European Union: Explain your position

[Pangur Bán]

What are your general opinions regarding the future of the European Union?

If you support the further intergration, and eventually, federalization of "Europe"...why?

If you oppose the further intergration, and eventually, federalization of "Europe"...why?

If neither, to what extent would you expand or enhance the EU's powers?

Or are you for its total abolition? If so...why?

Do you support:

Common economic system? Common economic and/or industrial policies?
Common currency throughout Europe?
Common laws? Legal system?
Defence policy?
Foreign policy?
Education system?
Internal security system?

If so, to what extent? Would you pick and choose?

How far would you take federalization? Are you thinking after the manner of the USA, or more centralized? Or less centralized?

Would a Federal Europe be a Presidential Republic?

How would one divide Europe? How much recognition or autonomy do you envisage the current "nations" of Europe would preserve? Baring in mind that while artificial states like Belgium and Austria might easily disappear, German-speakers, French speakers, etc, will live on. How would this be dealt with in a coherent way that both creates a coherent European state, whilst preventing the growth of nationalist antagonism?

What would be a Federal Europe's official language? Or rather, what would or should become the de facto operating language(s) of a Federal Europe?

How far would you expand the EU? Would this be related to any cultural, historical or socio-political identity you assign to Europe?

Is being European related to left-of-center social policies? Or is the latter irrelevant?

Is it related to any religious or secularist position?

Does inclusion of certain cultures or states depend on the position they hold on these or other issues?

Does "Europe" actually mean Europe for you, or just France, Belgium and a few neighbours?

Ultimately, do you wish to see the inclusion of Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine?

What about Turkey?
What about states or cultures who have no geographical or cultural foothold in your definition of what it means to be European?


Is Europe a coherent concept at all? If so, what is it?

Is Europe an inventable concept? If so, why should it be invented?

Discuss...

 

[Hamlet]

If you're expecting a response, or at least a coherent one, from anyone in Europe, then you picked the wrong time of day to post this.

 

[kronic]

Quite a few questions to answer.

I strongly support further integration. I'm eventually advocating a federal state in the long run. But that will take some decades...

I believe that further integration actually benefits the people. The main purpose for integration back in the 1950's was to prevent any situation that could lead to a new war between Western European nations, France and Germany in the first place. That's why key industries for any new armament were brought under supranational control.
We must realise that the first goal was achieved. Europe has never seen a longer period of peace. I know that some guys doubt the role of European integration. They say the Cold War and a common enemy were much more important, and integration doesn't matter. I'm willing to admit that these phenomenons do play a huge role, but they can't explain what has happened. Maybe you need to be German, French or a citizen of the neighbouring countries to understand how valuable it was to overcome history, in which Germany (or rather the several German states) and France were arch-enemies for centuries.
I see European integration as a gurantee for peace and I furthermore believe that it helped to create some kind of trust and friendship between the nations of the EU. I hope, that the same development can be achieved in the relation between new and old members. Especially the German-Polish relations are still problematic and very emotional (though I believe more on the Polish side).
Why did the EU actually develop faster after the end of the Cold War than before? Maybe our fellow Cold-War-was-the-main-reason-for-integration-posters can give an answer.

The second reason for further integration, that might be more important these days, is my belief that many of our societies face problems that can be better fixed by integration (welfare states, immigration etc.). The common market puts a huge pressure on the welfare states. It's ridiculous to think that you can make national regulations (like a welfare state) if you have a market that includes nearly every country of Europe with freedom of people, goods, services and capital. That will only give you considerable disadvantages in competition. That's way I'm very much in favor of a common European economic and social policy. The different types of welfare and tax systems need to be brought more in line with each other. A common European ecnomic and social policy could be progressive and actually give many people more chances to achieve their goals in life.

I don't care how much influence Europe has in the world. Every action should be taken after an evaluation if it actually serves the practical needs of the people in the short and the long run. For example, I don't consider German leadership in the Afghanistan peace keeping mission as wise. The troops should come home. I don't care whether Germany gets a permanent seat in the UNSC. It only brings more responsibilities and more costs. The money could be well spend on other issues.
The EU should develop the abilities to defend every member. By integrating the armies the member states can save a lot of money. In contrast to NATO the EU prescribes assistance automatically. The EU should be able to fulfil the standard...

