The United States of Europe

[Durius]

The Russian army is a prime example that having a strong decision center far from the front that gives no autonomy to its units to make autonomous decisions leads to bad consequences. Russian soldiers keep dying because the higher ups don't understand the situation on the field or because they don't know how to take action when they are suddenly cut from their chain of command. I'm not complaining too much, since the faster Russia is defeated and exists Ukraine, the better, but it's still a sad spectacle to witness.

Yes. In short, autocracy makes a state less able to achieve its desired objectives, or in other words, it makes it weaker.

Hence my abject confusion at you interpreting "I want a strong state" as "I'd support dictatorship", considering this open air demonstration of how bad dictatorships are at building state power.

The point is that centralized governments are a bad idea, in particular when you are talking about a union at the continental level. You ought to trust local authorities to make decisions for themselves instead of trying to decide everything for them.

[Picairn]

As a non-European, I think the EU still needs to iron out some problems before going anywhere near federalization, namely the Visegrad problem and strategic autonomy.

By "the Visegrad problem", I mean Poland and Hungary. From what I understand these two countries are currently being ruled by right-wing anti-democratic governments that have rolled back civil rights and dismantling checks and balances (PiS in Poland) or obstructing EU's policy (Orban's Hungary). How can the EU federalize under common democratic principles with right-wing nationalist governments undermining its democratic values and institutions? Or the backlash of nationalism in general.

By strategic autonomy, I mean the ability to conduct an independent foreign policy. Currently the EU and by extension NATO are firmly the long arms of US influence, and this is best demonstrated by what I call the post-Cold War "parade armies" of European countries which are inadequate in both numbers and equipment, thus heavily dependent on US protection for survival. Macron talked about a "European Army" but it still seems like a pipe dream at this point. There appears to be a passive mentality among these states, requiring US leadership, pressure and coordination in response to external crises, such as military aid to Ukraine. The most prominent example is of course Germany, the de facto leader of EU. The actions of the current Scholz administration frankly doesn't inspire me much confidence. The Finnish PM Sanna Marin straight up said the EU would be in trouble without the US. So how does this new European Federation reduce its dependence on the US? Surely they can not count to be in the US' shadow forever, at some point it must confront the growing threat of China and may become unable to tend to two fronts at the same time.

[Picairn]

The point is that centralized governments are a bad idea, in particular when you are talking about a union at the continental level. You ought to trust local authorities to make decisions for themselves instead of trying to decide everything for them.

The US is a centralized federation. Centralization to a certain point is necessary for the central government to function effectively. Remember the failure of the Articles of Confederation? Worth considering that when the EU is currently paralyzed by the unanimity requirement.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

Are there really right-wingers in your country who support the values ​​of the European Union? If this is the case, good news, but there is no such thing in my country, right-wingers are anti-European Union.

My Turkish politics isn't great, but if I recall there were a few "left-wing" eurosceptics in Turkey - the TKP, the TIP have both argued against membership of the EU would undermine Turkey's ability to pursue independent economic and foreign policies.

Sure, Left-wing Euroscepticism in Turkey is not as strong as right-wing Euroscepticism, which is far more prevalent among nationalist and Islamist groups in the country, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

And if I recall correctly, Selahattin Demirtas was previously critical of the EU's requirements for membership, such as the adoption of neoliberal economic policies and the implementation of political and judicial reforms.

As for the rest of Europe, DiEM25, PEL and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have all advocated a range of controls from seeing the EU dismantled entirely to those who simply want to see reforms to make it more democratic and accountable.

The HDP and the Workers' Party of Turkey are not really the left, they are the people who are on the real left Kemalist center-left line in Turkey and we are the social democrat Kemalists who will bring Turkey into the European Union. I would really like our democracy to be like Germany and France, unfortunately, the big right tent in our country does not allow this.

My Turkish politics isn't great, but if I recall there were a few "left-wing" eurosceptics in Turkey - the TKP, the TIP have both argued against membership of the EU would undermine Turkey's ability to pursue independent economic and foreign policies.

