Sorry for the late response, I've had a crazy busy weekend.
Same for me: Sorry for the long time. I had a rather busy time and then some health problems. Now, I'm back.
Most of that could still be ensured through a coalition of willing nations, as I described. There is no reason that a currency must be shared, or that wealth must be transferred between states in order to maintain peace. As I originally stated, this only leads to divide the countries between givers and takers, and when one nation falls, we all fall.
I'd say if there was no institutional frame and no financial equalization, we'd even be more divided than we are now. The EU serves as an institutional frame that provides legal procedures to talk about problems and find compromises, even before they can become severe problems. The EU cannot be thanked enough for that. And I don't see any of this happening, if there was no economic incentive for that.
The countries of Europe did not move towards constitutional democracies because the EU made them, that change came from within. Any important change must be from the bottom up, the people must decide. A group of few, benevolent leaders on the EU level telling everyone in Europe how to behave is the exact opposite of this.
I agree on the latter sentence, but the EU has set incentives towards meeting the criteria for joining, when it comes to human right standards and democratic government. Because the EU promised membership to many central-eastern European countries, they went on a more republican path than they would have without this incentive, as you can see when you look up the Meciar time in Slovakia or the case of Croatia and Serbia, when it comes to acknowledging war crimes and handing over war criminals. You could even list many reforms in Turkey. And the extensive rights for ethnic minorities in Latvia, Estonia (mostly Russian), Hungary and Slovakia, and Romania -- all thanks to the EU, as the respective national governments enacted these laws to fit the criteria for EU membership.
On the other side, you see in Belarus and Ukraine, what happens when there is no incentive for free, democratic government. The EU is a source of democratic-republican stability. While it's true that without the support of the people, democracy would not be possible, it's also true that the EU gives incentives for the politicians to meet the standards.
The wars of the 19th and 20th century came from concentrated, unchecked power, and your solution is to give an organization absolute power, with zero other peer entities to check it. I find that horrifically dangerous. There is nothing to stop the EU other than the member nations revolting themselves.
Well, the EU may not be as democratic as desirable, but it's not true that it is "unchecked". The EU parliament has control over the Commission. The national governments, which are democratically elected, control the general direction of the EU and determine its policies directions -- and each even has a veto. If one government of a tiny member state, say Malta or Luxemburg, disagrees with certain policies, they cannot become EU goal (unless they are convinced otherwise by certain offers on other fields). And lately, it was even decided that the Head of Commission should, from now on, stem from the largest party alliance in the EU parliament.
So while democratic control of the EU could be more direct than it is, it's still not totally undemocratic.
The problem is that the EU is becoming too bold. The nations are losing not only their sovereignty, but their national identity. You argue that smaller nations already have little say, and that pooling their influence is the only way to effect change, and to a degree, that's true, but sacrificing their own decision making ability in order concentrate power is dangerous. How much effect do you think the smaller nations have on EU policy? Do you think the EU is truly representing their voice? How is it any different? They're still relatively small and can effect zero change, yet they are highly restricted on the laws they can make in even their own country. They've given up power for almost nothing in return.
Small EU countries enjoy a huge benefit within the EU institutions, as they enjoy much more power than their population or economy suggests. In the Council, for example, tiny countries such as Malta or Luxemburg (with 300,000 and 400,000 inhabitants respectively) have 3 and 4 votes, compared to a large country like Germany, which only has 29 votes (so the small states hold ca. 1/10 voting power of the largest) , although Germany harbors more than 200 times the population (with 82 million). Medium-sized countries such as France, Britain and Italy (ca. 60 million inhabitants each) have 29 votes each too, just as Germany, although they only have ca. 70% of Germany's population.
Treaty of Lisbon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can see a similar advantage for smaller countries when it comes to the number of seats of the parliament too.
So small member countries are vastly advantaged in EU structures. They have much more influence than they'd have if their only indicator would be population and economic strength, and they can even ally to form a veto majority against the large countries (such as Germany, France, Britain and Italy). They wouldn't get remotely that influence outside of EU structures and organs.
Europe is also FAR more diverse than the individual states in America. You don't share a language, a culture, a history, a constitution, a mindset, nothing. Yes, there are similarities, but moving from country to country you will still find radically different mind sets. Well I guess you guys do share a history, but it's a violent one, and that's hardly the bonding experience required to form a nation.
I disagree. I'd even argue the US is much more diverse than the EU countries in Europe: You have various "white" Americans, from EU countries such as Ireland, Germany, Britain, Italy and so on -- Irish Americans, German-Americans, English-Americans and Italian Americans. But on top of that, you even have many non-European groups in America, such as Asian Americans, Latin American Hispanics, and not least African Americans. All the ancestors of today's Americans came arguably from places much more diverse than Europe is today.
Europe today, on the other hand, has always shared commonalities, as "the Western civilisation" or "the Occident": No matter where in Europe you are, when you study philosophy, you'll start with the ancient Greeks, then some Christians in the Middle Ages, until the Age of Enlightenment. Likewise when it's about high art: High art, be that painting or music, has always been pan-European. One artist would borrow from another European artist, no matter where they lived in Europe. Bach's music would not have been possible without the Italian baroque, and 19th century Italian and French opera would not have been possible without Mozart or Beethoven. Likewise, French and British philosophers Montesquieu and Locke would not have been possible without Greek Aristotle, or one another.
And today, we're already very similar in Europe: We watch the same tv series and movies mostly (generally American), listen to the same music (mostly American and British) and eat the same fast food (mostly McDonalds and Burger King). We share the same values of freedom and republican government. And we share the common heritage of Greek-Roman ancestry, Christianity and Renaissance/Enlightenment.
I don't think we're more diverse in Europe than people are in America.
This I've already addressed. These small nations still don't have much say in the EU, they just have given up sovereignty in exchange for little in return.
I disagree. Like I explained above, the small nations get much more attention within the EU, than they'd ever get if they were outside.
You keep bringing up the US as an example, which makes me wonder if that's really want you want for Europe. Just to let you in on some top secret information: The Americans aren't real happy with their federal government either right now. It's slow moving, wasteful, and far disconnected from the people. You want another layer on top of the local federal governments, which will be slower, more wasteful, and even more disconnected.
Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that the claims about state secessions in the US are vastly exaggerated. I believe in the end of the day, most Americans agree that's it's great they are Americans, and that it's great their country is united. Of course you'll always find secessionists, but my guess is that they're not really numerous and they are not really be taken seriously.
America is diverse, but less diverse than Europe, and our federal government still has an outrageously difficult time trying to fulfill the needs of everyone. When power is concentrated, you can only have something one way. Let's say if there's two types of people:
- One type wants to ban cats and keep dogs
- One type wants to ban dogs and keep cats
A central government simply can not make both sides happy. It either has to pick one side, ban both, or ban none. If there were two separate governments bound by a constitution, but each with individual sovereignty in legal matters, each state could implement laws to better reflect the population.
Agreed. That's why such peculiar questions should remain at the level of the member states to decide.
Once again bringing up the US. I don't believe most Europeans want to take it as far as becoming the United States of Europe. I'd like to provide a source but I don't believe such a poll has ever been conducted. The US isn't exactly the representative wonderland you seem to be imagining.
The US is certainly not perfect, but I'd argue that it works well, despite all shortcomings. The US has mastered more severe crisises than the one we're in now. IMO, it's still a pretty good example, despite all problems.
Then on this point we don't have much to discuss. I would however like to point out to you that you're agreeing with me that the Euro is far more symbolic than practical. Was that your intention?
I've been basing my argument off the Euro being highly impractical and disadvantageous to the nations involved, but I haven't considered it from a symbolic angle because I personally think that's a terrible reason to implement a currency. What substantial symbolic advantage is provided that is worth all of the trouble the Euro has been so far?
I'd say the main problem was not the introduction of the euro currency, but the failure to harmonize fiscal policies in the member states and the lack of mutual, common interest rates for government bonds. The US has harmonized budgets between the member states and common interest rates, else states such as Mississippi or Utah would have dragged the $US currency into a similar abyss Greece is threatening to draw the EU in.
We know now that a common currency without common interest rate for government bonds and harmonized fiscal policies does not work. So we should introduce those. The euro currency zone as a whole is less in trouble than the US is. We're only more vulnerable, because we've attempted a weird hybrid version of unification and independence. I'd say, let's risk more unification.
The advantages of a shared currency, when done properly, are obvious: A shared fiscal policy would lead to better fiscal policies. Companies doing business in several member states would have much less trouble about different currencies and exchange rates. People travelling from one to the other country would have much less hassle too. And finally, it would bind European nations closer together, making sure we don't repeat our history.
(To be continued ...)