SIGN UP

Nay Doubters Left Standing?

Avatar Image
New Judge | 17:24 Thu 09th Jan 2014 | News
15 Answers
“Voters must decide for or against a United States of Europe during EU elections this spring" says vice president of the European Commission:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10559458/We-want-a-United-States-of-Europe-says-top-EU-official.html

Viviane Reding, vice president of the European Commission and the longest serving Brussels commissioner, has called for "a true political union" to be put on the agenda for EU elections this spring.

"We need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission [unelected] as government and two chambers – the European Parliament and a "Senate" of Member States," she said.

Mrs Reding's vision, which is shared by many in the European institutions, would transform the EU into superstate relegating national governments and parliaments to a minor political role equivalent to that played by local councils in Britain. Under her plan, the commission would have supremacy over governments and MEPs in the European Parliament would supersede the sovereignty of MPs in the House of Commons. National leaders, meeting as the European Council, would be reduced to consultative, second chamber role similar to the House of Lords.

Whether or not Ms Reding’s dream is realised, is there anybody out there who still doubts the final “end game” envisaged by these lunatics?

Answers

1 to 15 of 15rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by New Judge. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Haven't read it yet, but, has the United States been rther successful?
Gromit

I think some of the USA member states didn't like the idea of Federal government and dragged their heels somewhat. Those forward looking, progressive and prosperous states; Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana etc
I'm going to be a coward and declare myself 'on the fence'. I will follow this discussion with interest though.
There are some of us who wish to see the abolition of all national parliaments within the EU, allowing the EU to be run as a SINGLE COUNTRY by ONE elected Government in Strasbourg! At least Mr Reding is moving part of the way there!!!
A United States of Europe would be an economic giant and a force for good in the world. It could show the USA that success doesn't necessarily need to see the trampling of workers rights. And show China that a liberal democracy strengthens a state and enriches the lives of its people.
The USA is a good model.

The 'East Coast' can make stuff (Germany and the old Soviet countries)
The 'mid west' can grow wheat (France and the Low Countries)
UK can be the silicon valley/Hollywood of Europe's 'California/Seattle'

We can retire in the 'Floridian' Spain and Greece
This is actually old news. She said it on 23 July 2013.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23418593

She is not THE EU Vice President that acolade goes to the UKs Catherine Ashton. Reding is is EU Vice President for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, one of seven Vice President roles.

// Looking ahead to the EU's future and next year's European elections, Ms Reding urged young people to vote and said "I want the EU to become some kind of United States of Europe - we need that if we want to be strong".

"I want a political union, over and above an economic union... we need strong institutions, a strong European government - the commission - and a strong European Parliament, maybe a second chamber for the government, like a senate... that's something to discuss in the European election campaign."

She also backed calls for the European Commission president to be directly elected, but said that would require EU treaty change. //

So that is HER manifesto. Others fighting in the elections will have different views about how Europe moves forward. It certainly isn't everyones view and is likely to be resisted in most member states.

Personally, I think a political Union would be impossible.
Question Author
I sincerely hope you’re right, Gromit.

But before we go too much further with out adulation of the USA (a nation which strangely comes in for some stick from time to time when it suits) and its comparison with the EU, I feel I should point out one fundamental difference between it and Ms Reding’s model for the EU. It is the small matter of democracy.

In the USA the electorate elects the politicians who are empowered to make decisions on its behalf. Federal elections occur every two years. Every member of the House of Representatives and about one-third of the Senate is up for re-election in any given election year. A presidential election is held every fourth year.

Under Ms Reding’s plan the commission (consisting of appointed individuals) would have supremacy over governments. National leaders (presumable still elected, but who knows) meeting as the European Council, would be reduced to consultative, second chamber role similar to the House of Lords.

Everybody happy with that?
Man the barricades!!
// European Commission president to be directly elected //

Only my interpretation, but 'directly elected' usually means by vote of the people. Many countries directly elect a prime minister (ours are appointed by members of the largest winning party).
Question Author
Yes, but what about the rest of the Apparatchiks? As I see it the proposal is to retain the status quo as far as the Commissioners are concerned.That is to say they will be appointed by the European Council and although there is one per member state their function is not to represent the interests of their state but to represent that of the EU as a whole. So not only are they unelected by the people over whom they exercise power, but they have no responsibility towards those individuals anyway. If this constitution is properly examined it is clear that there is a considerable deficiency of democratic accountability and I'm afraid the EU has a long way to go before it can purport to be a democratic state.
The USofA had everyone pretty much in the same boat. Immigrants who had no established borders they felt they needed to defend. Europe is a far different place where the different cultures don’t tend to see the lot as one amorphous blob. Each considers its capability and way of doing things something they value and do not want outsiders poking their nose in with their contrary ideas. I don’t see a comparison between the two as being particularly useful.
Question Author
No, nor I OG.

Whenever this issue is raised there are always those who make the USA comparison, but it is completely inappropriate for many reasons. The USA was not formed from individual sovereign nations (each with their own versions of democracy, legislature and fiscal control); it was not formed from nations using several different currencies with different tax regimes.
the US was formed by people's fleeing from persecution, the freedoms they enjoy were hard won, to link us to them is wrong. I am not referring to the people's they subjugated either, just that you cannot impose your will over the many millions of EU citizens who are essentially as different as chalk and cheese, have a different way of governance, we shouldn't be losing our sovereignty, not our Parliamentary system, do we really want one Army, air force, Navy, one tax system, one benefits system, and worse one financial system because surely that is what is meant by a United States of Europe. Lunatics who are not mad, but very dangerous.
739.2 million people, as of 2011, sure they want this, i very much doubt it.

1 to 15 of 15rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Nay Doubters Left Standing?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.