to have them do so - but then, I don't see any strong ideological resistance to it except by a minority, either. We might get there, but only by virtue of that being the desired outcome on the part of both the member state governments and their citizens - and if that is, or becomes, the desired outcome, I can't see what's wrong with it.

What exactly is wrong with the idea of European federalism, anyway?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

Meh. We started with your rhetorical question, and now we're on to full-blown rhetoric. When you can think of a discussion you actually want another person with a different viewpoint to you to have input into, do let me know.

More irony. Lol, as the kids would say. Meanwhile...

Scofflaw wrote: »

If your equation of "integration = federalism" worked, we'd be in a federal system with the UN, whose central body (on which we do not have a permanent seat, and rarely any representation at all) determines whether the State can engage in military actions beyond its borders. We'd also be in a federal system in the WTO, the Council of Europe, most of the countries we have treaties with, and probably a significant proportion of the countries on the planet, as would nearly every other country barring North Korea, because some degree of integration between countries is the rule rather than the exception. As such, the equation renders "federalism" a meaninglessly weak term.

Spectacular misreading of what I wrote. Deliberate, I suspect, since you're now grasping at straws. I specifically discussed federalism within the context of the EU. This is the EU forum, and the topic asks how does the EU expect to achieve a federal Europe after all.
Now, were I to play your switch and bait game, I'd say you could have said 'integration = federalism' means we should be the US by now, yet we're not, and why not? I'd still be asking you to define EU integration in sense that meaningfully distinguishes it from integration, of course, but your resort to a pathetic reductio ad absurdum works better than I could to highlight the flimsiness of your position on this.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Also, while I'm not a federalist, I don't see what exactly is supposed to be so bad about it that anyone would bother being in denial about it. But the quirks of human belief are endless, I guess.

We haven't even got onto that. I see pluses and minuses to a federal Europe, but I am personally an Irish nationalist and hence am inclined to resist the subsummation of my nation into a larger entity.
It isn't that EU federalism is 'so bad' that people are 'in denial' about it. That doesn't make any sense on any level. It is that, simply, the people of Europe don't want a federal superstate, and poll after poll in country after country indicates this. However, the EU core does want a federal superstate. This is indicated by any number of speeches by senior EU figures down the years, the attitudes and actions of EU staff, needless and damaging pooling of resources into federalesque entities (EU diplo corps, EU central bank, etc).
There's a gap between what the EU wants and what the people of Europe want. The EUphiles aren't in denial; they're afraid to admit what they're up to anymore openly than they already do, because it would not be acceptable to the public and could spell the end of their project or its reversal to do so too forcefully.

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

...the topic asks how does the EU expect to achieve a federal Europe after all.

Which is a loaded question, because it pre-supposes that "the EU" actually does expect to achieve a federal Europe.

...the EU core does want a federal superstate.

What's an EU core?

There's a gap between what the EU wants and what the people of Europe want.

The EU is a supranational organisation. Phrases like "what the EU wants" introduce a rather silly anthropomorphism into the debate. The EU doesn't "want" anything. Insofar as it can be said to do so, it "wants" what its member states "want", and - peeling another layer of anthropomorphism away - they want what their respective electorates tell them to want.

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote:

Spectacular misreading of what I wrote. Deliberate, I suspect, since you're now grasping at straws. I specifically discussed federalism within the context of the EU. This is the EU forum, and the topic asks how does the EU expect to achieve a federal Europe after all.

And you've answered that to your own satisfaction by defining federalism as integration and an "EU" entity that wants federalism independently of the member states. I think those are both silly assumptions, but there we go.

Cavehill Red wrote:

Now, were I to play your switch and bait game, I'd say you could have said 'integration = federalism' means we should be the US by now, yet we're not, and why not?

I credit even you with the ability to distinguish degrees of federalism.

Cavehill Red wrote:

I'd still be asking you to define EU integration in sense that meaningfully distinguishes it from integration, of course, but your resort to a pathetic reductio ad absurdum works better than I could to highlight the flimsiness of your position on this.

Um, distinguish "EU integration" from "integration"? Why? Have you recognised that "integration" doesn't necessarily mean "federalisation" and therefore need to distinguish another term of "EU integration" which can instead be set equivalent to "federalisation"? That's pointless, though, because it still begs the question.

Anyway, I've explained my position on the difference between integration of any kind and integration intended to bring about a "federal EU superstate". I don't see much point in repeating again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ziphius

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Do you accept the existence of creeping federalism, Scofflaw?

