What are your thoughts on the European Union centralizing into something more akin to an early United States
As a preface, this comes from the perspective of an American looking in on Europe. I'm curious in particular what any Europeans (please include your country of origin/ethnicity if you feel so inclined) feel about this post and the future of the EU.
Europe is a unique region, to put it lightly. The extremely high level of development relative to the rest of the world over this last millennium as well as so many technological innovations in that period of time led to a Europe ready to exert its influence upon the rest of the world. We can comfortably say that, while examples do still exist, colonialism as an institution has largely faded. Europe is a much more varied continent culturally and ethnically despite a space roughly equal to that of the USA. We've all heard the common sayings about 200 miles is long in Europe where 200 years is long in America and generally speaking that does hold true.
That said, Europe in the modern era really does feel like many small countries functioning as one big entity with the European Union. The EU has only gained credibility and legitimacy and it is now the institution I expect to hear from on matters within the EU first, even ahead of any individual nation state.
All of this to say, I think a united Europe is the strongest possible future for Europe. No individual state in Europe is large enough to exert an influence upon the world without the rest of Europe behind them. Globalization, while diminished in recent years, is still happening and I don't see a decentralized Europe as "winning" globalization as dozens of individually tiny states.
I could continue writing, but I think you understand my position. Now I would like to point to the article I found that really made me think about this, here.
I would also like to ask, what do you see Europe and the European Union standing for? Should it continue to centralize or is the current level of control enough? Too much? I didn't mention Ukraine or defense in this post but obviously that has a huge impact on all of these questions and I would love to hear if that has impacted your perspective on this admittedly grandiose idea for a united Europe.
People from all countries welcome to discuss, but please do mention your country if you feel comfortable doing so!
Well, then you're completely wrong. Every country in the EU is a completely separate entity with completely different attitudes and traditions. The EU isn't like the US and never will be.
As an American, I don't disagree with your comment, but I do want to mention that the states in the US are not always as homogeneous as they might seem. Part of the reason the US seems to struggle with so many issues, in my opinion, is because of how astonishingly different the attitudes and traditions of different areas/states are. It is common for me to visit a new state or city for the first time and feel like surely, I must be in another country. I cannot believe that we all vote for the same presidential election, for example - surely we are too different and diverse to be making these large decisions for each other. I have felt more at home and more familiar with the culture/structure of some European countries than I have felt in various states in my own country.
My take on this question as an American would be - I don't recommend it. I would give anything for my state to be its own country, politically. I love most everything about living in the state that I live in, but I'm forced to live under the federal government as well, and depending on the year, that's either somewhat mediocre, or awful. I think nothing illustrates my point as well as this: My state has voted for a Democratic president for the past 91 years with the exception of 3 elections, and yet, we've had many, many years of living under Republican presidents and their utterly destructive policies.
Surely, there is power in numbers, which is exactly why the EU exists. I know the EU has its flaws, but from the perspective of an American, it seems more logical than what we're trying to do over here.
I'm going out on a tangent now but I think there is a lot lost in the discussion of State's Rights in the US because of the implications that red states will do things that are anathema to the cultures of people in blue states but the idea is exactly what you're looking for - that your state would be a lot more poltically independent if state's rights was still a thing.
Early federalism in the US was exactly as you describe it, the founders had sought to strike a balance between independent political entities and the benefits of unified commerce, international relations, and defense. Over time that line has shifted more and more and things have simply become centralized to a degree that states could hardly be described today as independent to the federal government. There was definitley room for improvement over the old system but IMO that would have been better handled with more surgical constitutional amendments to better balance the system rather than a wholesale approach to centralize the system as a whole
It's okay to disagree with me, but it's not okay to speak to me this way.
That being said, of course there are benefits to the structure of the United States, and a state cannot simply "leave" as it is now. I was not suggesting that my state should literally secede tomorrow; I was proposing the concept as more of a hypothetical situation, if I was given a choice in some imaginary, alternative turn of events. After all, we are discussing a hypothetical, imaginary situation in which the EU would become a united country.
I'd discuss it with you and clarify further, but your tone indicates to me that you may not really be interested in a mature discussion.
