This House believes in a federal Europe

A federal Europe would build upon the success of the EU and its predecessors in taming the nationalism that caused so much conflict in the twentieth century. The EU is drawing nearer to realising the vision of its founders for an “ever-closer union”. Despite the EU’s relative success in this regard, while national governments still exist they will regard policy-making within Europe as a competitive business, abusing vetoes and damaging the potential prosperity of all of Europe’s citizens. Such is the case with Britain's veto over the carbon tax, which the EU wants to implement - “The British government is "highly likely" to block European Commission proposals for a carbon tax contained in a widely-circulated draft version of the Energy Taxation Directive, EU diplomatic sources said yesterday”.[1]

A federal European state can build on the shared history and culture of its members to further the common good, while accommodating regional differences.

[1] EurActiv.com, ‘Britain set to veto EU carbon tax plans’

National identity and differences remain far more important than supposedly shared European values. Existing national governments operate on different models which recognise the historical, cultural and economic distinctiveness of each nation, and thus provide an important focus for the loyalty of their citizens (e.g. various monarchies, the French republican system, hallowed by successive revolutions). The further power is removed from a citizen, the more detached he is from the democratic process, the less accountable that power becomes, and the more likely it is to make decisions badly, damaging the interest of tens of millions of people.

A federal Europe will be more advantageous for individual citizens, since they will be living in a powerful state, yet with respect of their cultural and local situation

Subsidiarity combines maximum effectiveness with maximum accountability, with decisions being made at the lowest appropriate level. Citizens gain the advantages of living in a large, powerful state in terms of international economic, military and political power, all available more cheaply in a state of 450 million people, and through their increased opportunities for work, study, etc. Yet the advantages of living in a smaller state are preserved in terms of connection to the political process, respect for local cultural traditions and responsiveness to differing economic and physical situations. Such checks and balances prevent tyranny and increase willing obedience to laws.

Overall, we now have something resembling parliamentary democracy at the European level. EU political institutions now look more like those of a member state than they do those of an international organisation. The challenge facing the European Union in the future is to fill the gap between itself and the citizen, providing a political connection equal to the social, cultural and sporting connections that the single market has already provided.

Federalism and subsidiarity can allow for regional identities in a way national states cannot – e.g. for Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque Region, Lombardy. In a Federal Europe such peoples would not feel under threat from a dominant culture and long-running conflicts could be resolved, as issues of sovereignty become less relevant within the new political structures.

Actually national governments are more effective. The more authority international governing bodies, organizations and institutions have, the less can they afford to "bother" with local problems applying less effective problem solving procedures. Not fully understanding local tensions, burning issues in one particular area can, in the long term, bring great harm to the citizens of the whole federation. One spark can set ablaze a much larger fire than a federal government can possibly imagine. Therefore creating one European federal body will shift the focus of the local problems and the problems of the average person to more global ones which will be problematic on its own. Furthermore the advantages in the face of connection to the political process, respect for local cultural traditions and responsiveness to differing economic and physical situations will not be achieved, because boundaries fade away and people become more interested in the activities on a higher level, rather than on smaller.

Devolution and subsidiarity can be applied by existing states, as Britain and France have both showed in the 1990s, and as Germany has done since 1945. Spain’s problem with separatist terrorists in the Basque Region shows that even a great deal of regional autonomy fails to satisfy extremists.

A federal Europe will be better equipped to promote the interests of its citizens in the world, carrying more influence in the UN, WTO, IMF and other intergovernmental and treaty organisations than its individual states do now. Furthermore, Europe has a lot to contribute to the world in terms of its liberal traditions and political culture, providing both a partner and a necessary balance to the USA in global affairs.

Once unified, Europe will become an (even more) important negotiating and trading partner – one of the biggest economies in the world. It will have a population of 450 million – more than the United States and Russia combined. It will be the world’s biggest trader and generate one quarter of global wealth. It presently gives more aid to poor countries than any other donor. Its currency, the euro, comes second only to the US dollar in international financial markets. France, Germany, Poland - these countries can hardly ever negotiate something with giants such as the US or China. Europe as one country stands a better chance of putting its message across effectively.