Do you support:

Common economic system? Common economic and/or industrial policies?
Common currency throughout Europe?
Common laws? Legal system?
Defence policy?
Foreign policy?
Education system?
Internal security system?

I support all of them.

How far would you take federalization? Are you thinking after the manner of the USA, or more centralized? Or less centralized?

If there is a European state, it won't be more centralized than the US, probably less. Every country, or better, every region should maintain their speciality. This is the only way, a European state could work. It'll probably a mix of US, German and Swiss federalism.

Would a Federal Europe be a Presidential Republic?

I like the German system of having a president and a chancellor. And of course, chancellor sounds much better and powerful than president in German. (Kanzler/Bundeskanzler/Reichskanzler) President is boring.

How would one divide Europe? How much recognition or autonomy do you envisage the current "nations" of Europe would preserve? Baring in mind that while artificial states like Belgium and Austria might easily disappear, German-speakers, French speakers, etc, will live on. How would this be dealt with in a coherent way that both creates a coherent European state, whilst preventing the growth of nationalist antagonism?

What would be a Federal Europe's official language? Or rather, what would or should become the de facto operating language(s) of a Federal Europe?

These are actually the most decisive questions and I can't offer any sactisfory answer. I think there won't be one operating language. At least English, German and Frech will survive...
As I already said, a European state would need much federalism and autonomy for the regions.

How far would you expand the EU? Would this be related to any cultural, historical or socio-political identity you assign to Europe?

I hope that the expansion of the EU has nearly come to an end now. Romania, Bulgaria and the countries of the Balkans may join. The rest of the world shouldn't become members of the EU. The reasons are cultural, historical, social, political and economical.

Is being European related to left-of-center social policies? Or is the latter irrelevant?

For me it's about maintaining welfare states, but there might be other reasons for other guys.

Is it related to any religious or secularist position?

Religion shouldn't play any role in politics.

Does inclusion of certain cultures or states depend on the position they hold on these or other issues?

EU citizens probably will call for revolution if a country gets membership which isn't secular.

Does "Europe" actually mean Europe for you, or just France, Belgium and a few neighbours?

I personally wouldn't have let the new members join this year. Their waiting time should have been taken some more years until some more integration steps (like the constitution) would've been made. But, of course, it should mean Europe, not only Western Europe.

Ultimately, do you wish to see the inclusion of Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine?

No. Their inclusion would hurt more integration steps. And, right now, all of these countries are far away from being democratic. Europe shouldn't have a border with China or some Caucasian countries. And I don't think an integrated Europe could handle Russian membership economically, socially, culturally and historically.

What about Turkey?

It's the same with Turkey. How can you be so stupid to go for a common border with Iraq and other countries of the Middle East? Economic, social, cultural and historical reasins count as well.

What about states or cultures who have no geographical or cultural foothold in your definition of what it means to be European?

I don't care for them.

Is Europe a coherent concept at all? If so, what is it?

I don't know. History will teach us, but I fear, it's not. But then, if Europe fails, who'll have any hope about a world government? (I don't hope that anyway).

 

[Sarevok]

I am mostly against a united Europe as im afraid that they will forget the lessons they and the world learned in the 20th century about use of power.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

My general views on the matter are rather well-known; I consider the European Union a threat to American hegemony and therefore do not favor it. Therefore, I shall focus on specifics rather than on the general. (If you want to argue with me about the general, read my FAQ first).

First, to hinder EU activity, I oppose the EU Constitution, as it would make the organization more efficient, and I also oppose any centralization of the EU government, as this would have the same effect. Assuming the EU constitution can be defeated, I would approve of further EU expansion, since this will simply add more countries whose interests need to be considered, more bureaucratic mess, more vetoes, and, therefore, less actual work getting done by the EU.

On the question of Turkey, I am not yet sure. On one hand, adding Turkey to the EU would give them further troubles, both economic and socio-political, and EU influence on Turkey could tone down fundamentalism. On the other hand, EU membership could drive Turkey even further away from the American teat (which it has left recently), and stronger contact with the West could flare up a fundamentalist counter-revolution against the greater influx of western ideas and people.

 

[Marla_Singer]

What are your general opinions regarding the future of the European Union?