But this is a loaded question. Akin to asking 'do you admit to beating your wife?'.

You are just presuming that your premise is true. Have you any evidence to support it?

If anything Europeans are more sceptical of the EU than have been in a long time. For example more Germans want Greece to leave the Euro than stay.

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which is a loaded question, because it pre-supposes that "the EU" actually does expect to achieve a federal Europe.

That's an overt aspiration of many senior EU figures, not to mention pretty much everyone you're ever likely to meet in the Berlaymont.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's an EU core?

Specifically I have in mind direct employees of the EU in Brussels.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The EU is a supranational organisation. Phrases like "what the EU wants" introduce a rather silly anthropomorphism into the debate. The EU doesn't "want" anything. Insofar as it can be said to do so, it "wants" what its member states "want", and - peeling another layer of anthropomorphism away - they want what their respective electorates tell them to want.

That's a McGuffin. Corporate entities can espouse values and aspirations too. The EU does, in every single treaty, for example. Also, your paradigm suggests that the democratic deficit doesn't exist when it very clearly does.

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

And you've answered that to your own satisfaction by defining federalism as integration and an "EU" entity that wants federalism independently of the member states. I think those are both silly assumptions, but there we go.

Well, we can agree to differ, I suppose. (I always assumed we were going to.) I would find the suggestion that there is no concept of the EU independent of the collated (and highly disparate) desires of independent nation states to be flying in the face of facts, and I'm still waiting on you to demonstrate how EU 'integration' as you define it differs from federalism (clue: some form of ne plus ultra is required here.)

Scofflaw wrote: »

I credit even you with the ability to distinguish degrees of federalism.

So you can see why I found your previous bait-and-switch preposterous. Good.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Um, distinguish "EU integration" from "integration"? Why? Have you recognised that "integration" doesn't necessarily mean "federalisation" and therefore need to distinguish another term of "EU integration" which can instead be set equivalent to "federalisation"? That's pointless, though, because it still begs the question.

You've failed to demonstrate the distinction.

Cavehill Red

Ziphius wrote: »

But this is a loaded question. Akin to asking 'do you admit to beating your wife?'.

Oh dear.

Ziphius wrote: »

You are just presuming that your premise is true. Have you any evidence to support it?

Even Scofflaw acknowledges what he terms ever greater 'integration'. The contested issue is whether there is intentionality towards an endpoint of a federal Europe or not, i.e., whether the EU intends to aim towards a federal endpoint, or whether that might happen per accidens as it were, or whether it might not happen at all. The subordinated discussion relates to the extent to which the EU's intentionality, if it exists, can be divorced from that of the nation states or the people of Europe.

Ziphius wrote: »

If anything Europeans are more sceptical of the EU than have been in a long time. For example more Germans want Greece to leave the Euro than stay.

Well done on holing your own argument below the waterline there. Yes indeed, there is a democratic deficit, and a disconnect between EU actions and those desired by the people of Europe.

poeticseraphim

oscarBravo wrote: »

Only if you can't distinguish integration from federalism, which - as Scofflaw has rightly pointed out - is begging the question.

Your argument is, in essence, that it's impossible to desire a more integrated EU without also desiring a federal EU. That argument strikes me as being either founded on a lack of imagination, or (more likely) on a desire to see neither integration nor federalism.

Whatever it's founded on, it ain't logic.

NO that is not my arguement. You are completely missunderstanding me.

I accept it is possible to have further integration without federalism.But it is not possible to have federalism without further integration. There is more than a correlation between the two there is a causation. Federalism cannot happen without further integration. It is not an inevitable cause and federalism is not an inevitable outcome. But a relationship of causality exists.

Integration does not mean federalism but they are connected one can happen without leading to goal b but goal b cannot happen without step A.It is therefore reasonable to be concerned that further integration may lead to federalism. It is not reasonable to be certain it will but it is reasonable to be concerned it might. And it is a justified concern.

Asking someone to assume an initial point is perfectly reasonable and it differs from begging the question. Asking someone to assume a premise is different from asking people to accept a proof from that premise.

I do not accept that further and unending integration can lead to anything but federalism eventually. In theory it could be argued but in reality it would result in a de facto federalism at least. But that does not mean i think rejecting every step along the way is necessary to prevent it. I do think it would be possible to hap hazardly walk into a de facto USE through integration despite safeguards.I do think that much further integration without federalism would be unworkable and would make little practical sense. Federalism is a bad idea.....Eu federalism worse...further integration without federalism is worse still.

