How does the EU expect to achieve a Federal Europe?

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.

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Aaaaaaaaaaand the analogy snaps.

oscarBravo

poeticseraphim wrote: »

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 .....

Would those be "open EU federalists" who were directly elected to the Parliament by their respective constituencies?

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Aaaaaaaaaaand the analogy snaps.

You're saying the member states don't have a veto on the direction the EU takes?

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess I'm lying, so.

Maybe. Let's be charitable and agree that your experience is spectacularly different to mine in this regard.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

The question arises as to whence the treaty drafts originate.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Yet the peoples of Europe are repeatedly refused the right to vote on the treaties, their votes routinely ignored when they get the opportunity to reject them, and the elected governments ratify often in contradiction to their democratic mandate, or at least in the absence of a mandate.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

There's a useful early discussion here: http://kie.vse.cz/wp-content/uploads/3_4.pdf

Cavehill Red

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're saying the member states don't have a veto on the direction the EU takes?

I'm saying that the people of Europe don't.

Ziphius

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Debates evolve. That's what they do.

I hadn't noticed.

Scofflaw

poeticseraphim wrote: »

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.

I don't think those Youtube videos demonstrate your claims particularly, I'm afraid. Poettering's point that the "group would not have gone with me" had he espoused a federalist position actually says the direct opposite. Slightly surprising, actually, given that people apparently regard the EPP as federalist, yet a federalist says he couldn't openly advocate his personal position when head of it because the EPP wouldn't have followed it.

I'm not sure you grasped Barrosos's remarks either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Ziphius wrote: »

I hadn't noticed.

Well, they don't always, that's true. On this occasion, it did. Anyhow, I am now withdrawing from this thread until consistent moderation is applied to it.

poeticseraphim

Scofflaw wrote: »

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



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.

I am not responding for Cavehill Red but to another poster who was refering to something in my own post and got me completely wrong i was not defending your stance above ....people keep confusing me with Cavehill Red i think.

I specifically said that the acception of this initial premise was not to be used as a proof of any claim.

The acception of a premise is not always a tautology but a rhetorical device to examine a position.

It is not being used to prove a conclusion, but to examine the relationship between one series of events and that conclusion.

Is it possible to defend sovereignty with much further integration...or will people end up in constitutional situtuations they had not anticipated. Or any crisis.

I do not think all pro integrationists are pro FED....and some federalists rejected lisbon....

But i do think many MEPS are pro fed...or certainly more pro integration than their electorate support ..and as for comissioners thats another thing.

No not all MEP's are pro Fed or pro integration...or even pro Europe


I mean on the other side there is UKIP....Hannan and Farage etc ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq_6e1A7gzA&feature=related

That above is just downright insulting and that man does not represent me ....
But if you question pro EU rhetoric or a pro EU position you are lumped in with this lot....

I am not anti - EU ....nor pro EU

But i am sick of people or sovreign govts being made to feel like a nuisance for being critical.

I don't even like the idea of pro-integration or anti-integration...

Why would be pro or anti something that has not been formed and shown to you in detail yet?

I don't understand anyone who declares a pro EU or anti EU stance....it means nothing without the detail.

And often i find the 'group think ' in both camps is rammed down your throat....

oscarBravo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The question arises as to whence the treaty drafts originate.

My understanding is that they originate from negotiations between representatives of the member states. More importantly, they are ratified and signed by the member states. In other words, the members of an organisation agree among themselves how that organisation should be run. Sounds reasonable to me.

Yet the peoples of Europe are repeatedly refused the right to vote on the treaties...

By whom? The EU? Or their own sovereign governments and/or constitutional provisions?

...their votes routinely ignored when they get the opportunity to reject them...

Ah yes. Yours is the form of democracy that only accepts an answer the first time a question is asked, and believes that voting twice is somehow less democratic than voting once.

...and the elected governments ratify often in contradiction to their democratic mandate, or at least in the absence of a mandate.

That sounds unconstitutional. Doubtless any government that ratified a treaty without a legal mandate to do so would be challenged in that member state's highest court.

Got any specific examples?

There's a useful early discussion here: http://kie.vse.cz/wp-content/uploads/3_4.pdf

As I suspected, that paper proposes that the answer to the perceived democratic deficit is a more federal EU. Which, ironically, underscores my point rather than yours.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm saying that the people of Europe don't.

The EU is an organisation of countries. Insofar as it has democratic aspects, those aspects are its most distinctly federal aspects.

If you are opposed to the federalisation of the EU, you must logically be opposed to any moves toward a single European demos. If you are demanding greater political accountability of the EU's governing structures to the people of Europe directly - as opposed to the sovereign governments of those peoples separately - then you are the one driving the federalist agenda.

It's strange that you can't see this contradiction yourself.