The future of the EU

[Hoek]

The National Guard can be federalized whenever the president says so, they tend to be used as policemen or emergency workers, and they have very few resources. States are ultimately subordinate to the union, which makes the U.S. a federal system. Any EU political integration would first have to be confederate, where the union is subordinate to the states. I still say that the largest obstacle to integration is nationalism.

[Saint Marcus]

A recently publised book on EU expansion was called "Brussels-Warshaw-Vladiwostoc" (sp)

A Chinese-EU border. LOL

Anyway, Europe is going to become more and more united. People that say it will not happen need to take some history lessons. Look at how far Europe has come in 50 years, and unification is still going at a fast pace. The Euro will come in a few weeks, the ERRF is operational, etc. Nobody would have ever thought we'd get that far, but we did. Europe is surprising even itself.

Viva l'Europe!!

I still say that the largest obstacle to integration is nationalism.

Nationalism here is far, far, far less significant than in the USA.

[Roland]

I'd vote "banana" - the other options just lack precision.

The EU has and will have different degrees of integration in different fields. So to describe it in options that refer to selected powers or unconnected integration levels (confederated/federated*) is not a good approach IMO.

* not to mention all the different connotations going with "federal" and related terms

[DaShi]

I hear that EU2 is significantly better.

[Bas]

Giancarlo: what do you base your claim that Italy is conservative on? Although it's true that they have a rightist coalition in power at the moment, I certainly wouldn't say Italy is conservative.


I see no problems whatsoever with admitting Turkey in the long run. Although it's a muslem country, it's government is secular and it is fairly western-oriented. Still, the claim that someone (Hoek I think) made that the death penalty is the only thing that keeps them out is bull****. They're simply way behind on several important issues, like human rights in general (including torture and the Kurdish problem), the stability of the economy and the political stability to some extent as well (the influence of the Turkish army, again the Kurdish problem, and the outlawing of several Islamic parties after election victories). The same (more or less) goes for countries like the Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, except for the fact that the first three are not muslem, they don't have a Kurdish problem, yadda yadda. You know what I mean.

Tunisia and Russia are a bit trickier though. The problem with Tunisia (and Morocco) is not really that it's not in Europe, which is probably a nice excuse for politicians, but that it opens the door for a whole bunch of other countries as well: Algeria, Libya, Egypt. Accepting all those countries, even in the long run, just seems not feasible, especially not when you consider that there's no real reason then to exclude a country like Israel (the only Western-oriented democracy besides Turkey in the whole Middle East) or other countries in the Middle East (Jordania?). You have to draw a line somewhere, and the Mediterranean seems a sensible one. Although I personally have no problems with Russia joining in the long run either, since it's most important part is in Europe and it's culturally fairly European as well, there are many people who think that letting Russia in with all its minorities and internal problems (which are inherent to a country that large and that diverse geographically) is too much for the EU to handle. It's still nowhere near reaching the admission standards though, so I prefer to keep the door open for a stable, democratic Russia.

[Hoek]

Look at how far Europe has come in 50 years, and unification is still going at a fast pace.

Europe certainly has come a long way in the past 50 years, but that does not mean that unification will be easy or quick. You need to consider the fact that the EU still has the daunting task of building the kind of bureaucracy that a unified country requires. You also ignore the fact that almost all of the "unification" so far has been economic, and not political or social. It is one thing to creat a single market...it is another thing entirely to build a political system that the constituent nations will find acceptable. You should also consider the widely varied foreign policies of the various EU countries. It will be no easy or quick task to force the various countries into a single foreign policy. Also, considering the expansions that are planned, true unification will become harder and harder. If the EU was really concerned with becoming a country, they should abandon any talks of expansion until they can more fully integrate the countries that constitute the EU. It's a choice between expansion and integration, as far as I can see.

Nationalism here is far, far, far less significant than in the USA.

