I would love to see a European Union where other EU countries have a say in the main election of each country. Say, all EU countries can vote for the chancellor election in Germany and these votes weight 5% of the final results, while the German votes weight 95%. Same for the French presidential election, other EU countries could vote for a weight of 5%, and 95% of the weight is given the French votes.
This could happen slowly, countries joining one by one the system: when a country joins, it offers 5% of its main election(s) to other EU countries, and in exchange it can vote for other EU countries main elections.
This would oblige national politicians to address the concerns of European citizens outside of their country. This would be very welcome since the choices of national politicians do not just affect the lives of the nationals, but if affects the lives of other Europeans too.
As the national economies are all strongly intertwined and the economic choices of one EU country very affects others, two solutions come to mind: (a) a strong federal government like in the US, where the decisions of state politicians barely affect other states; (b) to keep the current system where national politicians can make choices that affect all Europeans, but let all Europeans have a say in their election.
It would be an administrative nightmare. You would have to vote 28 / 4 times per year!!!
It would have little effect, but MASSIVE push back.
These years the EU needs to lay low, and focus on doing good without drawing more people to support the extreme right-wing/neo-nazis.
This is not the time for bold moves in western Europe; this could back-fire. There are some wiggle room for playing hard ball in eastern Europe, like getting Romanian prisons into ECHR compliance.
Sounds like it solves exactly the opposite problem of what people have. People want more local control, not more supra-national control. (Although, if you want to see the EU fail, pushing for diluting peoples' self determination even more would be a great way to do it.)
The first time a putative national leader was picked by people outside a country's borders, that country would leave the union. And who could blame them?
Very interesting idea. Totally unrealistic in modern Europe, but I'd love to see some EU members testing it within some inner bloc (e.g. Baltic states?)
This comes mostly to fill up the void that UK will leave in the E.U. by exiting and ofc is not going to fly.
As the article states, the level of integration required for these kind of things is nowhere to be found.
The European Union is at crossroads: Either integrates and disintegrates. Half-measures like the ones proposed by the new French PM are not going to work. Not to mention that is nearly impossible for him to achieve anything substantial against Berlin.
It's like an ancient Greek tragedy. Everybody tries to make his best, while every action of every key-player leads inevitably to the worst possible outcome.
> This comes mostly to fill up the void that UK will leave in the E.U. by exiting and ofc is not going to fly.
Alternatively, this has been in the making for a long time, but always has been kept back by the UK to support their relevance inside of the EU. Why do you state that it "[of course] is not going to fly"? Can you refer to some similar situations that provide precedent for your prediction?
> The European Union is at crossroads
Why? And why at this particular point in time? Is it because the UK is leaving, or are there any other reasons the EU cannot maintain their current course?
> Not to mention that is nearly impossible for him to achieve anything substantial against Berlin.
How so? Is the EU colluding with Germany to the detriment of the other member states? Can you provide any evidence of this?
> Everybody tries to make his best, while every action of every key-player leads inevitably to the worst possible outcome.
Do you mean for this particular endeavour or their policies in general? Because in general the results of the EU up to this point seem far from the worst possible outcome. If you mean this particular policy, why do you believe it will lead to the worst possible outcome in this specific instance?
I don't think this is quite right. France has pushed for EU military integration for a long time, mostly because France would like the German economy powering French foreign policy goals. (France is quite active on the world stage, including recent interventions in Mali and Libya and a large role in the CJTF-OIR against ISIS.) The British would instead prefer Europe act through NATO, where European goals will be married to American ones, and has blocked an EU Army for a long time. Now that the UK is leading, France is pushing the EU Army idea once again.
But the EU for all its pretensions never "kept the peace in Europe" - that was NATO, and unless Corbyn is elected[1], there's no chance of the UK leaving.
I think we have a strong selection bias for problems.
We are here and where we are now was also deemed impossible. Slow and steady wins the race. People with excessive opinion and limited knowledge don't last decades. It's how change sneaks in.
Nobody takes pride in a new jet save the manufacturers and the people who fly it.
People do take pride in the security and strength a jet provides in times of crisis.
You can't achieve any of the things you take pride in without the ability to defend yourself. In your case, you have America do it for you. What would happen if America didn't spend more than Switzerland's entire GDP on defense?
Ofcourse the US is whining, they are selling most of the arms too... Increasing defense budgets is good business for the US.