EDIT: But if you are interested, I am down to engage! I've been quite sassy on the internet in my days as well, sometimes we get away from ourselves. We haven't actually disagreed on anything yet, which is part of why I was taken aback by the intro of your comment.
I kinda laugh every time I see someone from say Cali or Texas float secession as a solution. Being in the Union is far better than being out of it. With that said, I do sympathize with feelings of political disenfranchisement outside just being a sore loser. The Senate in particular is an anti-egalitarian institution, by design, and its dysfunction was a major catalyst of the Civil War.
Could you (or someone else here with the same opinion) elaborate? Just saying "you're wrong" full stop seems overly simplistic to OP's point. I am American, but have some close European friends and was blessed to do some traveling there recently for work. Of those I talked to about this, some did have a strong pro-EU stance wishing for further integration with "citizen of Europe" vibes.
I do understand that each country within the EU is an individual nation. My point of discussion is in regards to how that will change over the coming decades or even centuries, which I recognize is impossible to guess with the variables involved. That said, the EU and US are fundamentally different entities and I do understand that this might not even be a goal a majority or even significant minority could want. As another user stated, the cultural differences and individual issues a given EU member state faces could necessitate their not joining a EU federation of any sort until those issues are solved, much akin to certain countries being required to achieve a certain level of stability prior to entering the modern EU.
Again, I understand that this is an unrealistic, if not impossible ideal that would require decades to centuries to be even vaguely feasible.
Just as an example, an eventual system could be just a core few countries with similar cultures federating and continuing to offer lower levels of participation to other countries. I'm curious what possible changes will drive the EU looking into the future. I'm less interested in hearing about how this is impossible right now, because I know it isn't and thus there's a lack of discussion beyond "not possible, move on", you know?
Edit: I"m even interested to hear if you think things will go in the opposite direction and why, maybe the EU will fade over coming years, maybe it'll maintain this level of control and centralization while maintaining the nation states that make it up. I don't know, that's the point of the discussion!
But that's the whole thing - the reasons that make it impossible today are the same reasons that will make it impossible a hundred years down the line. If you deliberately ignore those issues you simply won't get a clear picture of what the future of Europe might look like.
That's a valid argument if you assume these obstacles to be cement and unchangeable. Where we diverge is the degree to which that is the case. Unlikely I agree with, entirely impossible I don't.
Just because it’s impossible today doesn’t make it impossible in ten years, let alone a hundred.
Your response as well as @starlinguk’d are very naive imo, ignoring the fact that the EU is not only changing every year, but also that the very fact it’s composed of much more individualised and independent nation mean it’s harder to predict whether it will continue to be a “loose tie”.
We have a war at our footsteps and some severe internal conflict. Many leaders are aware that part of this internal conflict is driven by Russia and threatens their own seats of power, which means there is a very strong incentive to immediately take action.
You’d be surprised how quickly things can change. Me personally, I would place a 50/50 bet on the eu becoming a “United Nations of Europe” organisation that resembles a lot more the USA within the next 15y, starting with a single army.
Europe has been used to being in the center of the world and being a meaningful player for all of history. The last 10-15 years a lot has been written about the demographic shift of the world. Europe is set to be a lesser player with lesser people and less influence within the next couple of decades.
So how can Europe continue to exert influence? This pretty much all comes down to how institutions are built.
The UN is pretty broken, but Europe is set to have outsized power here due to vetoes on the Security council. Reforming the UN seems extremely unlikely the next couple of decades. Universal human values (that are mostly Western) are being challenged at the UN continually, and this will continue. The latest was the push against burning the Qur'an, but only that and not other sacred texts/flags/symbols.
The EU requires unanimity for several different things. This seriously limits what the EU can accomplish and how well it can function. Both Brexit, the invasion of Ukraine, Poland and Hungary's flirtation with the far right and dismantling checks and balances show the limits of the EU.
NATO's limits in requiring unanimity have been exposed in allowing Sweden to enter or not.
These three in combination lead me to believe that things are hard to change and they won't lead to centralization. These institutions are also hard to supplant due do the dominant position they have.
In terms of realpolitik, the question is how long it will take Europe to understand its diminishing position and whether the countries can come together.
Will that happen before or after the demographic squeeze where expansive rights-based welfare states meet the reality of a severely decreasing working-age population as the number of old people increases?