I do not think it is impossible to desire further integration without federalism..i do think integration without federalism is a worse idea than federalism though.

Logic is for testing the falsifible proofs in reason and statements in the written word. But it is limited and linear.

Logical statements are not always true statements.It is not reasonable to say that there you cannot want integration without federalization. But it is true to say that many do and many politicians have publically expressed so.

Asking someone to assume an initial point is perfectly reasonable and it differs from begging the question. Asking someone to assume a premise is different from asking people to accept a proof from that premise.


I am not argueing it is not possible to want further integration without a USE, i don't assume all who would vote yes on selective integration want a USE. I don't need to assume that many who do favour more integration see it as an a path to a USE this has been expressed by European federalists.

In particular Italy Germany Luxembourg and Belgium have been strong advocates of a federal EU. Federalism scholars now treat the EU in it's current state as a case for their studies.Most contemporary students of federalism view the EU as a federal system, Bednar, Kelemen, Defigueido and Weingast. Many scholars of the EU itself resist the label referring to it as a suprnationalist system (which i don't like in some respects as system anyway)

Mitterand was an EU federalist. Germany has publically disussed a possible plan for a federal EU. As has Luxembourg. Many members of the EU parliment are openly EU federalists Guy Verhofstadt for one. Andrew Duff is president of the Union of European federalists. Bruno Boissière is a past EU parliment member and secretary for theUnion of federalists.Alain Lamassoure Most members of the EU parliment would be federalists. The With some exceptions.

The problem with the arguement that the EU has no federalist agenda is that so many EU members of parliment and certain member state governements are openly federalist.

The EU parliment has it's own federalist intergroup formed to spearhead the groups work in constitutional and political affairs. Many are Chair people as well as MEP's

Andrew Duff Stated


"The formation of a broad pro-European majority in the House is more than ever essential. But this majority has to be guided and coordinated to contribute to the further development of post-national parliamentary democracy. That is the role of the Intergroup."

Ziphius

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The EU ... [espouses values and aspirations] ... in every single treaty, for example.

In that case it should be easy for you to present a treaty, mission statement, press release, or other EU document that explicitly states the goal of the federalization of the EU.

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well, we can agree to differ, I suppose. (I always assumed we were going to.) I would find the suggestion that there is no concept of the EU independent of the collated (and highly disparate) desires of independent nation states to be flying in the face of facts, and I'm still waiting on you to demonstrate how EU 'integration' as you define it differs from federalism (clue: some form of ne plus ultra is required here.)

No, a "ne plus ultra" is not what distinguishes any integration from federalism. That's just a restatement of your equivalence of any integration and 'creeping federalism'.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

So you can see why I found your previous bait-and-switch preposterous. Good.

You've failed to demonstrate the distinction.

To your satisfaction - but that was never going to be the case, as was clear from your original question, and which, as predicted, produced this rather pointless dance in which we both knew in advance the steps and the conclusion.

You have, if you see what I mean, won the argument in the terms you proposed it - but you've wasted an immense amount of time doing so, since that tautological victory was already encapsulated in the begging of the question at the beginning. Not sure why I wasted mine, other than perhaps to demonstrate disagreement without expecting it to register.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

That's an overt aspiration of many senior EU figures, not to mention pretty much everyone you're ever likely to meet in the Berlaymont.

Strangely enough, I don't recall any of the dozens of people I've met in the Berlaymont expressing a desire for a federal EU.

Specifically I have in mind direct employees of the EU in Brussels.

And those direct employees of the EU are going to bring about a federal Europe against the wishes of the electorates of the member states... how?

That's a McGuffin. Corporate entities can espouse values and aspirations too. The EU does, in every single treaty, for example.

The member states of the EU - the signatories to the treaties (have you conveniently forgotten that the EU isn't a signatory to the EU treaties?) express the desire for ever closer union, it's true. I haven't seen any aspiration towards federalism expressed in those treaties - correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, your paradigm suggests that the democratic deficit doesn't exist when it very clearly does.

I'm afraid the phrase "democratic deficit" is little more than another question-begging catchphrase.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You've failed to demonstrate the distinction.

You genuinely can't imagine any definition of "integration" that doesn't perfectly coincide with the definition of "federalism"?

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, a "ne plus ultra" is not what distinguishes any integration from federalism. That's just a restatement of your equivalence of any integration and 'creeping federalism'.