Yes, some of it is justified, and NATO countries have agreed on non-binding spending targets for 2020: To be fair, many of the Eastern European countries have hit said spending targets ahead of time too.
Quite the spoiled and childish attitude. Most NATO members aren't contributing the minimum and instead effectively externalize defense to the US. Then they make comments like yours that trivialize the importance of defense. At least the military leaders of the Eastern flank of NATO, located as it is on a geopolitical seismic fault and with Russia at arm's length, better appreciate the importance of defense. Of course, relying on the Eastern flank to function as a buffer without is, again, foolish and yet another blow to the beyond dubious solidarity of EU member states. (I am reminded of the Polish-Soviet war of 1920 and the Western attitudes then.)
This has nothing to do with any pride. It has everything to do with security and survival. Without it, all those other things you mentioned you can kiss goodbye.
We've been "whining" about it because it allows you to spend on social programs without worrying about your security. The money we spend on your security would be better spent at home on our social programs.
Those are the things I take pride in. Not a new airforce jet.
But those things would never have happened without US defence spending, because the Europeans would have had to spend that money defending the Fulda Gap from the Third Shock Army.
Doing that and funding a welfare state would indeed be something to be proud of, but don't kid yourself that Europe achieved this by its own effort.
Note that this is some pretty lukewarm collaboration, and not the "EU army" that the usual suspects will try to paint it as.
The real question is how this relates to NATO; I suspect that sensible people have realised that perhaps they can no longer rely on the US, UK, or for that matter Turkey.
Undoubtedly there's some sort of arms industry boondoggling going on too. There always is.
How is the UK no longer reliable? Even the US is probably reliable for Nato defence outside of Cyber where war looks more like espionage.
The world does need the EU to step up it's leadership, but we're not at a breaking point yet.
I also think that a coalition of France, Canada, and the UK could act as a decision making block in light of the political situation in America right now. The UK is still one of the most powerful atomic weapons armed countries and has good relations with many countries around the world, France is the most powerful / stable EU country with good relations with many countries around the world, and Canada could act as a good representative for North America and has enough soft power and reputation to pull together non-aligned countries and other members of the global liberal order.
> sensible people have realised that perhaps they can no longer rely on the ... UK
What's the UK done to your or anyone else in Europe to make them think that their military is not reliable any more?
UK military commitment to Europe was always via NATO so will not change under Brexit, and the UK still provides the headquarters and much of the troops for the cooperative formations in Europe such as ARC.
UK troops are on the ground in eastern Europe right now in the NATO EFP against Russia, providing I think (couldn't find a source right now) more troops than anyone else is.
Cooperative military operations will be great for shoring up European unity and validating more integration in due course. The UK being out of the picture should help (as does the existential threat that Brexit has painted) but the system of half-measures too well suits Germany to make it easy. This has all been true with a fiscal union too.
[+] [-] jknz|8 years ago|reply
This could happen slowly, countries joining one by one the system: when a country joins, it offers 5% of its main election(s) to other EU countries, and in exchange it can vote for other EU countries main elections.
This would oblige national politicians to address the concerns of European citizens outside of their country. This would be very welcome since the choices of national politicians do not just affect the lives of the nationals, but if affects the lives of other Europeans too. As the national economies are all strongly intertwined and the economic choices of one EU country very affects others, two solutions come to mind: (a) a strong federal government like in the US, where the decisions of state politicians barely affect other states; (b) to keep the current system where national politicians can make choices that affect all Europeans, but let all Europeans have a say in their election.
[+] [-] jopsen|8 years ago|reply
It would be an administrative nightmare. You would have to vote 28 / 4 times per year!!!
It would have little effect, but MASSIVE push back.
These years the EU needs to lay low, and focus on doing good without drawing more people to support the extreme right-wing/neo-nazis.
This is not the time for bold moves in western Europe; this could back-fire. There are some wiggle room for playing hard ball in eastern Europe, like getting Romanian prisons into ECHR compliance.
[+] [-] rayiner|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cJ0th|8 years ago|reply
Technically speaking, not even the Germans are allowed to vote a chancellor. ;)
[+] [-] gozur88|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivan_gammel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YouAreGreat|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atmosx|8 years ago|reply
As the article states, the level of integration required for these kind of things is nowhere to be found.
The European Union is at crossroads: Either integrates and disintegrates. Half-measures like the ones proposed by the new French PM are not going to work. Not to mention that is nearly impossible for him to achieve anything substantial against Berlin.