I support a progressive integration, involving a political integration. I actually believe that in the world of the 21st and 22nd century, which won't be dominated by neither the "West" nor by the "North", the European integration is natural. The only wonderings are about the pace.

If you support the further intergration, and eventually, federalization of "Europe"...why?

As I've said above, this is something natural. Europe will integrate for the same reasons that Switzerland became a confederation. When the world is getting bigger, our differences are becoming smaller. Europe is already very small, my sister lives in London, my father lives in Brussels. I leave France to other countries of the Union at least three or four times a year. The European space is already only one.

But more than that I would also add that the world of the 21st century will be multipolar, which means that there will be more than simply one or two powers. In such a world, a unified Europe, due to its own structure and History, would be more an appeaser than a bully. And I believe that would be good for the stability of the whole world. By the way, I believe a Unified Europe will never be the dominant power, simply because at the time when such a Unified Europe will become true, there will be already several more powerful countries.

Do you support:

Common economic system? Common economic and/or industrial policies?
Common currency throughout Europe?
Common laws? Legal system?
Defence policy?
Foreign policy?
Education system?
Internal security system?

I support all of them except two.

First, I don't think the laws should be federalised. There should be two levels of law, the federal level and the state level. Though I believe it should get closer, I also believe traditions are too different among members to make the same law everywhere.

Second, I don't think the Education system really needs to be federalised... that should be among the competences of each member. A convergence between each educational program/diploma will arrive naturally, and actually it's already the case. However, I don't think the Federation should tell what should be in the programs of each High Schools.

How far would you take federalization? Are you thinking after the manner of the USA, or more centralized? Or less centralized?

No, it would be a looser federation than the United States. Actually, the US shouldn't even be a model. The Indian Federation or the Swiss Confederation are better example. Actually, Europe shares with India the same diversity in languages and cultures. India just have more alphabets than Europe. So, in a way, India has less reasons to be a Union than Europe has.

Would a Federal Europe be a Presidential Republic?

No. I think it should be a Parliamentary Republic. This is more honnest assuming the fact that the Parliament should be the most important part of the Union. The Parliament will be the place where everyone will be represented. Moreover, most of European countries are already parliamentary republics, so it would be easier this way.

The only limit to this is that a president elected directly by the majority of people would give to him a stronger legitimacy than if it was through the parliament. But that's only a small advantage compared to those of a parliamentary system.

How would one divide Europe? How much recognition or autonomy do you envisage the current "nations" of Europe would preserve? Baring in mind that while artificial states like Belgium and Austria might easily disappear, German-speakers, French speakers, etc, will live on. How would this be dealt with in a coherent way that both creates a coherent European state, whilst preventing the growth of nationalist antagonism?

There are simply too many nationalities in Europe to see anyone dominating all the others. I personally believe members shouldn't be divided. I like the concept of "Federation of Nations". Moreover, Europeans have spent so many years to prove their own country as different of the others that it's simply harmful to artificialy break it in order to make little Germanies or little Englands which would rely on nothing.

The idea of Europe is to do together the things we can't do anymore alone (Economics, Defence, Internal Security, Foreign policy), but there's no reason to federalize any of the things we can still do alone (education policies, health policies, etc...).

What would be a Federal Europe's official language? Or rather, what would or should become the de facto operating language(s) of a Federal Europe?

Once again I'll take the example of India. There are 30 main languages in India and they can easily communicate together. Multilinguism should be promoted though, but it's obvious that English should be used to communicate between each other. There's no reason to promote it, that's how it will be. Hey it's already the case actually ! Check in which language I'm typing.

However, determining one official language is counter-productive and unrealistic. The most widespread mother language in Europe is German, there's no reason to conclude everyone should speak German. Multilinguism is the key. And no European languages are threatened. If that would be the case, countries such as Switzerland or Canada wouldn't still be multilingual today.

How far would you expand the EU? Would this be related to any cultural, historical or socio-political identity you assign to Europe?

The current 25, Romania, Bulgaria and the Balkans. Of course Norway, Switzerland and Iceland if they want it. As Moldova will be divided between Romania and Russia, the Romanian part of today's Moldova will be a member. No more.