Let me draw a comparison with the post-GFA resolution of the Northern Irish conflict. Does the creation of cross-border bodies with executive powers amount to integration of the island? Demonstrably yes. Does it amount to creeping integration? Demonstrably no, because there exists a ne plus ultra in the form of a Unionist veto to unification via democratic mandate.

Scofflaw wrote: »

To your satisfaction - but that was never going to be the case, as was clear from your original question, and which, as predicted, produced this rather pointless dance in which we both knew in advance the steps and the conclusion.

That seems rather poignant and almost bitter.

Scofflaw wrote: »

You have, if you see what I mean, won the argument in the terms you proposed it - but you've wasted an immense amount of time doing so, since that tautological victory was already encapsulated in the begging of the question at the beginning. Not sure why I wasted mine, other than perhaps to demonstrate disagreement without expecting it to register.
cordially,
Scofflaw

It's not begging the question, since it is possible to define integration distinct from federalisation, and you've failed to do so in the case of the EU, which suggests to me that that distinction likely does not exist in the case of the EU.

Ziphius

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The contested issue is whether there is intentionality towards an endpoint of a federal Europe or not

Than why not ask that question instead?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well done on holing your own argument below the waterline there. Yes indeed, there is a democratic deficit, and a disconnect between EU actions and those desired by the people of Europe.

My point was that there appears to be now desire among Europeans for a federal superstate any time soon.

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

Strangely enough, I don't recall any of the dozens of people I've met in the Berlaymont expressing a desire for a federal EU.

That gets a LOL. I've never yet met one who didn't, usually uninvited, express that desire (with the exception of some anglophone MEPs and their staff).

oscarBravo wrote: »

And those direct employees of the EU are going to bring about a federal Europe against the wishes of the electorates of the member states... how?

How did they transform a transnational coal trading agreement into a central bank with fiscal punitive powers over nation states?

oscarBravo wrote: »

The member states of the EU - the signatories to the treaties (have you conveniently forgotten that the EU isn't a signatory to the EU treaties?) express the desire for ever closer union, it's true. I haven't seen any aspiration towards federalism expressed in those treaties - correct me if I'm wrong.

No, you're not wrong, no more than an aspiration towards a central bank and pooled diplomatic corps was expressed overtly in the initial European Coal and Steel treaty. That's why it's termed 'creeping' federalism. The process is defined by increments towards an inevitable endpoint.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm afraid the phrase "democratic deficit" is little more than another question-begging catchphrase.

Please. You can do better than that. You undermine your credibility suggesting that the democratic deficit is anything other than long-established fact.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You genuinely can't imagine any definition of "integration" that doesn't perfectly coincide with the definition of "federalism"?

I just did, in relation to Ireland.

Cavehill Red

Ziphius wrote: »

Than why not ask that question instead?

We are. Do try to keep up.

Ziphius wrote: »

My point was that there appears to be now desire among Europeans for a federal superstate any time soon.

I presume you mean 'no' desire. I concur.

oscarBravo

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I accept it is possible to have further integration without federalism.But it is not possible to have federalism without further integration. There is more than a correlation between the two there is a causation. Federalism cannot happen without further integration. It is not an inevitable cause and federalism is not an inevitable outcome. But a relationship of causality exists.

I think describing it as "causality" is over-stating the case, but back to the travel metaphor:

If I drive from Dublin to Naas, I'm travelling in the direction of Cork. Your argument is that I should think carefully before going to Naas, because it's the direction that I would go if I wanted to end up in Cork. The fact that I don't want to be in Cork isn't a good reason not to go to Naas.

Cavehill Red is arguing that there's no distinction between travelling to Naas and travelling to Cork. He would, one presumes, describe the journey from Dublin to Naas as "creeping Corkwardism", ignoring the fact that - even if I wanted to go past Naas - I might well end up in Limerick instead.

Scofflaw

poeticseraphim wrote: »

NO that is not my arguement. You are completely missunderstanding me.

I accept it is possible to have further integration without federalism.But it is not possible to have federalism without further integration. There is more than a correlation between the two there is a causation. Federalism cannot happen without further integration. It is not an inevitable cause and federalism is not an inevitable outcome. But a relationship of causality exists.

Integration does not mean federalism but they are connected one can happen without leading to goal b but goal b cannot happen without step A.It is therefore reasonable to be concerned that further integration may lead to federalism. It is not reasonable to be certain it will but it is reasonable to be concerned it might. And it is a justified concern.

That's fair enough. It's not at all unreasonable to be concerned that integration might lead to federalism.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Asking someone to assume an initial point is perfectly reasonable and it differs from begging the question. Asking someone to assume a premise is different from asking people to accept a proof from that premise.

