The Future Of Europe
tbZBeAst
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12755Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12755Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">can a federated Europe work?</div> I'm sure everyone remembers Rumsfeld's "old Europe" comment, and the bad feeling it caused on the other side of the Atlantic.
<a href='http://www.economist.co.uk/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1714421' target='_blank'>This week</a> the EU is meeting and deciding on the possible membership of some 25 new members, including, but not limited to, some that were formerly Warsaw pact countries.
Its long been my view that the EU is unworkable, and will shake itself apart. After having joined under Ted Heath, the EU's power and role in UK politics has extended beyond the unrestricted trading bloc it was supposed to be creating. Now (much to the amusement of the tabloids) we have the shape of our bananas regulated, and the size of our tomatoes...
Ok, some personal gripes first. Britain is one of the poorest (in terms of GDP) of the member states (IIRC Greece, Ireland and a couple of "small" nations are a little worse) and yet it has the 3rd highest contribution to pay, after France and Germany. I actually grew up in a fully-funded EU hardship area (not all of England is green and pleasant). Why is the GATT so disproportionately balanced in favour of the Franco/Germanic hegemony? Why are my taxes paying to compensate for French truckers disputes? AFAIK, Britain is still a nation with its own political and monetary sovereignty.
Back to the issues in hand. The US is held up as a workable model of what a Federated States of Europe could become. Leaving aside historical precedents of where "Europe" begins and ends, I think the analogy is fatally flawed. America sprang into being in a relatively short space of time, and by-and-large the individual states had lots in common: common language, common culture, common ancestry (eventually common currency). Problems of integration were limited - the civil war was about whether they were wanted (or possibly control of the slaves, but thats another story). Once a union had been established, it was fluid, workable, and ultimately accepted.
Compare and contrast to Europe. Dozens of different languages. Far more geographical and geopolitical diversity. An attempt to introduce a common currency embraced by some and rejected by others. Internal conflicts about national boundaries, and seperatism. A common history of wars and (thanks recently to a number of Atlantacist governments in Britain, and also the inclusion of former Warsaw Pact nations) distrust.
Can such an alliance prosper or, as I believe, will it founder with internal squabbles and eventually tear itself apart (or become a meaningless distinction). Will a federated Europe ever get any further than the drawing board? is there too much of a proud history of division to set aside the ideas of nations for the idea of Nation? Is there enough incentive for the scheme to be realised?
I'd be interested to hear your views, particularly those observing Europe from the outside.
<a href='http://www.economist.co.uk/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1714421' target='_blank'>This week</a> the EU is meeting and deciding on the possible membership of some 25 new members, including, but not limited to, some that were formerly Warsaw pact countries.
Its long been my view that the EU is unworkable, and will shake itself apart. After having joined under Ted Heath, the EU's power and role in UK politics has extended beyond the unrestricted trading bloc it was supposed to be creating. Now (much to the amusement of the tabloids) we have the shape of our bananas regulated, and the size of our tomatoes...
Ok, some personal gripes first. Britain is one of the poorest (in terms of GDP) of the member states (IIRC Greece, Ireland and a couple of "small" nations are a little worse) and yet it has the 3rd highest contribution to pay, after France and Germany. I actually grew up in a fully-funded EU hardship area (not all of England is green and pleasant). Why is the GATT so disproportionately balanced in favour of the Franco/Germanic hegemony? Why are my taxes paying to compensate for French truckers disputes? AFAIK, Britain is still a nation with its own political and monetary sovereignty.
Back to the issues in hand. The US is held up as a workable model of what a Federated States of Europe could become. Leaving aside historical precedents of where "Europe" begins and ends, I think the analogy is fatally flawed. America sprang into being in a relatively short space of time, and by-and-large the individual states had lots in common: common language, common culture, common ancestry (eventually common currency). Problems of integration were limited - the civil war was about whether they were wanted (or possibly control of the slaves, but thats another story). Once a union had been established, it was fluid, workable, and ultimately accepted.
Compare and contrast to Europe. Dozens of different languages. Far more geographical and geopolitical diversity. An attempt to introduce a common currency embraced by some and rejected by others. Internal conflicts about national boundaries, and seperatism. A common history of wars and (thanks recently to a number of Atlantacist governments in Britain, and also the inclusion of former Warsaw Pact nations) distrust.
Can such an alliance prosper or, as I believe, will it founder with internal squabbles and eventually tear itself apart (or become a meaningless distinction). Will a federated Europe ever get any further than the drawing board? is there too much of a proud history of division to set aside the ideas of nations for the idea of Nation? Is there enough incentive for the scheme to be realised?
I'd be interested to hear your views, particularly those observing Europe from the outside.
Comments
He should have said that thinking Iraq is unable to be democratic is a "soft bigotry of low expectations." I think the same for those who claims that Europe cannot be a federation due to historical reasons. However I am not sure that a federation or republic in the USA sense of it will work. It works in USA and has created a large homogenous population (at least homogenous compared to Europe...). We might share political and economical goals, thus the EU will be a rationalist project. I am not sure we will easily share the other part, the nationalist or irrational part. I think it will be many years before you will see a person referring to himself and his "country" as Europe.