Sure, Left-wing Euroscepticism in Turkey is not as strong as right-wing Euroscepticism, which is far more prevalent among nationalist and Islamist groups in the country, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

And if I recall correctly, Selahattin Demirtas was previously critical of the EU's requirements for membership, such as the adoption of neoliberal economic policies and the implementation of political and judicial reforms.

As for the rest of Europe, DiEM25, PEL and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have all advocated a range of controls from seeing the EU dismantled entirely to those who simply want to see reforms to make it more democratic and accountable.

There is also the Patriotic Party (VP). It is a left-wing party in Turkey that opposes EU membership and follows an ideology called Ulusalcılık.

I am also a Ulusalcı, but I refuse to be a pro-Russian political Islamist puppet. The party you are talking about is a party that has nothing to do with Ulusalcılık.

[Durius]

The point is that centralized governments are a bad idea, in particular when you are talking about a union at the continental level. You ought to trust local authorities to make decisions for themselves instead of trying to decide everything for them.

The US is a centralized federation. Centralization to a certain point is necessary for the central government to function effectively. Remember the failure of the Articles of Confederation? Worth considering that when the EU is currently paralyzed by the unanimity requirement.

Maybe we are interpreting "being centralized" differently. To me, the US has a central government, but they aren't centralized (that is, they aren't a unitary state). The states have great degrees of autonomy over their own affairs. The same happens in many countries and is, imo, the best course of action for the EU.

As for the unanimity requirement in the EU, its removal from further areas is already being discussed. Either way, veto power doesn't mean decentralization. It will take time and effort to remove it, but the EU isn't officially a federation yet either.

[Picairn]

Maybe we are interpreting "being centralized" differently. To me, the US has a central government, but they aren't centralized (that is, they aren't a unitary state). The states have great degrees of autonomy over their own affairs. The same happens in many countries and is, imo, the best course of action for the EU.

As for the unanimity requirement in the EU, its removal from further areas is already being discussed. Either way, veto power doesn't mean decentralization. It will take time and effort to remove it, but the EU isn't officially a federation yet either.

Centralization is a spectrum, not a dichotomy. It is the concentration of power in a political body. Both a federation and a unitary state are centralized to a degree, the former is just weaker than the latter. On the other side, we have confederations which have a weak central government.

Yes, unanimity means decentralization because it gives enormous power to the states instead of the central government.

[Durius]

Maybe we are interpreting "being centralized" differently. To me, the US has a central government, but they aren't centralized (that is, they aren't a unitary state). The states have great degrees of autonomy over their own affairs. The same happens in many countries and is, imo, the best course of action for the EU.

As for the unanimity requirement in the EU, its removal from further areas is already being discussed. Either way, veto power doesn't mean decentralization. It will take time and effort to remove it, but the EU isn't officially a federation yet either.

Centralization is a spectrum, not a dichotomy. It is the concentration of power in a political body. Both a federation and a unitary state are centralized to a degree, the former is just weaker than the latter. On the other side, we have confederations which have a weak central government.

Yes, unanimity means decentralization because it gives enormous power to the states instead of the central government.

If you are abiding by the definition that centralization is spectrum, so it is decentralization. But I completely disagree that unanimity means decentralization, for the simply fact that it happens at the highest level in the European Council. It is not a decision taken at the local, decentralized level. For American minds, it's like saying that a vote in the Senate in Washington DC is decentralization. The notion seems quite ridiculous. But we are straying from the topic.

[Picairn]

If you are abiding by the definition that centralization is spectrum, so it is decentralization. But I completely disagree that unanimity means decentralization, for the simply fact that it happens at the highest level in the European Council. It is not a decision taken at the local, decentralized level. For American minds, it's like saying that a vote in the Senate in Washington DC is decentralization. The notion seems quite ridiculous. But we are straying from the topic.

This is utterly ridiculous. The location of voting has no relation whatsoever to the amount of power invested in the central government. Unanimity means the central government can not act without the assent of all member states, which gives the latter enormous power over the former's decision-making process, hence decentralization. And yes, decentralization is a spectrum, same as its counterpart.