Not really, I'm afraid - it depends what's assumed. Here, Cavehill Red assumes that all integrative moves are moves to federalism - not merely that they might lead there. Once that's done, there is no other conclusion possible other than that the EU is federalising, which Cavehill ascribes to the desire of the core EU, the evidence for which is a combination of his personal anecdotes and the fact that all integrative moves are moves to federalism.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I do not accept that further and unending integration can lead to anything but federalism eventually. In theory it could be argued but in reality it would result in a de facto federalism at least. But that does not mean i think rejecting every step along the way is necessary to prevent it. I do think it would be possible to hap hazardly walk into a de facto USE through integration despite safeguards.I do think that much further integration without federalism would be unworkable and would make little practical sense. Federalism is a bad idea.....Eu federalism worse...further integration without federalism is worse still.

I do not think it is impossible to desire further integration without federalism..i do think integration without federalism is a worse idea than federalism though.

Logic is for testing the falsifible proofs in reason and statements in the written word. But it is limited and linear.

Logical statements are not always true statements.It is not reasonable to say that there you cannot want integration without federalization. But it is true to say that many do and many politicians have publically expressed so.

Asking someone to assume an initial point is perfectly reasonable and it differs from begging the question. Asking someone to assume a premise is different from asking people to accept a proof from that premise.


I am not argueing it is not possible to want further integration without a USE, i don't assume all who would vote yes on selective integration want a USE. I don't need to assume that many who do favour more integration see it as an a path to a USE this has been expressed by European federalists.

In particular Italy Germany Luxembourg and Belgium have been strong advocates of a federal EU. Federalism scholars now treat the EU in it's current state as a case for their studies.Most contemporary students of federalism view the EU as a federal system, Bednar, Kelemen, Defigueido and Weingast. Many scholars of the EU itself resist the label referring to it as a suprnationalist system (which i don't like in some respects as system anyway)

Mitterand was an EU federalist. Germany has publically disussed a possible plan for a federal EU. As has Luxembourg. Many members of the EU parliment are openly EU federalists Guy Verhofstadt for one. Andrew Duff is president of the Union of European federalists. Bruno Boissière is a past EU parliment member and secretary for theUnion of federalists.Alain Lamassoure Most members of the EU parliment would be federalists. The With some exceptions.

The problem with the arguement that the EU has no federalist agenda is that so many EU members of parliment and certain member state governements are openly federalist.

The EU parliment has it's own federalist intergroup formed to spearhead the groups work in constitutional and political affairs. Many are Chair people as well as MEP's

Andrew Duff Stated


"The formation of a broad pro-European majority in the House is more than ever essential. But this majority has to be guided and coordinated to contribute to the further development of post-national parliamentary democracy. That is the role of the Intergroup."

All of that, though, is like stating that Ireland has a Socialist agenda, because ULA. Again, it means something, but not in the sense it's most likely to be taken up. I wouldn't say there's nobody and nothing with a federal agenda within the EU's politics, the question is whether that is the dominant agenda. And that's something it clearly isn't. So the existence of a federalist agenda within the EU's politics no more means that the EU will federalise than the existence of Sinn Fein means Ireland will become a Marxist all-island state.

I agree with your points about integration with/without federalisation - at the moment, there's a lot of integration, but with the exception of certain technocratic issues such as banking, where federalisation is direct and institutional, there's no corresponding federalisation, or, to put it another way, no corresponding increase in democratic control at the EU level.

I am not argueing it is not possible to want further integration without a USE, i don't assume all who would vote yes on selective integration want a USE. I don't need to assume that many who do favour more integration see it as an a path to a USE this has been expressed by European federalists.

Just to highlight this - it illustrates the problem caused by the equivalence of integration with federalism, in that it's impossible to make a similar statement as a result. The closest one could come, I think, is to say that some people might blindly vote for integration without realising that they're pursuing the federalist agenda.

But I, and other europhiles, are often not federalists. Cavehill has, I think, effectively said that we are, but deny it even to ourselves, something which might well leave him perpetually baffled by the actions of non-federalist pro-integrationists, were he not willing to ascribe them to stupidity or dishonesty.

But, yes, you're right - not all integrationists are federalists. Come to that, not all federalists are all that integrationist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ziphius

Cavehill Red wrote: »

We are. Do try to keep up.

I meant the first time you asked the question.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I presume you mean 'no' desire. I concur.