The most important is for members to have the same interests and to share the same project. If some wants to leave, then the door should remain open.

Is being European related to left-of-center social policies? Or is the latter irrelevant?

Completely irrelevant. I don't even understand the question.

Is it related to any religious or secularist position?

Secularism, respect of all religions, is an important factor in order to see the EU working.

Does inclusion of certain cultures or states depend on the position they hold on these or other issues?

Well, to be included a country must be secular.

Does "Europe" actually mean Europe for you, or just France, Belgium and a few neighbours?

Europe means the European Union to me : As such, it means 25 countries for now : From Ireland to Greece, From Portugal to Finland and Baltic states.

Ultimately, do you wish to see the inclusion of Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine?

No, Russia is too large, too populous and too much settled in Asia to share the same interests as the EU.
About Belarus and Ukraine, their are culturally, traditionally and economically closer to Moscow than Brussels. As such, it can't work.
However, for all those countries bilateral economic agreements aren't out of the question. But certainly not political.

What about Turkey?

No, Turkey is too large, too populous and too much settled in Asia to share the same interests as the EU.
However, bilateral economic agreements aren't out of the question. But certainly not political.

What about states or cultures who have no geographical or cultural foothold in your definition of what it means to be European?

Well, the most important to become a member of the EU is to have the same interests as the EU. If the country isn't part of Europe, it normally doesn't share the same interests. For obvious geographical reasons.

Is Europe a coherent concept at all? If so, what is it?

Europe shares the same History and the same culture. Europe is a peninsula of peninsulas, a concentration of diversity so strongly connected between each other that it finally makes only one.

Is Europe an inventable concept? If so, why should it be invented?

Nothing should be invented, everything's already there.

 

[MaisseArsouye]

If you support the further intergration, and eventually, federalization of "Europe"...why?

I'm 100% pro-european. I'd like to see a strong federal EU.

If so, to what extent? Would you pick and choose?

I think we should be as integrated as possible while repsecting different cultures and habits. I would share that way :
EU : defence, foreign affairs, social security, macro-economy,...
States/Regions : culture, sport, internal affairs, education ( with harmonisation ), ethical, religion/laicism, micro-economy

How far would you take federalization? Are you thinking after the manner of the USA, or more centralized? Or less centralized?

It depends. On certain matters : more centralized, on other ones : less centralized.

Would a Federal Europe be a Presidential Republic?

No. It should be based on german, portuguese, italian or greek system. The President is the head of state. His power is mostly symbolic while he sould be elected directly like in France. The real power is in the head of a chancelor/prime minister who is controlled by the parliament.

How would one divide Europe? How much recognition or autonomy do you envisage the current "nations" of Europe would preserve? Baring in mind that while artificial states like Belgium and Austria might easily disappear, German-speakers, French speakers, etc, will live on. How would this be dealt with in a coherent way that both creates a coherent European state, whilst preventing the growth of nationalist antagonism?

EU should be a union of nation. BUT, EU should respect the will of member states who give much power to regions, such as Catalunya, Scotland, Wallonia,... With the increasing power of the Union, some countries will become "empty shells", and then useless. I think Belgium is gonna dissapearing that way while Flanders and Wallonia will become member states.

What would be a Federal Europe's official language? Or rather, what would or should become the de facto operating language(s) of a Federal Europe?

Every language that's official in a state or a region should be official for the EU. Every texts should be translated so that every citizens can read it in its own language. Without this, there's no equality between european citizens.

Only one version of each text shoudl be "legally official" to advoid translation problems. Reda the french and english versions of the draft Constitution and you'll know what I mean

But I think that politicians should keep only a few languages for work. I would say English, French, German, Polish and Greek. That way, every politician can learn a language close to his own language.

How far would you expand the EU? Would this be related to any cultural, historical or socio-political identity you assign to Europe?

I would extend it to every country who is attached to european values and as a foot on the european continent.

Is being European related to left-of-center social policies? Or is the latter irrelevant?

It's irrelevant. In Wallonia, every parties are -pro-european. In France, there are pros and cons in quite every parties.

Is it related to any religious or secularist position?

Politic and religion should never mix. Religion is a private matter and has nothing to do with the state.

Does inclusion of certain cultures or states depend on the position they hold on these or other issues?