[Durius]

Unanimity means the central government can not act without the assent of all member states, which gives the latter enormous power over the former's decision-making process, hence decentralization.

The EU body responsible for foreign policy is the European Council. The fact it's a Council that requires unanimous consent instead of a single person is irrelevant (but inefficient, that's why this form of government needs a reform). And given that the council is the de facto European executive regarding matters of foreign policy, your statement boils down to "the central government cannot act without the assent of the central government". Well, duh! What you seem to be missing is the fact that European Council is not a decentralized body, it's a European one. It serves to make decisions about the priorities of the Union. It has no local level competences. Furthermore, it doesn't govern the European Commission, other than proposing its president.

In the same way that the American Federal Legislature/Presidency doesn't rule over local matters, that being left for State Legislatures/Governors or lower, you can't describe a chamber whose purpose is to rule over union/federal matters as decentralization. It's a very weird take on decentralization. That's why, I tried to clarify what was the meaning of centralization I was arguing about. I'm increasingly seeing your definition as completely useless.

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

A united Europe would have more power and not be puppets US or Russia

Well at least the region has less conflict now (except Kosovo), so that's way more promising than USSR. It already impossible to unify Russia Ukraine Belarus and Baltic.

If Russia, Belarus, and soon Armenia are all in the Union state Russia is already on it's way.

Why would Armenia join a Union State? Russia's done jack shit to protect them, so why would they unite with someone who doesn't care for them?

[Picairn]

The EU body responsible for foreign policy is the European Council. The fact it's a Council that requires unanimous consent instead of a single person is irrelevant (but inefficient, that's why this form of government needs a reform). And given that the council is the de facto European executive regarding matters of foreign policy, your statement boils down to "the central government cannot act without the assent of the central government". Well, duh! What you seem to be missing is the fact that European Council is not a decentralized body, it's a European one. It serves to make decisions about the priorities of the Union. It has no local level competences. Furthermore, it doesn't govern the European Commission, other than proposing its president.

In the same way that the American Federal Legislature/Presidency doesn't rule over local matters, that being left for State Legislatures/Governors or lower, you can't describe a chamber whose purpose is to rule over union/federal matters as decentralization. It's a very weird take on decentralization. That's why, I tried to clarify what was the meaning of centralization I was arguing about. I'm increasingly seeing your definition as completely useless.

Why is it irrelevant that a common EU foreign policy requires the assent of all member states? That's a defining feature of a weak confederation! In the US the President can determine foreign policy without needing the approval of the states (except for the ratification of treaties in the Senate), that's remarkably more powerful and centralized than a Council deliberation requiring unanimous assent.

And no, the main EU institution with the final say on forpol is the Council of the EU. The European Council is the summit of EU heads of state to determine its political direction, which is akin to a collective presidency. The Council of the EU is the "upper house" of the EU legislature, the lower house being the EU Parliament. The main EU executive branch is the European Commission. You seem to have a very poor understanding of how unanimity and state representation work. It doesn't matter if the Council of the EU is a "European body", it consists of the government ministers of every EU state and requires unanimity on certain issues, including foreign policy. Hence the power is invested in the states instead of the central government. The functions of the Council of the EU is analogous to the US Senate.

If the American federal legislature (or rather the Senate) requires the unanimous consent of the states for foreign policy, then yes I'd say it is decentralization. In fact it is even more extreme than the Confederation Congress prior to the ratification of the Constitution, which required the assent of 9/13 states for treaties. You don't understand what decentralization means, do you?

[Stylan]

Very much opposed to this. Has an inherently racial tinge

"Unify Latin countries, Germanic countries, Ugric countries, Celtic countries, Baltic countries, Slavic countries, Hellenic countries and whatnot!"
"OMG THAT'S LIKE RACIST"

I said it was "racially tinged," because it is. If I said Europeans need to unite against the West and focus on cultivating European culture in a super-state that only included European countries, you'd probably understand that there was a twinge of racism inherent in that, no>

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

Anyone interested in such an idea should read into Kalegri a bit, has much to do with the origins of the pan europeanism movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_v ... ve-Kalergi

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

Anyone interested in such an idea should read into Kalegri a bit, has much to do with the origins of the pan europeanism movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalergi_Plan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_v ... ve-Kalergi

Oh sure... Immediately cite the most racist thing... yikes! (Though yeah, it shows that pan-“europeanism” is just white supremacy in another name!)

