Is a United Europe Inevitable?

Denerick

Given that the raison d'étre of the European economic community was political rather than economic (Formed in the aftermath of histories bloodiest war, after centuries of inter-European conflict etc. etc.) and add in Churchills famous speech calling for a United States of Europe, (which didn't include Britain, incidentally) do you think that a United Europe is inevitable?

Whether it is desirable or not is somewhat besides the question - if it ever does come about it will happen very gradually, and sneak up on us and before we know it we'll be having a referendum about whether we should have a federal system or not (Probably not in our lifetime)

Europe as an economic bloc will recede in the coming decades both demographically and comparitively with the rise of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) Demographically Europe is getting older, our birth rate is declining, and our economies are in some ways far too advanced and lack the innovative edge of American dynamism or Chinese industrialist vision. It stands to reason, then, that Europe will only have a geopolitical voice if she decides to become one federal system based on the US model.

It also goes without saying that Europe needs to become more democratic first, the parliamentary system has to be overhauled and replaced with a representative system which reflects both the interests of smaller states and the population of the states as a whole. The US would offer a good compromise for this - Their Senate elects two senators from every state, meaning that California sends the same amount of representatives to the Senate as Wyoming. Only by the creation of an upper house with the kinds of powers the US Senate possess can this situation be rectified.

What do you think?

BetterLisbon

Denerick wrote: »

Given that the raison d'étre of the European economic community was political rather than economic (Formed in the aftermath of histories bloodiest war, after centuries of inter-European conflict etc. etc.) and add in Churchills famous speech calling for a United States of Europe, (which didn't include Britain, incidentally) do you think that a United Europe is inevitable?

Whether it is desirable or not is somewhat besides the question - if it ever does come about it will happen very gradually, and sneak up on us and before we know it we'll be having a referendum about whether we should have a federal system or not (Probably not in our lifetime)

Europe as an economic bloc will recede in the coming decades both demographically and comparitively with the rise of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) Demographically Europe is getting older, our birth rate is declining, and our economies are in some ways far too advanced and lack the innovative edge of American dynamism or Chinese industrialist vision. It stands to reason, then, that Europe will only have a geopolitical voice if she decides to become one federal system based on the US model.

It also goes without saying that Europe needs to become more democratic first, the parliamentary system has to be overhauled and replaced with a representative system which reflects both the interests of smaller states and the population of the states as a whole. The US would offer a good compromise for this - Their Senate elects two senators from every state, meaning that California sends the same amount of representatives to the Senate as Wyoming. Only by the creation of an upper house with the kinds of powers the US Senate possess can this situation be rectified.

What do you think?

The EEC was formed due to WW2 but not for those reasons. Post-WW2 no european country was capable of imposing its will on the world stage. So to be able to control trade (the reason for wars) the european powers had to gang together. The Cold War held back the development of the EEC into the EU. Once the USSR collapsed we got near full political union within 20 years capable of imposing its will in world trade. I think we will either see the collapse of the EU or a full union (no national vetoes, Federal courts, FBI etc.) within 10 years.
The ministerial council is effectively a senate especially when you recall that US seneators were originally delegates of state governments.

Nuravictus

Denerick wrote: »

GThe US would offer a good compromise for this - Their Senate elects two senators from every state, meaning that California sends the same amount of representatives to the Senate as Wyoming. Only by the creation of an upper house with the kinds of powers the US Senate possess can this situation be rectified.

What do you think?

The Senators dont represent the State Government, they represent the People of the State. Orginally they represented the state but that was changed in the 17th Amendment.

BlitzKrieg

when ever the federal europe thing comes up I always wonder


whats going to happen to germany?

its already a federal state...how does a federal within a federal work?

conorhal

Less and less so.
The Germans and French of are the main instigators of closer political union, and yet they are the very ones that often pay little more than lip service to their ideals. They pushed for enlargement, but didn't want any Polish plumbers driving down wages in Paris, they slavered at the prospect of monetary union, hoarded all the gold in the central bank in Frankfurt, managed the Euro to suit themselves and then whined that people borrowed too much cheap credit ... that they flooded the markets with! I doubt that when they actually have to face the reality of living with Poles that will control a bigger voting bloc then their pay masters, delinquent children like Ireland and Greece mucking about in their wallet and the great unwashed masses of eastern Europe will to work more then four hours a day and charge prices for services that the your average Frenchmen wouldn't get out of bed for... they might not be so keen...