The possible future of the European Union

[Pandora]

The European union of today becomes more and more like a federalistic state governed from brussel. everything from energy politics to a mutual defensive force is moved from the member states to brussel where a bunch of politicians who does not have a clue of whats best for the member states.

Will the European Union become a federation much like the Roman Empire in the future with the parliament acting as the central deciding organ like the senate in Rome. Or what future would you say awaits europe?

[Ahlerich]

hard to say..if you ask me a european unity that simply improves trade within european countries would be enough if you ask me..thats enough work for 10 years.
also those standardizing of everything and trying to create a general common law is a waste of time. too many different old countries and cultures in europe so there will never be agreements..eu is paralizing itself by trying to make one european unity i think. just think of how many different languages we speak in europe..and thats one of the basic minor differences even. but thats an obstacle already and slows down the becoming of a tight federation

[IamthePope]

I see the European Union as acting like as much like a "Eurpean Government" as the member states will allow for as long as possible. The real test, and turning point for the EU will come when there is a contentious issue that the EU supports but a number of member states oppose. When this happens, their will be a division and the strength and legitemacy of the EU will be put to the test.

As of this moment the EU is not a european government, and has very little influence in international affairs. One needs only to look at the inability of the EU to form a consensus on the issue of the Iraq War for evidence of that.

[Perikles]

I hope that the EU goes back to a trade block with little or no political union, but I think that we shall surrender more powers to Brussels over the coming years....

[LoZz]

I hope that the EU goes back to a trade block with little or no political union, but I think that we shall surrender more powers to Brussels over the coming years....

agreed, dont want to surrender powers but i know we will

[Last Roman]

you will have to explain this to an American. Wasen't the original purpose of the EU strictly economics? And now it wants to be a real government is the way it seems, does that sum it up about?

[Perikles]

you will have to explain this to an American. Wasen't the original purpose of the EU strictly economics? And now it wants to be a real government is the way it seems, does that sum it up about?

The original purpose of the EU was free trade among other EU countries and to hold together post-war Europe.
Now, the EU is starting to make laws, it even has it's own parliament, and has the power to over rule national governments on certain issues and impose fines on them for not co-operating.
IMO the EU should go back to what it once was.....

[Last Roman]

The original purpose of the EU was free trade among other EU countries and to hold together post-war Europe.
Now, the EU is starting to make laws, it even has it's own parliament, and has the power to over rule national governments on certain issues and impose fines on them for not co-operating.
IMO the EU should go back to what it once was.....

wow, that is BS.

[imb39]

wow, that is BS.

In what way? I think it is fairly accurate, at least from my point of view too. Hardly 'BS' as you so eloquently put it.

[Last Roman]

In what way? I think it is fairly accurate, at least from my point of view too. Hardly 'BS' as you so eloquently put it.

no, no. It is BS that the EU can do that. and please don't patronize me

[Ahlerich]

well i think the idea is to let europe grow together and maybe one day in the far future become a little like the usa. there are programs that make it easier for germans to live and work in france and the other way around..well about the laws they set up i am not the person to write about sence i dont know details. havent followed european politics so much since i left germany.

[MadKow]

There are no "programs" to allow a german to work in france. That is already a reality and not subjecto to special regulation. The only countries still out of this freedom of mobility of labour are the most recent adherents, and even for those, some of the older EU countries have already established open borders for tthem. Others will follow.

Europe standardization has a curious upside. As its rules namely in industrial products like toys, house appliances etc, have to satisfy a large number of countries, they are also being adopted by some of the most important idustrial powers in the East, like China and Corea. Even exports that are sent to other parts of the world conform to European standards, as a way to simplify production and assure quality. This is a sort of "soft power", which impact can easily be underestimated. Imagine if labour and environmental standards are next?

I think Europe must first come to terms with a strategy before we even start talking about a federation or government or any thing. The empowerment of the European Parlament is a good thing as it is a much more democratic institution than the European Commissions.

