What's your ideal vision of the EU?

johnnyq wrote: »

Where should EU integration stop?
1. No EU integration
2. Economic Union
3. Economic & Social Union (current)
4. Economic, Social and Military Union (after Lisbon)
5. Total political union
6. Something not in these options

I think you are overstating the impact Lisbon will have. After Lisbon there still will be no 'military union' a lot will have to happen before that is possible. First of all a unanimous decision will have to be made in the council, I know you've stated before that Ireland could just abstain but every other country would have to vote in favour. This is unlikely to happen any time soon as Sweden, Austria and the UK are dead against. Now you could argue that these countries could also abstain and let the others get on with it but I think that an EU military which does not include 17% of the population would be politically unviable in other member states.

I am actually for military integration of the EU for much the same reasons Scofflaw is. As well as better equipment for peacekeeping. I am not for a full federation as I don't think it's in anyone's best interests.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think I mentioned US influence? The EU already serves as a good counterweight to the US through the use of "soft force" (diplomacy, trade, and money). I wouldn't be particularly interested in building up a "Cold Peace" system for the sake of it, where the EU and the US both use military force, although I've no objection to the EU being at least known to be able to back itself.

No, I'm keen on the multilateral control for the same reasons the EU exists in the first place. Maybe I had a slightly different upbringing to others, in that I went to a semi-military public school in England. The militaristic nationalism of the old EU Powers isn't dead, so the more the militaries of the EU get entwined with each other the happier I'll be. I'm in favour of the EDA for the same reason - part of its mission is to make the EU militaries complementary, rather than each nation retaining a full-spectrum force. The more that happens, the more EU forces can only operate with each other rather than against each other. They still don't like each other, and Europe is still the part of the world that has dragged the world into its fights, and generated heaps of corpses piled many millions high.

The accession countries have only just regained their freedom, and they have swelling nationalist and ultra-nationalist movements, plus thousands of old scores to settle. Again, maybe a lot of posters don't remember a Europe dominated by the Iron Curtain and military juntas in what are now holiday destinations, but I do - it's only 30 years gone, and the end of the last ruinous bloodletting only 60 years. You'd be fools to think it's not possible simply because nearly everybody's shagged a continental European.

I know, I know, it sounds alarmist, but 50 years is not a long period in European or world history. Integration of EU military forces under multilateral control makes a lot of sense, for all the suspicion it inevitably generates. Pacifism at any price is not an acceptable stance when we know how high the butcher's bill can be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Lisbon treaty will make the EU pretty close to my ideal vision of the EU. There are a few things I would change. I would've preferred the constitution as it would have been one document that was easier to read than multiple treaties. I would also like to see the commission change completely to one that is more like a cabinet of ministers made up of a prime minister elected from MEP's by MEP's and that they would select the commissioners. But I accept that in the current political climate that is not practical. EU wide parties need more time to fully emerge and to become more united and distinctive. I would say that will take 25 years or so for proper parliamentary parties to evolve.

I would also like them to scrap the Strasbourg and Luxembourg parliaments and keep all governing bodies in Brussels. It such a waste of money and energy moving the entire parliament every month.

Benfatto wrote: »

I'm surprised that in Ireland with its history of forced union with the UK people are babbling about a strong union.

Oh Christ, mods, is there any chance we can have an Irish equivalent of Godwin's law that kicks in any time someone brings up the 800 years of oppression etc etc blah blah? I'm sick to my back teeth of it.

:rolleyes:

my ideal vision of the EU...


hmm

I dont know, initially I was strongly in favour in the EU as a predominantly economic structure and having no influence in other areas. encoruaging growth across the EU and spreading finances around to the benefit of all member states.

Its still that very strongly at its base.

that was when I was fourteen.

I have since been in favour of spreading that wealth to new nations with the enlargment and I embraced the EURO as a means to improve economic exchange between member states.

though I felt the UK opting out of the EURO heavily damaged its benefit to us (or is it them?)

I like its current (and the proposed lisbon structure) because it doesnt put power into any singuler area, its very evenly spread between the EU as an institute itself, the governments of each and finally the people.

I have felt though that the beuracracy at times can be very finicky in being very strict in wording and political correctness, but as it is an institute between 27 states its understandable that things like the *banana* incident occured.

