What's your ideal vision of the EU?

johnnyq

Europe that is! - Not the Lisbon Treaty campaigning

Are you happy where the EU is at the moment? Beaurocracy aside.

Is it too integrated or not integrated enough?

Personally, I'm happy with the EU staying as it is - an economic and social union. They can keep the military and megastate aspirations to themselves as far as I am concerned.

Thoughts?

Edit: why can't you put in polls here?
Here's the options I was going to put in:

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

sink

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

ChocolateSauce

Ok, so if you could decide, what form (if any) would your ideal European Union take? Federation? Tight/loose confederation? One big free trade area and no more? Status quo?

sink

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.

Moriarty

Threads merged and topic changed to reflect it.

turgon

My ideal EU is where im Emperor of Europe.

Seriosly though, a union of nations and NOT a union of citizens. Robbing phrases from P.ie, but I would like a situation where smaller countries have a lot more control per head that big countries do. But I am Irish, so I would think that.

leninbenjamin

Frankly, in this country most of the benefits we have to champion came from the EU, in spite of much mismanagement by our own Governments. i'm all for further integration of the existing member states, but i don't want to see further expansion any time soon. we're already stagnating; sort out the current crop first. in particular though i would like to see movements made towards some fiscal integration. tentatively at first mind.

I also find people's attitude towards military integration slightly strange, considering how close economically we are. championing neutrality given such a context baffles me. should the EU as a whole not be in a position to defend itself should it need to?

turgon

What bizzare country is going to invade the EU??? And if the EU was invaded, Nato would intervene.

Húrin

China might. But there would be no military union without such major arms manufacturers as Britain and Sweden out of the loop.

Benfatto

Strange how people are talking about a 'counterweight to the US' or 'to pressure Russia and China', what kind of militaristic cold war talk is that?

Unions like the EU will only bread more conflict instead of peace. Conflicts within and outside the union. I'm surprised that in Ireland with its history of forced union with the UK people are babbling about a strong union.

What we need is disintegration into small states as big as your municipality, with direct democracy as in Switzerland, a militia like army and no economic barriers. Look at Switzerland, it works very well. Only then you will get peace and prosperity.

is_that_so

Benfatto wrote: »

Strange how people are talking about a 'counterweight to the US' or 'to pressure Russia and China', what kind of militaristic cold war talk is that?

Unions like the EU will only bread more conflict instead of peace. Conflicts within and outside the union. I'm surprised that in Ireland with its history of forced union with the UK people are babbling about a strong union.

The EU is considered to be better at soft skills, ie negotiation.

What we need is disintegration into small states as big as your municipality, with direct democracy as in Switzerland, a militia like army and no economic barriers. Look at Switzerland, it works very well. Only then you will get peace and prosperity.

I think I'll just pass on this although I am having flashbacks to the Middle Ages.

Benfatto

is_that_so wrote: »

The EU is considered to be better at soft skills, ie negotiation.

Ah, like the soviet union you mean?

is_that_so wrote: »

I think I'll just pass on this although I am having flashbacks to the Middle Ages.

Take a holiday to Switzerland, it's a nice country, really.

is_that_so

Benfatto wrote: »

Ah, like the soviet union you mean?




Take a holiday to Switzerland, it's a nice country, really.

You have either completely misunderstood me or are so entrenched in your "confused" world view that I'll leave you with it.

FruitLover

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:

I'm just afraid this will happen

Benfatto

FruitLover wrote: »

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:

I guess 82 years of freedom is enough to wipe it out of the collective memory

sink

Benfatto wrote: »

I guess 82 years of freedom is enough to wipe it out of the collective memory

How many people are alive still from either side of the conflict? I wonder what they would have to say about it when they look at the progress we've made in recent years.

democrates

As outlined elsewhere, I'd like to see an EU where
1) Citizens of each member state have the option of petitioning with N signatures to have a referendum on anything (N being large enough to avoid niusances)

2) The EU offers opportunities for co-operation on an opt-in basis only

ChocolateSauce

I would like to see a very strong confederation with the trappings of a federation, but with some things such as the power to declare war still in state hands.

I admire the system of the US (the system, not the parties or the polititions!), and I think the EU should try and emulate a number of things about the US. Its constitution, for instance, which tells the government what it can and cannot do, would be a welcome addition to the EU in my eyes, as the governments think they have a right to interfere in the affairs of private citizens in the name of the "common good".

I would like to see a double majority voting system similar to the one proposed, but I think a simple majority instead of the 55%/65% would be more democratic.

I would like to see a simple written EU constitution which makes all previous treaties obsolete which limits government power.

I would like a system of law similar to Germany and the US, where each state makes its own laws, provided they are in keeping with the constitution, and where the ECJ can strike down any law deemed illegal.

Of course I accept this would be impossible right now, we're not ready. Europe isn't ready. I think 40 years is a realistic timeframe to aim for this. There is more I could say, but why go into detail? All I'll say is yes, the above reduces sovereignty, yes it affects neutrality, yes it might "force" abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia on us. That is why I would support this type of EU; it "forces" petty conservative countries to give people their rights.

