A Federal Union of European States

This idea has been banded around several times around, especially in history, and occasionally, on here. I thought that this deserved a discussion.

The idea is, the current European Union, with the three pillars (Communities, Foreign and Security Policy, Home and Justice Affairs), should set to expand those three pillars, as it has been doing meticulously for the past 50-odd years.

Now, of course, should it stop at the current situation? Is it feasible for the EU to merge to form a United Federal Communities of the States of the European Continent? And is it right?

Should the 27 (28 in 2013) current States merge to combat the rising powers of Russia, China, India and Brazil? And to maintain itself against the US?

If we look at the structure of the EU today, we can see that there are some striking similarities to a federal system.

For example, European Citizenship. Free movement. The term "State" and "Union", to refer to the nation-states and the Union as a whole.

As in a federal system, the States have powers over education, health, etc, that are seen in many federalised nation-states currently.

What further reforms would be needed to bring the States together, if it needs to happen?

Yes, and this

is exactly why, as far as I'm concerned.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

Unless Europe moves away from NATO, then a European state will never come about. The problem is that most European countries seem unwilling to do just that, so I'm not sure that a European state is feasible.

The other problem is energy - modern states need it to function. Now France has embraced self reliance through nuclear power, but Germany has abandoned it in favor of importing energy from Russia. The problem, there, is that without a united energy policy the two biggest economies of the EU (excluding the UK, mostly because I consider the UK's involvement with the EU something like the Diet Cola of EU membership - the 2 calories of EU membership, if you will) are going to drift apart. Germany will want to make nice with Russia, France won't - and then you end up right back where Europe was during the Cold War.

Finally, the geopolitical reality of Europe is that there is a natural divider between the Meditteranean and France and the Northern European states, such that the Baltic has evolved a different enough culture to have a bit of tension between the two sides. There's a reason why Rome was never able to incorporate the Baltic states succesfully, and that reason is the Alps. It might ultimately prove to be impossible to get the Germanic cultures and the Latin cultures to get along, in the end. It's an intractable problem that has thwarted all would be Europa Universals.

I see a lot of counter arguments against a Federal Union of Europe centered around the idea of losing sovereignty, and also losing control of our own affairs, in Britain at least.

To me, it comes down to becoming a complete weakling on the world stage, kinda like that old guy who used to be The Patriarch and now just sits in the corner babbling, OR becoming a key player in a potential world player. I completely understand the fear of losing sovereignty, but it's not a massive deal; the EU's policy of subsidiarity will mean we'll still get plenty of domestic control, we'll simply have a lot less control over the other aspects; in exchange, we'll be able to walk up to a Frenchman or a German and say.

"You're my countryman."

Now, I'm not too big on nationalism, but considering the fact we've been trying to kill each other damn near constantly for the last 3000 years, I'm REALLY for it.

edited 7th Mar '12 2:36:30 PM by Minister

It's your God, they're your rules, you go to hell." - Mark Twain

I don't think a United Europe is really possible. If you take a look at the big or emerging powers today, either emerging or otherwise, their current governments are relatively new in the scheme of things. The United States is actually the oldest of this 'new guard' at over two centuries old. While older countries, both Russia and China had dumped their previous forms of government violently after which they became bigger powers. Both Brazil and India are also newly independent nations.

For a United Europe to really happen, the nations in Europe actually have to be united like Russia, China, Brazil, India, and the United States. They have to dump their old governments for a new united one and I cannot see that ever happening.

Wizard Needs Food Badly

Of course, we must consider the fact that as a quasi-federal entity, it's a lot more successful than the US.

For example, in the latest summit, only two States disagreed. In the US today, the states aren't going to play as nice with each other. Already, there appears to be some form of unity, even across the language and cultural barriers. There's a reason why our motto is in varietate concordia - United in Diversity.

I, a Briton, am as proud to call myself a European as a person in La Rochelle. The EU has done much for its citizens. Much more than the individual states have.

Don't forget, the original aim of the European Coal and Steel Community was to form a superstate. And with the amount of treaty-work still going on, that still is the aim.

And economies of scale apply here. Altogether, the EU is the world's largest economic bloc. There are 500 mn people here, some of the highest living standards, and education.

We have the most political weight at any international summit. This collective power should be used for the greater good of the Continent.

A United Federal Communities of the States of the European Continent (the name would need working on...) would allow our collective aims to flourish.

