Open link in next tab
Draghi: EU must become a state
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/draghi-eu-must-become-a-state/
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/draghi-eu-must-become-a-state/
I dont agree with this. More centralized power just makes it harder for local and national changes and also makes it easier for lobbyists to undermine the interests of the general population for their own benefit
Oh, you're not alone. People think the choice is between national interests or Europe.
You won't agree with me on this, but in reality the choice is arguably between European interests or Chinese/foreign interests. Instead of choosing strength in unity, we're choosing to be divided and conquered.
Just look at the result of prioritizing national rather than European interests for defense. Not enough industrial capacity to support Ukraine, redundancies, limits on benefits of scale, taxpayer money disproportionately funding jobs in the US defense industry rather here in Europe, and Europe being to weak to scare off Russia from interference or perhaps even worse.
Just look at the greatest Eurosceptic parties. Inevitably they have ties to Russia or are pro-Russian.
Just look at alleged interference in the brexit referendum. The Kremlin had a good laugh about that one.
I don't expect to change your mind on this, and don't worry yours is the popular opinion. A European state won't happen. But I hope you understand why plenty of people are exasperated by this. Continued division will accelerate our decline, and rather than being able to defend our geostrategic interests, we will continue to be pushed around by superpowers. And it won't be inevitable. It will be a choice that we made.
The power already is centralized to a strong degree. But with an actual statelike system we would have full legislative power through democraticly elected parliaments and governments. With that more changes could happen, as they would now be represented, instead of having the mutant-organizations of comission and council without triple and quadruple indirectness between them and the citizens. That is where the lobbying power is so successfull. Because there is no democratic representation and hence no accountability in these structures.
More centralized power just makes it harder for local and national changes
Would that be a problem?
I was wondering the same thing. What would that entail for the less influential countries within the EU?
Here in Greece we could use some help. Our legal system is broken, the freedom of press is non-existent, police brutality is at an all time high, we don't have a train network (in general bad transport infrastructure), to name a few issues.
On the other hand, gentrification is as bad as it is right now, having to move out of the city I was born in and have loved all of my life because I cannot afford rent won't be fun.
Is it even true? USA has the same concept, and a lot of decisions are on a state level. China also has a lot of different local policies, even though in a totalitarian structure. Some cities have their own government, because they are so big. Germany has 16 states, which also do their own laws.
I don’t think it would be like France, where everything is mandated from Paris.
There are way too many small minded people in the EU at the moment to make this a reality.
The idea of a continuous closer integration of states within the EU is one of THE main founding ideas, though.
Can we please stop this eternal debate about the EU becoming a state? I feel like it's besides the point and only evokes harmful reflexes on all sides. The question should be how to streamline and organize decision making. Who decides on which level about what. As Draghi points out correctly, certain stategic decisions should be made at an EU level. That would be more efficient, more impactful and help Europeans as a whole but it's not really about "turning the EU into a country". I get that "the sovereign nation state" has been the single one all-encompassing, all-powerful entity at the heart of political thinking since at least the 17th century but I just feel like it's no longer necessarily a helpful frame of reference for many developments in the 21st century.
We, as Europe, spend three to five times what Russia spends, and we are the second largest investor in military expenditure after the US. It is, therefore, a question of better coordination (…) It is a special moment when we have to review many of the assumptions of our being together”, he concluded.
Great statement here
We already have a not insignificant minority trying to leave the EU or destroy it. Imagine how many votes they get if the EU tries to become a state
It would probably be very difficult inside the current system. Maybe it would need to grow dynamically starting with central countries first and then moving further out. If Hungary and Slovakia prefer to be Russian puppets thats fine for them. I am sure they'll learn in due time.
You do not need every current EU member to agree to this. You just need enough for it to make sense. If for example you have German, France, Spain, Portugal and Belgium, which are the countries more or less in favor of federalism at the moment, it is enough for most of the effects of scale to work. Thats like half the population of the EU and with a large share of the GDP. Maybe some of the eastern members join as well, which would mean even more strength.
Minority is exactly right. With Brexit they managed to sway enough floating morons with promises of golden palaces and full autonomy.
In the real world, where you have to cooperate to get anywhere on big issues, we quickly find out that throwing a tantrum because you're a grown-up that can determine its own bedtime just gets you discredited and tasked with "all right, let's see you manage all this stuff on your own then".