How can Europe resolve its attitude to immigration along with integration of immigrants? Will the hand be forced as the continent just needs working-aged hands? Historically crises have been needed for things to change in the EU most of the time.
What of protectionism? The EU's agricultural budget is still set to be over 30 percent of its total budget for everything in the period from 2021-2027.
And there's energy security, climate change, defense etc. etc. The tasks facing the politicians who become Members of European Parliament are huge, and in most countries national politics draw most of the talent.
From a (pro-European) Dutch perspective, you raise a very interesting question.
Member States (MS) of the European Union (EU) have full sovereignty, but we are at a point were some policies introduced by the EU must be implemented by the MS in local law. They 'only' vote that MS have in this process is through their representatives in the European Parliament. There are many topics that cannot be vetoed by MS and go through the normal process of democracy.
This brings an interesting dynamic between MS and EU, especially when it comes to unpopular measures around e.g. energy saving, environmental policies and consumer rights. National politicians who want such measures but may lose their electorate over it, use the EU to blame the measure on. They can say to these voters that they 'had' to implement the measure because the EU said it. At the same time, MS dictate the development of these policies through the European Commission.
This has given relative (averaging around 50%, but highly dependent on the MS). low support from MS voters in favor of the EU. Even here in the Netherlands there is a small, vocal group that want a 'Nexit', despite the complete collapse of the economy that would happen.
At the same time, the size of the European Union has made it the largest economical entity in the world. And with that comes a great amount of power. Combine that with an existing ideology that still believes in consumer and workers rights, rather than pure capitalism, and care for climate and environment. The result are policies and standards that are adopted world-wide, e.g. GDPR.
With all its wealth and its ideology, Europe will need to stay protective of its interests, which involves e.g. immigration, import regulation/taxes and military. This will force MS to work more closely together and hand over more power to the European Union.
This will come with major internal challenges, inequality in economic welfare between MS requiring e.g. rich MS to take over debt of weaker MS.
But overall, the centralization has been a good thing. It is making Europe less dependent on the US and keeps it in play in the world. It is also clear that MS profit a lot from each other with the joined set rules at EU level. The significant economic drawback that Brexit brought the the United Kingdom demonstrated that.
Imo it’s more likely to splinter. The EU has yet to square the circle of split monetary and fiscal policy. There has been numerous crisis because fundamentally the rich developed nations of north western Europe has different currency needs than the impoverished and underdeveloped south. It’s only really gotten worse now that the European Central Bank is tightening the Euro supply. Either the EU must also control fiscal policy or this will come to ahead, and I find it highly unlikely the countries of Europe would give up that sovereignty.
Think about it, if the US were suddenly split by state, would California willingly join a union where they’d have to pump billions of their tax revenue into Alabama, Mississippi, and so forth?
The refugee issue is a similar issue. The way it’s been handled is terrible, and to square that circle either the EU needs to take more sovereignty from its members to have a proper unified border response, or there will continue to be unrest amongst the border countries which have increased burden. There is significant refugee NIMBYISM in Europe, so the former is unlikely to happen - despite best intentions, Germany or France will be unwilling to give up that sovereignty when they know it means they’ll have to take more of the refugee burden.
You have pointed to what I see as really the core of the issue. America was federated 200 years ago and it took a civil war to manage it even then and those growing pains have never gone away. Racism, imperialism, hawkishness, and countless other issues plague our country and will continue to do so. Europe has an incredibly diverse population and a unified Europe, while likely stronger, is such a long shot.
It has only become harder for this process of centralization and federalization to occur. Even so, it may be necessary for Europe to maintain its position globally. That isn't to say it is at all likely to happen, just to expect things to get worse long before they get better for Europe.
Depends a lot on your definition of "akin to". Personally, I don't think it's necessary nor is it likely to work. "just do what's best" isn't really how nations work, and there's a ton of entrenched inertia that has to be overcome for major changes.
We're constantly seeing issues with the EU and I think that's about as close as a "country" like Europe can get. Economic issues with countries like Greece or cultural issues with countries like Turkey hyper charge problems. As bad as US bureaucracy is, it is at least based around an agreed upon system. Having multiple countries shift their legal framework to be more inclusive (past what they already are) gets harder and harder the more entrenched things are, and Europe has hundreds/thousands of years of history and culture built up.