I agree that Europe has enormous potential, and if it does unite it could easily attain Hyperpower status. It is not only in the fact that the people there are so well educated, but in the fact that they already have connections around the world when it comes to trade routes, and probably most importantly of all their politicians are mostly SANE. I mean, it is a sad state of affairs when Berllusconi (I'm sure I spelled that wrong) comes across as genius-level compared to the majority of American politicians.

But to say that Europe's federated system is better than America's simply because they can form a consensus on economic issues is a bit premature. Economic consensus isn't really that challenging to deal with - let's see how well the whole thing functions when it comes to determining such things as immigration policy, whether or not the government has the right to ban religious paraphernalia, and if Turkey should be allowed into the club. America's been handling incredibly divisive social problems for over two hundred years, and throughout all of that time has somehow managed to hold the whole thing together, despite some incredibly close catastrophes like the American Civil War and segregation. Patting yourselves on the back and saying "we fixed Greece, therefore our system is superior to America's" is kind of overstepping. Come back and make your case when United Europe has its bicentennial.

United Europe seems possible to me, but I think Britain would stay out as it stands. They don't seem to much like France and Germany jointly holding much of the power.

I'm baaaaaaack

Greece is fixed? I thought they were still cooking more Eurofudge.

I don't think so. They just got another bailout a few weeks ago, right?

I'm baaaaaaack

A single, US-style body covering all of Europe probably isn't on the cards for the forseeable.

But cooperation, coordination, interdependency and integration can be acheived without it, so that's where we have to go.

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

That's the way to do it. An incrementalist approach seems to be the answer to the creation of a federal Europe. It's served us well for the last 50 years, with its up and downs. At times it has been sped up or slowed, but integration has happened and there's no reason to see that it will stop.

"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."

...

Edited by fanty on Sep 28th 2019 at 2:09:07 PM

I support the idea, and I consider it possible (albeit not certain) that something like this will be implemented within the next 30 years.

It would not be nowhere as centralized as the U.S.: mostly, the federal "government" would take care of foreign policy, control the army, and take care of disagreements because national states.

And yeah, it should be made more accountable than it is now.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

The President of the European Commission should be directly elected to the post, for one. Preferably by a majority of those voting, at least.

Not to mention, that you'll need an upgrade in the quality of the Politicians — better than the Reassigned to Antarctica status a role in the EU Commission is at the moment...

edited 8th Mar '12 6:01:33 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

The only way for Europe to be/remain a great power is to unite...

...however it just isn't necessary to be a great power. Where do you think people are happier: In China, the rising superpower, or in Norway or Switzerland, prosperous small countries and fourth tier at best powers? Why do we need to "combat" anybody? The rise of the new great powers is a great opportunity for European countries actually: Most are still strong enough that they can use the new world order to maintain independence between the blocks, between the great powers, instead of being forever aligned with the USA. And that's actually better than being a great power: With no Empire to maintain, no sacrificed to be made, just concentrating on maintaining prosperity.

A large part of why Germany has escaped the crisis, maybe even the single factor it can all be traced back to, are our economical contacts with China - which however doesn't mean we'd now be in the Chinese sphere of influence and getting hostile against the USA. That is what I see as the ideal way of the future for the European states: Retaining enough power to operate independently between the Great Powers, but not being Great Powers themselves. And that is okay, that is as I've said even better than being a great power, which really is just too much work and too many expenses.

But Frenchmen aren't. They're not part of my nation and never will be. Even if there should be some politcal unification, I'd never consider non-Germans countrymen.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Wow. That's pretty final. I mean, up until 1871, I'm sure Bavarians, Saxons and Prussians would have said similar things. Oh, and Mercians and East Anglians about a thousand years ago, for us. Oh, and Burgundians and Frenchmen for the French. Oh, and Muscovites and Novgorodians for Russia. Oh, and Piedmontese and Neapolitans for Italy.

Bearing in mind that the first and last examples were not formed by conquest (Wars helped them along, but the territories were, mostly, not conquered). They are also the two semi-Modern examples.

To say someone will never be your countrymen is showing a rather lengthy disregard for how unpredictable history could be. Sure, France and Germany could be at each other's throats or just plain old not-so-close as to join until the sun expands and we all fry. Or they could unite next year. We don't know; there are cases of both, and considering the fact that France and Germany have been, generally, helping each other out in the EU since it's inception as the ESCC, I'd say you're heading towards closer ties rather than bad ones. You can make a song and dance about how every country's going to forever be independent, but these words have been spoken by a thousand cultural groups who now sit side by side with other ethnic groups in these things called 'countries'.

