The New Federalist, webzine of the Young European Federalist

• I Want my Future Back

  22 April 2012  16:29, by Iwantout

  Of course it could always be that the ‘leaders’ have to reflect the will of their populations if only to stay in power. Thus Chancellor Merkel has to be highly sensitive about German taxpayers, President Sarkozy about the perceived importance of French influence, Prime Minister Cameron about rampant eurosceptism etc.

  Increasingly the people of the varying countries are realising that the EU construct is not answerable to their wishes but to a tiny non representative elite. Additionally the majority view of the mass of people in any one country is often in fundamental conflict with those equally passionately held views in another country. Why would anyone who reads history believe that there is actually a ‘correct’ view, to even suggest there is one is, I would submit, arrogant.

  If I may illustrate from a contradiction held within your own text; “The latter (politicians) did what they thought needed to be done, despite of not being sure of the consequences of their decisions.” Three paragraphs later we have, “Europe is in a terrible state. We are witnessing rising unemployment, social upheaval, states crushed by market pressure.” I would suggest that the second quote identifies the result of not being sure of the consequence of your decisions but going ahead regardless, so much for the vision of the leaders that have gone before.

  I would agree absolutely with “In my eyes a politician should present her/his plan to the people, elaborate on the pros and cons and then ask the electorate if they want to follow her/him.” The difficulty with this of course is that historically the peoples of Europe when asked their views roundly reject EU plans, but they are ignored and told to try again. (Always assuming that the national leader who has the temerity to suggest this is not replaced overnight by the EU ie Prime Minister Papandreou)

  National politicians themselves are not usually prepared to even take the chance, as evidence I would simply point to the steadfast refusal of UK politicians of any party to put EU membership to a UK vote, (The 1975 UK referendum related to membership of the EEC) regardless of previous promises.

  The result is, as you say, national politicians who have their own agendas and a terror of actually asking the people what they want for fear of the answer.

• Pros and Cons: Great Britain in the EU

  2 April 2012  23:16, by I want out

  Difficult to think of many pros and in relation to those you raise I would counter :-
  • We are not a super power, I can live with that, neither is the EU which consistently fails to take any positive action on any serious issue beyond making noise. Military strength within the EU lies almost exclusively with France and the UK and we can chose to work with the USA or not as we wish. Please do not confuse working with the US as being somehow in the control of the US.
  • We are perfectly capable of regulating our own financial markets and indeed have gone further than the EU in many respects regarding doing so.
  • We have a pro trade bias in goods and services. The EU constantly frustrates free trade in services.
  • Easier travel perhaps but then again is it really any easier for us to travel to Germany than to Russia ? Most visas are simply a way for the host country to tax travellers so they don’t exactly go out of their way to make it difficult. The question of workers travelling and doing jobs in the UK that others can already do adds significantly to unemployment issues.
  • The EU has reduced it’s economic importance in the World consistently over the decades due to inflexible rules and lack of competitiveness. Being a member is therefore in increasing irrelevance.
  • Tony Blair never dared try to join the Euro because he knew without any doubt at all he could never persuade people to vote for it. It was the people not Brown who stopped the UK joining the single currency, it’s called democracy.
  • The two speed Europe is now formally existent after December 2011 and you could easily argue it has since the Maastricht Treaty was signed so please don’t threaten that.

  Cons are much easier to identify :-

  • Net contribution of 6.9Bn Euros this year rising to 9.3 in 2014.
  • Lack of democratic accountability or tradition within the EU e.g. EU providing significant funding for pro EU campaigns with no balanced for dissenting views. Yet referenda still regularly lost and then returned to voters to get the ‘right’ answer. Replacement of elected governments with Brussels appointees. Parties told what they can and can not do after election e.g. Irish and Spanish elections. Put the latest treaty to the vote and see how the common people feel about the loss of sovereignty. (Of course only 12 countries need to agree it don’t they so even if Ireland does vote no it makes no difference.)
  • The ESM treaty creates a body which is essentially above and beyond all control and unaccountable to anyone. The latest and greatest leap away from the people.
  • Lack of understanding of UK culture and outlook. (The comment about bland food is illustrative). We tend to be outward looking to the World; the mainland continent is more inward looking. (In short De Gaulle was right)
  • Too much of our heritage is ignored or denied, simple example traders locked up for selling fruit and vegetables in imperial measures rather than metric, isn’t that for us to decide. If everything must be standardised across the continent, I suggest English as the standard language. How will that go down ?
  • Finally given the lack of popular mandate (indeed the word populist is positively an anathema to the EU), can anyone think of an artificial political construction that has been created and lasted any length of time against the will of the people without use of large scale repression. E.g. USSR, Austro Hungary, Yugoslavia etc. If I am wrong just put the proposition of a Federal Europe to your own electorates and get the support. (But don’t forget France, Netherland, Sweden and Ireland have all got it wrong in the past.)

  By the way, the level of UK support for the EU has in fact dropped from the 30% you quote to 20% in the latest Eurobarometer Survey and when the next full survey is produced I would expect it to fall lower. Lets see how UKIP do in the next EP election.

  Anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear would recognise that the UK only wants a trading bloc. The European political elite know this as well so why is it such a shock that the UK is so difficult. Indeed the only reason Edward Heath and Harold Wilson were able to persuade the UK to join and vote to stay in the EEC respectively was by misrepresenting what it actually was. You will not find a single UK politician of any party openly supporting a Federal Europe (even Nick Clegg) because it would be complete and utter electoral suicide.