Putting this into perspective: The PVV won dutch elections recently and did so with 23% of the vote. It is well known that a significant portion ot those voters don't support all of Wilders' policy, they just want to see change. And Wilders' main argument for leaving the EU is "migrants bad, we want border control". Not exactly fully thought out.
The exact percentage of people that will actually vote to leave the EU if it even comes that far is likely not much higher. Combine that with the fact that everyone can see the UK doing just great, and the cances are slim any of this big talk actually leads to Nexit.
We're seeing the power of stupid people in large groups at work, but there are simply not enough of them to do any significant damage. Our political system makes it so that anyone has to cooperate to get anywhere, and Wilders needs support of at least 27% of the elected officials to get anything done. It is highly unlikely any of his more radical policies will survive that process.
Plenty is still missing.
A constitution, a parliament with full legislative power, a unified legal system in key areas such as criminal law, federal political parties, a unified citizenship and a unified administrative system.
E.g. you would need to be subject to generally the same laws in France as you are in Italy, which are coming from one constitution that all lawmakers and courts need to uphold. When the passport you made in France need to be renewed you should be able to do that just as easily at any government office in Italy and during elections you should be able to vote the same parties that you were able to vote on before. And the people you elected need to be able to actually submit laws and the laws need to be able to pass purely in the parliament, without a veto and design power purely held by the government (comission).
A constitution,
The EU has more of a constitution than the UK.
a parliament with full legislative power
Not necessary for statehood -- parliament is still the main legislative power, and requiring parliamentarians to draft laws has its own issues, you need tons of knowledgable staff to do it properly so it makes sense to centralise all the technocratic work. I agree though that staff should be split off from the commission into its independent thing, all three of parliament, commission, and council can then task it to come up with drafts regarding something.
a unified legal system in key areas such as criminal law
Not all federations have unified criminal law. In Germany it happens to be federal prerogative, but in e.g. the US every state has its own system.
a unified citizenship
We do have EU citizenship. Restrictions mostly apply to not being able to access other member's welfare systems if you haven't worked there for some time.
a unified administrative system.
Fuck no. Are you French or something where municipalities are run by Paris.
federal political parties
Already exist, though the large incumbents basically confederacies of parties... and newer, smaller, ones which started in a united Europe and developed their programme and identity in a pan-European context from the very beginning, like the Pirates and Volt, aren't recognised because not enough seats, neither in the EP nor member state parliaments.
But that brings me to the one actually crucial point: We need a European political sphere. Bluntly said as long as elections on the EU level are a vehicle to tell national parties whether they fucked up we're not there, yet, we're not one voting public but 27.
If ther parliament has no initiative right for legislation, there is no directly democratically legitimized legislative body. And the EU comission is way to indirect to be considered properly legitimized.
That the US is lackluster in its criminal system should not be an acceptable example for us.
While your citizenship extends to allowing you freedom in other EU countries there is still plenty differences outside the EU. But you wouldnt find it that inside a nation state people from one federal state can travel under different rules than people from another federal state. They are all subject to the same rules and that needs to be the case for the EU too, to achieve statehood.
With the unified administrative system it is not about control from one place. It is about uniform standards and uniform interactions. For instance getting married requires different papers and prerequisites depending on country. Things that are a complicated act with multiple personal appointments in Germany can be done in 5 minutes digitally in other countries. This is unacceptable for a nation state.
we do not really have eu wide political parties yet. there is alliances, but those are different and people can only vote the local part of the EU election. There is no EU wide electable lists and worst of all there is different rules to the countries EU elections. Something again impossible in a true collective nation state as elections need to be equal.
So we are still a long way from having the EU works as one nation state.
If ther parliament has no initiative right for legislation, there is no directly democratically legitimized legislative body. And the EU comission is way to indirect to be considered properly legitimized.
The parliament can order the comission to draft a law regarding a certain area, and then amend it to their heart's content. It's indirect, yes, but as said I think keeping the external drafters is actually a good idea. EU law is complex.
That the US is lackluster in its criminal system should not be an acceptable example for us.
The issue with the US is not structural, but that the enlightenment never arrived among the people there.
While your citizenship extends to allowing you freedom in other EU countries there is still plenty differences outside the EU. But you wouldnt find it that inside a nation state people from one federal state can travel under different rules than people from another federal state. They are all subject to the same rules and that needs to be the case for the EU too, to achieve statehood.