Probably, yes. I think Turkey should prove it's not a american puppy before to be in.

Does "Europe" actually mean Europe for you, or just France, Belgium and a few neighbours?

Mmmmh... sure we are the "hard core"... But I hope it will be a "complete" Europe.

Ultimately, do you wish to see the inclusion of Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine?

If they respect conditions about human rights, democracy and economy : YES.

What about Turkey?
What about states or cultures who have no geographical or cultural foothold in your definition of what it means to be European?

Same as above. If they respect the conditions : YES.

Is Europe a coherent concept at all? If so, what is it?

It's not a coherent concept, even on historical or geographical point of view. It's a political concept, the way to build a new "Res Publica".

 

[Stapel]

Basically, I do support a far more integrated and federalised Europe. Far more!
Yet, I do think we are steaming towards a bureaucratic monstrousity.
IMHO, this has grown so bad, that it should be stopped immediately.

The EU has achieved some great things.
-Stimulating economy in undeveloped regions (absolutely , regions, not nations) really does pay off.
-The EMU and the Euro
-International bank tranfer rates equal to national
-No longer false competition by national support of unprofitable companies.
-Europol
-Schengen
-No more tax on im- & exports
-Central stabilising of interest and inflation

There still is much to be done though. Telecommunication is still 'border-sensitive' for instance. Without the EU, this will never ever be solved properly.
I also would favour a federal income tax, instead of the rather unclear way the EU gets its money now.

So, why do I rant so much about it, and even think the Netherlands should leave the EU today (not the EMU and Schengen)?
That's because more than half of the EU efforts are plain wrong.
-First of all we have the CAP. I have never heart any single good argument for it. We can think about Margeret Thatcher what we want, but she was absolutely right to keep the UK out of it. And no, it's not that I dislike France. CAP is still 52% (iirc) of the EU budget. I do think the French realise it's ridiculous too, but even a child can understand that a French politician saying so, risks political suicide. Without French support, it's impossible to end CAP, so we have a perfectly understandable status quo. I seriously do think that a firm Dutch threat to leave the union, unless CAP is removed, might have the right pressure.
Some might say the CAP was recently reformed. Well, I have studied these reforms, and must conclude it's nothing but old wine in new bags. If it were up to me, CAP would completely stop.
N.B. I am not against subsidies! Also not against agricultural subsidies. I think subsidies should go to undeveloped regions, and if such a region happens to be agricultural and could benefit from subsidies for modernising their agriculture, it's all fine!
-So, after having cut EU spendings with 52% (bye bye CAP), it's time to take a look at the rest. Basically, I think intentions are good. Yet, dividing subsidies has grown extremely bureaucratic. EU overhead is extremely high. I'm not sure how to deal with this, but comparted to the current EU situation, the USSR is nothing.
-Does the EU parliament still meet in Strassbourg, instead of Brussels, every friday (not sure)? This might once again sound anti-French. Well it is not! Leaving Brussels is fine. But having two locations........ Gimme a break!

 

[Stapel]

I think we should be as integrated as possible while repsecting different cultures and habits. I would share that way :
EU : defence, foreign affairs, social security, macro-economy,...
States/Regions : culture, sport, internal affairs, education ( with harmonisation ), ethical, religion/laicism, micro-economy.

Sounds fair, with a very very big exception.
I absolutely fail to see how social security systems can possibly be integrated.
Apart from the fact I am not too fond of collective social security anyway, it's simply not possible to achieve integration on it!

Especially the quite different retirement savings systems make it impossible.

Apart from that: would Danish labourers be willing to pay unemployment benefits for southern Italians? I think solidarity stops at the border for most!

 

[Masquerouge]

My vision of EU is one big state speaking English.
Note : I said vision.

Otherwise I pretty much agree with Marla's post.
The top priorities for me are :
- Common defense, and army (the last regalian power must be surrendered ! )
- Common education, so that diplomas are valued the same in every country.

 

[Stapel]

My vision of EU is one big state speaking English.
Note : I said vision.

your vision and my vision 12 years ago, are pretty much the same!

Since we're about the same age, I must conclude that cynism has hit me a bit harder than you!