Actually if the EU became a unified state, there would be s loss of UN Seats - a major democratic, liberal voting block in international institutions such as the UN would be lost, in return for one vote (for an incredibly powerful state). Due to the UK and France, both EU members and also UN Security Council permanent members (UNSC P5 - along with the US, China and Russia), and with Germany (G4 - along with India, Japan and Brazil) hopeful to gain a seat in the future, removal of these nations from the UNSC would leave it open to greater sway by American, Russian or Chinese influence. As it is, the UK and France provide a powerful voting bloc in the SC. (Italy has offered the plan of a revolving seat for EU member states.). Therefore countries from the EU are powerful enough as it is and creating only 1 country can result in the exact opposite situation.

None of the benefits, listed in the Proposition argument are actually benefits of a federal Europe. They all have been achieved via the EU. This means that the EU itself is strong and influential enough. There is no need for deeper development as it will only bring disadvantages. “In these days of renewed gloom about the future of Europe, a quick test is in order. Who has the world’s biggest economy? [...] Who has the most Fortune 500 companies? [...] Who attracts most U.S. investment? [...] The correct answer in each case is Europe, short for the 27-member European Union (EU), a region with 500 million citizens. They produce an economy almost as large as the United States and China combined”.[1]

[1] Debismann, ‘Who wins in U.S. vs Europe contest?’

The success of federal states elsewhere in providing peace and prosperity for their citizens, alongside democratic safeguards, point to the advantages of pursuing this model in Europe. The USA, Australia and Canada provide standards of living for their citizens which most Europeans would envy, while federal India is the best example of a long-term democratic success in the developing world.

The application of the principles of federalism to the European social and environmental policy s the key to European  success. The creation of the single market meant that much national regulation of social and environmental issues ceased to be effective: only a European approach at the same level as the regulation of business would be able to work. Otherwise, companies might simply transfer from one member state with a great deal of regulation in these areas to another member state with less. If what economists call “externalities” were not to go unaddressed altogether, European social and environmental policies became necessary. Therefore only federal unity can bring EU states closer together in order for them to work as successfully as others federal countries.

Europe is not like America and Australia, which were founded by immigrants with considerable homogeneity of language and culture. Canada’s relations with Quebec show that where such differences exist they can be politically destabilising, while federal states such as Brazil and the USSR have not avoided dictatorship, human rights problems and economic backwardness. Within the EU there is often no commonality of interests on key federal issues such as defence and foreign policy. Even today there are big splits on major issues such as agricultural reform and trade policy.

In actuality, Europeans don’t envy Americans because right now EU is far better in every aspect than the US – “Loory: What we have heard today is that the problems here in the U.S. are certainly much worse than in Europe.”[1] ”Anybody who claims that the US provides a model which the EU should copy needs to consider the basic economic facts of the case.”[2]

[1] Loory, ‘Europe's economy doing better than US’

[2] Irvin, ‘Europe vs. USA: Whose Economy Wins?’

In a globalised economy, there is a need to tame multinational corporations, which would be otherwise capable of playing national governments off against each other in search for low wages, social costs and state protection. A federal Europe would be powerful enough to demand high standards of behaviour from such companies, because only a powerful and economically significant player can dictate restricting conditions. This would ensure fair wages, safe working conditions and - additionally - Europe would be able to force the multinational companies to implement correct and holistic policies and would also be in a position to make a greater difference on environmental issues such as global warming. Sovereignty becomes less relevant when effective independence is lost anyway as the economy and the problems faced by all nations are increasingly globalised.

The assumptions about the multinational corporations are not actually proved. National governments close deals with such corporations if both sides have interest in it. Even if we assume such a thing existed nowadays – in a federal Europe the same problem would occur only not with countries, rather with regions. That is because every region would want the company to create more business in its area so we will end up with the assumed status quo today.

The EU today is already strong enough in regards to implementing environmental policies and restrictions – the carbon tax, the cap and trade system. Dealing with the international issue of global warming is not a point of a federal Europe or the EU, but a completely different matter.