You are both right and wrong. European countries are considerably nationalistic (France is at least as nationalistic as the U.S.), but there is no true European nationalism. I have mentioned this already, but only 2% of Europeans polled identified themselves as primarily European. Almost everyone in Europe holds very strong idenifications with fellow countrymen. The EU is attempting to create a state out of many nations, whereas the U.S. Constitution attempted to create a nation-state out of many states. Americans have always identified themselves as American, not as "Texans" or "New Yorkers," but Europeans are the exact opposite. Therefore, American nationalism is significantly stronger than European nationalism, but not significantly stronger than the nationalism within European countries. That creates mighty obstacles to political integration, and we are already seeing a good bit of resistence. People do not want to be ruled by other nations, and the prospect of political integration gives many people pause because it would take decision-making power away from their own governments. They would find a good deal of difficulty in considering the EU to be a legitimate governing body over their lives. There is no evidence that shows that people are identifying themselves more and more as "Europeans," but there is considerable evidence that shows they would not be keen on a unified government.

And another important point, which you have failed to address, is that Europe has yet to show that it is capable of dealing with security issues on their own (w/o enormous American help). In Bosnia and Kosovo, Europe exposed itself as weak and incapable of significant military action. Those two issues were as far from American security interests as you can get, but we ended up picking up the Europeans' slack. European militaries have yet to prove themselves as anything but peacekeepers. Fissures would quickly develop in the EU if another such problem arose in Europe and they were as impotent as they have been in the past.

* not to mention all the different connotations going with "federal" and related terms

What different connotations? There are pretty clear distinctions when it comes to terms like "federation" and "confederation." The difference, for instance, between a federation and a unitary state is that in a unitary state, all political power lies in the national government. A federal state, on the other hand, has levels of political power that act relatively independently from one another. The three best examples of federations are the U.S., Germany, Russia, and Canada. All three have both a national government and inferior governments (state or provincial governments), which are elected seperately and have seperate powers. A confederal government (the only modern example is the UAE) has a very weak national government whose only function is foreign relations and minimal economic oversight, such as trade and currency issues, and very strong inferior governments which conduct all domestic policies. These are clear-cut distinctions. I did put different levels of integration--would you care to give me some examples of different things I should have put?

I see no problems whatsoever with admitting Turkey in the long run. Although it's a muslem country, it's government is secular and it is fairly western-oriented. Still, the claim that someone (Hoek I think) made that the death penalty is the only thing that keeps them out is bull****. They're simply way behind on several important issues, like human rights in general (including torture and the Kurdish problem), the stability of the economy and the political stability to some extent as well (the influence of the Turkish army, again the Kurdish problem, and the outlawing of several Islamic parties after election victories). The same (more or less) goes for countries like the Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, except for the fact that the first three are not muslem, they don't have a Kurdish problem, yadda yadda. You know what I mean.

The purpose of EU integration would be to stabilize the country...particularly the economy. I don't know if I said that the death penalty was the only obstacle, but it isn't. The Kurdish problem is widely recognized as a legitimate concern and holding out the carrot to Turkey has already gone a long way in forcing reforms. Their policies on the seperation of church and state are admirable for a country surrounded by Religious zealots. The question becomes: would Europe rather leave Turkey out and be unable to influence it or let it in and have a significant influence over it. Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbejian are not in Europe. Plus, Georgia is the only one with a true democracy.

Tunisia and Russia are a bit trickier though. The problem with Tunisia (and Morocco) is not really that it's not in Europe, which is probably a nice excuse for politicians, but that it opens the door for a whole bunch of other countries as well: Algeria, Libya, Egypt. Accepting all those countries, even in the long run, just seems not feasible, especially not when you consider that there's no real reason then to exclude a country like Israel (the only Western-oriented democracy besides Turkey in the whole Middle East) or other countries in the Middle East (Jordania?). You have to draw a line somewhere, and the Mediterranean seems a sensible one. Although I personally have no problems with Russia joining in the long run either, since it's most important part is in Europe and it's culturally fairly European as well, there are many people who think that letting Russia in with all its minorities and internal problems (which are inherent to a country that large and that diverse geographically) is too much for the EU to handle. It's still nowhere near reaching the admission standards though, so I prefer to keep the door open for a stable, democratic Russia.

