
A United States of Europe? Good Luck - akg_67
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-15/unpopular-rush-to-build-a-united-states-of-europe
======
fsloth
I have not yet met an analysis that would explain why a huge governmental body
to politically rule the entire Europe would be a good thing. Historically,
realms that have been patched together from previously autonomous bodies have
not done too well (I would appreciate counter examples).

Most successful large systems grow organically and with time or are forced
into a unified whole by a huge effort at control. And the effort needed seems
to me to grow at exponentially as the total system size increases.

Trade agreements can govern the interaction between autonomous bodies - they
affect the policies but are more of a service interface and a set of
constraints than a complete operating system.

~~~
a_bonobo
As a counter-example: Germany as a country has a very short history - "pan-
germanism" was a movement to unify all German-speaking countries, which
included quite a bit of Poland, Austria and Switzerland. There were 39 states
in the first German Bund ~1870, there were way more states in the preceding
Holy Roman Empire (that one included what's now the Netherlands, Belgium,
parts of Italy etc.). These were merged into the Empire, which turned shortly
into the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, West and East Germany, and is now the
Bundesrepublik.

Culturally these parts were quite different, most often dominated by Prussia
vs. the rest [1]. But Prussia has been forgotten by now, which makes me
hopeful that you can have a large country with people who are thought to be
"culturally incompatible". Some German-speaking areas that were included in
the first German Bund aren't German speaking anymore since the Second World
War. Sudeten-Germans and other German minorities were kicked out after Hitler
lost.

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-
Germanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Germanism)

[1] My favorite book about this is "Diary of a Man in Despair", it's written
by a Prussian who pretended to be a Bavarian who keeps on criticizing
Prussians

~~~
jkot
Holy Roman Empire started around 800AD.

~~~
danielam
As they say, the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman nor an Empire.

------
nkuttler
Nobody I know wants United States of Europe. The European Union is completely
undemocratic at it's core, our national leaders have made sure that the
electorate has minimal powers and influence over their supranational policing.
Sovereignty of the people conflicts with the sovereignty of nations.

~~~
cm2187
It's only undemocratic because electors do not seem to care who they send to
the EU. But MEP are elected, and the officials that are not elected are
nominated by elected officials.

I think the only viable EU is a United States of Europe, in which the current
countries disappear, and you only have a Federal state and what is currently
regions in the current countries.

Whether a EU is desirable for the UK is another debate. The UK is one of the
rare capitalist countries in Europe while pretty much all the other countries
are social-democrat if not outright socialist countries, with the high
unemployment and low growth associated.

~~~
dogma1138
The European Parliament has no real power.

The legislative and executive powers of the union are held by the council of
Europe which isn't an elected body.

~~~
rbehrends
> The European Parliament has no real power.

The European Parliament elects the European Commission and can force its
resignation through a vote of no confidence (the latter happened to the Santer
Commission).

Jean-Claude Juncker technically has more democratic legitimacy than David
Cameron; he was elected by a number of representatives standing for a majority
of the electorate.

Practically all EU legislation requires a majority in the European Parliament
and a qualified majority in the Council of the European Union (the upper house
of the EU legislature, which represents the democratically elected governments
of the member states).

The problem is that democratic legitimacy alone does not functioning
institutions make.

> The legislative and executive powers of the union are held by the council of
> Europe which isn't an elected body.

The Council of Europe [1] is an intergovernmental body that has nothing to do
with the EU. If you mean the Council of the European Union, that is (as
mentioned above) the upper house of the legislature, but has no executive
powers (those lie with the Commission and the member states) and all its
members represent the democratically elected governments of the member states.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe)

~~~
dogma1138
Yes i did mean the council of the European Union, but sorry you are completely
wrong on everything else. The Parliament has only a say on 1 of the 28
commission members the which is the president and even then it's not elected
by them. The president is nominated by the council, and confirmed by the
parliament. This is similar to how supreme justices are confirmed by the
senate in the US however the EUP has much less power over that confirmation.
The rest of the 27 members are appointed directly by the council.

You can say that the EU as a whole is actually non-democratic all of the power
de-jure and de-facto lies within the council, the council represents the
executive branches of the EU members, you can even make an argument that the
EU actually undermines the democratic process in other countries as it gives
their executive branch a possible legislative power which they do not have
directly in their own country.

The executive branches set up the council, the council has direct control over
the legislative and executive powers of the union which means they can pass
laws which might have implications on EU member states (especially if the
state has decided to subdue itself to EU law in it's constitution, cough
Sweden cough) in a manner that the executive branch of those states would not
have agency on.

~~~
rbehrends
> Yes i did mean the council of the European Union and on the Council of
> Europe, but sorry you are completely wrong on everything else. The
> Parliament has only a say on 1 of the 28 commission members the which is the
> president and even then it's not elected by them.

