Grahamshed":14s5mm6p said:
Most of you seem to think that a United States of Europe would be a bad thing. Do you also think that the united states of America would be better off as independent states ?
Economically, almost certainly - they pay a price for having a single economic area. Obviously there are benefits, but weighing in the federalist's favour are a single language (well two really!) and reasonably homogeneous culture across the USA. The latter two make relocation easier - jobs evaporate in Flint, U-Haul trailer rentals move Flint's population to other places. Thus it is in the EU too, but with the absence of U-Haul, and increasingly the absence of jobs to go to (unemployment is steadily increasing across the EU, and immigration isn't helping this one bit), oh, and the absence of a common language and culture. So people don't move, and the short-term outcome is mass unemployment, economic collapse and societal breakdown.
Texans, who have a reputation for being bloody-minded, have seriously had a look at independence several times since the civil war, but it has been 'pointed out' to Texas that such a move would be illegal under the US constitution (it invariably is!). Californians have also had a lobby group proposing it (most populous state and by far the biggest economy, and with a huge proportion of Spanish-speaking immigrants compared to elsewhere).
The fact remains, the EU and the USA are not equivalent, for all sorts of reasons, the most important being the large amount of autonomy of the constituent US states - taxation powers, local civil and criminal law, etc.
The US federal government is constrained in exactly the opposite way to EU member states here: it has responsibility for defence ("defense"), foreign relations, and cross-state-border law, and a few relatively minor things.
In the EU, member states presently have responsibility for their own defence spending, and to a limited extent education, healthcare and small areas of law. All the rest is ultimately the province of the EU, under the
acquis:
- taxation
- government expenditure (mainly in the eurozone)
- environmental issues
- agriculture and fisheries
- transport policy
- law*
- quality and technical standards for goods
- trade arrangements
- telecommunications
There are probably a few more headline categories I have forgotten. Hardly anything on that list is considered the province of the US federal government, except in certain specific circumstances (for example, banning a pesticide across the nation).
In a number of the categories above, the EU doesn't exercise its authority on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean it isn't the ultimate authority. For example, eurozone countries theoretically have very strict rules attached to public-sector borrowing. For practical purposes their treasuries no longer control their money supply, but recent history shows that PSBR% has to become really huge before there's any intervention.
The other odd area is law: The European Convention on Human Rights stems from the
Council of Europe, NOT the EU. Amusingly, the Wikipedia page starts off "Not to be confused with..." Although the symbology is identical to that of the EU (same ring of stars on a blue background). It's arguable that the pro-EU argument that the two are separate is quite disingenouos - same actors, same decision makers, etc. The obvious intent is to merge the two at some point.
That's criminal and family law. Commercial law is increasingly being subsumed into the acquis, as case law grows at the European Court. The Single Market gives ample scope for applying the ratchet - someone appeals to the Court on the grounds such and such a decision infringes single market law, and
hey presto, it's irrevocably an EU area of law ever after.
I'd be fascinated to know of cases where the European Court (the EU one - there are many!) has said it has no competence to hear a case - there must be some, but somehow...
E.