[Picairn]

Anyone interested in such an idea should read into Kalegri a bit, has much to do with the origins of the pan europeanism movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalergi_Plan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_v ... ve-Kalergi

Why must anyone listen to the conspiracy theories of neo-Nazis?

[HISPIDA]

Anyone interested in such an idea should read into Kalegri a bit, has much to do with the origins of the pan europeanism movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalergi_Plan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_v ... ve-Kalergi

"huh i actually haven't heard of this i wonder what this is abo-"

a far-right, antisemitic, white genocide conspiracy theory

"ah."

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

Anyone interested in such an idea should read into Kalegri a bit, has much to do with the origins of the pan europeanism movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalergi_Plan; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_v ... ve-Kalergi

Why must anyone listen to the conspiracy theories of neo-Nazis?

Alt-right: Write that down, Write that down!

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

I realize that I sent the incorrect wikipedia, I was so confused.

I am pro Kalergi, the conspiracy theory is wrong obviously lol

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

Anyone interested in such an idea should read into Kalegri a bit, has much to do with the origins of the pan europeanism movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalergi_Plan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_v ... ve-Kalergi

Why must anyone listen to the conspiracy theories of neo-Nazis?

They shouldnt, I sent the wrong wiki. I blindly thought it was explaining Kalergis vision which is interesting not a nazi conspiracy.

[Floofybit]

Think it'd be pretty cool if Europe united. I don't know why, don't have reasoning, just think it would be cool

[Drongonia]

Why would anyone in their right minds, seeing how pointlessly bloated and imposing the EU's current bureaucracy is - wish to be ruled by them with full governmental authority?

Complete centralisation of power and decision-making is almost always a disaster. As others have said, Poland is not the same country as France or Serbia or Belarus or Sweden or Ireland.

[Picairn]

If Europe federalizes, I'd suggest they change the confusing names first. Here's my proposal: the European Council is abolished or merged with the Commission, the European Commission is elevated to the European Government and its Cabinet chosen among members of the Assembly, the European Parliament (in reality the lower house of the EU legislature) becomes the European Assembly, the Council of the EU (upper house) becomes the European Council of States, a European President is popularly elected with a Prime Minister chosen by the Assembly. The President handles formalities of the state and foreign policy and the PM handles domestic policy, or gut the forpol powers from the President completely and let him serve as a figurehead. The European Court of Justice changes into the Supreme Court of Europe (obviously).

[Fifth Jellian Republic]

Why would anyone in their right minds, seeing how pointlessly bloated and imposing the EU's current bureaucracy is - wish to be ruled by them with full governmental authority?

Complete centralisation of power and decision-making is almost always a disaster. As others have said, Poland is not the same country as France or Serbia or Belarus or Sweden or Ireland.

What if the EU had states, like the US.
California, Maine, and Texas are all different after all

[Drongonia]

Why would anyone in their right minds, seeing how pointlessly bloated and imposing the EU's current bureaucracy is - wish to be ruled by them with full governmental authority?

Complete centralisation of power and decision-making is almost always a disaster. As others have said, Poland is not the same country as France or Serbia or Belarus or Sweden or Ireland.

What if the EU had states, like the US.
California, Maine, and Texas are all different after all

Federal laws exist and often clash with state law. When federal laws prevail, the inevitable "states' rights" debate gets fired up. When the state law prevails, what was the point of having the federalised rule?

Lose-lose game.

[El Lazaro]

What if the EU had states, like the US.
California, Maine, and Texas are all different after all

Federal laws exist and often clash with state law. When federal laws prevail, the inevitable "states' rights" debate gets fired up. When the state law prevails, what was the point of having the federalised rule?

Lose-lose game.

What’s the point of having states when they have municipalities? For that matter, why don’t we just abolish the government if we don’t want to make decisions that a non-zero amount of people disagree with?