The Euro

Great Debates
81

Never happened. The Freedom Party, headed by Joerg Haider, is a right-wing populist party mostly noted for its xenophobia. The Freedom Party came in second in the last Austrian general election, back in 1999, and became junior partner in the new governing coalition. In response, the rest of the EU started a “diplomatic boycott” of Austria, refusing to meet with its representatives in various situations.

The diplomatic boycott was a smashing failure, and was pretty quickly abandoned. The Freedom Party remains in the governing coalition today.

Sua

82

Ehhh…

Hang on there Sua you are right in principle, but Haider did resign as party leader, partly due to his blunders in foreign affairs, but also partly due to pressure from the rest of the Union.

But yes, the attempted boycott achieved pretty much diddlysquat.

Sparc

83

All Haider did was resign his title. I don’t think anyone could claim with a straight face that he no longer calls the shots in the Freedom Party.

Sua

84

Sua,

Haider was also kept out of a government position as a result, but we’re nitpicking, so I’ll stop that now. You’re right. The EU pressure did far less than one would have hoped, and Haider still pulls the shots in the FP, but his most recent shenanigans haven’t done him any favor on that front either BTIAS.

Well. I think that Go Alien has put the finger right on what I view as a huge PR failure by the Council. In the name of unilateral nothingness, our dear politicians don’t want any of the 15 members to stand out too much. There is also a conflict of interest in as much as that often enough representation from the UK to the council is for instance Tony Blair, who needs to remain the PM in the public eye. So the Commission has been put in the foreground instead. All the Commission is supposed to do is to give voice to the policy of the Council, that’s pretty much what happens as well, but in the public eye they come across as the hotshots. It’s idiocy and if you ask me they should rather let Solana step up in the foreground. There is a rub there though, he would suddenly come across as the president of the EU and well, that might look a little odd. In any case this is a PR catastrophe since it constantly leads people to think that the Commission is our government.

Well, considering that the EU budget represents less than 2% of public expenditure of the EU total I fail to see where all the fat on this gravy train is supposed to be. If you read my previous posts on fiscal policy and monetary regulation you’ll see what the purpose of the whole thing is. It’s a redistribution and insurance system that serves to equalize regional asymmetry in the economy. I’m not a big fan of how it works myself, but work it does and hardly does it represent any chest of gold that will save a whole state economy (technically if all of it went to Ireland or Denmark for instance it very well could, and we could also create a dozen or so Lichtensteins from it – but I think you see how silly that would be).

The whole thing tends to get a little blown out of proportion by our loudmouthed friends in the agricultural sector who generally depend pretty heavily on the subsidies contained therein. The anti EU lobby also tends to spout so much venom around the whole thing that one gets the impression that we in the larger states are being robbed blind every day. I think not somehow. For that matter around 3% percent or 3.5 billion Euro of the budget already goes to the applicant states in development support.

The real gravy train is in the opening up of the boarders for free trade and the resulting potential economic boom, which in turn benefits the EU as a whole, since it engenders economic growth within the same economy through the macro economic effect of avoiding trade imbalances across uncooperative fiscal systems.

Sparc

85

The reason (quite obvious to me) for this being that the member states were on the overall unwilling to have a body which at the same time would be democratically elected (hence as legitimate as the countries’ parliaments/governments) and had a real power. With a commission which had a real control but had no democratic legitimacy and a parliament which had legitimacy but no real power, the representants of the governments (the council) could legitimately retain their leading position and authority, hence protect their national interests. The whole thing is intended to protect the sovereignety of the member states. It’s for the exact same reason that there’s no “president” of the EU, let alone a democratically elected one.
You seem to fail to understand that actually this system is supported by the anti-federalists, not by the federalists. And that by asking for such changes, you’re actually asking for a federal Europe.

86

Sparc: Ok, let’s say that the US and EU use C-D-E and discuss leanings.

C - each area stimulates during local recessions.
D - during local recessions, additional resources flow from booming regions to repressed regions.
E - migration between regions takes up the slack.

Sparc: US= D, supported by E.
EU= D,
C(EU)>C(US) (somewhat)

  1. I honestly don’t know whether D or E is more important in the US. This is an empirical issue which would require a literature review, at the very least.

  2. *Each member state pays it’s ‘federal tax’ or ‘membership fee’, somewhat glibly called ‘contribution to the EU’. This fee is calculated relative to size…depending on the state of their current business cycle. *

I am unclear on a) the extent to which these inter-regional transfers vary with the business cycle, b) the extent to which local spending, taxing and borrowing varies with these transfers. If the slack is taken up solely by borrowing, for example, then this scheme has zero counter-cyclical impact. I am also unclear on the extent to which c) whether payments to each region also vary with the local business cycle, agriculture notwithstanding.

Still, this scheme does provide a potential framework for counter-geographical spending and taxing. I would argue that it better, as the EU lacks substantial “E support” (migration).

…the EU… tends to have a less asymmetric reaction to recession…

This is certainly relevant: if true across EU members, it implies that the EU may be more of a common currency area than the US! (If it is true merely within each EU member, then not.)

Summary: I guess I don’t see much disagreement; my post seems merely to (somewhat lamely) point to certain empirical issues.

87

Flowbark,

Not lame at all, they are interesting points. I have some answers straight off and there are one or two things I’d like to check on before I reply. It is however 5 AM in these parts and I am a tad bit tired after along day of work, golf and somewhat of a train wreck of a satire thread that I posted in the Pit that wooshed so bad that I think I heard the sound for real. I’ll get back to the issue shortly.

Sparc

88

Couldn’t agree more.

89

And you’re basis for agreeing is???

Since this is an agreement with an opinion that has of yet not been shown any grounds for, could I humbly request that the new arrival to our debate give us some cites as to the justification of this position?

Perhaps a little something simple like some facts and figures? Or point us to survey? An article? Anything?

Sparc

90

My personal opinion…

I’m sorry for jumping in, but I wasn’t really interested in the economics of the whole - I just wanted to express support for an opinion I agree with. I’m sorry if it doesn’t have much to with the majority of posts. I can’t provide any cites, but I don’t really think it matters in this case.

The opinion I was agreeing with is that their is no real desire for a common European state (at least in my country, the UK) and no real reason for it either. If “utopianists” or whoever want to create a European state than they should try and harmonise the culture and, most importantly, language because forcing currencies and governments into it.

I recognise that harmonising language and culture is extremely difficult - but I think that this should be a warning to people, rather than a reason to ignore it. I’m not actually against the idea of uniting countries: the more I think about it, the more I realise that I don’t quite see the point in the US, UK, Canada and Australia/New Zealand being under separate governments. I’d welcome such an idea.

All just IMO.

91

Which you obviously are entitled to. In this specific forum we do however expect people to support their humble opinions with some kind of argument at least and most often a cite that lends some credibility to the same argument.

That much was to figure from the get go.

What should be a warning? Did something happen that I wasn’t aware of? Please inform me what it is we should be alarmed by, because I am sitting here all calm reading through the integration plans for Europe and nary a catastrophe has yet appeared, should I worry?

Ah yes, hmm, but don’t you think that your proposal for a return to the Empire might come as somewhat of a surprise in the colonies? It might, for reasons of long ago revolutions, past cessation and bitterly won independence even meet with some slight resistance, yes?

You sir, are deeply mistaken as to the dynamics of integration. You are aware that there are huge amounts of Americans that don’t have English as their first language, right? And you are aware that even the Crown does not impose English as the tongue to speak on her subjects, right? There is a current thread in GQ about the status of languages all over the place if it interests you.

Anymatter, littlehow and whatsoever, this is a tad bit too basic to go into here and now. I might suggest that you do bother to read this thread, it might help you set some stuff straight, and yes do please feel free to follow various links strategically scattered here and there in the texts, they are fountains of wine, ale and port to quench your information thirst in what seems to be a knowledge desert. Have no worries, It’s not all economics and monetary matters, we’ve taken our time to make some detours left and right on our way.

Rather! You don’t say? One must admit that interesting opinions they are though.

Sparc

92

I just gotta get in here and do a little heckling. Things are getting too staid.
Time to introduce some “voodoo economics”, or maybe “crank theories” or whatever you wish to call it.
As has been pointed out, the U.S. is an analogous common currency area. There was an excellent book on the subject of the optimal common currency area written by a cranky, if not crank, non-economist a while back: “Cities and the Wealth of Nations”. In it, the author, Jane Jacobs, argued that the optimal common currency area was the city. Or maybe the city and its suburban environs. Yes, she really seems to think that every city should be independent and have its own currency.
Her argument was that economic development originates in cities and takes place almost exclusively within them. A large country such as the U.S. can thus be best understood as an amalgamation of many city economies into a single nation-state.
Economically, she considered this to be dumb. In looking around the world, what she saw was case after case of the development of what she called “elephant cities” within nation-states, examples of this being Tokyo in Japan, London in the UK, or Paris in France, places that so dominated the national economy that the value of the currency pretty much reflected what was going on in this one place to the exclusion of the rest of the country.
She considered the development of such cities and the relative impoverishment of the rest of the nation state to be more or less inevitable, because with each economic cycle the dominant city would come to more and more dominate the economy because of a cycle in which the currency would respond more to that place’s ups and downs than any other area within the nation, which would give the dominant city the edge, which edge would influence the currency more, which would give the city more of an edge over the rest of the nation, and on and on in a feedback loop that eventually resulted in the “elephant city”.
Given this, the euro is even more of a violation of her view than a national currency is. BTW, the fact that the U.S. has not yet developed such a city - NYC is big but not totally dominant in the way Tokyo is in Japan - she attributed to the size of the dole in the U.S., or as flowbark would say, “demand management”, the d of the above. E is also in full force in the U.S., of course.

93

quote -

Welcome to the SDMB cjb. What is the basis for your position? Could you provide some cites that show that the pro-Euro fraction has actually lied and spread false information? As re the 70s referendum it is a fair bit more complicated than what you purvey and I think that brandishing the government of the time as liars might not hold up to closer scrutiny, you might want to read up on that a little.

Hmm, I find that last comment a strange one. The primary basis for my position is that I was there and saw it, so being asked to read up on it leaves me a little confused. I feel as if I have just come into a house out of the rain, and am being told that the weather forecast shows fine, so it cannot be raining!

I can still remember the discussions I had with my friends before the referendum on joining the Common Market. Most believed that it was no more than a normal trading agreement of the type that all countries regularly enter into, and that for some strange technical reason everyone needed to vote on it. The Government of the time (and the media) stressed that this was the case. I have little time to go chasing original documents from the 70s, but I hardly need much - just key ‘Edward Heath Common Market’ into a search engine. I got the following cites: -

“The impact of Community law is, by definition, confined to essentially economic matters. Let us remind ourselves of the objective of the original treaties of Paris and Rome. They set out, essentially, to establish a Common Market.”

(The Solicitor-General in Parliament, 1972)
“English Common Law is not affected. For a few commercial and industrial purposes there is need for Community Law.”

(“Yes” pamphlet delivered to all homes, 1975 referendum)
“No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British parliament.”

“It is the Council of Ministers, and not the Market’s officials who take the important decisions. These decisions can only be taken if all the members of the Council agree. The minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or new tax if he considers it to be against British interest.”

(“Yes” pamphlet 1975)

“The Community is no federation of provinces or countries. It constitutes a Community of great and established nations….There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty.”
(White Paper, 1971)
“What is the position concerning the ultimate supremacy of Parliament? The position is that the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament will not be affected.”

(Geoffrey, now Lord, Howe in Parliament, 1972 when speaking on the European Communities Bill)

“There will not be a blueprint for a federal Europe…What is more, those members of the Community who want a federal system, but who know the views of Her Majesty’s Government and the Opposition Parties here, are prepared to forgo their federal desires so that Britain should be a member.”

(Edward Heath in Parliament, 25th. Feb. 1970)

“What the Single European Act will not do-and I think it is worth emphasising this, is that it will not lead to a federal union.”

(Minister Lynda Chalker in Parliament)

“The Single European Act does not represent a fundamental change in the structure of the EC or in our relationship with it.”

(Conservative Party Campaign Guide, 1987 election)

“There was a threat to employment in Britain from a movement in the Common Market towards an Economic and Monetary Union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed.”

(Government pamphlet sent to every home in Britain)

and finally,

Peter Sissons:” Was it always in your mind-the Single Currency, and a Federal Europe?

Edward Heath: “Yes, of course.”

(1990 Question Time-compare this with Heath’s 1970 statement before he took Britain into Europe)

I can remember the famous interview with Mr Heath, during which he was repeatedly asked why he had denied that he was trying to bring Britain into a Federal Europe during the referendum. Finally he turned on the interviewer, and said words to the effect that ‘… if I hadn’t said that, I wouldn’t have got a Yes vote.’.

All of the above are arguably incorrect, and known to be so at the time. Now of course no politician says things which cannot be weaseled out of. Though I think that some of the quotes above are pretty direct, I suspect I could make each one mean the opposite if I tried. You had to be there to experience the mass of soothing propaganda, the continuous statements that ‘this is all a fuss about nothing, dreamed up by right-wing Little Englanders’. That is what I meant when I talked about ‘lying and shouting down every discussion’

I strongle suspect that the economic arguments are irrelevant. If Europe becomes a single country it will have a single currency, full stop. That currency will have some level of strength or weakness, full stop. Attempts to show that this will be high or low, good for some and bad for others, are missing the point. They divert people, as they are probably meant to, from talking about fundamental principles. I wanted to see a debate on these principles, and what I have detected over the years is an avoidance of debate. It is this, more than anything else, that makes me very suspicious of the pro-european position.

94

Sparc:

Most generous of you…

If I said “IMO 10 people die a year of ecstasy” then I would agree with you. To repeat what I was agreeing with :

    1. The whole project was driven by political (read “symbolic” or “emotional”) reasons, not hard-headed economics. Moreover, there was little or no demand among the people of Europe for a common currency, especially among the Germans. It is the work of visionaries and utopianists who are determined to shape a European nation state from the top down, rather than in response to popular feeling. -

Do you expect me to poll of visionaries admitting to that, or what? I doubt I could find any valuable article which added any more to the debate than the opinion above.

“Their attitude is that problems 1. and 2. will “force” a European government into being. Idealy, a new country would come into being first, democratically, and the currency would follow.”

This is clearly opinion in the same way as saying “blue is the best colour” is. If it gets on your nerves so much why don’t you actually just argue against it?

Then why get so upset?

It should be a warning that attempting to turn two cultures into one is extremely difficult. As they haven’t even tried that yet, then that’s one particular catostrophe they haven’t had to deal with.

Stop being so hypocritical, for goodness sake. That’s the same as me saying that a federal EU is just an excuse for the Germans to take over Europe at last, and there’d probably be more justification for that.

If I wanted a return to Empire then for a start it would include India and half as Africa as well. I personally don’t even really regard America, and to a lesser extent Australia and Canada as ever part of the Empire in the first place. America left before the heyday, and in case it they were almost more colonies than anything else. As for “bitterly won”, who’s bitter? If they were so annoyed Australia would have got rid of the monarch, surely.

The most important point of all this is that all these countries would be theoretically equal although the US would be supreme in practise due to its population size) and not under Britain. I’d expect the most likely ‘capital’ would be New York.

[quote]
You sir, are deeply mistaken as to the dynamics of integration. "

So you’re actually going to argue the subject now, instead of just being annoying patronising? Good.

No, I’m not, and in your best tradition, cite please?

I’ve always thought that at least 80% (I suspect its in the 90s) speak and understand English. If you’re referring to the idea that Spanish is going to magically overtake English in the US in 30, 50 or whatver years then I’ve read quite a few sceptical articles on that subject, which seem to be far from convinced that it’s going to happen. (If you insist, I can probably find a cite)

Uh… your point being?

I took a look at it.

Right… Of course it is. All I want is a simple answer why 20 or so countries with a long history of separate cultures and war, and where two citizens probably can’t even understand each other let alone get along, is a more suitable union than four countries with a shared heritage, culture and opinion on most things.

I’ve already read it.

95

MrThompson,

I shall be as short as possible since this has mostly been covered. I didn’t get upset at you for your opinions. You barged in and instead of joining the debate at its current point you posted something that had been posted earlier in the thread and had been met with arguments.

This in particular was refuted by me earlier on and direct proof of the fallacy of the statement was posted in the thread:

As I have shown again and again there is a majority support for a Constitution and Federal EU according to polls carried out in the UK, the figures are posted right in here.

As regards the process of integration, I think it is a bit off this thread and so I opened a new one with purpose to examine that issue. I will be more than glad to debate you in there in a more civilized tone.

cjb,

Thanks for the reply - I will reply to you as soon as I get a little more time aside.

Sparc

96

Okay, I’ll try and justify myself on this by quoting what I would see is your argument against it

That thread only proves what Hemlock says. He claims that the EU was built for political reasons, not economic ones, and in that thread what do we find but Churchill claiming that there should be an EU for the very political reason of peace.

Don’t you think it’s a bit insulting to say that people only don’t want to lose their currencies due to nostalgia? That may be true for (incredibly annoying) “metric martyrs”, but losing your currency has many very important side effects: losing economic and political independence.

You keep claiming that you’ve proved it, but I’ve never seen you do so in either thread. For a start wanting a constitution is not the same as wanting a USE - I want a constitution, for goodness sake! You’ve never supplied any cites that a majority in the UK want a federal EU, and I would be very intrigued if you could. I doubt there is a single politician (and likely not citizen) in the UK who would agree with that assessment.

To give you an example of a few day old survey, I believe John Redman (Tory MP) wrote in to the Times claiming only 30% were in favour of UK Euro-ship, the exact same number as 3 years ago. If they don’t want the Euro, then they definitely don’t want the USE.

Is that an apology or an attack? :slight_smile:

I’d be interested to see more of your views on that.

97

MrThompson,

I shall leave aside our quibbles and only remark that we are posting past each other on one issue. I have never claimed that the Euro was not a politically rather than financially driven initiative. My retort was to the last part in the quote from Hemlock’s claiming that we didn’t want the Union and that it was forced upon us from above, which is not true. You might feel that way personally, but please refute the cites that I have given showing the contrary emotion being the prevailing one in a majority of the EU population, if you are going to agree with Hemlock.

Did I say that? I think not. I said that the displeasure with the currency immediately after its inception was partly due to that.

But since you mention it, you might have a point. I’ll be condescending for a moment; your average man in the street understands about as much about the finer points of monetary policy as does a dove of what it is to be a trout. Hell I read about it on a regular basis and can’t make friggin’ heads or tails of the stuff. I think that Herr und Frau Maier are not likely to be very upset because of the risks posed while we adapt our currency to the distributed fiscal policy of the EU, with low flexibility in redistribution and insurance as means to counter inflationary reactions in asymmetric shocks during otherwise positive evolution of GDP. Or, how much do they worry about the ECB’s capacity to use interest rates as a means to stifle artificial strength in relative exchange rates to a weakening US Dollar due to market insecurity, as we are currently experiencing? Actually come to think about it, how do you feel about all that?

It seems the Euro coin has yet to drop for many of you guys out there. The EU already exists and pending the ratification of the Treaty of Nice ‘we’ have forsaken our sovereignty in such a way that the EU is for all practical purposes a federation already. The EMU has been around for a while. Scroll back and read what the popular support for it is.

One market, one currency, one Union - make sense, yes? We have a parliament, a government and lots of other cool stuff as well, like a Central Bank and a budding federal police force. So now that you say it, yes I’ll attribute it to nostalgia, because it feels a lot better to give the parts of my fellow citizenry that grumble the benefit of the doubt and not regularly call them macroeconomic morons like I did in the previous paragraph, or worse even, label them as xenophobic reactionaries.

This frankly tires me. Why is it that everyone thinks that this federal word is so magical? Constitution=Federation. The moment we have a shared government and a binding legal document that ties us all together we are a federation. For that matter we are, as I have said a million times practically a federation already, the constitution gives us due protection and secures our rights under that premise.

A federation isn’t a building four Chris’ sake. It’s an idea that is put onto paper, which grants rights to people that belong to it, and creates a legal framework and governance that is common to all parts of a union of states that retain certain autonomy and independence. Does it maybe sound like…the EU? Heaven forefend that we use the f word though, let’s call it ‘shiny happy people that have the same basic rights and obligations, and share a government on some level above the state they live in’. Better so?

Can one of the anti-federalists give me a factual run-down on the principle reasons to oppose a federation? I’m on a soapbox here, repeatedly explaining why it’s a good idea and I never hear one single argument against the principle except; ‘it takes away our sovereignty’ which given that it already happened doesn’t make any sense, as long as you are not proposing a cessation from the Union. All the other arguments so far have been about erroneous concepts of the detailed functioning of the EU government, and I cease not to beat those to the ground. So tell me, please someone tell me what is it that I am arguing against, because I have suspicions that are non too flattering - take me out of those.

Sparc

98

Sorry, late to the party, so apologies if this has been already mentioned.

One thing that is critical for a global currency is the debt market. It’s going to take many years for the Euro to develop a liquid and deep government debt market such as the US has.

99

Well I think cjb is doing a fine job for the UK perspective on that, and as for other countries… well, I think an important point is that there is a difference between the EU and a USE. People can want one and not the other. Most of your cites only talked about support for the EU.

I’m sorry if I jumped on you for that if it wasn’t your intention - I suppose I’ve seen too many people who do argue that way. In any case you certainlly make it sound like they might have a valid reason not to want the Euro.

True. That doesn’t necessarily mean their conclusion is wrong.

That you know too much jargon? :slight_smile:

Yikes. Nobody told me that. I’d better get started on one of those revolution things, then.

No… One market, many peoples, many countries … now that makes sense.

Again you’re insulting the people who disagree with you, now as ‘xenophobic’. People who disagree with you may have perfectly valid reasons too, you know.

Well according to MS Word’s theosaurus constitution doesn’t equal federation…

Seriously, this is the thing that all your arguments have been based on, the opinion that a constitution equals a federation and so that when people ask for one they automatically want the other. And you seem to be the only person who regards it that way. Certainlly most of the politicians don’t. I don’t.

I want a constition so we can finally figure out once and for all what the EU is and what it is for, and to stop this constant lying and slipping closer and closer against the wishes of the public. If we’re going for a federation then let’s say so; if not, then let’s say that.

Now you’re just arguing pointless semantics. You know as well I do what people mean when they talk of federation - a USE.

People have argued the last part with you again and again. Wanting to be part of a common market for free trade is not the same as giving up all your sovereignty. A federation takes away much, much more sovereignty than the current EU. Okay?

I’ve also yet to see a convincing argument for you for it, so I would be happy if you could them. I seem to remember you saying it would lead to extra peace,which I not only think is not guranteed but also rather besides the point, and freedom, which I happen to think we’ve got enough already, and if we wanted more we’d vote for it in our own country.

If your suspicions are that we’re all just xenophobic then you’re going to have to give me your definition of that word because I suspect that by it I probably am.

Asking why I oppose a USE is like asking why I oppose a United States of Britain and Japan and Tunisia. Because we don’t have a common language, a common culture, a common history and so on, and so on. If the UK joined the USE it would become rather less significant in world affairs and lose a lot of its influence, and I just don’t see the point. One thing that countries everywhere celebrate more enthusiastically than anything else is their independence, their freedom to do what they want. And you’re asking people to give that up (well, it would be asking if they actually had a referendum on the issue), and not giving them a reason why.

I like French and German people (well, except when we’re playing football against them), but I like them as neighbours and as friends. I am simply not French, or German, or Spanish, or Italian.

I am sure there are other more technical reasons which many MPs feel they can only use. But what is important for me is the main principle here, and everything else to me becomes a secondary issue.

100

I guess you better had. Trust to see me on the opposite side.

Since time has that nasty tendency to flow in only one way as per current technological development I recommend your previously mentioned revolution.

To oppose the Euro? Show me a financial argument that unilaterally says so and has been understood by the general public, any old one, and I will believe you. Until then I will attribute it to nationalism.

[ol]From Merriam Webster:

con·sti·tu·tion
Pronunciation: "kän(t)-st&-'tü-sh&n, -'tyü-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
[…]
4 : the mode in which a state or
society is organized; especially : the
manner in which sovereign power is distributed
5 a : the basic principles and laws of a
nation, state, or social group that determine the
powers and duties of the government and
guarantee certain rights to the people in it b : a
written instrument embodying the rules of a
political or social organization

fed·er·al
Pronunciation: 'fe-d(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin foeder-, foedus compact,
league; akin to Latin fidere to trust –
Date: 1660
[…]
2 a : formed by a compact between political
units that surrender their individual sovereignty
to a central authority but retain limited residuary
powers of government b : of or constituting
a form of government in which power is distributed
between a central authority and a number of
constituent territorial units c : of or relating to
the central government of a federation as distinguished
from the governments of the constituent units[/ol]Show me in what way the latter does not apply to the EU in its current state. Show me in what way a constitution of the EU would not be the final act that truly binds us together as a federation not only in practice but also vis-à-vis the citizenry.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I know only that you have a very dated idea of what a nation makes and that you hold complete sovereignty of the UK vs. the EU to be of high value. And that you seem to believe that there is such a thing as inherently British, French, German, Spanish, and Italian. Which leads to my final point. I have opened to your benefit a thread were we can take this debate if you like, since this is a hijack of this thread, you have as of yet declined to reply, until you do I will take it that you tacitly concede that a language and imagined common culture does not a nation make.

Sparc