I will now accept flames.

BlitzKrieg

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.

Iwasfrozen

My ideal vision of the EU, is of one "supernation" like the USA.

johnnyq

democrates wrote: »

As outlined elsewhere, I'd like to see an EU where
1) Citizens of each member state have the option of petitioning with N signatures to have a referendum on anything (N being large enough to avoid niusances)

2) The EU offers opportunities for co-operation on an opt-in basis only

Exactly! True democratic accountablity would really make the EU a forward visionary and role model for similar groups in Africa, Asia and South America.

It's a pity that after lisbon the heads of the european union (commission president, president of europe, foreign minster) will not be directly elected which makes the idea of europe being a role model very questionable indeed.:(

FionnMatthew

Benfatto wrote: »

What we need is disintegration into small states as big as your municipality, with direct democracy as in Switzerland, a militia like army and no economic barriers. Look at Switzerland, it works very well. Only then you will get peace and prosperity.

That sounds like ancient greece. How peaceful!

democrates

FionnMatthew wrote: »

That sounds like ancient greece. How peaceful!

Strawman job. It sounds like modern Swtzerland, have a go at the actual target

FionnMatthew

democrates wrote: »

Strawman job. It sounds like modern Swtzerland, have a go at the actual target

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

sink

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

sink wrote: »

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

Really? Surely Germany,Italy and any country with a fascist dictator in the past would also be examples

VoidStarNull

johnnyq wrote: »

Really? Surely Germany,Italy and any country with a fascist dictator in the past would also be examples

Not any more. The germans put a lot of effort into being the opposite of what they were 70 years ago.

johnnyq

VoidStarNull wrote: »

Not any more. The germans put a lot of effort into being the opposite of what they were 70 years ago.

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

sink

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

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

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

But yet the Swiss had one of their direct votes very recently (i'll find a link if I must) about making their immigration laws more strict which was comprehensively rejected.

I don't think the link being made between xenophobia and direct votes is actually valid.

Edit: here's a link Herald Tribune

You see that's the great thing about direct democracy on certain very important issues. When people vote for a representative they're not mindreaders and when issues like this turn up they want direct say.
I sincerely wish the EU was heading more in this direction. Pity.:(

Link wrote:

The people clearly said: 'We don't want xenophobia and we want direct democracy to respect basic rights

johnnyq

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

My ideal vision of the EU, is of one "supernation" like the USA.

I hope I'm not alone in my dislike for this notion (even amongst yes voters).

It really just smackes of repression for some reason.

IRLConor

johnnyq wrote: »

I hope I'm not alone in my dislike for this notion (even amongst yes voters).

It really just smackes of repression for some reason.

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.

Mr.Nice Guy

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.

IRLConor

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

"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".

Well, if you want to define a USofE to be an EU that's heavily politically integrated then I guess I might like a USofE. It depends on where you draw the boundaries though.

Normally, I'd take "United States of Europe" to imply a situation where the member states of the EU have the same relationship to the EU as the states of the USA have to their federal government. That's drastically different to even the most politically integrated EU possible.

For me "USofE" is about balance of power, not level of integration.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

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.

We didn't have any voice in the British Empire. We have a considerable voice in the EU. They're not the same. To suggest that they are is either scaremongering or stupidity.

sink

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?

The Corinthian

Benfatto wrote: »

Strange how people are talking about a 'counterweight to the US' or 'to pressure Russia and China', what kind of militaristic cold war talk is that?

Actually it's realpolitik. Nations horse trade between each other, whether you like it or not and whether you want to bury your head in the ass of principle. One way of strengthening a nation's position is to become part of a stronger bloc - whether it is the best way is another debate, but pretending that by remaining out of them we'll be left alone is a fool's dream.

What we need is disintegration into small states as big as your municipality, with direct democracy as in Switzerland, a militia like army and no economic barriers. Look at Switzerland, it works very well. Only then you will get peace and prosperity.

I don't think you understand Switzerland or her history very well. Ironically, her neutrality was largely a result, not of direct democracy (which was born of the confederated nature of their union) but of internal division (religious, economic and linguistic) that as a result paralysed any common foreign policy.

The EU could become a 'Super Switzerland' some day, but Ireland or any of the other EU states will not individually any more than any single Swiss canton would have.

Benfatto wrote: »

I guess 82 years of freedom is enough to wipe it out of the collective memory

Whatever about wiping it out of the collective memory, the whole '800 years of oppression' line has long been the jingoistic excuse for the Irish apologist. In the eighties, as a child, I remember it being trotted out as the reason why we lived in a borderline third World country and it was only in the late nineties that we began to realise that the real reason was that we had managed to mismanage our own economy in those 70-odd years of freedom. All on our own.

Time to grow up, I suggest.

ShooterSF

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.