I don’t like the EU anymore than you do but what you are saying is mostly off-base conspiracy theorizing. When you say things like ‘the last it wants is to allow the populations to have a say’, who exactly is ‘it’? It’s weaselly argumentation, but in the end those responsible are national governments, not the EU commission. The same goes for ‘it was the stated claim’ - who does the ‘stating’ here? Again, the people involved are leaders of national governments, and the things they have been saying are far removed from seeking a United States of Europe, which was your initial claim. The picture you paint is colored by your dislike of the EU and as a result is very one-sided.
The UK has an enormous amount of importance as a global player. It would be delusional to think otherwise. Just because it’s not America doesn’t mean it’s not a major global player.
That was only one part of it and I didn’t even say they definitely identified as “European” primarily, just the aggregate of their cultural markers indicated they were the closest I’ve seen to any notion of a European citizen first. There are plenty of polyglot Irish people although our inclination or opportunities to speak langages other than English (and Irish) obviously aren’t as strong as continentals.
It is a conspiracy in as much as some powerful countries are working together to promote closer and closer unity. That isn’t in doubt. They are very open about it.
I have no say at all on the election of the European committee. The very people who set strategy and legislation are not democratically accountable.
Their executive powers were increased via the Lisbon Treaty. Remember what happened when countries held referenda on the treaty and voted no? They were told to ask again until they got the “right” answer.
The movement of powers to a central European authority has gradually increased, no-one would suggest a single jump to a U.S.E.
It is exactly this gradualist approach to unity that was suggest by Jean Monnet (who founded the Action Committee for the United States of Europe in 1955). Lest we forget, this is the man regarded as the architect of the EU and in 1943 said.
So I think we know where he stands. Many others have sympathy with this view and
those in favour make no secret about it. Again, I point you to the recent financial problems. Merkel and Sarkozy suggest greater European unity as a response.
My dislike of the current European structure is coloured by my observations and not vice-versa. It is heading for disaster and I’d rather we re-thought now than 10 years down the road.
A Canadian friend once claimed that the English language is more closely related to the language of the old Saxons than that of the Angles. Thus the correct term for an English speaker would be a saxophone.
I think I’m one of the few that would welcome a United States of Europe.
Novelty Bobble, your response betrays a lack of understanding of some of the key issues that are at stake here, and is largely devoid of any factual basis. It’s a shame that you reduce political debate to repeating cliches and truisms.
So it’s an open conspiracy? Huh.
By the national leaders they themselves elected; the same national leaders who appoint the people on the European Commission (not Committee). Incidentally, as you indicate elsewhere in your post, it is these national leaders, Merkel and Sarkozy, who set the strategy and legislation at least as far as the Euro crisis goes. You bringing up that example actually undermines your case that the EU is becoming a federation or is intended to become a federation. The same is true for your contention that this is ‘an open conspiracy by powerful countries working together to promote closer and closer unity’ - that is largely in contradiction with a claim that the EU is intended as a United States of Europe. After all, why would powerful countries want a USE? That just makes no sense.
The ‘architect’ metaphore is leading you astray. Just because one of the EU founders had views of federalism does not mean that everyone working on the EU has been gradually furthering that agenda. Building political institutions is not like building a house, there are many forces that influence the eventual outcome and it is never the case, and certainly not with the EU, that one individual controls outcomes decades after his death. There have been many influences that weighed against a federalist outcome and to describe the EU as ‘an attempt to create a United States of Europe’ is seriously misguided.
If anything, I would guess that it would allow for ethnicities to be more prominent, rather than less, like Nava’s example (Navarra first, Spanish / European by political reality). I know Mr. Mallard is Welsh first, Not English second, followed by British and European and then rounded off by Not English once again for good measure.
I understand very well thank you. I don’t rely on what I am told. I pay attention to the content of treaties and the progression of the EU from conception to now. I am pro-european, just not pro-EU as it exists now. This often causes people to assume I am actually anti-european,
And I could level exactly the same criticism at your own comments on Europe. Though your clichés and truisms are from the pro-Euro side.