• More than 4000 articles online!

  17 March 2012  12:40, by Cherian

  Hey guys!

  Well done! It’s a great page :D

  And congratulations!!

  See you arroud,

  Cherian

• Youth Unemployment in Germany: More a Sham than Success

  10 March 2012  09:51, by Niklas

  You go way to far to call it a sham only pointing to the long transition period, which in my view cannot be disregarded as u did by citing some professors, who point out practical and implementing problems. Minimizing the “success” of the labour market reforms done under the Schröder government particular in the current European context is not suitable. If they didnt do their reform the Youth Unemployment would be much higher!

• Pros and Cons: Great Britain in the EU

  13 January 2012  02:48, by Sutton

  wow as a Brit, a young Brit in my twenties I have got to say its great how you all generalise a nation and its people. Bland food, bad weather geez mate cheer up, you live up north right, global warming will have the place baking in no time. We’re a mixed multi cultural pain in the ass nation who don’t want to be in the EU, don’t want to be the US’s plaything and just want to live it up, I love it here. Every government needs reform to some extent every government is corrupt so singling out Britain just sounds like some pro EU bitterness that we don’t generally want to be in. yeah the EU sucks cause its corrupt and panders to France and America push us around but we are a charitable nation who even when we’re poor we donate to other nations who are in crisis. I’m proud to be English and can’t wait for the day when our government decides to put aside the EU and gets some new mates. Wait for it you know it’s coming…common wealth, I know you’re disappointed but I’d like some free movement with Australia and Canada please. I know its not practical but a girl can dream.

• After the European Council, JEF-Europe calls for a shift from the intergovernmental perspective to a federalist EU integration

  23 December 2011  15:07, by ?

  @Charles : JEF is a political organisation, it is therefore definding its views. A pertt of the EU is already working according to federal principles. The present crisis demonstrates the need to move further forward on that road. When you mention “The French” I guess you think of its political elité. Most citizens are aware that we need a European political Union but also that such a Union cannot exist if it is not democratic. Only federalism allows to do both.

  The Britsih government is trying to slow down that progress because of an ideologicalk romantic and passeist stance. Other governements arer usually more realists, hence will make the moves that are needed fot the Union, therefore will g*have to make progress towards federalism.

• After the European Council, JEF-Europe calls for a shift from the intergovernmental perspective to a federalist EU integration

  23 December 2011  10:50, by charles

  JEF can deplore British actions all it likes, but what difference will that make? The French, who believe the EU is their creation and somehow it belongs to them, have no desire for a Federal Europe. The Germans quite rightly no longer feel they have to be the “Good Guys” and don’t want a Federal Europe. Probably only Belgium, mostly dysfunctionally governed for the past few years and their Verhofstadt feel that Federalism is a solution, plus a few delusional individuals here and there.

• Europe vs. USA: Whose Economy Wins?

  7 December 2011  11:27, by Duke

  In response to:
  10 April 2008 13:46, by MCG
  (and ignoring all the other comments, because it’s just too much to respond to)

  “The new IMF stats show Europe starting to trash the USA even when it comes to GDP per capita. [The Netherlands] was 2k behind the USA [and is now] 6K ahead in just a year! Both France and the UK are now projected to overtake the USA (the UK in 09 and France in 2010+) and the former is especially impressive seeing how much hours they spend NOT working compared to the states.”

  Brief updates since then - According to IMF (PPP) GDP Per Capita, the USA is $5887 ahead of the Netherlands, $11081 ahead of the UK, and $12950 ahead of France.

  America, hell yeah.

  Really though, it’s time you realized that even if you think Ohhhh we’re better off than them, if our economy or debt bubble collapses … well, you’re coming down with us. The WORLD will come down with us. Don’t forget it. We’re in this as a species, now, not by national or economics borders.

• The Reluctant Partner

  7 December 2011  00:32, by Niklas

  Thank you very much for this article. It becomes increasingly not understandable for me how this paradox stand can have its conviction. Indeed Britain cannot go back to some romantic world of the 19th century, but has to face the fact that it is depending on the European market. On the one hand Cameron wants to have the crisis solved with a bazooka. On the other he blocks every kind of treaty change, even if this would involve tougher budget rules, which are after all only a benefit for Britain, not to mentioning possible opt-outs. Such a behaviour only fosters a CoreEurope. As the polish foreign minister Sikorki said in his speech in Berlin: “Britain should stop pretending that Brussels is some kind of dictate from bureucrats, but is build upon democratic procedures”. To underline: This was a indeed a Polish man!! and not the voice of somekind of conspiratory new German Nazi, which obviously the British media now draws up. Of course we have to deal with legitimate fears, but this Nazi comparison makes me angry as it is a simply a disregard not only of today but also of the past!

• Simon Hix on Democracy in Europe and a brief Comment

  5 December 2011  01:46, by Simxn

  Niels,

  With regards your categorisation of, “core countries”, could you please explain to me precisely what the difference would be between this and actually comprising, in essence, a provide of one new super-country/state?

  From the noises Merkozy are making; being part of the Eurozone, in the very near future, will in effect be to concede all sovereignty and be amalgamated as ’part’ of a single new nation.

   Simon

1 2 3 4 >