No, the European Parliament elects the entire European Commission; it just has
to be an up-or-down vote on the entire Commission, but cannot vote for
individual commissioners, though last year one Commissioner was replaced after
the confirmation hearings and another had his portfolio cut.

The European Council nominates a candidate for President of the Commission;
that person than selects candidates for the Commissioners, one from each
member state. The European Parliament than holds confirmation hearings, may
suggest adjustments to the Commission, and then holds a vote on the Commission
in its entirety.

> The president is nominated by the council, and confirmed by the parliament.

First, the Commission President is not nominated by the Council of the EU. He
is nominated by the European Council, which is not the same as the Council of
the EU.

Second, the British PM is appointed by the British Monarch and is not even
confirmed or elected; the German chancellor is nominated by the German
president and then confirmed (or not) by the German parliament.

> This is similar to how supreme justices are confirmed by the senate in the
> US however the EUP has much less power over that confirmation.

No, this is how election of the head of government works in most parliamentary
democracies, which is what the EU system is modeled after.

> The executive branches set up the council

Which is how the upper house is commonly set up in a federal system; it
represents the states and the representatives are often selected by their
executives.1

> the council has direct control over the legislative and executive powers of
> the union which means they can pass laws which might have implications on EU
> member states

The Council of the EU cannot pass laws without the European Parliament (the
Council of the EU is only the upper house of the EU legislature). It does not
have any power over the European Commission, which is the executive (i.e. the
equivalent of a cabinet) in the EU.

Please, do read up on how the EU actually functions and do not go by second-
hand sources.

~~~
dogma1138
>No, the European Parliament elects the entire European Commission; it just
has to be an up-or-down vote on the entire Commission, but cannot vote for
individual commissioners, though last year one Commissioner was replaced after
the confirmation hearings and another had his portfolio cut

Again that is simply not correct, here is Article 17 for you to read again.

Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having
held the appropriate consultations, the _European Council, acting by a
qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for
President of the Commission_. This candidate shall be elected by the European
Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he does not obtain the
required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall
within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European
Parliament following the same procedure.

 _The Council, by common accord with the President-elect, shall adopt the list
of the other persons whom it proposes for appointment as members of the
Commission_. They shall be selected, on the basis of the suggestions made by
Member States, in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 3, second
subparagraph, and paragraph 5, second subparagraph.

The President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy and the other members of the Commission shall be subject as a
body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament. On the basis of this
consent the _Commission shall be appointed by the European Council_ , acting
by a qualified majority.

>The president is nominated by the council, and confirmed by the parliament.

Again not correct see Article 17 above.

The rest is nonsense, you are confusing ceremonial roles like the Queen
appointing the head of the majority party to form the Government to the EU
Council actually selecting the President and all the Members.

>This is similar to how supreme justices are confirmed by the senate in the US
however the EUP has much less power over that confirmation

Not this isn't how state elections work, the Government doesn't select the
Government, which appoints the Government.

>The executive branches set up the council

The Council isn't the upper house of the EU Parliament it's a completely
separate body.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutions_of_the_European_U...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutions_of_the_European_Union#/media/File:Political_System_of_the_European_Union.svg)

>The Council of the EU cannot pass laws without the European Parliament (the
Council of the EU is only the upper house of the EU legislature). It does not
have any power over the European Commission, which is the executive (i.e. the
equivalent of a cabinet) in the EU.

[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL00004/Legislative-
powers)

They can jointly and separately adopt laws however only laws that are adopted
by the council are actually turned into EU directives which is required for
laws to have any effect on member states.

>Please, do read up on how the EU actually functions and do not go by second-
hand sources.

Please do.

~~~
rbehrends
For the first part: you're pretty much rephrasing what I said. E.g. to quote
you:

> The President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and
> Security Policy and the other members of the Commission shall be subject as
> a body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament. On the basis of this
> consent the Commission shall be appointed by the European Council, acting by
> a qualified majority.

As I said, the entire Commission is voted for by the European Parliament, not
just the President, as you originally claimed.

> > The president is nominated by the council, and confirmed by the
> parliament.

> Again not correct see Article 17 above.

You realize that you are disagreeing with yourself? Or is your quoting just
totally messed up?

> The Council isn't the upper house of the EU Parliament it's a completely
> separate body.

The Council isn't the upper house of the European Parliament; it is the upper
house of the EU legislature, the European Parliament is the lower house of the
EU legislature. Of course they're separate bodies, silly [1].

> They can jointly and separately adopt laws however only laws that are
> adopted by the council are actually turned into EU directives which is
> required for laws to have any effect on member states.

The ordinary legislative procedure requires the consent of the European
Parliament AND the Council of the EU. The consultation procedure is largely
limited to Art. 103 and Art. 115 TFEU (aspects of competition law and the
internal market).

Yes, of course the consent of the Council of the EU as the upper house of the
legislature is required. Never said otherwise.