I like the EU, I like the expansion, and while I do not expect nor wish Ireland to be militarised in any way, I have visited the balkans and east europe and I can understand the need for the EU to ensure the need to rearrange the military power to ensure that the newer states can have the protection of the EU and also that they wont drag us into something none of us want a part of.

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Nope. Sorry. I persist. A Europe of Switzerlands sounds like a recipe for Ancient Greece.

Agreed Switzerland is one of the most xenophobic countries in Europe.

johnnyq wrote: »

Point taken but yet we have right wing parties ruling Germany and Italy and the *rehousing* program in Italy of Roma people at the moment doesn't exactly look like being a million miles away

The have very right wing parties in power in Switzerland now!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7054932.stm

IRLConor wrote: »

I definitely don't want a USofE because as far as I'm concerned that would involve removing the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. They're crucial for maintaining the political difference between the USA and the EU.

Even if those principles were done away with, I can't see a USofE happening. The member states are too different culturally.

"We need a European defence, a European army, not just on paper but a force genuinely capable of operating in the field, including beyond the European borders ... The philosophy behind all these proposals - economic, political, military - is always the same… And I am also quite clear that I am advocating a more powerful Europe, also a more closely integrated Europe ... In short I am advocating a United States of Europe."

- Speech from 2006 by Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt.

The Lisbon Treaty puts us on the path towards A US o E. It is indicated in the Treaty's preamble that the aim is "to advance European integration".

Another reason I'm voting No. I don't believe Irish people struggled so hard to get out of a Superpower Union which wouldn't listen to us, only to go join another Superpower Union that won't listen to us.

I would be in the same mind as IRLConor, I see the term USofE to refer to the political and societal structure of the USA in Europe. A notion which I reject outright. However I do believe in a strong closely united Europe, one in which member states have a far greater role to play than the states of the US.

The way I look at it there needs to be balance power between the national interest and the interests of all EU citizens. That is why I feel two strong democratic bodies are needed to get the correct balance of power. The two bodies already exist, the councils representing national interests and the European parliament represent what is best for all citizens. However I think the balance needs to be tweaked to give the parliament more executive powers. The commission should be scrapped and replaced by a cabinet of MEP's, much like our own cabinet and their should be a Prime Minister whom together with the cabinet should propose laws. These laws would have to pass both the council and the parliament and should also be vetted by national parliaments so that they are in line with the principle of subsidiary (defined in law).

The EU should also have a single unified defence force. This defence force should be under the management of the Prime Minister but should only be allowed into action by a unanimous vote in the European council. This would make sure that the EU would not get involved in any conflicts that are not absolutely necessary, while also ensuring that it is more than capable of defending itself. Foreign policy should be handled by the EU but should also follow the principle of subsidiary, whereby individual nations can attract foreign investment and tourism independent of the EU itself. Foreign policy would be handled by the EU Prime Minister and the EU foreign minister, but the European council should have the power to intervene in foreign policy decisions by way of QMV.

This structure sufficiently spreads the power of executive and ratification throughout the EU making sure all interests are catered for and decisions are made at the most appropriat and effective level possible.

This is what I would eventually like the EU to end up as but I don't think Europe is ready for it yet. A few things things have to happen first.

• English would have to be adopted as the lingua-franca (this is already happening, 89% of schoolchildren in the EU are being taught English)
  
• Proper political parties would have to form in the European parliament (The current parties are not rigid and strong enough although the are maturing)
  
• The people would have to become less suspicious of the EU and more patriotic towards it (This would be the most difficult, I think once the pace of change has slowed and stays static for 2 or so decades people will be less paranoid that the EU is trying to take away their freedom. The patriotism will follow as states help each other out in times of need)
  
• The media will have to follow EU politics and news stories far more. (At the moment the media in all countries don't follow news stories throughout the EU anywhere near enough. This would have to change if citizens are going to become more involved in EU issues and at EU level)

This is my current idea of what the EU should be but it is still evolving as I listen to other peoples opinions and learn more about systems of government. What do you think?

My Ideal E.U is one that helps maintain free trade among it's members and is limited to consultation and suggestion over laws that govern our country. Ideally. Though I'll settle for it not becoming U.S.E.