Well the EU is trying to make things like visa rules of other countries uniform for all EU citizens. Being a single state would certainly help with that but I don't think it's a prerequisite.
With the unified administrative system it is not about control from one place. It is about uniform standards and uniform interactions. For instance getting married requires different papers and prerequisites depending on country. Things that are a complicated act with multiple personal appointments in Germany can be done in 5 minutes digitally in other countries. This is unacceptable for a nation state.
It is the norm in Germany: Want to leave a public church? In one state you do that at the Standesamt, in another in the courthouse. Administration is state prerogative. Interoperability is a good thing but telling member states how to do their administration is a no-go, it's a breach of subsidiarity.
So we are still a long way from having the EU works as one nation state.
Agreed, however I'd still say that the lack of a European voting public is the main issue. The rest is details which will work themselves out or actually irrelevant. And the voting public thing is necessarily a generational project. If the whole electorate was Gen X and younger things would look very different indeed.
I don't know about the parties. We have parties you can only vote for in certain Bundesländer. Like the CSU. You can only vote for them if you live in Bavaria. Or in Schleswig-Holstein there is the party for the Danish minority in Germany. Even in elections on a federal level
Europe will then become a gigantic organization that takes forever to take any action, with a fragile election system. There's a reason why Parisians don't vote on German issues.
According to him, the time has now come to unite and overcome the difficulties linked to fragmented EU regulations in every sector, which slow down the EU’s operation, particularly in response to emergencies.
I'd say what he wants is basically ignore member states for what he wants to do.
Speaking of the EU’s market potential, Draghi called it “too small”, adding that there “are so many markets and therefore the small companies that are born in Europe, as soon as they grow, they sell or go to the United States”.
And that's because US is a big market. Whatever EU does, the tFrench market will not become identical to the German one, let alone Turkish or Czech
And just imagine. The next Hitler can get the most of europe by one rigged election system and start expanding from there, using the army from Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, etc. etc. It's just dangerous and idiotic.
Edit: To whoever replied to me with what follows:
None of what you said makes any sense
No, I'm not going to waste time with someone who shows lack of the concept of nuance. Get out of your echo chamber first.
Parisians also don't vote on Lyon issues, just like Berliners don't vote on Munich issues.
We already have different levels of government and administration, including both local and European ones. Different issues are handled on different levels. Always have been.
None of what you said makes any sense to me. Of course EU states are very different right now, and the language barrier is huge.
I'll say some debatable things now but I don't want to write a dissertation so i need to take shortcuts.
To unify Europe for real compromises must be made and an european identity must be created, the USA pulled this off almost entirely thanks to having a shorter history and also thanks to things like hollywood pushing calculated stereotypes (an arguably positive form of propaganda). European populations have been fighting each other for thousands of years so it will take some effort, but I think the reciprocal hate is at a legendary minimum nowadays, and there is a lot of mobility.
I may agree that going straight to unification may be premature, but to be honest the usa have a great deal of diversity and still make it work.
Whatever EU does, the tFrench market will not become identical to the German one
Not overnight, no. But I think that they're converging.
Would you say that the market in France of 2023 and Germany of 2023 are more alike or less alike than France of 1923 and Germany of 1923?
I mean, they can get closer but that doesn't mean they'll have the same market in the end. Even they will, they should not toss away their governmental structures in order to please businesses as the article indicates.
Then i recommend you to take a train to a village by the sea, have a look around at the local market there, and then take a train to a village 2 hours inland and look at the local market there. You'll find entirely different goods and the same goods will have different prices.
You will never have the same market everywhere. Doesnt matter if inside a country, inside a region, or heck even in my city the same store chain sell the same products at different prices depending if you are in the affluent city center, the poor outer city belt or the effluent suburbs.
What kind of markets do you mean then? "The market" is a term for a place in the broadest sense, where people trade goods and services, usually for money.
And there will always be local differences. If you think the local food market is too benign then look at gas prices, labor costs, building materials...
It is arbitrary to claim that the differences between two nation states in the EU are a problem and expecting everything to be identitcal, but not demand the same inside a country, inside a region and inside a city.
For all relevant measure the EU is a single market and the local differences are the least concern for a more integrated EU, as the integration is most advanced in this area.
And the claimed singularity of the US market, where clearly those differences are just as strong as in Europe and in many cases much stronger, shows that the OP who made this claim has no concept of what he means and expects with this category.