 

[joacqin]

My hope and vision is that Europe will unite and erase the national borders which have lead to so much strife and grief. We all are humans first and foremost, not Swedish, American, French or Chinese. For me the EU is a first step of making more people see this. That is why I am strongly for every furthering of European integration despite the EU's countless flaws. I am saddened and annoyed when I see what cynics (some might call them realist and I wont argue) like SeleucusNicator write and how they perpetrate the world view which have lead to so much death and destruction throughout human history. This vision of mine might be naive and utopian but what do we have to lose? Continuing as we have will not lead to anything better but just to more wars, more suspicion and more hate. SN, do you really think it is better to be at the top of the pile in a insecure, dangerous world where war and destruction always looms over the horizon or to be a part of one race of beings which will atleast not have arbitrary lines on a piece of paper to divide them?

I hope that EU will further integrate and perhaps our integration will make others follow, if only to safeguard themselves against what might be perceived as a European threat any hopefully in a distant and sadly unlikely future we will create our identity more by our family and interest than in what state we happened to be born.

 

[Masquerouge]

your vision and my vision 12 years ago, are pretty much the same!

Since we're about the same age, I must conclude that cynism has hit me a bit harder than you!

I'd rather say I'm cynical towards people, not towards institutions. So I think my vision of Europe is actually unlikely because people are selfish, jealous, chauvinist, uselessly patriotic, and afraid.

 

[Stapel]

I'd rather say I'm cynical towards people, not towards institutions. So I think my vision of Europe is actually unlikely because people are selfish, jealous, chauvinist, uselessly patriotic, and afraid.

Well, people also love the typical culture of others, that would (partly)disappear if all would speak English!

 

[Masquerouge]

Well, people also love the typical culture of others, that would (partly)disappear if all would speak English!

I'm only talking about France, here, but it really amazes me that the same people who are afraid of French language disappearing, and are trying to fight to the most embarassing extremes to "protect" it, see no trouble with local french languages disappearing (corsican, breton, basque).
Just two centuries ago, French was not widely spoken in all of France !

For me, there's no difference between the disappearing of these local languages and the disappearing of French in the EU. It's a natural process. Cultures and languages come and go, there's always a bit that remains, that's life, you know !
We went from Latin to French and no one complained about that... "Oh no, we should speak Latin or else our culture will vanish !"

So if you're so keen on protecting French, you should also be in strong favour of regional languages, supporting education, administrative documents in those languages. Because it's simply a matter of scale.

 

[Scuffer]

My hope and vision is that Europe will unite and erase the national borders which have lead to so much strife and grief. We all are humans first and foremost, not Swedish, American, French or Chinese. For me the EU is a first step of making more people see this.

I like your thinking, but having a fully integrated Europe wouldn't erase borders, just make bigger ones.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

If you support the further intergration, and eventually, federalization of "Europe"...why?

I support a Federalisation of MEU (Mainland Europe), which doesn’t include Britain. I would like some sort of two tier EU with Britain, and any others that wish it, in the second tier. I prefer us to be in complete control of our economy, foreign affairs etc. I welcome a Federated MEU however because of the security that would provide them and us.

Do you support:

Common economic system? Common economic and/or industrial policies?
Common currency throughout Europe?
Common laws? Legal system?
Defence policy?
Foreign policy?
Education system?
Internal security system?

I only support free trade and a common defence policy(with some caveats)

How would one divide Europe? How much recognition or autonomy do you envisage the current "nations" of Europe would preserve? Baring in mind that while artificial states like Belgium and Austria might easily disappear, German-speakers, French speakers, etc, will live on. How would this be dealt with in a coherent way that both creates a coherent European state, whilst preventing the growth of nationalist antagonism?

I can’t see how you can maintain a coherent country within a properly federalised EU. The larger countries of the EU will slowly disappear over the years, or the Federation will break up. Countries like Denmark etc. might survive but Germany and France, for example, will be split up into ‘Denmark sized’ regions and “France” and “Germany” will, effectively, be no more. (This is over time of course).

What would be a Federal Europe's official language? Or rather, what would or should become the de facto operating language(s) of a Federal Europe?

English should be the de facto operating language to avoid disagreements over wording and to also avoid the incredible cost of £1bn pa (€1.4bn per year) just to translate EU government documents into the 20+ languages of the EU.
It is important that people continue to speak their own languages however (as well as English).