A federal Europe would build upon the success of the EU and its predecessors in taming the nationalism that caused so much conflict in the twentieth century. The EU is drawing nearer to realising the vision of its founders for an “ever-closer union”. Despite the EU’s relative success in this regard, while national governments still exist they will regard policy-making within Europe as a competitive business, abusing vetoes and damaging the potential prosperity of all of Europe’s citizens. Such is the case with Britain's veto over the carbon tax, which the EU wants to implement - “The British government is "highly likely" to block European Commission proposals for a carbon tax contained in a widely-circulated draft version of the Energy Taxation Directive, EU diplomatic sources said yesterday”.[1]

A federal European state can build on the shared history and culture of its members to further the common good, while accommodating regional differences.

[1] EurActiv.com, ‘Britain set to veto EU carbon tax plans’

National identity and differences remain far more important than supposedly shared European values. Existing national governments operate on different models which recognise the historical, cultural and economic distinctiveness of each nation, and thus provide an important focus for the loyalty of their citizens (e.g. various monarchies, the French republican system, hallowed by successive revolutions). The further power is removed from a citizen, the more detached he is from the democratic process, the less accountable that power becomes, and the more likely it is to make decisions badly, damaging the interest of tens of millions of people.

A federal Europe will be more advantageous for individual citizens, since they will be living in a powerful state, yet with respect of their cultural and local situation

Subsidiarity combines maximum effectiveness with maximum accountability, with decisions being made at the lowest appropriate level. Citizens gain the advantages of living in a large, powerful state in terms of international economic, military and political power, all available more cheaply in a state of 450 million people, and through their increased opportunities for work, study, etc. Yet the advantages of living in a smaller state are preserved in terms of connection to the political process, respect for local cultural traditions and responsiveness to differing economic and physical situations. Such checks and balances prevent tyranny and increase willing obedience to laws.

Overall, we now have something resembling parliamentary democracy at the European level. EU political institutions now look more like those of a member state than they do those of an international organisation. The challenge facing the European Union in the future is to fill the gap between itself and the citizen, providing a political connection equal to the social, cultural and sporting connections that the single market has already provided.

Federalism and subsidiarity can allow for regional identities in a way national states cannot – e.g. for Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque Region, Lombardy. In a Federal Europe such peoples would not feel under threat from a dominant culture and long-running conflicts could be resolved, as issues of sovereignty become less relevant within the new political structures.

Actually national governments are more effective. The more authority international governing bodies, organizations and institutions have, the less can they afford to "bother" with local problems applying less effective problem solving procedures. Not fully understanding local tensions, burning issues in one particular area can, in the long term, bring great harm to the citizens of the whole federation. One spark can set ablaze a much larger fire than a federal government can possibly imagine. Therefore creating one European federal body will shift the focus of the local problems and the problems of the average person to more global ones which will be problematic on its own. Furthermore the advantages in the face of connection to the political process, respect for local cultural traditions and responsiveness to differing economic and physical situations will not be achieved, because boundaries fade away and people become more interested in the activities on a higher level, rather than on smaller.

Devolution and subsidiarity can be applied by existing states, as Britain and France have both showed in the 1990s, and as Germany has done since 1945. Spain’s problem with separatist terrorists in the Basque Region shows that even a great deal of regional autonomy fails to satisfy extremists.

A federal Europe will be better equipped to promote the interests of its citizens in the world, carrying more influence in the UN, WTO, IMF and other intergovernmental and treaty organisations than its individual states do now. Furthermore, Europe has a lot to contribute to the world in terms of its liberal traditions and political culture, providing both a partner and a necessary balance to the USA in global affairs.

Once unified, Europe will become an (even more) important negotiating and trading partner – one of the biggest economies in the world. It will have a population of 450 million – more than the United States and Russia combined. It will be the world’s biggest trader and generate one quarter of global wealth. It presently gives more aid to poor countries than any other donor. Its currency, the euro, comes second only to the US dollar in international financial markets. France, Germany, Poland - these countries can hardly ever negotiate something with giants such as the US or China. Europe as one country stands a better chance of putting its message across effectively.

