[Ace123]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...al-europe-plan

So a federal united states of europe seems a step closer but is this a good idea? do you think it could solve the problem in the EU or is it just another method for France/Germany to control the whole of Europe? Should the Uk participate in a federal Europe and give up control of the budget or should we just leave the other States to it?

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by Ace123)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...al-europe-plan

So a federal united states of europe seems a step closer but is this a good idea? do you think it could solve the problem in the EU or is it just another method for France/Germany to control the whole of Europe? Should the Uk participate in a federal Europe and give up control of the budget or should we just leave the other States to it?

We should definitely not join, our conditions are not nearly bad enough to consider selling out our democracy.

To quote Ben Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[L i b]

I don't see why handing over some fiscal powers to the EU represents a 'federal Europe' any more than handing over the existing exclusive competences which the EU holds.

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
We should definitely not join, our conditions are not nearly bad enough to consider selling out our democracy.

To quote Ben Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

If the EU was to become closer linked then it need not do any damage whatsoever to liberty and democracy. I think you might be confusing those things with nationalism.

In fact, a more integrated EU could actually improve democracy, for example by replacing member-state representation in the Council with something directly accountable to the European electorate.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by L i b)
I don't see why handing over some fiscal powers to the EU represents a 'federal Europe' any more than handing over the existing exclusive competences which the EU holds.



If the EU was to become closer linked then it need not do any damage whatsoever to liberty and democracy. I think you might be confusing those things with nationalism.

In fact, a more integrated EU could actually improve democracy, for example by replacing member-state representation in the Council with something directly accountable to the European electorate.

Not wishing to be picky, but your suggestion for improved democracy is an improvement over the EU as it is. For the fiscal union to improve democracy, the new chamber would have to be more democratic than the 15 national parliaments from which it is taking powers.

The EU is fundamentally anti-democratic, as it has proved by its treatment of national referenda. Handing control away from national government to a centralised government will reduce the accountability of the people handling those powers, if only because they will be more removed from the people they affect (assuming there is a practical limit on the number of people in a chamber, the more people represented by a chamber, the less representative of those people it is)

[Joluk]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
We should definitely not join, our conditions are not nearly bad enough to consider selling out our democracy.

To quote Ben Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I'm sure that's what the Scottish said before they joined the union, and what the mercians said before England was formed.

[L i b]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Not wishing to be picky, but your suggestion for improved democracy is an improvement over the EU as it is. For the fiscal union to improve democracy, the new chamber would have to be more democratic than the 15 national parliaments from which it is taking powers.

For a start, there are 27 member-states of the EU. And no, a direct election is different from an indirect one: at the moment a government can be elected on a 30% mandate.

But that's not the issue here: the Council represents states - some of which are tiny like Malta and some of which are fairly sizeable like Germany. Whilst qualified majority voting goes some way to addressing this, it is not a democratic system.

The EU is fundamentally anti-democratic, as it has proved by its treatment of national referenda.

"Fundamentally anti-democratic" is a meaningless phrase.

Handing control away from national government to a centralised government will reduce the accountability of the people handling those powers, if only because they will be more removed from the people they affect (assuming there is a practical limit on the number of people in a chamber, the more people represented by a chamber, the less representative of those people it is)

National governments are already centralised. Whilst you can make an argument for localism, it ought to be balanced against other considerations. There will be plenty of times that issues are raised Europe-wide: I'd prefer them to be decided by a democratic European parliament than by a back-room meeting of heads of government.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by L i b)
For a start, there are 27 member-states of the EU. And no, a direct election is different from an indirect one: at the moment a government can be elected on a 30% mandate.

But that's not the issue here: the Council represents states - some of which are tiny like Malta and some of which are fairly sizeable like Germany. Whilst qualified majority voting goes some way to addressing this, it is not a democratic system.



"Fundamentally anti-democratic" is a meaningless phrase.



National governments are already centralised. Whilst you can make an argument for localism, it ought to be balanced against other considerations. There will be plenty of times that issues are raised Europe-wide: I'd prefer them to be decided by a democratic European parliament than by a back-room meeting of heads of government.

I'd agree with the idea of a properly democratic European parliament, but giving them powers in the hope that it encourages them to be more democratic seems to be putting the cart before the horse somewhat.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by Joluk)
I'm sure that's what the Scottish said before they joined the union, and what the mercians said before England was formed.