I'm not going to go into a tirade about nationalism, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But federal unification is, at the very least, a possibility in the next century. Dismissing it out of hand is unfair.

edited 8th Mar '12 9:36:23 AM by Minister

It's your God, they're your rules, you go to hell." - Mark Twain

You might want to pick another exemples, because neither Switzerland nor Norway's situations would be replicable or fitting for European countries. Switzerland is an incredibly opportunistic country that dislike foreigners, but loooooves their money and asks no questions about where it comes from. Everyone in Europe shutting themselves in as the Swiss do would be not very bright. Norway might be a more palatable exemple, but they have something most countries in Europe lack: Valuable economic natural ressources, ie oil.

Regarding an European federation, I think that's where we're headed. It will just go faster when the european courts will find their balls and actuallly make the various statuses binding.

edited 8th Mar '12 9:37:59 AM by Sable

Of course I picked the two wealthiest small countries in Europe. But it also holds true if you instead use Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland or Sweden in my example. All pretty irrelevant in geopolitical terms, but all wealthy, prosperous and stable. Better to live there than in China. In fact, I find it pretty telling that most small neighbours of Germany have a higher GDP pc. Small countries not caring for geopolitical standing seem to have an economical advantage.

Now of course you might claim their wealth is due to the EU. That would be very much wrong (without European free trade they would maybe have somewhat smaller economies, but they'd still all be very, very rich), but even if I were to concede this for the sake of the argument: It would be more correct to say the EEC, not the EU. Economical free trade does not mean there has to be political integration.

This is completely, absolutely, absurdly and utterly wrong on so many levels.

But I'm not dismissing it. You're missing part of my post: "Even if there should be some politcal unification". A countryman to me is a member of my nation, not somebody who just happens to live in the same country or might hold the same citizenship. So if I were a German in the 1920s, then the Austrians and Sudeten Germans would be my countrymen. Likewise, if I were a German Austrian before WW 1, the Czechs and Hungarians would not be my countrymen, even if they're part of the same country.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Thank you for the reasoned and comprehensive response. I will now take your magnificent essay and use it to redefine my opinions.

How are you even defining 'nation'? It's certainly not the political term, so you must mean the cultural identity, origins and customs. Culturally, I think you'll find just as many differences between someone who lives in Alsace Lorraine and someone raised in Bonn as you would someone raised in East Berlin during The Cold War and someone raised in Bonn. Origins are not very effective as a definition of nationhood; genetically, we're all mongrels, and socially you'll find a colossal difference between a Factory Worker and Angela Merkel. Historically, how far back are you willing to go? Because anything past a hundred and fifty years, and you're standing on very rocky ground. Anything past three hundred years, and few people can argue that most of what is now 'Germany' would consider themselves even close to nationhood. More akin to how we, today, call ourselves 'European'.

edited 8th Mar '12 10:33:05 AM by Minister

It's your God, they're your rules, you go to hell." - Mark Twain

That's a disingenuous comparison, and you (ought to) know it. Besides, China's population is only just beginning to claw out of poverty because China is a nascent superpower.

Playing second fiddle to the USA is a state of affairs that can only be reversed if Europe becomes more united, I would argue. Europe as a disparate group of squabbling states has no united voice on the world stage, and having the United States assert itself as "the voice of the West" is a situation I am far from comfortable with. In the same vein, a world run by the BRI Cs and the United States is not ideal, and the more influence that Europe can wield as a counterweight the better. As for maintaining prosperity, I would argue that not only could a unified Europe continue to become more prosperous but become a first-class model for the rest of the world to aspire to. Your argument that the citizens of European states are happier and more prosperous than those of other great powers is just fuel to the fire as far as I'm concerned: Europe could be that "shining city on the hill" that the United States pretends to be (Granted, there's a bit of starry-eyed idealism there, but I like to think I'm throwing some pragmatism in as well). Europe doesn't have an "empire to maintain", Europe could be its own empire thanks to the synergy of its economies working together, with all of the benefits and none of the drawbacks. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of the current economic debacle would be a huge mistake.

Ultimately, I simply don't believe the former will be compatible with the latter. I don't believe that Europe will do anything but slide into political and economic irrelevancy without its ongoing unification process.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

A country is just a country. Nothing more than a political unit, in itself. Something administrative. Germany has seen, what, half a dozen of different states since its reunification in 1871? So that's clearly not a nation. A nation consists of everybody of the same national identity. So you can talk all you want about cultural differences. It might even be we are in fact more defined and divided by social standing and class rather than nation - among European nations I'd certainly say so. But it's irrelevant: A nation is defined by national identity, i.e. self-identification. And that's why your claim about pre-1871 Germany is so patently absurd. Everybody in those states identified as German. That was not a question. Bismarck did not "invent" the German nation. He merely politically united it, and then not even all of it.