The worst thing that could happen in my opinion is having countries like France and Germany giving up on the social model that made them such examples to the world, in the past. Europe has the responsibility to show the world that progress comes in many diferent guises, not one size fits all.

[Ahlerich]

There are no "programs" to allow a german to work in france. That is already a reality and not subjecto to special regulation.

well that is what i ment.. i guess with naming it "programms" i made it misunderstandebla. i lived in alsace in the 90s, cheap for me to live there..so yes i know that
just worded it wrong i guess
i just wanted to give a randome example of how the eu is trying to remove frontiers between european countries

[Erik]

I think most Europeans wil agree that it's best if the EU went back to it's original role of a trade union.

But sadly it's not in the hands of the European people anymore.
The EU is controlled by ambitious and corrupt politicians who want to make this project as large as possible.
How much does a EU comission member make, btw?

The EU "parliament" is a joke.
It has NO power over the European comission.
It's only purpose is to create an illusion of democracy where there is none. (and to provide a life of luxery for it's members of course)

[Perikles]

I think most Europeans wil agree that it's best if the EU went back to it's original role of a trade union.

But sadly it's not in the hands of the European people anymore.
The EU is controlled by ambitious and corrupt politicians who want to make this project as large as possible.
How much does a EU comission member make, btw?

The EU "parliament" is a joke.
It has NO power over the European comission.
It's only purpose is to create an illusion of democracy where there is none. (and to provide a life of luxery for it's members of course)

I agree with Erik!
The EU is stupid now. Just look at some of it's most recent laws, policies on the amount of hours people can work, the amount of fish that fishermen can catch. It is ludicrous, next there will be an 'amount of TV you can watch a day' law.
The one's with all the power in the EU are not even elected. Take Peter Madelson for instance...
I have said it before and I will say it agian, 'The EU is a giant corrupt, bureaucratic beast that need culling...'

[Yorkshireman]

I think most Europeans wil agree that it's best if the EU went back to it's original role of a trade union.

But sadly it's not in the hands of the European people anymore.
The EU is controlled by ambitious and corrupt politicians who want to make this project as large as possible.
How much does a EU comission member make, btw?

The EU "parliament" is a joke.
It has NO power over the European comission.
It's only purpose is to create an illusion of democracy where there is none. (and to provide a life of luxery for it's members of course)

I can't believe it, we actually agree on something for once! Well said.

[chimera1715]

I think most Europeans wil agree that it's best if the EU went back to it's original role of a trade union.

But sadly it's not in the hands of the European people anymore.
The EU is controlled by ambitious and corrupt politicians who want to make this project as large as possible.
How much does a EU comission member make, btw?

The EU "parliament" is a joke.
It has NO power over the European comission.
It's only purpose is to create an illusion of democracy where there is none. (and to provide a life of luxery for it's members of course)

The EU parliament is not a "joke". It does wield some significant structural power over the Comission in the form of budgetary issues. And neither of these institutions have as much influence as the European Council, where the real intergovernmental work is done by the leaders of the member states. Everyone says that the EU is overstepping its limits but in reality the member governments are just as problematic when it comes to fullfilling the EU's original purpose, which is the single market. European governments have been very slow on liberalizing their service industries and allowing peoples and companies free access to their markets. The EU has had some very significant economic successes that the people of Europe should be greatful for. The liberalization of certain industries like telecommunications, air travel, and the near dissolution of internal tarrifs have all benefitted the citizens of Europe. The fact is that the EU is too usefull to just do away with and even if it was, a new institution just like it would be formed to replace it.

The EU as an organization is only as strong as its member states allow it. If Germany, France, Italy, and the UK decided that it no longer served its purpose, than it would cease to exist. Many of you people seem to be forgetting this. Compared to the most powerful nations in the union, the EU wield a very small budget and has limited autonomy. I dont see why many of you are so angry at it. The EU serves a very usefull role and it is not the next step to some kind of European government.

