h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If we are so small and insignificant why are the other nations still trying to draw us in ? Please don't tell me it because of there concern for our well being. The name of the game is power, and it is all to easy to get sucked in by eloquent polaticians. Smell the roses, look beyond the trees,and listen to your heart.
If after all that you still feel that the federal state is the right way to go then you must vote yes to it. But think carefully, because there will be no going back in our life time if we get it wrong.
And what we decide now will be the inheritance we leave our children.

I didn't say we were small and insignificant.

I said that we were too small to manouver the larger groupings by ourselves which is not quite the same thing.

the reason they are trying to get us more involved in europe is firstly because we are already a major member, and secondly we have one of the 5 largest economies in the world.

We have had a long history in europe of getting the sort of europe we don't want because we don't get involved when the decisions are being taken, leaving us with a less than ideal position of "take it or leave it".

What I don't understand about this question is why almost nobody takes the line:

"I don't care where the borders of my country are, so long as it is a democracy."

That is, support a directly elected EU government, but oppose EU membership until that directly elected government exists.

All borders have an element of arbitrariness, so the position does seem supremely rational.

But, opponents of EU membership all seem to oppose democratic reform of the EU. And supporters of federalism in Europe all seem to support EU membership. It's a mystery.

Right, there are 2 different questions contained in that question, so I will deal with them seperately.

First, the border issue. the reason it matters because the EU is definately NOT democratic. it consists of a mainly powerless elected parliament, a "commission" of political appointees, and the council of ministers.

it's main problem is that however you get the proposed legislation to that point, it then has to pass through "the council of ministers" with it's veto power on various national vested interests.

Even worse, once the legislation gets through, the implimentation and enforcement is very patchy.

The other questions you mention is why the positions of the two sides in the debate?

this is also fairly easy to cover. Democratic reform is delayed due to the same national interests which handicap the council of ministers.

for example the uk is unlikely to allow the imposition of vat on childrens clothing and books (even though the rest of europe mainly taxes them already, because parents wouldn't like it) and the french are unlikely to allow rapid and massive reform of the common agricultural policy (because the are at the mercy of their farmers).

this results in no movement in those areas which slows down reform of the eu. Also, the opponents of eu membership are paranoid about it turning into "the united states of europe", with a "federal" layer on top which fundamentally takes precedence over any decisions they take as in their national parliaments.

On the other hand, those in favour of the EU regard it as silly that decisions which need taking at the european level should have to be bodged in multiple national parliaments, resulting in legislation which is almost but not quite the same in the different countries.

Howwever there are two camps of pro-EU people.

one set believe in decisions being made at the right level, so they support not only a higher level eu system, but also devolution as well.

The other set believe in centralised government, and thus oppose devolution.

personally, being pragmatic, I support the "right level" groups, as history has shown that decisions taken at the wrong level (either too high or too low) usually cause more problems than they need to.