Yes, that was a typo (Though reversing the word order would also reverse the sentence meaning).

What evidence would persuade you that 'creeping federalism' is not occurring in the EU at present?

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

That gets a LOL. I've never yet met one who didn't, usually uninvited, express that desire (with the exception of some anglophone MEPs and their staff).

I guess I'm lying, so.

How did they transform a transnational coal trading agreement into a central bank with fiscal punitive powers over nation states?

They didn't. The member states did. Unless you can point to the signatures of EU employees on the treaties that made those things happen.

No, you're not wrong, no more than an aspiration towards a central bank and pooled diplomatic corps was expressed overtly in the initial European Coal and Steel treaty. That's why it's termed 'creeping' federalism. The process is defined by increments towards an inevitable endpoint.

And each of those increments is negotiated, ratified and signed by the democratically-elected governments of every single one of the member states of the union.

Please. You can do better than that. You undermine your credibility suggesting that the democratic deficit is anything other than long-established fact.

I'm not even sure what it means, frankly. I've always assumed it was a catchphrase used by people who don't seem to recognise the contradiction in vehemently opposing a federal EU while demanding that the entire European demos gets to vote on something as a single bloc. But if there's a more objective definition on which there's widespread agreement, please point me to it.

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

Cavehill Red is arguing that there's no distinction between travelling to Naas and travelling to Cork. He would, one presumes, describe the journey from Dublin to Naas as "creeping Corkwardism", ignoring the fact that - even if I wanted to go past Naas - I might well end up in Limerick instead.

I'm not arguing that at all. To extend your preposterous analogy to a potential snapping point, I'm arguing that I'm sat in the back of a car heading rapidly past Naas, but when I got in I though we were going to the M50. Someone in the passenger seats keeps suggesting Cork would be a good destination, while the driver simply nods and says nothing, while someone else, locked in the boot, is yelling don't let them take us to Cork.
Perhaps we will end up in Limerick or back at the M50. All I want to know is where we're going.

poeticseraphim

Scofflaw wrote: »

And you've answered that to your own satisfaction by defining federalism as integration and an "EU" entity that wants federalism independently of the member states. I think those are both silly assumptions, but there we go.



I credit even you with the ability to distinguish degrees of federalism.



Um, distinguish "EU integration" from "integration"? Why? Have you recognised that "integration" doesn't necessarily mean "federalisation" and therefore need to distinguish another term of "EU integration" which can instead be set equivalent to "federalisation"? That's pointless, though, because it still begs the question.

Anyway, I've explained my position on the difference between integration of any kind and integration intended to bring about a "federal EU superstate". I don't see much point in repeating again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well you may want to explain your position to the majority of MEP's in the EU parliment in which open EU federalists have help a majority since 2009 .....

Here is one..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNMi8wI-enM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmqxX4fZvnQ


The second clip is exactly the stuff which p*** me off and when you raise these issues with people who are pro Europe they refuse to even engage in debate.

He says at 1.38..i am a an EU federalist but i was part of a group and i could not anounce it or the group could not go with me.

Baroso basically says we can't do what we want with elections......so ..no elections..oh and only a centre right party can be president.....technical thing...

Commissioners and MEP's form up this group to form a EU federalist majority in the parliment.
http://www.federalists.eu/uef/news/federalists-launch-campaign-within-new-european-parliament/

I am not assuming all integration leads to a fed ...i am not assuming all who are pro further integration are pro fed.

But many EU comissioners and MEP'S and Govts of other countries are pro fed and are OPENLY directing the EU towards a fed.

It is not some huge secret.

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm not arguing that at all. To extend your preposterous analogy to a potential snapping point, I'm arguing that I'm sat in the back of a car heading rapidly past Naas, but when I got in I though we were going to the M50. Someone in the passenger seats keeps suggesting Cork would be a good destination, while the driver simply nods and says nothing, while someone else, locked in the boot, is yelling don't let them take us to Cork.
Perhaps we will end up in Limerick or back at the M50. All I want to know is where we're going.

Every passenger gets a veto on going any further. So I guess you can relax and enjoy the ride.

Cavehill Red

Ziphius wrote: »

I meant the first time you asked the question.

The debate evolved, largely due to Scofflaw's failed introduction of the integration McGuffin. Debates evolve. That's what they do.

Ziphius wrote: »

Yes, that was a typo (Though reversing the word order would also reverse the sentence meaning).

What evidence would persuade you that 'creeping federalism' is not occurring in the EU at present?

A ne plus ultra, like I said.