And those national identities do reach all the way back to the middle ages. They weren't always a political factor, that's true. But the often repeated myth that the French revolution created national identities is wrong - rather the French Revolution gave political weight to national identities. And even then, sometimes national identity was a factor even back in the middle ages. Germany and France for example exist as nations pretty much since the 9th, or if you want to go save, since the 10th century.

Vietnam says hi. Or the Asian "Tiger states" of the decades before. What you say is completely wrong. The causation is the other way round: China is a nascent superpower because economical growth plus its immense size means it can grow into a superpower. And I don't see how the comparison is disingenuous - even if it weren't for the CCP, life in China sucks compared to life in European countries.

True. But you're missing my point by a mile: My entire point is it doesn't need to have one.

But that's the beauty: They'll be counterweighting each other, and then Europe can sit back and opportunistically change sides as its countries see fit, instead of investing resources into geopolitical dick waving.

I don't mean "empire" in a territorial way. The USA doesn't have much of a territorial empire either. But you yourself said such a united Europe should politically go against other great power. So you yourself say an united Europe should play the "Great Game" - and hence maintain an Empire of influence. To hell with that.

edited 8th Mar '12 10:52:23 AM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Saying a country is insubstantial simply because your own has gone through multiple iterations is unfair. I'm sure an American, who has had the same political administration for nearly two and a half centuries, or a Brit, like me, would completely disagree that a country is 'just a political unit'. I'm not saying it's some overriding, above-all concept, but I certainly think it's more than a bit of politics. At the very least, it's the land and people within the borders of the sovereign state.

And you state nationalism is self-identification and then make a sweeping generalisation about everyone in states that existed a hundred and forty one years ago. How do YOU know? Are you saying that there were NO Anti-Unionists? And even if you accept that there were, you're excluding people simply because they identify as a different nationality to you? So, a Bavarian in 1872 who identified as a Bavarian and not a German is NOT a countryman to his brother who identifies as a German? Infact, this means that a Uruguayan can say "I identify as a German" and you will welcome him with open arms? If that is the case, then good! It's simply a case of convincing the majority that they're European. Pointing towards their position on the map should be enough.

And how on earth could someone feel any kind of kinship with someone they've never met nor had any communication with? What you refer to a NATIONAL identities were once regional identities, and before that, township identities, and before that FAMILY identities. Why? Because they had no way of communicating with anyone further than a day's walk away except by horse. The only reason they'd go off to fight is because a guy with a sword forced them too. The French Revolution used national identity as a rallying call because, in part, an effective mail service and decent roads had made communication far simpler, IN COMPARISON. Please, just look at any primary sources from The Holy Roman Empire, Spain during the Reconquista or even Russia before Ivan The Terrible. You'll find very regional identities, the majority of which have become supplanted by the ideas of 'German' 'Spanish 'Russia', etc.

It's your God, they're your rules, you go to hell." - Mark Twain

...

Edited by fanty on Sep 28th 2019 at 2:09:21 PM

You know, you can go on a tirade against national identity all you want here. But this doesn't change at all that it is a thing. It exists. And yes, actually, national identities do evolve, so a European one could be created. I mean, there was not much of an Austrian national identity before WW 2, but there's now, for example. So, yes, that can happen. However, "we merely need to convince everybody" will not quite cut it.

As for how can I know - yes, there is no such thing as history science. Not at all. This is ridiculous. Believe me, I'm fairly well read especially on the Holy Roman Empire. A German national identity always existed. The Kings of Bohemia were at first denied a seat on the HR electoral college because they are "not German", for example. Or read Machiavelli's "The Prince", where he goes on about the qualities of the Italian people - even though Italy at the time was divided into dozens of states. Of course, regional identities existed, too, of course, but even those did not really align with the statelets inside the HRE. Those states were purely dynastic in nature, basically just "the holdings of this or that dynasty". It was the base of politics, of course, and for the upper classes also personal (!) loyalty, but not identities.

And yes, the borders of national identities can get... fuzzy. There are dozen of ethnic-national groups out there of which other groups say "Nope, you don't exist, you belong to us". As it's a matter of self-identifications, borders can be blurry. But so what? National identity still exists - and in fact has always existed. It's after all just a form of othering and group building. Thus, in a way, it has existed since the earliest days of cavemen.

edited 8th Mar '12 11:16:51 AM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic