Do we need a European government?

Watch
Poll: Do you support the formation of an euro-zone government?
Yes (3)
42.86%
No (4)
57.14%
I don't know (0)
0%
TomatoLounge
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Francois Hollande has suggested that the eurozone needs a government and parliament in order to make economic decisions. I think this is a terrible idea and am glad that Britain isn't in the euro - we need to move decision making power closer to the public not further away.
0
reply
saeed97
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
This would be the biggest mistake since the creation of the EU
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
I fully support the creation of a Euro-zone state. Its wealthy, democratic and has the potential given its GDP to be very powerful in an age where we we need to stamp on Russia's neck and may be stupid enough to leave ISIS to it in the Middle East.

That being said, I'm not even sure the UK should remain in the EU so we certainly won't be joining this.
0
reply
GuppyFox
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
For the euro zone I agree, I think there's already proof that there is a currency that is beneficial to those within it, but also bigger proof that the current system doesn't work well because certain countries have too much influence over it and are selfish / not impartial (Germany), and also that there are a lack of economic tools to use when crisis does arrive. An organised and fair government overseeing it all would work well in my opinion.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by TomatoLounge)
Francois Hollande has suggested that the eurozone needs a government and parliament in order to make economic decisions. I think this is a terrible idea and am glad that Britain isn't in the euro - we need to move decision making power closer to the public not further away.
It's a terrible idea, for exactly the reason you mentioned. Move decision making power away from the public and it's less accountable to the public.

It would be bad for democracy and for sovereignty of European countries, including Britain.
0
reply
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Rakas21)
I fully support the creation of a Euro-zone state. Its wealthy, democratic and has the potential given its GDP to be very powerful in an age where we we need to stamp on Russia's neck and may be stupid enough to leave ISIS to it in the Middle East.

That being said, I'm not even sure the UK should remain in the EU so we certainly won't be joining this.
I'm interested in your view here - I thought you were all about the glory of the UK, which would surely be diminished in a world of ever fewer, richer more powerful 'countries'.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by RayApparently)
I'm interested in your view here - I thought you were all about the glory of the UK, which would surely be diminished in a world of ever fewer, richer more powerful 'countries'.
Indeed I am. I consider giving up the whole empire to be the second greatest crime Westminster ever committed (the first being the events leading to and including Irish independence - the British Isles should be whole). However, I accept that what's done is done and so i believe that our power is best served by our allies being as powerful in the world as possible.

In the current world economic and military power more or less correlates to GDP which means that one huge European state will be of more importance to the world than several individual nations. In essence, it would be greater than the sum of its parts.
0
reply
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Rakas21)
Indeed I am. I consider giving up the whole empire to be the second greatest crime Westminster ever committed (the first being the events leading to and including Irish independence - the British Isles should be whole). However, I accept that what's done is done and so i believe that our power is best served by our allies being as powerful in the world as possible.

In the current world economic and military power more or less correlates to GDP which means that one huge European state will be of more importance to the world than several individual nations. In essence, it would be greater than the sum of its parts.
I disagree completely on the Empire part (hurrah for Attlee) but I do, tentatively agree on the Ireland part. Whilst controversial nations should be drawn on cultural, historical and linguistic lines however you can't have a united British Isles if a population don't want to be in it.

Hmmm, I'm not sure.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by RayApparently)
I disagree completely on the Empire part (hurrah for Attlee) but I do, tentatively agree on the Ireland part. Whilst controversial nations should be drawn on cultural, historical and linguistic lines however you can't have a united British Isles if a population don't want to be in it.

Hmmm, I'm not sure.
I should qualify my opinion by saying that it should have evolved into some kind of Imperial Federation. Africa and the Middle East would have been infinitely better off and it would have cemented British power for centuries to come. We'd have probably lost a few states but there were states which wanted us to stay (Malta voted to become part of the UK rather than independent for example).

Well Sien Fein only got 46% of the vote in 1918 so the view of history people have now is a bit blinkered (most people were apathetic to union or independence rather than raving to leave) however we really never treated them like part of the union in the 1800's which ultimately cost us.

Consider that until automation is sufficient, GDP is somewhat dependent on population. A Euro-zone state would have a GDP in excess of $10tn and a military budget in excess of $200bn if it spent 2%. Consider how powerful that would make them should they drop the isolationism and enter the Middle East or tell Russia where to go.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
Tentatively, yes, if all of the nations in the Eurozone become part of a European superstate.

What the Eurozone has done to Greece is criminal, but a European superstate with a European government would allow the pain to be shared equally across countries, if austerity, for instance, is the prescription.

By drawing on the views of all of the countries in the Eurozone, the result would probably be a more reasonable government and policy agenda than the Eurozone currently has, because there would be an averaging out of views.

Ultimately, despite my own concerns about decision-making power being moved closer to, rather than further away from, the public, I think humanity ultimately needs to move to a highly decentralised world government, and a European superstate would be a step towards this goal.
0
reply
cBay
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
As a concept, I wholly support the formation of a United States of Europe. But as a mechanism of giving us more democracy, not taking it way from us.

Basically I think all power should be decentralised where possible and I favour a complete reorganisation of the UK (and by extension Europe) into regions of 5 to 10 million people (the likes of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland etc. have shown this to be an ideal size) whose powers and responsibilities are not far off those of country's in their current format. However this system would need an overall superstate (a federal UK and eventually a federal Europe then maybe even a federal World) responsible for defence, for maintaining standards, human rights and the environment and for a gradual redistribution of wealth to bring the poorer regions up to the same level of prosperity as the rest. I don't think a federal EU with current nation states would be good because some, namely Germany would have too much power over the lesser states. They need to be roughly the same size.

However in our current environment I deem this neither possible nor desirable. Not possible because of patriotism. Personally I don't think patriotism has any place except for sporting and cultural events (which my envisioned EU superstate would not prevent) but apparently others think differently and take it with them in their day-to-day lives. Not desirable because, as I'm coming from a left leaning, I view the vast majority of governments around the world as corrupt with vested interests, mainly due to money. Creating a superstate would only exacerbate that problem, with USA being a prime example. I care more about democracy than I do about 'socialism', hence why I praise Switzerland who have managed to do well for themselves and have a solid infrastructure (but their economic policy has a negative effect on other countries and people from other countries, which is why I shun capitalism).

Not until we have a proper global revolution for democratic reform should we ever form a superstate. My opinions on democratic reforms include: STV (it's just common sense), enforced direct democracy within parties (so that party members vote on party policy, leaders, and who runs for MP in their constituency), strict limits on party donations, citizen initiatives (being able petition to force a referendum on a particular issue), democracy within the workplace in the form of proper trade unions and cooperatives (which could be encouraged via a reduced corporation tax), and democracy within the banking system (with banks being publicly owned). Only if the majority of those things were implemented could a European superstate ever be a good thing.
0
reply
The two eds
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Rakas21)
I fully support the creation of a Euro-zone state. Its wealthy, democratic and has the potential given its GDP to be very powerful in an age where we we need to stamp on Russia's neck and may be stupid enough to leave ISIS to it in the Middle East.

That being said, I'm not even sure the UK should remain in the EU so we certainly won't be joining this.
You Europe lovers are a joke. Like David Cameron you believe that the EU and a Eurozone government are or would be democratic? Democracy is non existent in European politics. The revelation of the back room deals to propel Junker into power and Germany to seize the economic ministerial position proves it all.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by The two eds)
You Europe lovers are a joke. Like David Cameron you believe that the EU and a Eurozone government are or would be democratic? Democracy is non existent in European politics. The revelation of the back room deals to propel Junker into power and Germany to seize the economic ministerial position proves it all.
You mean aside from in the parliament and council...

Back room deals and pressuring to vote a certain way happen in any country. To be fair, Junker was never even a back room deal anyway. The EPP selected him and the EPP won the EU elections.. If Cameron wanted his own president then he should have had the C&R select a candidate.
0
reply
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Rakas21)
I should qualify my opinion by saying that it should have evolved into some kind of Imperial Federation. Africa and the Middle East would have been infinitely better off and it would have cemented British power for centuries to come. We'd have probably lost a few states but there were states which wanted us to stay (Malta voted to become part of the UK rather than independent for example).

Well Sien Fein only got 46% of the vote in 1918 so the view of history people have now is a bit blinkered (most people were apathetic to union or independence rather than raving to leave) however we really never treated them like part of the union in the 1800's which ultimately cost us.

Consider that until automation is sufficient, GDP is somewhat dependent on population. A Euro-zone state would have a GDP in excess of $10tn and a military budget in excess of $200bn if it spent 2%. Consider how powerful that would make them should they drop the isolationism and enter the Middle East or tell Russia where to go.
Hey, if there was some way to organise that mess into a structure that would've made its constituents happy then that would have been fine by me, but instead people felt oppressed and, in the worse cases, robbed.

I agree about British treatment of Ireland in 1800, I suspect the far future is going towards reunification though.

That's a lot of power to have on your doorstep, how could we afford not to be in it?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by RayApparently)
Hey, if there was some way to organise that mess into a structure that would've made its constituents happy then that would have been fine by me, but instead people felt oppressed and, in the worse cases, robbed.

I agree about British treatment of Ireland in 1800, I suspect the far future is going towards reunification though.

That's a lot of power to have on your doorstep, how could we afford not to be in it?
Perhaps.

I hope so, don't see much progress now.

Indeed. It's a good point but i'd like to think that the Anglosphere might move closer over time. The EU and Euro-zone also suggest it would be a half measure, strong enough to last but full of problems.
0
reply
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Rakas21)
Perhaps.

I hope so, don't see much progress now.

Indeed. It's a good point but i'd like to think that the Anglosphere might move closer over time. The EU and Euro-zone also suggest it would be a half measure, strong enough to last but full of problems.
If we do see an almost EU-like Commonwealth that would definitely be interesting.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by RayApparently)
If we do see an almost EU-like Commonwealth that would definitely be interesting.
Commonwealth is meaningless for political union, its more of a talking club.

I mainly meant North America and Australasia.
0
reply
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Rakas21)
Commonwealth is meaningless for political union, its more of a talking club.

I mainly meant North America and Australasia.
I meant if the Commonwealth evolved into something like the EU. That's the only way you're getting back any semblance of empire. I'm not sure if I'd ever be comfortable with any level of actual political Union with the USA or even Australia tbh.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by RayApparently)
I meant if the Commonwealth evolved into something like the EU. That's the only way you're getting back any semblance of empire. I'm not sure if I'd ever be comfortable with any level of actual political Union with the USA or even Australia tbh.
Ah. Unfortunately the empire is gone for good (unless we develop a massive technology advantage again and can nullify missiles).

I can imagine the politics would put people off but I tend to see it as inevitable over time. Once western hegemony breaks properly with the continued rise of China and India there are but 3 options I see for the US (Europe has already decided to unify somewhat)..

1) It will accept a loss of hegemony and retreat into itself. It will continue to get richer but allow China and India the military and diplomatic respect they will demand.

2) In a bid to increase and maintain its power and influence it will unify and likely with the Anglosphere. If the UK ever wants its family back so to speak, that will be the time.

3) At some point China, India and the US will be at odds be it due to a foreign affair or an economic crash and the result will be war. No empire (which is what the US is to the world in all but name) has ever passed the baton without a major event, so the notion that things will continue as they are is unlikely.

I'd say 1 and 2 are most likely.
0
reply
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Rakas21)
Ah. Unfortunately the empire is gone for good (unless we develop a massive technology advantage again and can nullify missiles).

I can imagine the politics would put people off but I tend to see it as inevitable over time. Once western hegemony breaks properly with the continued rise of China and India there are but 3 options I see for the US (Europe has already decided to unify somewhat)..

1) It will accept a loss of hegemony and retreat into itself. It will continue to get richer but allow China and India the military and diplomatic respect they will demand.

2) In a bid to increase and maintain its power and influence it will unify and likely with the Anglosphere. If the UK ever wants its family back so to speak, that will be the time.

3) At some point China, India and the US will be at odds be it due to a foreign affair or an economic crash and the result will be war. No empire (which is what the US is to the world in all but name) has ever passed the baton without a major event, so the notion that things will continue as they are is unlikely.

I'd say 1 and 2 are most likely.
Despite the lessons of history I think there are a few places that could use a UK mandate.

My prediction has always been that the US will experience another period of isolationism should its often predicted decline come about.
This Anglosphere think can really only come about if the leaders of the UK, US and Australia all happen to be inclined towards it.
Russia, China and India forming close ties will be cause for concern in the future methinks, especially when the likes of N. Korea's getting a seat at the table.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (260)
33.9%
No (507)
66.1%

Watched Threads

View All