Actually if the EU became a unified state, there would be s loss of UN Seats - a major democratic, liberal voting block in international institutions such as the UN would be lost, in return for one vote (for an incredibly powerful state). Due to the UK and France, both EU members and also UN Security Council permanent members (UNSC P5 - along with the US, China and Russia), and with Germany (G4 - along with India, Japan and Brazil) hopeful to gain a seat in the future, removal of these nations from the UNSC would leave it open to greater sway by American, Russian or Chinese influence. As it is, the UK and France provide a powerful voting bloc in the SC. (Italy has offered the plan of a revolving seat for EU member states.). Therefore countries from the EU are powerful enough as it is and creating only 1 country can result in the exact opposite situation.

None of the benefits, listed in the Proposition argument are actually benefits of a federal Europe. They all have been achieved via the EU. This means that the EU itself is strong and influential enough. There is no need for deeper development as it will only bring disadvantages. “In these days of renewed gloom about the future of Europe, a quick test is in order. Who has the world’s biggest economy? [...] Who has the most Fortune 500 companies? [...] Who attracts most U.S. investment? [...] The correct answer in each case is Europe, short for the 27-member European Union (EU), a region with 500 million citizens. They produce an economy almost as large as the United States and China combined”.[1]

[1] Debismann, ‘Who wins in U.S. vs Europe contest?’

The success of federal states elsewhere in providing peace and prosperity for their citizens, alongside democratic safeguards, point to the advantages of pursuing this model in Europe. The USA, Australia and Canada provide standards of living for their citizens which most Europeans would envy, while federal India is the best example of a long-term democratic success in the developing world.

The application of the principles of federalism to the European social and environmental policy s the key to European  success. The creation of the single market meant that much national regulation of social and environmental issues ceased to be effective: only a European approach at the same level as the regulation of business would be able to work. Otherwise, companies might simply transfer from one member state with a great deal of regulation in these areas to another member state with less. If what economists call “externalities” were not to go unaddressed altogether, European social and environmental policies became necessary. Therefore only federal unity can bring EU states closer together in order for them to work as successfully as others federal countries.

Europe is not like America and Australia, which were founded by immigrants with considerable homogeneity of language and culture. Canada’s relations with Quebec show that where such differences exist they can be politically destabilising, while federal states such as Brazil and the USSR have not avoided dictatorship, human rights problems and economic backwardness. Within the EU there is often no commonality of interests on key federal issues such as defence and foreign policy. Even today there are big splits on major issues such as agricultural reform and trade policy.

In actuality, Europeans don’t envy Americans because right now EU is far better in every aspect than the US – “Loory: What we have heard today is that the problems here in the U.S. are certainly much worse than in Europe.”[1] ”Anybody who claims that the US provides a model which the EU should copy needs to consider the basic economic facts of the case.”[2]

[1] Loory, ‘Europe's economy doing better than US’

[2] Irvin, ‘Europe vs. USA: Whose Economy Wins?’

In a globalised economy, there is a need to tame multinational corporations, which would be otherwise capable of playing national governments off against each other in search for low wages, social costs and state protection. A federal Europe would be powerful enough to demand high standards of behaviour from such companies, because only a powerful and economically significant player can dictate restricting conditions. This would ensure fair wages, safe working conditions and - additionally - Europe would be able to force the multinational companies to implement correct and holistic policies and would also be in a position to make a greater difference on environmental issues such as global warming. Sovereignty becomes less relevant when effective independence is lost anyway as the economy and the problems faced by all nations are increasingly globalised.

The assumptions about the multinational corporations are not actually proved. National governments close deals with such corporations if both sides have interest in it. Even if we assume such a thing existed nowadays – in a federal Europe the same problem would occur only not with countries, rather with regions. That is because every region would want the company to create more business in its area so we will end up with the assumed status quo today.

The EU today is already strong enough in regards to implementing environmental policies and restrictions – the carbon tax, the cap and trade system. Dealing with the international issue of global warming is not a point of a federal Europe or the EU, but a completely different matter.

There are great dangers of forcing people in a direction they do not wish to go. An ill-advised dash to build a federal Europe could raise dormant nationalist feelings, promote the rise of populist politicians with xenophobic agendas and endanger the stability of the EU. A Gaullist “Europe of Nations”[1] preserves the current benefits of EU without the risks of further unwanted political integration.