The US had a bunch of unique factors going during it's creation that just don't exist anymore, so any sort of fusion of multiple nations is going to require a very different methodology and approach. There's power in a collective but only if you can get a reasonable understanding of leadership, and the EU is going to struggle with that constantly.
As a European I feel that over time member states will have less sovereignty and the EU will centralize more things. I don’t think there’ll be any singular event any time soon when the EU becomes a federated state, rather more and more policy will be decided on an EU level and then implemented on a member state level.
Perhaps some more EU states leave the union, but I feel that could be a catalyst to making a union that is more connected rather than less.
The biggest challenge to federating the EU is the diverse nature of the members, there’s so much difference between countries in terms of infrastructure and policies that it takes a lot of work to standardize things across Europe without wreaking too much havoc in any one region.
This is my opinion as an American who’s lived decent chunks of my life in Europe. I think there’s a lot of resistance within distinct member states but as a whole there has been something of a trend of centralization within the EU and I largely agree with the OP that if Europe wishes to maintain its current status as a major player on the world stage that that will require even further centralization.
I do however expect it to be a gradual process and a fairly bumpy road and I’m not sure I ever see it becoming as centralized as the US. But certainly some greater level of centralization especially something like an integrated EU military is something I would expect.
Would you care to expand more upon that?
It would be easy to interpret this remark as "I have not done much traveling (or been immersed within the wide variety of cultures and ethnicities) within the US." We are, after all, famously considered a "melting pot" of both. But that would be a condescending jump to conclusions.
Perhaps your intent was more along the lines of "Although there are a wide variety of ethnicities and cultures across the US, they are infused and blended with a strong sense of national identity and culture. And this is distinct from the more siloed states within the EU."
One of my favorite things to do when I'm traveling domestically is to visit a local convenience store and see what products they stock.
In Texas, for example, you are much more likely to find Limón Pepino Gatorade in stock – both in the regular and "Zero" sugar-free varieties – due to the high population of hispanohablantes; whereas in my home state I'm lucky to find even the regular variety at all.
But you'll always find a Stars and Stripes flag at the local Walmart.
I've travelled both the US and the EU a little bit. I'm not a cultural expert by any means. But mate, it's night and day. When you travel the equivalent of the size of Texas in the EU, you might pass dozens of languages, dozens of unique cuisines, completely different architectural styles, completely different festivals whose origin has been forgotten, etc.
I think people underestimate the cultural diversity in the US, but it's not even close to Europe. Americans mostly speak the same language, mostly pray to the same God, mostly celebrate the same holidays, mostly eat the same food (although there can be huge variety there), mostly watch the same TV, mostly have similar political beliefs.
In my experience, it's not even close. The US is much more culturally homogenous than Europe.
I would reply to the above but you've essentially made the point I would have, worded much better.
The US and the EU, while very similar in the scope of the world, are quite dissimilar when we compare cultural differences and variety.
I also think it important to note that this from the above comment,
"Perhaps your intent was more along the lines of "Although there are a wide variety of ethnicity's and cultures across the US, they are infused and blended with a strong sense of national identity and culture. And this is distinct from the more siloed states within the EU.""
is quite close to what I do consider my belief. I definitely don't diverge horribly far from what they were trying to say.
Yeah, like you, I don't entirely disagree with that sentiment. It's just that, that's what culture is. Celebrating the 4th of July means you have a cultural similarity. Having a strong cultural and national identity means you're more homogeneous, by definition.
There's ton of variety in the US, especially if you go off the beaten track. But no one would be able to imagine that Barcelona, Warsaw, and Thessaloniki are in the same polity. And going beyond the EU into Europe itself, you're then throwing Tirana, Istanbul and Sarajevo into the mix. The religious, linguistic, cultural, culinary, social, economic differences are enormous. The only thing that ties Turkey to Iceland is relations with the EU, and NATO.
Ok. I refrained from making this point elsewhere in the conversation because I'm American and don't want to presume to speak for Europeans. But even a casual student of history can point to the Romans, Charlemagne, Gustavus Adolphus, the Hapsburgs, Napoleon etc who united many ethnic groups into one polity. I don't know whether it is possible for democratic methods to achieve similar results in Europe, but that historical record is what your comment made me think of. And yes, I know that those were the result of conquest. If enough Europeans and their governments were convinced it was in their interest, I think you could achieve a United States or Federated States of Europe. I'm not taking bets on how likely it is though.
But those are not combined European history. Roman history is Mediterranean history; the Norwegians and Lithuanians have nothing to do with it. Same for everything involving Charlemagne, the HRE and such, they only affect some European countries, not all of them.
There's obviously a feeling of a shared history amongst Europeans; that's why the EU exists. And you can appeal to a common good. But my point is that you'll find nowhere in the US that's as different from each other as Istanbul is from Reykjavik.
I certainly want an European Commonwealth, and an expansiv one at that. But the motto of the EU is In varietate concordia, united in diversity. It is an incredibly diverse region, in a way that a lot of Americans don't understand until they've been there.
Take Spain, roughly the size of Texas. People speak Castillian, Catalan, Galician, Basque, Aranese, Asturian, Aragonese, Fala, Silbo (the whistle language), and others smaller ones. An area the size of Texas. And this is a normal European thing.
I hear you.
I don't think its fair to call Charlemagne or Napoleon exclusively Mediteranean, and the Romans were in Britain as well as North Africa and marching into Persia. Also the Spanish ruled the Netherlands. But those are quibbles. Your point is solid. I just don't want to to predict history definitively. My opinion changing, oh shit history is truly unexpected moment, first came with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and then repeatedly was reinforced by events after that. If a unified EU looks attractive enough to members, I think it could possibly happen.
Sorry, you're right, I'm overly simplifying. It's a point I often make, that Europeans monopolise Roman history as if it was their own. But the Romans were a transcontinental civilisation, there are plenty of Africans and Asians with an equal claim to that legacy.
I think a unified EU is good for Europe and gold for the world. It is the only major power that is even mildly interested in privacy, consumer rights, reigning corporations in, etc. It doesn't always do the right thing, but it's the only one that will occassionally do the right thing.
Moreover, EU expansion is the end to many conflicts, if it can be achieved. If Serbia and Bosnia are able to join, Serbs can return to Sarajevo and Zagreb, Bosniaks to Belgrade, etc. It will be as of Yugoslavia never fell. If Turkey is able to join, Greeks can return to Constantinople, Turks to Salonika. The genocides of the population transfers can begin to be undone. Perhaps Cyprus can be reunited. Ukraine is permanently protected from Russia. Armenia is able to escape genocide from Azerbaijan.
These things will not be possible for many decades, perhaps never. But it's nice to imagine that the existence of the EU can unite so many people and undo so many wrongs.
Even as someone who self-identifies as a European Federalist politically, I sadly do not see the EU centralising like that anytime soon/in the "foreseeable" future. Our governments (and part of our population, to be fair) are too proud and stubborn to leave their sovereignty behind in that way, currently.
I'm gonna go ahead and say that I think the EU format works far, far, far better than what America has with 50 states that are supposedly one country.
America is entirely too big, and has too many cultural differences, to be governed as one country, and we are seeing that entirely now across the last 15 or so years. It would work far better if it was split into 4 or 5 smaller countries that are made up of a few states.
On the topic of churches, there's a strange irony I've noticed; countries like the UK, Denmark, and Norway are de jure theocracies with the state religion in their constitution, but are de facto secular. The US on the other hand is de jure secular with secularism in its constitution, yet is de facto theocratic.
Believe me, there's many of us Humanist types in the UK who revile this religious garbage being anywhere near our state and schools.
The fact that Faith Schools can select kids based on their parents attendance at church is horrifying... Oh and that includes CoE which is a huge chunk of schools.
"That sounds like a prayer, a Prayer?! A PRAYER IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL! GOD HAS NO PLACE IN THESE WALLS!" - Chalmers
Norway dropped the state religion some years back.
They still fund the church that is named after the country, not just based on the number of registered members. They are caretakers of an enormous amount of cultural history, and we are culturally speaking still Christian. It is the Christian tradition we turn to for any major life event, even as we might not be as much a believing people as we once were
They also maintain graveyards and cemeteries.