You still provide no concrete reason for excluding a country like Tunisia (the only REAL reasons to do so would be that it's undemocratic) should not be allowed. All you said is that "it's unfeasable." There are much better reasons for excluding Algeria, Libya, and Egypt--they are all unpopular authoritarian regimes with no forseeable hope for democracy. Using the mediteranian is a completely arbitrary line; there is as significant interaction between northern African countries with Europe as there are within Europe. Look at the U.S.: we have two states which are non-contiguous with the mainland, yet they are clearly in the fold. Russia has enough problems of its own that it doesn't need the rest of europe governing its affairs. It would never want to join, and nobody would ever want it to.

[Roland]

Quite a load of issues....

"You need to consider the fact that the EU still has the daunting task of building the kind of bureaucracy that a unified country requires."

How "unified" ? The EU bureaucracy is about 20-30k strong. Most application of EU law is done at the national level in indirect application (just as in say Germany with federal law).

"You also ignore the fact that almost all of the "unification" so far has been economic, and not political or social."

The destinction between economic and political goes back to the failure of the EDC and the founding of the EEC, but I do not think it is a good approach to declare things economic as being not political. Quite on the contrary, an ever larger share of politics is centered around matters economic.

"It will be no easy or quick task to force the various countries into a single foreign policy."

True, but we have been building on this thing for 50 years now, and I do not think it will be finished before another 30-50 years. That enlargement and deepening are a potential conflict has been discussed, but "expansion and integration" are not mutually exclusive.

"You are both right and wrong. European countries are considerably nationalistic (France is at least as nationalistic as the U.S.)"

Sure, this is subjective, but IMO even french nationalism gets nowhere near the US.

"The EU is attempting to create a state out of many nations"

It is far from certain and IMO quite unlikely that the EU will end up as a "state".

"Americans have always identified themselves as American, not as "Texans" or "New Yorkers," but Europeans are the exact opposite."

I doubt this is correct for the states right struggles, or the reconstruction period in the south.

"And another important point, which you have failed to address, is that Europe has yet to show that it is capable of dealing with security issues on their own (w/o enormous American help)."

Depends on the issue. Even on existing structures (like the WEU) western europe can easily defend itself against threats. The incapability is more a mismatch between military and political possibilities in exercising force beyond EU borders. The EU countries could have mobilised roughly 5 million soldiers and more than 10.000 tanks against Serbia - just no way to do that politically. The EU countries could have used couple thousend fighter planes - just that they are mostly not designed for the low-risk, mostly low-damage kind effort that is politically required.

"What different connotations? There are pretty clear distinctions when it comes to terms like "federation" and "confederation.""

For example, you associated "Full Political Integration (federated)" - now "A federal state, on the other hand, has levels of political power that act relatively independently from one another". And federations show varying degrees of integration. In anglosaxon europe-related debates, "federal" is often used as "centralised".

"These are clear-cut distinctions."

Where would you put supranational and inter-gouvernemental ? Is "federal" only appropriate in describing states, or is it a more general principle ? Does stateship have constituting effects, say on the issue of precendence of EU law over national law ? Was Germany 1871 a confederation or a federation ?

"I did put different levels of integration--would you care to give me some examples of different things I should have put?"

eg for the matter: military
the integration levels: intergouvernemental cooperation - harmonization - full "communitization"

[Bas]

The purpose of EU integration would be to stabilize the country...particularly the economy.

Although it will have a stabilizing influence, I think Turkey is way too far behind at the moment to be admitted. The rest of the EU will not be particularly pleased with including a poor, large country (which with the current legislation will completely drain the EU support funds), and a large influx of Turkish immigrants who will come to the richer parts of the EU (Germany, Benelux, Scandinavia, UK) will be unavoidable. Turkey must catch up more before admittance into the EU, although it should ofcourse be supported by the EU while doing that.

I don't know if I said that the death penalty was the only obstacle, but it isn't. The Kurdish problem is widely recognized as a legitimate concern and holding out the carrot to Turkey has already gone a long way in forcing reforms.

I thought you did, you probably didn't though. No big deal.

Their policies on the seperation of church and state are admirable for a country surrounded by Religious zealots. The question becomes: would Europe rather leave Turkey out and be unable to influence it or let it in and have a significant influence over it.

I think we basically agree on the general issues then.

Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbejian are not in Europe. Plus, Georgia is the only one with a true democracy.