And for the record I am taking an entire course on the EU this semester at college so I do have some idea what I am talking about.

[Denny Crane!]

id also prefer britain to lead the EU in the way your saying...not stupid weaker nations in europe..

I love this forum

The EU parliament is not a "joke".

Apart from being seriously undemocratic, members vote on such huge amounts of subjects they are relying purely on advisors often bearing little or no understanding of what they are voting on. This is just one gripe I could literally write a book about what I think is wrong with the EU.

It does wield some significant structural power over the Comission in the form of budgetary issues. And neither of these institutions have as much influence as the European Council, where the real intergovernmental work is done by the leaders of the member states. Everyone says that the EU is overstepping its limits but in reality the member governments are just as problematic when it comes to fullfilling the EU's original purpose, which is the single market. European governments have been very slow on liberalizing their service industries and allowing peoples and companies free access to their markets.

The EU failed to make any progress during the 70's and 80's towards the trade and economic unification of Europe. It wasn't until the series of treaties from 1987 single european act onwards that things really started moving. It was weak decision making that has slowed its progress not the member states.

The EU has had some very significant economic successes that the people of Europe should be greatful for. The liberalization of certain industries like telecommunications, air travel, and the near dissolution of internal tarrifs have all benefitted the citizens of Europe. The fact is that the EU is too usefull to just do away with and even if it was, a new institution just like it would be formed to replace it.

Its also had some very embaressing failures. *cough* euro *cough*. Europe is held back by outdated economic and political ideologies. It is throttled by regulation, inflexible labour markets and product and capital markets that desperately needed to be liberalised.

Is changing this going to be easy? No.

[quote]The EU as an organization is only as strong as its member states allow it. If Germany, France, Italy, and the UK decided that it no longer served its purpose, than it would cease to exist. Many of you people seem to be forgetting this. Compared to the most powerful nations in the union, the EU wield a very small budget and has limited autonomy. I dont see why many of you are so angry at it. The EU serves a very usefull role and it is not the next step to some kind of European government.

870 million euros is not a small amount though is it?

Britains population remains opposed to the idea of the EU although leaving the EU is considered a dirty topic in westminister. Just because something exists and governments don't abolish it does not make it right, assuming something is right just because other people believe it to be so is a fallacy.

And for the record I am taking an entire course on the EU this semester at college so I do have some idea what I am talking about.

Hmmm then I am unsure as to where you came to your opinions like The EU is not trying to form a european government. Nations make constitutions, nation states make treaties.

On the constitution, the Belgian prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt, has described it as the 'capstone' of a 'federal state'.

This constitution would give the EU a new president, its own foreign minister and diplomatic service and turn the European Court of Justice into a kind of Supreme Court Michael Ancram

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...19/ixhome.html

Gordon Brown launched his most outspoken attack on the European Union yesterday, accusing its leaders of planning a "federal state" with harmonised taxes that would be a recipe for economic failure

Article 1 of the draft Constitution states that the European Union will become:

"A Union of European States which, while retaining their national identities, closely co-ordinate their policies at the European level, and administer certain common competences on a federal basis."

I'm not studying at college, to old for that sort of thing (wheeze) but its a particular interest for me.

Future of Europe? We (britain) will get out at some stage. Europe is beyond reform it needs to be reverted to its original format of a trading body and forget its legislative and interfering aspects.

Peter

[chimera1715]

Apart from being seriously undemocratic, members vote on such huge amounts of subjects they are relying purely on advisors often bearing little or no understanding of what they are voting on. This is just one gripe I could literally write a book about what I think is wrong with the EU.

Yes there is a percieved "democratic deficit" in the EU and the increase in the powers of the parliament were a way to change this. Members of the parliament are voted into office so they can be voted out. People in Europe may not care much about EU elections, but dont tell me that it is "seriously undermocratic". And as for the members relying on advisors and aids to help them vote, well that is common in any modern congressional body. I fail to see why it is so aggregious just because it happens in the EU parliament as well.