While I am not a believer in any deity in any way, I dislike how the government just upped and decided this without holding a national vote.
Christianity is a deeply rooted part of the way in which we organise our lives, the way we see the world and those around us, our culture, it has shaped our language, music, and other arts etc for so very long that it seemed extremely disrespectful to not let the people decide.
Particularly since the church in question would still be funded so they can continue fulfilling their practical responsibilities.
I don't dispute that churches have a lot of cultural importance and that they serve value even in a secular society, but I think it's fundamentally undemocratic for public funding to go to a specific religion regardless of its membership. Why should a Norwegian muslim or Catholic be forced to pay taxes that exclusively fund the Lutheran state church? Why should queer Norwegians have been forced to support the church financially before the church was willing to support their existence (the church of Norway did not allow same-sex marriages until 2015/16)? While it's indisputable that a church has certain practical purposes in its community, it's unfair to force those who have fundamental disagreements with a given religion to support it exclusively with their taxes.
The Norwegian municipalities still fund churches since the separation of church and state -- they just no longer discriminate against other religious institutions (Source). It's hardly unfair or disrespectful for the Church of Norway to no longer be the only state-funded church -- other churches fulfill the same practical responsibilities in their own religious communities.
Funding to faith based organisations is also given out per member, and as such you can choose where your money goes, on a sense.
But at the heart of the matter is the fact that we would lose an enormous amount of caretaking of important buildings and functions of we stop funding the church.
While a lot of people don't feel religious and don't go to church, I think the vast majority have a sense of ownership over the idea that these places be there for all sorts of events throughout life and death.
Which is why I personally feel it was wrong to separate the church and the state without a public vote. Even as I am hoping the outcome would have been separation.
I don't necessarily disagree with the reasons you cite for funding the church, but I think it's fundamentally unfair for this to only be directed at a specific type of church (which is entailed by establishment of a state church in my understanding).
I think there's an important distinction to be made between a government who is run by religious authorities versus run by people who happen to also be deeply religious. Religion in the US is, for the most part, highly localized and individualistic. Two say conservative congressmen may both display religiously motivated decisions in government, but their agreement is one of shared values rather than subservience to a hierarchical structure. You might reasonably respond: Distinction without a difference. But I think if you're interested in divorcing church and state, this becomes very important.
Anyway, here's a video I found interesting on this kind of culturally baked in religious opinions from a particular perspective: https://youtu.be/xy4TJKMyreE?si=yefwT3lW7OB5321r
The US is not a theocracy.
Too late.
The EU currently works on a one veto system, and as a result right now states with very few people get the same say as states with very large numbers of people.
This will likely continue to be true, and almost certainly some sort of American like federal system will develop, because otherwise small nations with low populations are totally disincentived from joining the Union.
That's a really interesting issue you've pointed out that I don't believe I've seen discussed. How you do you encourage a small state to join a federation that it will then lose control over? Especially prescient if the current veto system that gives smaller states control goes away for whatever reason.
Conquering worked for a long time but imperialism obviously isn't an ideal way to spread a humanist federation. Economic assistance? Defense against a greater threat? I could see some states joining despite the loss of control but it would be significantly harder from what I can see.
War. I don't think there's an alternative
I really don't see them having those same issues, though they will have issues that will make it nigh impossible if not outright.
Europe is quite secular in comparison to the United States. Modern Europe especially in comparison to when America was first created. So I don't see a religious estate taking lead on such an idea or having any real influence over it.
Business/capital control is harder and will continue to be an enormous obstacle. Europe, generally speaking as I know it's a continent with different levels of socialistic/capitalistic tendencies, does seem to handle their corporations better than the United States. So at the very least I feel comfortable hoping that they can manage their elites better than we have.
Fully agreed on the land =/ votes as a goal. The American house of representatives is not a very democratic or progressive institution.
So the US has a house of representatives where if your state is more populous you get more representatives. That's why our money used to say E Pluribus Unum, or out of many one. The reason we have the senate is to prevent the tyrany of the majority where a state like Texas or California doesn't direct all legislation. The thing is things aren't meant to be changed fast, but slow incremental change with everyone's input.
At least that's the way I see it.