“(...)Dominant groups have more to gain from the majoritarian principle which is indispensable for constitutional democracies. As such, minorities would be placed at an ever more disadvantaged position in a European state. Thus, the progression of the EU into a federal state is bound to have a more negative than it would a positive impact on European integration.”[2]

[1] Ross, ‘Chirac the Great or de Gaulle the Small?’

[2] Cocodia, ‘Problems of Integration in a Federal Europe’

Surely an ill-advised dash to build a federal Europe and forcing people in a direction they do not wish to go is a bad idea. However a federal Europe is the normal concurrence of the process of integration. And this is not against people’s will- “…He (Belgian ex-prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt) said, “I don’t think people have said that they are against a United States of Europe”.  The no votes in France and the Netherlands were, according to Verhofstadt, not “no votes against Europe, but were votes against a certain type of Europe… what people want is a strong Europe, a United States of Europe that can give an answer to their concerns”.[1]

[1] Eurealist.co.uk, ‘United States of Europe’

There is a possibility that once a federation, Europe will adopt certain policies that might be harmful for a minority of the member states. In consequence, any economic downturn in those states could manifest itself on a larger scale in the United States of Europe as economies of the member states rely (more than ever) on each other.

Furthermore different states may not contribute equally. States, because inducements to cooperate or threats to punish may be low, fail to provide for the collective benefit, therefore essentially "passing the buck" to other states, and most frequently to the most economically powerful participants. Citizens of large states like France, Great Britain, and Germany frequently complain that smaller states are not paying their "fair share" of the costs of the European Union. Meanwhile, smaller states may complain that they are overlooked or even disregarded because of their economically weaker status. These issues will be exacerbated in a European federation.

 Decentralization decreases economic progress.[1] European countries where regions have more powers and responsibilities in terms of taxation, legislation and education policies tend to do better economically than centralised ones. Centralism hammers development of countries at the cost of its citizens.

[1] EUObserver, ‘Centralised states bad for economy, study shows’

On the contrary a federal Europe will bring the countries a lot closer together. Matters of harmful policies will be a lot less than they are right now in the EU simply because separate states do exist now. However when there is just one state with all the nations in it – the harmful policies toward a certain state will be reduced to a minimum – after all the leaders will be managing one country and will be watching for the interests of all its people equally. Furthermore in a federal Europe the economic situation will even far better and faster than it is doing so now in the EU. As a matter of fact there are examples with the recently joined states, Bulgaria and Romania, which after 3 years still cannot catch up with the more advanced western states. In a federal Europe this particular problem will be sorted out, because everybody will be a part of one major and powerful country. Therefore in an economical aspect a federal Europe will manage a lot better than the European Union is right now.

Euroscepticism is highest in Latvia, the United Kingdom, and Hungary, with only 25%–32% viewing membership as a good thing. Belief that the citizen's country has benefited from EU membership is lowest (below 50%) in the UK, Hungary, Latvia, Italy, Austria, Sweden and Bulgaria. A significant minority (36%) do not tend to trust the European Parliament. The European Parliament does not command the same sense of respect as national Parliaments, nor the connection with ordinary people.[1]

[1] Directorate-General for Communication, ‘EUROBAROMETER 71 Public opinion in the European Union’

This is all a matter of PR. Politicians and leaders need to work harder in order to present the benefits of an eventual federal Europe, which will also deal with some of the problems the EU has today. The public opinion is not a constant; it is rather variable and changeable.

Furthermore the EU is getting some bad evaluation at the moment due to the economic crisis, but this doesn’t mean the overall opinion toward it is negative.

Federalism and subsidiarity, that things should be dealt with at the lowest, most local, level possible,[1] can allow for regional identities in a way national states cannot. For example for Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque Region, Lombardy. In a Federal Europe such peoples would not feel under threat from a dominant culture and long-running conflicts could be resolved, as issues of sovereignty become less relevant within the new political structures.

[1] Europa, ‘Subsidiarity’

Devolution and subsidiarity can be applied by existing states, as Britain and France have both showed in the 1990s, and as Germany has done since 1945. Spain’s problem with separatist terrorists in the Basque Region shows that even a great deal of regional autonomy fails to satisfy extremists.