A United States of Europe(aeon.co) |
A United States of Europe(aeon.co) |
The trajectory of the USA might be instructive, in either a positive or cautionary sense: It began primarily as a group of governments, and then over time more popularly-democratic aspects crept in along with increasing federal power. (For example, disintermediating state legislatures from the selection of federal representatives.)
From this point of view, I think the fundamental flaw of the USA is the majoritarian electoral system. Majoritarian representation tends to degenerate in the long run into a gridlocked two-party system, a prime example is the USA.
Thus most of the ideas behind the USA are great, but the electoral system is fatal.
Other countries with majoritarian systems like the UK and Canada at least have 3 viable parties, even if there are two that are usually the biggest.
I think a gridlocked majoritarian system is probably preferable to a proportional one that requires governments to get in bed with far right/left 'kingmakers' who hold the balance of power - e.g. Sweden, Netherlands, etc.
If you look at the EU right now, it is hard to imagine a group less likely to come together. In the eyes of most member states it is still an economic union, whose purpose it is to allow international trade and allow economic benefits to the members, largely by allowing access to the enormous economies of France and Germany.
An economic union can only ever be justified in terms of utility and with the German economy not doing too great, what are the chances that the member states are willing to suffer on their behalf?
For the EU to come together it can only ever be on behalf of outside pressure, internal bureaucracies deciding so might create the legal formalities, but never something actually accepted by the population.
Political unity generally comes from 'within' not from 'without'. A group of elites or an ethnic group forms the 'center' or the state and pacifies and unifies those around them. This unity is normally achieved through force. It's true throughout the world - the united kingdom, france, russia, china or the US or japan or anyone else really.
> For the EU to come together it can only ever be on behalf of outside pressure
No. Outside pressure is why many attempts at 'the united states of europe' has failed. Napoleon/france tried to create 'the united states of europe'. Britain and russia put a stop to it. Hitler/germany tried to create 'the united states of europe'. Britain/US and russia put a stop to it.
I forgot which historian said it, but he described the last 200 years of european history as 'anglo-russian meddling to prevent a franco-german unity ( aka 'the united states of europe' )'.
The problem for europe is that they have no core ( ethnic group, language, history, culture, religion, etc ) to build a united states of europe around. And that a united states of europe would be the primary threat to the united states of america/anglo world and russia. Meaning the US/britain and russia will constantly be fomenting division within europe to prevent a united states of europe.
Maybe try 'united states of germania'? 'United states of romancia'? 'United states of the baltics'? Baby steps?
Please let us know if you recall who it is, I'm intensely curious about this.
Given that the right is poised to increase their share of power in the EP this year, it is unlikely that even a back-stage attempt is going to take place anytime soon.
It was easier to build the USA on a shared platform of the same language and the same (shallow) history. European nations are ancient, speak their own languages and have very different histories. Portugal and Finland have basically nothing in common, same as Cyprus and Ireland, or Czechia and Malta.
Yes! Just Dutch, German, English, Spanish, Algonquin, Nahuatl, ... or, did you mean the European invaders? Native Americans had been doing their thing for a for thousands of years when the Europeans showed up. If you're talking about stuff, I don't think old buildings really means culture? The Saxons squatted in the Roman ruins, but that doesn't mean the luster of Rome wore off on them. Certainly far less than the Byzantines being the real Romans.
Also, Americans seem to have fought an awful lot of wars to build a shared polity in its "easy" process.
Divide and keep them distracted, right ?
China gets Taiwan
Middle East gets Israel
India gets Kashmir
Europe gets England
Russia gets Ukraine.
It doesn't seem like that's how it works, but it does. Even the sensationalist headlines morph and the talking heads add/change their propaganda over time.
It's got it's draw backs for sure, but the system is working as intended.
The two party system is still, in effect, a coalition system; the difference is that voters know ahead of time which coalition they’re going to get.
> Meanwhile in Germany, it’s impossible for a voter to predict ahead of time what kind of government to expect from voting for any given party because almost any party could become coalition partners with just about any other party.
You have to trust that the party you're voting for will negotiate in a way that is acceptable to you. I'm not convinced that's worse than your situation in a two party system where you're guaranteed a coalition that's probably not exactly what you wanted.
In a parliamentary system you don’t even have an executive branch unless you can get a coalition. And when it comes to Supreme Courts, not only does nearly every parliamentary country also have one, they sometimes have more of them. Most European countries are subject to ECtHR on top of their national supreme courts.
> You have to trust that the party you're voting for will negotiate in a way that is acceptable to you. I'm not convinced that's worse than your situation in a two party system where you're guaranteed a coalition that's probably not exactly what you wanted.
But at least you know what you’re voting for.