Well, to be fair, the mercians joined England because they were entirely invaded by the Danes, and Wessex rescued them, not to mention the marriage based alliances which tied them to the ruling family of Wessex, which became the ruling family of England. As to the Scots, they are now pushing for independence, so deciding whether joining the union was a good idea for them is left to personal opinion.

[cgraham15]

OH GERMANY

but serioly this is the worst idea ever. And it would never happen due to the rise in anti-EU feelings. Do you seriously want to be controlled by Brussels/Germany? I don't. Also, how are 350million people who speak countless different languages supposed to live together in a united Europe? It will take away each countries sovereignty tand their unique cultures will be at stake

[Psyk]

(Original post by cgraham15)
Also, how are 350million people who speak countless different languages supposed to live together in a united Europe?

India has over 1 billion people speaking countless (well, lots) different languages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...total_speakers

29 languages with over 1 million speakers. The EU could have a small number of union wide official languages (e.g. English, French and German), and each state maintains their own official languages. You wouldn't necessarily need to speak any of the main languages because everything in your home state would be in the local language.

[Publius]

A banking union is pretty much the bare minimum needed to keep the eurozone going, then, further integration will be inevitable. It will either completely collapse or end up with a complete federal union, because if it stays as it is the eurozone will never be a sustainable currency area, as it is in negation of at least 4 of the 6 required criteria.

I am leaning towards the latter as i think the cost of dismantling the euro is too great, thus the neofunctionalists were correct it seems.

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
We should definitely not join, our conditions are not nearly bad enough to consider selling out our democracy.

To quote Ben Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

That really isn't relevant, and Franklin wasn't even an advocate of democracy (he believed all forms of government were fundamentally flawed and doomed to destroy themselves). Democracy can take away peoples liberties as well you know: it's what happens when 51% of the population can enforce themselves on the remaining 49%.

Your understanding of the European system appears tenuous at best.

[ukip72]

We shouldn't and can't join since were not in the Euro and I hope Eurozone countries don't want to give up their sovereignty but for them it's the only way to save the Euro.

[Morgsie]

European Federalism emerged after the Second World War. Churchill wanted a federal Europe based on different lines. There has been advances but there is still a long way to go. Also it requires ratification by all States.

I hate to say this but Germany is ruling Europe at the moment, the evidence to back this is the ongoing Eurozone Crisis.

Yes we should go in at the start.

[JacobW]

It would be a tragedy if we destroyed our constitution in the name of economic efficiency, but frankly I wouldn't be surprised.

[Lipvig]

I wouldn't vote for it (although knowing the EU, I wouldn't be entitled to vote...).

[Herr]

Stupid idea is stupid...... nuff said.

Somehow I think the vast majority of Europe's populace would rather have extreme and cold blooded austerity than to put up with the permanent loss of sovereignty. But I suppose if they chose not to live within their means then the only solution would be for them to be a colony of Germany.

[GoonerRyan]

It's blind nationalism that's halting the natural progress of humanity on this matter.
People declaring their allegiance to a particular patch of dirt, regardless of how green the grass is on the other piece of dirt.
A federal Europe is a huge step in the right direction, and if the UK stopped jumping on the anti-European bandwagon (a clever ploy by Cameron and Co to blame their own moronic financial disasters on), we could have a pretty strong voice in it's inception rather than leaving it all in the hands of the Germans, the Dutch, the Belgians and the French.
Hopefully the extra funding the European Southern Observatory is getting to build the E-ELT in Chile will prove why unity is always a better option than dissension.

[zcanf]

I'm not sure if i would want it to happen but...

If the EU was to become a federal state then it will massively help us deal with debt. I think it'll come to a point where no individual state will have debt like countries are currently experiencing; this will probably help strengthen the euro.

I do see it happen as when the US went into federalism, it was after a period of financial difficulties i believe.

[anarchism101]

I've nothing against a federal Europe in principle, but I detest the EU as it is now.

[ukip72]

(Original post by anarchism101)
I've nothing against a federal Europe in principle, but I detest the EU as it is now.

I applaud you for detesting the EU as it is now but how can you can have nothing against a federal Europe? IT'S JUST PLAIN SICK