The EU failed to make any progress during the 70's and 80's towards the trade and economic unification of Europe. It wasn't until the series of treaties from 1987 single european act onwards that things really started moving. It was weak decision making that has slowed its progress not the member states.

Who do you think makes all the important decisions for the EU and determins its future structure and direction? It is the leaders of the member states that gather in the European Council and hammer out intergovernmental agreements on the current issues. The lack of progress in the 70's and mid 80's was due to a number of factors including slow economic growth, low public support, mediocere leadership from the EC itself, and a lack of will from the member states. As the EU cannot structurally change itself, it is up to the national leaders and governments to promote progress. This is what brought about the reforms of the late 80's. Your explaination is far too simplistic in that since nation states ultimatly control the EU, how can they at least not be partially blamed.

Its also had some very embaressing failures. *cough* euro *cough*. Europe is held back by outdated economic and political ideologies. It is throttled by regulation, inflexible labour markets and product and capital markets that desperately needed to be liberalised.

It remains to be seen if the Euro is an "embaressing failure". It has certainly not lived up to expectations, but that does not mean it has been a disaster either. There have been some benefits that have come with the Euro as well. And I certaintly agree with you on the need to liberalise more of Europe's markets. After all, that is the point of the EU. However, if the nation states refuse to do this, how is this the EU's fault?

870 million euros is not a small amount though is it?

It is no small amount but it pales in comparison to the amount of money that just one of the top four nations (Germany, the UK, France, and Italy) will spend in a year.

Britains population remains opposed to the idea of the EU although leaving the EU is considered a dirty topic in westminister. Just because something exists and governments don't abolish it does not make it right, assuming something is right just because other people believe it to be so is a fallacy.

You are wrong here. If the EU was as ineffective and unuseful as you make it out to be, it would cease to exist as an effective body. As this has not happened, I am forced to conclude that the majority of member states find enough beneficial reasons to stay that outway any potential benefit of leaving. Modern day industralized national economies have become too interdependant to just toss away these kind of economic institutions. If it looked like a good idea in the 1950's (when the process of integration started) than it certainly is important in todays economic environment. The EU is made up of 25 nations. It would quickly loss influence if all these countries did not cooperate in some manner in order to assure their own committment to the project of closer economic integration. And the EU has also been a large benefit to the former Soviet controlled nations of Eastern Europe.

Hmmm then I am unsure as to where you came to your opinions like The EU is not trying to form a european government. Nations make constitutions, nation states make treaties. On the constitution, the Belgian prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt, has described it as the 'capstone' of a 'federal state'.Peter

The "constitution" was designed more to streamline and condense the massive amount of treaties and agreements that made up the EU. It was to give the institution a more coherent voice and to help clarify the EU's purposes and powers. It was less about trying to establish some form of a nascent European government. And since it failed, I see no great threat to national soverighnty.
And as far as the Belgian prime minister, all throught the EC and EU's history, people have been either accussing or praising the institution for its percieved federalism, and I doubt this is going to change for as long as the EU exists. I put little stock in what politicans say about these types of institutions as usually they are just pandering to their own citizenry.

[Denny Crane!]

Yes there is a percieved "democratic deficit" in the EU and the increase in the powers of the parliament were a way to change this. Members of the parliament are voted into office so they can be voted out. People in Europe may not care much about EU elections, but dont tell me that it is "seriously undermocratic". And as for the members relying on advisors and aids to help them vote, well that is common in any modern congressional body. I fail to see why it is so aggregious just because it happens in the EU parliament as well.

But advisory capability is so heavily relied upon, of course it happens in all politics but when you get MEP's who sometimes don't even really know what they are voting on it is time to worry.

What is done by the EU Parliment is not in response to any expressed or felt need of the citizens. In normal democratic politics you have occasional elections, during which time certain issues are publicly discussed. Whoever wins power has some justification for carrying out whatever programme they were proposing while trying to get elected.