Im not sure about quoting Bush as an authority on anything up to and including pretzels, but its more a case of demonstrable current and past trends than soft bigotry of low expectations. We've seen (and discussed) patriotism and nationalism in another thread. We've seen popular support (in the UK at least) for anti-integration parties. Support for keeping the pound is roughly at 2/3 of the voting population. Can you imagine trying to integrate even just the political, and legal systems that have evolved in isolation in each of the member countries? Its a noble idea, creating a unified state, but can you imagine the Chiracs or Blairs of this world supporting a move that would render them governors? Looking at it on a human level, what are the incentives? What would the man on the street get out of it? A sense of removal of power.
Its all very well talking about low expectations, but look at it pragmatically. Unifying Europe is a massive undertaking. Far more than introducing a single currency. If Europe is unable even to agree to a blanket acceptance of the Euro (and look what happened with the ERM - "certain" currencies got shafted to keep "certain" others afloat) whats the likelihood of putting political differences aside and joining together? As it stands, and for the near future, slim to none. Ratifying Maastricht does not unity make.
Finally, some Europeans who understand the concept that a centralized government is not always better than localized/community governments.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why are my taxes paying to compensate for French truckers disputes?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I say the same thing about California's fuel problems and shipyards in Mississippi! Praise the Maker! Somebody understands!
I have no strong opinion either way, really. I would add one question though: If Europe (or Greater Europe) is unified under some centralized governing body, how would you go about voting for the President? Hmm... Which country in Europe currently has the largest population anyway? Hmmm... Bet they'd have a whole lot of "favorite sons". hehe.
Finally, some Europeans who understand the concept that a centralized government is not always better than localized/community governments.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why are my taxes paying to compensate for French truckers disputes?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I say the same thing about California's fuel problems and shipyards in Mississippi! Praise the Maker! Somebody understands!
I have no strong opinion either way, really. I would add one question though: If Europe (or Greater Europe) is unified under some centralized governing body, how would you go about voting for the President? Hmm... Which country in Europe currently has the largest population anyway? Hmmm... Bet they'd have a whole lot of "favorite sons". hehe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Slightly different in that French truckers are nothing to do with me, or my nation, but the frustration is the same.
As for electing a president, my point precisely. Its not viable, even rotation of the presidency is laughabe.
"Don't worry guys, we get a say in 30 years time!"
w00t.
As to a unified europe...
No way, too much nationalism, even though some say it's dead, and it might seem like that may be the case now, but people don't know how much they have til it's taken away, you watch the surge of nationalism once it happens..
Throw France into the mix
gg unified europe
I can see it becoming a somewhat powerful economic area, but it will still be dwarfed by the US. France just barely beat Los Angles as the 5th largest economic zone in the world. Our cities are bigger than their countries.
France dreams of having a Europe that can't be bossed around by the US. Where the Euro has supplanted the dollar as the basic measure of currency. That won't happen. They won't invest the money in trade loss and military tech.
I can see it becoming a somewhat powerful economic area, but it will still be dwarfed by the US. France just barely beat Los Angles as the 5th largest economic zone in the world. Our cities are bigger than their countries.
France dreams of having a Europe that can't be bossed around by the US. Where the Euro has supplanted the dollar as the basic measure of currency. That won't happen. They won't invest the money in trade loss and military tech. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Having a Europe thats not "bossed around by the US" might be a long-term aim, but its not really the issue at hand. (Besides, Britain and its subsidiaries; the Commonwealth etc; still beats the US <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> ) I suppose it raises the question of why integration is necessary though. If Britain wanted to be part of a trading bloc, why not strengthen the Commonwealth?
Returning slightly more to the original question, with cultural differences such an issue, and an inability to co-odinate a European Defence Force, and practically no standardisation on ANYTHING, is it a matter of time before the cracks get bigger (returning again to Burke on Institutions) or as it expands its role is greater European integration inevitable?
I'm not sure about the point on socialism - how would socialist governments preclude you from federalising? You'd simply have a federal government taking over the "caring" aspects of the state, or providing central funding for state governance to administrate it. Perhaps you could elaborate?
Yes economic factors are important, but secondary - the single currency and ERM could be a whole 'nother topic.
As for defecits, most countries go through boom and bust cycles. Britain was all of a lather a few years ago because it looked like we might have achieved the magical quality of "sustainable growth". One of the most obvious examples of how economic factors aren't necessarily an issue with regards to national politics and "power" is the US. It runs at a massive trade deficit, and every few years, a balance of payments one too. The US still has problems with big recessions.
Germany running at a defecit is more to do with the Euro membership, which is real world. I'm trying to look at the theoreticals of a future Euro-state.
Ok, for the mix, one of the biggest features of US politics is the 2 party concept. Sure, there are independents etc, but Dem & Reps basically carve power up between themselves. The UK has 3, with many smaller parties, and independents. Some countries are governed by coallitions (the Netherlands was recently). There is a massive spread of political parties across the spectrum of right and left wing. Sure there will be some agreements and mergers to secure a bigger support base, but I feel that there will be a huge number of differences, and whilst a 2 party system is viable for a federal state, having all these smaller groups will guarantee a hung parliament EVERY SINGLE TIME.