How far would you expand the EU? Would this be related to any cultural, historical or socio-political identity you assign to Europe?

Does "Europe" actually mean Europe for you, or just France, Belgium and a few neighbours?

Ultimately, do you wish to see the inclusion of Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine?

What about Turkey?
What about states or cultures who have no geographical or cultural foothold in your definition of what it means to be European?

Expand as far as we like, including Turkey and Russia (although I can’t see the latter being part of the Federation.)
“Europe” means the EU to me, and if Russia joins in, that’s OK.

 

[joacqin]

Well Scuffer, you have to start somewhere. A united Europe might just be another large state but it is a step in the right direction in my opinion.

 

[Suppersalmon]

If neither, to what extent would you expand or enhance the EU's powers?

I would like a common security network to share infomation maybe more trade

Do you support:

Common economic system? Common economic and/or industrial policies?
Common currency throughout Europe?
Common laws? Legal system?
Defence policy?
Foreign policy?
Education system?
Internal security system?

Yes
maybe
on certain areas
no
yes
yes
yes

How far would you take federalization? Are you thinking after the manner of the USA, or more centralized? Or less centralized?

still diffrent countries but closer relationships

Would a Federal Europe be a Presidential Republic?

Yes

What would be a Federal Europe's official language? Or rather, what would or should become the de facto operating language(s) of a Federal Europe?

English

How far would you expand the EU? Would this be related to any cultural, historical or socio-political identity you assign to Europe?

allow each country to keep its own history and culture but reconise it as part of Europes history and culture

Ultimately, do you wish to see the inclusion of Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine?

Yes

What about Turkey?

yes they can join if they want once the reach the critera to enter

 

[Mise]

What are your general opinions regarding the future of the European Union?

If you support the further intergration, and eventually, federalization of "Europe"...why?

If you oppose the further intergration, and eventually, federalization of "Europe"...why?

If neither, to what extent would you expand or enhance the EU's powers?

I'm quite undecided about the future of Europe. On the one hand, a powerful EU does appeal to me. But on the other hand, large governments don't, and I would prefer to see decentralisation of politics, and more local self governance.

Common economic system? Common economic and/or industrial policies? Undecided.
Common currency throughout Europe? Undecided ("Wait and see" )
Common laws? Legal system? No.
Defence policy? Yes.
Foreign policy? Yes.
Education system? YES!
Internal security system? I wouldn't object to its creation.

If so, to what extent? Would you pick and choose? Dunno.

How far would you take federalization? Are you thinking after the manner of the USA, or more centralized? Or less centralized?
I don't want it to turn into a single nation. I would rather decentralised government.

Would a Federal Europe be a Presidential Republic? Don't care.

How would one divide Europe? How much recognition or autonomy do you envisage the current "nations" of Europe would preserve? Baring in mind that while artificial states like Belgium and Austria might easily disappear, German-speakers, French speakers, etc, will live on. How would this be dealt with in a coherent way that both creates a coherent European state, whilst preventing the growth of nationalist antagonism?
Hopefully, this would not be an issue, since nations will remain nations.

What would be a Federal Europe's official language? Or rather, what would or should become the de facto operating language(s) of a Federal Europe?
English, for convenience's sake.

How far would you expand the EU? Would this be related to any cultural, historical or socio-political identity you assign to Europe?
As far as it would benefit me. It would not be related to any reason like that. Australia can join if it wants to.

Is being European related to left-of-center social policies? Or is the latter irrelevant?
Hopefully.

Is it related to any religious or secularist position? Hopefully not.

Does inclusion of certain cultures or states depend on the position they hold on these or other issues? If it would benefit the EU to do so, yes.

Does "Europe" actually mean Europe for you, or just France, Belgium and a few neighbours? Don't understand the question

Ultimately, do you wish to see the inclusion of Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine? Again, if it would benefit the EU.

What about Turkey?
What about states or cultures who have no geographical or cultural foothold in your definition of what it means to be European? Again, if it would benefit the EU.

Is Europe a coherent concept at all? If so, what is it?

Is Europe an inventable concept? If so, why should it be invented?

Discuss...

I don't understand these (and some other) questions! Sorry!