Errrr, yes. Why is that a strange concept for you? Conspiracies are not necessarily secretive and shadowy. Do you deny that many of the main players in Europe are seeking closer unity and are moulding treaties and legislation to that end? Of course they will not mention a USE as they know it is not politically palatable.
You want a cliché and a truism? “politics is the art of the possible”. Overused it may be, but it doesn’t stop it being true.
You prove my point. We don’t elect the commission. They don’t even have to have stood for any election at all, they are not directly accountable to me. That is not democracy by my definition and worse, they see fit to exert pressure on on democratic countries as to who should be in national governments. That is the direction we are travelling in.
Because I suspect France and Germany would like to wield a large amount of influence within any super-state. Power. That is the driver as it always is. Of course the concept of individual national power being exerted within a USE is a nonsense but no more of a nonsense than a single currency linking economies as diverse as Germany and Greece without formal fiscal union. Putting the currency in place seemed like an idiotic move at the time but it has had the effect of making fiscal union seem like the only logical move. *That *is an object lesson in how europe moves forward.
Not everyone, but enough are tied to that vision and enough of those have a vested interest in maintaining their positions that it continues to wield considerable influence.
It is true that in such a complex system what we actually end up with is an emergent rather than a pre-determined property.
The cultural driver in the main is for a looser confederation and devolution of powers whilst still maintaining a central “idea” of europe. And believe me, culture will win. If the powers in Brussels try to force further unity then eventually we will have a calamitous falling out as culture re-asserts itself.
Again, read the treaties. Look at the trajectory of the last 25 years. What direction are we moving in? look at the times when referenda have be held and the questions asked What were the outcomes? what was the EU response?
Each individual treaty has plausible deniability regarding any suggestion of an USE. “Oh no this is just clarification or simplification”. When we look closer we see that each treaty makes it easier for the next one to go further.
Before we know it we are here. A busted currency and pressure from an unelected body threatening dire consequences for daring to ask you own voters who should rule them and what action to take.
Sounds like my father blowing a vein any time someone in Barcelona called him “Castillian”; I think it’s the only thing that would consistently make him curse. At the same time, he was as “unionist” and pro-EU as it goes, just don’t mistake him for the neighbors.
No you could not do that. For one thing, as I’ve said in one of my posts above I am largely in agreement with you, and I don’t think I like the EU anymore or any less than you do. I don’t really care about your opinion; the reason that I come back to post in this thread is that the facts you choose to support your opinion are nonsense.
You keep throwing around these terms as though they all boil down to an Overlord from Brussels, a United States of Brussels, when in fact the things you are describing are very different. You adhere to a model of institutional design that is completely out of sync with reality by thinking that any single ‘architect’ can set the EU on a path anywhere. It’s just pathetic that the people I agree with who don’t support further EU integration, have to rely on such faulty argumentation.
There is nothing in this thread that you said that could be reduced to this being your point. In the one thing you wrote aboute the Commission, you called it the committee. So don’t be smart. Of course you or I don’t elect the commission, and yes, perhaps there is something undemocratic about that although there are some very good arguments to be made that that is not the case; there’s plenty of people in democratic systems that are not and probably should not be elected, so let’s not froth at the mouth quite yet. Still, what we’re debating is whether the EU is turning into a federated ‘United States of Europe’; the fact that the ‘federal’ Commission is still directly appointed by national governments (and that it is the national governments that run the debt-crisis) is generally taken as evidence that such a federation is not in place. That is the point you were trying to make, and here is the evidence I offered to show you are wrong.
What does any of this even mean? What the hell is a ‘cultural driver’? What does it mean for ‘culture to re-assert itself’? Things like that, they don’t exist, you can’t just throw them out there. Why should I believe you that ‘culture’ will win?
Look, I’m sure you think these are perfectly coherent concepts that string together into a cogent argument but it’s really just gibberish, not an opinion, anymore than conspiracy talk about the EU becoming something that in the end you cannot define beyond ‘big and bad’ is really an opinion. Perhaps you don’t care, and don’t think the differences that I’ve indicated are important. Still, on the Dope I’d hope to see a higher level of political argument.
They are supported by observations made by me and others (learned, pro and anti-EU alike).
The vision was set out clearly. I don’t think that any one person has set out a roadmap to get there but I do think that there are enough people in Brussels sympathetic to that vision and will steer the EU in that direction by whatever means practical. Staggering and stumbling as they go.
So let me ask you. Given the evidence of previous treaties, where do you think the line is being drawn by Brussels? is the integration we have now enough or do you think they want more? What do the actions of the last two decades and the response to the current crisis suggest?
A slip of the keyboard. The committee or the cabinet that sits is called “the Commission”
Which…if you recall…is exactly my point. Stated clearly and often.
I want to have touching distance between me and those that make the executive decisions. I want my boot on their neck not a muted whimper of complaint three times removed.
Forget the terminology, it is exactly those sort of word games that were used to convince people that the Lisbon Treaty was not a Constitution.
Look at the big picture. Look where we were. Look at what the treaties have set in place. Check the groundwork that these treaties have set in place in preparation for future decision making. That simple question again for you, what direction do you think we are heading in, greater unity or devolution?
Because culture always wins. The culture of a group will assert itself over external influences. If an externally applied construct is not in accord with that group’s accepted norms, there will only be one winner. The problem that a more monolithic EU entity has is precisely this. A construct of multiple different countries cannot hope deal with an imposed culture and a backlash will occur.
Well, I’ve stated my opinion as clearly here as I have on many other boards and before many other audiences. Clarity and cogency has never been a problem before so I suspect we just have a fundamental communication issue.
And I have clearly asked your own opinion on various points on several occasions. Feel free to answer at any time.
I’m not really interested in going into the substance of this matter and debating any of this with you because you’ll just come up with more gibberish and change what you say your point is again. You have also chosen to re-state whatever your ‘point’ is so often that it has become a target moving faster than the speed of light. Part of the reason for this is that you use terms interchangeably when they mean very different things. I don’t really care what your point is, to be honest, as long as I can *understand *what it is, but due to your failure to convey a single unequivocal argument this has not yet happened and probably will not happen. I have tried to point this out, but you counter oh so eloquently
only to proceed to spout more bollocks such as
What’s the point of debate if you don’t agree that agreed upon terminology, something as basic as recognizing the difference between fundamental actors in EU politics, is important? Clarity and cogency are problems for you. We,** Novelty Bobble**, have a fundamental communication problem only insofar as you couldn’t communicate about this issue and presumably many others to save your life.
Which terms have I used interchangeably? let’s clear those up for you.
As for my point. Look at my first couple of posts. It is all there. Clear and concise. The movement to a more Federal Europe, the undemocratic nature of Brussels, The dangers of forcing integration on cultures that don’t accept it. None of those points have changed, merely been expanded upon.
Ah you are very persuasive. I now see that the well established sociological phenomenon of cultural pressures is indeed bollocks. We could’ve saved a lot of people a lot of unnecessary PhD work.
I am far less interested in what something is called and far more interested in what it does. By all means lets be clear as what something is labelled but lets not have that label drive our perception of it. It is actions that are important, not names.
And though you may not like to hear it, I teach, lecture, coach and mentor very successfully thank you. The reason I’m successful is because I can and do communicate complicated concepts clearly.
I’ve done you the courtesy of answering everything you’ve put to me. For one lecturing on poor communication I’m sure you’ll agree that it’d be hypocritical for you not to return the favour. Especially when I’ve asked the same question several times already.
I ask this because I think the concept of a European superstate is alive and well as a model for Europe. It still exists as the ideal for a lot of influential people within Brussels. The evidence of the last two decades suggests we are still on the road to that end although of course it is never stated openly.
This is the real issue right here. Don’t be distracted by the soothing platitudes of the Brussels bureaucrats, They are career politicians and experts in telling you what you want to hear. Look at what is actually happening. That is the only real test of an organisation’s intentions.
I suspect that you won’t answer my simple question because you might have to agree with me just a little and I know how much that hurts. Feel free to prove me wrong on that though.
Svejk, you’re trying to make out that Novelty Bobble is talking gibberish. I’m not sure why. He asked a perfectly relevant question which you conveniently forgot to answer: if not a USE, where do you think the current progression of ever closer integration amongst (Eurozone especially) European countries is going to end up? Where do you see this process stopping? Could anybody have predicted 15 years ago that we’d now be talking about the possibility of fiscal union amongst 18 European nations along with common bonds being issued, for instance? If a USE was not the stated goal of the architects of the EU, then what does the phrase “ever closer union” in the European treaties mean?
Ooops didn’t mean to start a debate 
I was just more interested in seeing if the EU was making Europeans feel more united as a group and breaking down the traditional barriers
If anything I think the forces of globalisation are making more of an impact than the European project is with regard to losing national identities. Many of the same cultural and consumer products are popular across Europe in ways they weren’t in the past.
My issue with Novelty Bobble is that he (or so I’ll assume, my apologies if the **Bobble **is a lady) keeps talking about things like a European superstate, the European Commission doing all sorts of things, and all these other things that suggest that there is a strong federal center that does things that the individual members of the federation don’t like. He then goes on to point to a number of things (Merkel and Sarkozy running the show, treaties being negotiated) which are clearly not done by or orchestrated by anything resembling a federal center, but by strong national governments. This is a contradiction, and I’ve pointed this out to him, and I’ve called upon him to figure this out; he says ‘pish posh’, that’s just terminology, when clearly it matters whether the main driving force behind an international process are national governments (presumably democratically elected somehow) or an international body (for which the same cannot be said). In fact, given Novelty Bobble’s stated concern with the democratic nature of EU governance, it should matter to him in particular.
Although **Bobble **seems to assume that because I point out his contradictions, I must not agree with him, I actually think that EU integration is overstepping its bounds and I don’t like it, and I have not liked for over a decade now. But that’s neither here nor there. Where exactly I see the EU going does not really impinge upon this issue at all; I am just pointing out that what seems to be Bobble’s main argument, is internally contradictory. To make matters worse, Novelty Bobble tries to support this contradiction by making claims that are not supportable empirically or theoretically, eg claims about how ‘culture always wins’. It’s like trying to have an argument with General Turgidson from Dr. Strangelove. To back up such a ludicrous claim by saying that there are people doing PhDs on cultural pressures is an insult to those very people. They would never make such a broad claim, no one in social sciences does; they would hopefully come up with a carefully crafted, conceptualized, and operationalized definition of culture, and seek to tease out the strength of a cultural explanation amidst other rival explanations that would stress material wealth and interests of countries, for instance. I respect and appreciate their work; it is people like Bobble, who make broad unverifiable claims about intricate things like politics, and who state them as facts, who are making a mockery of these people doing these PhDs.
Novelty Bobble, it’s great that you teach and mentor, but that does not make you a political scientist, or an EU specialist, or someone with a particular gift in understanding macro-social mechanisms and political processes. It just makes you another bozo with an incoherent opinion.
I think the ensuing debate proves it isn’t!
Well I’m done with you. The list of fabrications, misrepresentations, straw-men and exaggerations in this last post are pretty breathtaking. The casual insults have also caused me substantial emotional distress, precious flower that I am.
I don’t think you are likely to read anything I write with cool detachment from now, so let’s leave it there.
But as that great thinker Columbo once said “just one more thing”. A clarification that maybe you needed hammering home 20 posts ago but, hey, we live and learn.
*I never said that what we have now is a federal system. *
Never said it.
Never.
Very purposefully never said it because that is not what I think. So your concerns about that being in contradiction to other comments are not founded. Because I never said it.
All the way through, consistently and clearly I have pushed the idea that that is the direction we are travelling and a destination that some desire.
Take the red mist goggles off and go back and read what I wrote…carefully (you won’t though).