This just doesn't happen in the EU. The Commission isn't elected, and the elected European Parliament does not have a mandate to do any particular course of action. Unelected bodies should not have the right to initiate legislation. So either the Commission should be elected, or it should be deprived of any right to initiate legislation

You might belong to the ideological side of politics that believe governments are there to do what is best for people not what they want but I do not. The economic benefits are there on some things, but I do not wish to sacrifice democracy for this.

Who do you think makes all the important decisions for the EU and determins its future structure and direction? It is the leaders of the member states that gather in the European Council and hammer out intergovernmental agreements on the current issues. The lack of progress in the 70's and mid 80's was due to a number of factors including slow economic growth, low public support, mediocere leadership from the EC itself, and a lack of will from the member states. As the EU cannot structurally change itself, it is up to the national leaders and governments to promote progress. This is what brought about the reforms of the late 80's. Your explaination is far too simplistic in that since nation states ultimatly control the EU, how can they at least not be partially blamed.

Of course they can be partially blamed, but one of the main factors that contributed to the lack of change was in my previous point. I was merely responding to the intimation that it is the stubborness of the member states that has slowed progress, when incompetence and a lack of confidence in an incompetent institution are not condusive to change.

It remains to be seen if the Euro is an "embaressing failure". It has certainly not lived up to expectations, but that does not mean it has been a disaster either. There have been some benefits that have come with the Euro as well. And I certaintly agree with you on the need to liberalise more of Europe's markets. After all, that is the point of the EU. However, if the nation states refuse to do this, how is this the EU's fault?

If the nation states refuse to folow the EU is that not a problem with the EU itself? If key member states will not comply with the basic ideas of the EU then that seems to be a pretty major stumbling block.

It is no small amount but it pales in comparison to the amount of money that just one of the top four nations (Germany, the UK, France, and Italy) will spend in a year.

The EU does not have to fund education, health, army and infrastructure though does it?

You are wrong here. If the EU was as ineffective and unuseful as you make it out to be, it would cease to exist as an effective body. As this has not happened, I am forced to conclude that the majority of member states find enough beneficial reasons to stay that outway any potential benefit of leaving. Modern day industralized national economies have become too interdependant to just toss away these kind of economic institutions. If it looked like a good idea in the 1950's (when the process of integration started) than it certainly is important in todays economic environment. The EU is made up of 25 nations. It would quickly loss influence if all these countries did not cooperate in some manner in order to assure their own committment to the project of closer economic integration. And the EU has also been a large benefit to the former Soviet controlled nations of Eastern Europe.

Actually no I am not wrong, people in Britain are not opposed to the economic benefits from Europe. They are opposed to a federalised Europe. I cannot deny the economic benefits of an economic union but I can deny the benefits of further political integration.

The "constitution" was designed more to streamline and condense the massive amount of treaties and agreements that made up the EU. It was to give the institution a more coherent voice and to help clarify the EU's purposes and powers. It was less about trying to establish some form of a nascent European government. And since it failed, I see no great threat to national soverighnty.
And as far as the Belgian prime minister, all throught the EC and EU's history, people have been either accussing or praising the institution for its percieved federalism, and I doubt this is going to change for as long as the EU exists. I put little stock in what politicans say about these types of institutions as usually they are just pandering to their own citizenry.

Streamlined and condense and yet it was still 60000 words long, It is also written in technical legal language which has proved difficult even for specialists to understand and which is highly inaccessible to the general public. Compared to the USA constitution which is 4600 words long. Even the people who wrote it admit they may have attempted to much in consolidating existing treaties and creating a constitution.

They could have drafted a small constitution and left the treaties as they were but instead they did what they did and then blamed people for voting against it. Going so far as to suggest that people need to change and they would rerun the polls until they got the answer they want.

You may say people do not understand it properly, but that is the fault of the writers not the people as politics need to be accessible to ordinary people not legal and political experts exclusively.