They're traditionally considered European IMO, and the first two are culturally definitely more European than Middle Eastern. Still, it's debatable. Actually, I would say that neither of the three at the moment is politically a true democracy (more Russia-like kleptocracies and Central-Asian styled autocracies), and all of them will have a long way to go if they want to join. Still, I have no fundamental problems with their eventual membership.

You still provide no concrete reason for excluding a country like Tunisia (the only REAL reasons to do so would be that it's undemocratic) should not be allowed. All you said is that "it's unfeasable." There are much better reasons for excluding Algeria, Libya, and Egypt--they are all unpopular authoritarian regimes with no forseeable hope for democracy.

Obviously, democracy is absolutely necessary for joining, but my main point is that letting Tunisia (or Morocco) in will eventually open the door for a democratic Algeria, Libya, Egypt etc., which is just too problematic and large for the EU to handle. Drawing the line in the Mediterranean is arbitrary, yes, but more reasonable than drawing the line in the middle of the Maghreb.

Note that I'm not referring to the current governments, but eventual democratic successors: non-democracies are obviously not admissable anyway.

Using the mediteranian is a completely arbitrary line; there is as significant interaction between northern African countries with Europe as there are within Europe. Look at the U.S.: we have two states which are non-contiguous with the mainland, yet they are clearly in the fold.

Like I said, it IS fairly arbitrary, but it is a very sensible one as far as arbitrary lines go. And fairer than one dividing North Africa or the Middle East, don't you think. And I'm not claiming that there is no significant interaction between North African countries and Europe, just that they're culturally more different from any of the European cultures than, say, Turkey, Romania, or Russia.

Russia has enough problems of its own that it doesn't need the rest of europe governing its affairs. It would never want to join, and nobody would ever want it to.

I don't see any fundamental reason why people in a democratic Russia wouldn't want to join the EU. Sure, it would have its opponents, but I don't see any fundamental difference between Russia and the rest of (Eastern) Europe. And again, I'm not talking about the current Russian government (which comes nowhere near meeting the criteria), but a more democratic and stable one that might (or might not) exist somewhere in the future.

[Hoek]

I'm not going to explain the distinctions between the three different types of state structure (Unitary, Federal, Confederal), but I will say that any supranational government (EU is the only one that exists) would never be able to move farther than a federal government.

The size of a bureaucracy is a function of the authority of a government. In fact, the size of the government is often a decent (if not exact) measure of the authority of that government. The EU does not currently constitute a government; it is more of an association or "harmonization" as you say. The United States bureaucracy is considerably larger than any state government, while the EU bureaucracy is considerably smaller than any European country's bureaucracy. In order to achieve political integration, there would have to be a large increase in the EU bureaucracy.

Nationalism is an identity of a people. Namely, it is the notion that a group of people "belong" together and deserve their own nation-state. States-Rights arguments have never been consistent, and have more often been used to promote particular policies than considering states as independent actors. Texans and New Yorkers do hold certain state identities, but they are always a subset of the national identity of Americans. Europeans do not share a common identity, and therefore creating a common state voluntarily would be extremely difficult and would most likely require people to begin thinking of themselves primarily as "European" and not "French" or "British." Nationalist indicators are not subjective, as the polling I referenced shows.

There is most certainly a strong connection between politics and economies, but it is important to examine the limits of economic integration in Europe so far. Currently, it has consisted of harmonization, not integration, of trade, immigration, and now monetary policies. The EU does not have any taxation powers or regulatory authority over any industry, transportation, or other businesses. Political integration has so far been only oversight of harmonization and negotiation of economic policies-they do not have stand-alone authority, as witnessed by England, Denmark, and Sweden holding out on the Euro. Political Integration would require oversight and independent authority over economic matters, and I doubt that any of the EU countries are ready for that.

You also ignore the fact that no European power (except Russia) has been able to handle their own security concerns independent of U.S. assistance for a long, long time.

[Hoek]

Russia is too nationalistic.

When Greece came into the EU, it was just as far as Turkey is now. Spain was still a dictatorship 20 years ago.

Again, expansion and integration are rather mutually exclusive. Under current conditions of the EU, it wouldn't matter how culturally different Tunisia was, as long as there was interest in coordinating a few policies.