It's like an ancient Greek tragedy. Everybody tries to make his best, while every action of every key-player leads inevitably to the worst possible outcome.
[+] [-] craigsmansion|8 years ago|reply
Alternatively, this has been in the making for a long time, but always has been kept back by the UK to support their relevance inside of the EU. Why do you state that it "[of course] is not going to fly"? Can you refer to some similar situations that provide precedent for your prediction?
> The European Union is at crossroads
Why? And why at this particular point in time? Is it because the UK is leaving, or are there any other reasons the EU cannot maintain their current course?
> Not to mention that is nearly impossible for him to achieve anything substantial against Berlin.
How so? Is the EU colluding with Germany to the detriment of the other member states? Can you provide any evidence of this?
> Everybody tries to make his best, while every action of every key-player leads inevitably to the worst possible outcome.
Do you mean for this particular endeavour or their policies in general? Because in general the results of the EU up to this point seem far from the worst possible outcome. If you mean this particular policy, why do you believe it will lead to the worst possible outcome in this specific instance?
[+] [-] pavpanchekha|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] legulere|8 years ago|reply
I don't know which void this is supposed to fill, as military was not really part of the EU up until now.
[+] [-] gaius|8 years ago|reply
There has been a Franco-German formation for 30 years now, it's never actually deployed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-German_Brigade
But the EU for all its pretensions never "kept the peace in Europe" - that was NATO, and unless Corbyn is elected[1], there's no chance of the UK leaving.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/19/jeremy...
[+] [-] ralfn|8 years ago|reply
We are here and where we are now was also deemed impossible. Slow and steady wins the race. People with excessive opinion and limited knowledge don't last decades. It's how change sneaks in.
[+] [-] agumonkey|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] localcdn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Devagamster|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Feniks|8 years ago|reply
Healthcare, housing, education, infrastructure. Those are the things I take pride in. Not a new airforce jet.
[+] [-] colemannugent|8 years ago|reply
People do take pride in the security and strength a jet provides in times of crisis.
You can't achieve any of the things you take pride in without the ability to defend yourself. In your case, you have America do it for you. What would happen if America didn't spend more than Switzerland's entire GDP on defense?
[+] [-] jopsen|8 years ago|reply
Yes, some of it is justified, and NATO countries have agreed on non-binding spending targets for 2020: To be fair, many of the Eastern European countries have hit said spending targets ahead of time too.
[+] [-] bobthechef|8 years ago|reply
This has nothing to do with any pride. It has everything to do with security and survival. Without it, all those other things you mentioned you can kiss goodbye.
[+] [-] gozur88|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] synicalx|8 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, all those nice things go away if your adversary decides to take pride in their new airforce jets.
[+] [-] gaius|8 years ago|reply
But those things would never have happened without US defence spending, because the Europeans would have had to spend that money defending the Fulda Gap from the Third Shock Army.
Doing that and funding a welfare state would indeed be something to be proud of, but don't kid yourself that Europe achieved this by its own effort.
[+] [-] pjc50|8 years ago|reply
The real question is how this relates to NATO; I suspect that sensible people have realised that perhaps they can no longer rely on the US, UK, or for that matter Turkey.
Undoubtedly there's some sort of arms industry boondoggling going on too. There always is.
[+] [-] 3pt14159|8 years ago|reply
The world does need the EU to step up it's leadership, but we're not at a breaking point yet.
I also think that a coalition of France, Canada, and the UK could act as a decision making block in light of the political situation in America right now. The UK is still one of the most powerful atomic weapons armed countries and has good relations with many countries around the world, France is the most powerful / stable EU country with good relations with many countries around the world, and Canada could act as a good representative for North America and has enough soft power and reputation to pull together non-aligned countries and other members of the global liberal order.
[+] [-] chrisseaton|8 years ago|reply
What's the UK done to your or anyone else in Europe to make them think that their military is not reliable any more?
UK military commitment to Europe was always via NATO so will not change under Brexit, and the UK still provides the headquarters and much of the troops for the cooperative formations in Europe such as ARC.
UK troops are on the ground in eastern Europe right now in the NATO EFP against Russia, providing I think (couldn't find a source right now) more troops than anyone else is.
[+] [-] chiaro|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sverige|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] absrnd|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YouAreGreat|8 years ago|reply