[1] [http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/european-
parliament](http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/european-parliament)

~~~
dogma1138
The EU parliament doesn't elect, if you don't understand the difference
between appointment and confirmation I can't help you.

The EU council and commission can issue directives, decisions and regulations
without involving the EU parliament, the EUP is mostly for show it's opinions
and recommendations are shafted there's a good reason why it looks like a
circus filled with Neo-Nazi's/Fascists and Marxists (or at least that's how
the extreme right and left like to call each other) with representation which
is completely skewed from the geo-political reality within each member state.

The EUP still haven't degraded to the point of being a utter kangaroo court
like the UNGC but it's not that far. If you think otherwise there's no point
of continue to discuss it but if you follow EU politics you can easily see
where the power lies and how and by whom pan-European policy is driven: hint
it's not the greens, the pirates and the golden dawns in the EUP.

~~~
rbehrends
> The EU parliament doesn't elect, if you don't understand the difference
> between appointment and confirmation I can't help you.

You're making a distinction without a difference (and you're muddying the
waters between a _proposal to appoint_ and the actual _appointment_ ; without
the European Parliament, the European Council can only propose, not appoint).
If the European Parliament says yes, the Commission is elected and can get to
work. If the Parliament says no, it isn't and it can't do a thing. Same for
how plenty of parliamentary democracies elect their head of government or
cabinets. Lack of a write-in option does not make it not an election.

I note also that for all practical purposes, the "spitzenkandidat" system has
factually replaced the power of nomination (not appointment).

> The EU council and commission can issue directives, decisions and
> regulations without involving the EU parliament

This is factually false, the codecision procedure (= what is now called the
ordinary legislative procedure) applies to practically all legislative acts
and requires the Parliament to vote for them. Legislative acts can include
framework decisions with the legislature delegating implementing measures to
the Commission (for example, the ecodesign directive, where the exact wattage
for vacuum cleaners was then set by the Commission according to the guidelines
of the directive), similar to how legislative acts in the US generally leave
it to the administration to enact the necessary regulations. Note that even
there, some implementation measures may be subject to parliamentary approval
via the examination procedure.

~~~
dogma1138
You over estimate or intentionally over represent the power of the EUP in the
confirmation of the council, for the most part it's a formality. The power to
nominate is by far more important than a approval.

As far the the legislation goes again you are mixing the various types of
legislation codified within EU law, Regulations and Directives can only come
from the council, Decisions and Recommendations can only come from the
commission, Opinions like well the old saying says can be made by all 3
bodies. For the most part outside of mostly formal proceeding the EUP only
issues opinions nothing more, Directives are the most common issue of EU law
as they leave room for member state to decide how to "interpret" and implement
them, the only really binding EU law is Regulations which can only be adopted
by the Council the EUP doesn't get to vote on it.

You need to understand that for the most part no one gives a flying fuck about
the EUP what matters is the council the council is the one that represents the
Governments of each of the member states they are the ones that make the
decisions. The EUP is full of people who are non-electable in state level
politics and no serious politician actually wants to get involved with the EUP
there's no glory, no power, and no money in play there.

You can continue arguing about semantics but you need to understand that
there's much more to politics than de-jure agency if you look at every
political system in the world you'll find that often the majority of the power
tends to fall into the hands of positions and bodies that might not or should
not have power at all on paper, the US politics are a great example for it.

As far as the EU goes the only thing that matters in terms of de-facto policy
is what the Governments of the member states want no some yahoos that got
elected in elections that no one really cares about with 40% or some times
less turn out, and the treaties that the EU is based on leave gaping holes to
ensure that member states keep their sovereignty and agency because outside of
a very few or well actually one state with so far suicidal social and
political tendencies most member states still value their sovereignty over
unity and considering the Euro-skepticism within most state level political
systems these days it is not going to change any time soon.

Have a nice day.

P.S.

ai16 _Special legislative procedures_

Special legislative procedures replace the former consultative, cooperation
and assent procedures. The objective is to simplify the EU’s decision-making
process by making it clearer and more effective. As their name indicates,
these procedures derogate from the ordinary legislative procedure and
therefore constitute exceptions. _In special legislative procedures, the
Council of the EU is, in practice, the sole legislator_. The European
Parliament is simply associated with the procedure. Its role is thus limited
to consultation or approval depending on the case. Unlike the ordinary
legislative procedure, the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU does not give a
precise description of special legislative procedures. The rules of special
legislative procedures are therefore defined on an ad hoc basis by the
Articles of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of
the EU that provide for their implementation.

And no there isn't much limit on the "special legislative procedure" for the
most part the council can enact it at any point which is why even when the
ordinary legislative procedure is used the role of the parliament is much more
formal and official.

This is one of those many many loopholes I've talked about that pretty much
allow the Governments of the member states to have full control over the union
and not vice-versa. If you still want to argue, well have a nice day again!