Turkey should be admitted for the mere fact that it would eventually pay off big time.

[Roland]

Hoek:

"I'm not going to explain the distinctions between the three different types of state structure (Unitary, Federal, Confederal)"

No need to. Just that I would not refer to a confederation as a state.

"The size of a bureaucracy is a function of the authority of a government."

Not necessarily. US federalism is sovereignty-shared; german, austrian and swiss federalism is more function-shared. The german federal bureaucracy is relatively small due to most federal laws being enforced by the states (so called Vollzugsföderalismus). I could put it differently: organisationwise, the EU bureaucracy is small. Functionally it is a lot bigger.

"The United States bureaucracy is considerably larger than any state government, while the EU bureaucracy is considerably smaller than any European country's bureaucracy."

With the exception of maybe Luxembourg.

"In order to achieve political integration, there would have to be a large increase in the EU bureaucracy."

I fail to see any reason for this.

"Europeans do not share a common identity, and therefore creating a common state voluntarily would be extremely difficult"

I'd say there is a common identity, just not a national one. Therefore there is no basis for a european nation state. Everything else is open.

"Nationalist indicators are not subjective, as the polling I referenced shows."

The degree of individual nationalism is hardly reflected in those polls.

"... it is important to examine the limits of economic integration in Europe so far."

Indeed. From that background, I don't understand most of the following though:

"The EU does not have any... regulatory authority over any industry, transportation, or other businesses."

Telecom, electricity markets for example ? GMO prodcuts ?

"...they do not have stand-alone authority, as witnessed by England, Denmark, and Sweden holding out on the Euro."

The Euro is an inappropriate example because there are traety-based exceptions provided for the introduction of the single currency - but not for the internal market.

"Political Integration would require oversight and independent authority over economic matters, and I doubt that any of the EU countries are ready for that."

Define "oversight" and "independent authority", please.

"You also ignore the fact that no European power (except Russia) has been able to handle their own security concerns independent of U.S. assistance for a long, long time."

As I said it depends on the respective concerns.

[Bas]

Turkey is a lot bigger than Greece, which is one reason to delay the Turkish entrance. And it certainly isn't as far as certain other European countries which will not be admitted in the first group of new countries. Besides, unless it resolves human rights issues and the Kurdish problem (which were both unlike Greece's situation 20 years ago), it is just not ready yet. But what exactly do you want for Turkey, Hoek? Immediate admission?

I see the EU not as a purely economical organization, eventually. A certain amount of political and legal integration will be necessary. Tunisia is not the problem per se, but North Africa as a whole is, and BTW, Tunisia is not exactly the democracy you think it to be. Although probably the most civilized country in Africa, it's not your average European-styled democracy yet.

And I beg to disagree with your statement about Russian nationalism. BTW, Russia is a very, very heterogenic country, which makes your claim even more unlikely.

[Roland]

"Spain was still a dictatorship 20 years ago."

Until 1975/76, and it was admitted into the EC in 1986, after undergoing quite dramatic changes.

"Under current conditions of the EU, it wouldn't matter how culturally different Tunisia was, as long as there was interest in coordinating a few policies."

In that case, how about an association agreement ? Oh wait, there already is one...

"Turkey should be admitted for the mere fact that it would eventually pay off big time."

At the right time. If Turkey was admitted, it would have to be immedeately sanctioned under Art 7 TEU. Quite pointless.

[DanS]

"Let me rephrase, is Turkey classed as a European country."

Yes. It's also classified as an Asian country. A Middle Eastern country too.

There are a number of reasons why it's in the EU's interest to admit Turkey. Not the least of which that there has to be a diversification from Russia's energy supplies.

A prospective superpower has to be hard-nosed about its interests.

"But what exactly do you want for Turkey, Hoek? Immediate admission?"

Encouragement to the Turks that if they get their **** together, they will be admitted.

[Roland]

This american obsession with Turkey is quite strange...

Dan:

"Not the least of which that there has to be a diversification from Russia's energy supplies."

huh ?

"Encouragement to the Turks that if they get their **** together, they will be admitted."

That's called candidate status, and that's what Turkey's got. Actually this has been pretty clear ever since the association agreement of the early 80s.