Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

United States of Europe
Section C. International relations

This links closely to the earlier debate about expansion of the European Union, but instead focuses on what the EU itself should do. While in many respects, the EU already resembles a single state (with its own currency and central bank, an apex [supreme] court and reams of legislation on the minutiae of central government), in others, it remains a union of independent, sovereign member states (each with their own military, fiscal policies and public services). This debate is about whether the EU should follow the US model and devolve much greater power to a central government, while allowing individual member states to retain small areas of autonomy.

Pros

[1] As the EU is already a common trade area and (largely) has a common currency, there are many problems that arise that can only be managed by a central government. As the Eurozone crisis has shown, when countries like Greece are allowed to spend without limits, but the whole of Europe has a stake in preventing their economic collapse, they spend far too much; this is only solvable by having a strong central government that prevents these collective action problems from arising.

[2] Even in the USA, there is no longer one shared language — some US schools now teach in Spanish as a first language for example. The United States of Europe would similarly have several languages. Switzerland and Canada are other examples of countries with successful federal governments, but no single shared language. There is no need for alarmism. As the example of the USA in particular shows, federalism is quite compatible with cultural pluralism and the retention of different national and ethnic traditions.

[3] A federal Europe offers fascinating possibilities for multilevel governance; for instance, it is arguable that where the EU felt unable to legislate for the whole of Europe, it would instead devolve powers to regional or local government, which might be a far more appropriate decisionmaking body with better information and more accountability.

Cons

[1] There is no need for a federal model to prevent these problems. Indeed, if the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact had been adequately enforced, this problem would never have arisen. Rather, the EU can impose harsh sanctions on those breaking its common rules in certain areas, while leaving those matters that only concern what happens within national borders to member states.

[2] The EU is not a logical political or cultural unit. Unlike the USA, it does not even have a shared language. Each of the nation states of Europe has its own particular culture, language, legal precedents, constitution, customs and traditions. It is not an appropriate candidate for federalisation. Entry into a United States of Europe would mean the ’normalisation’ of each country so that it lost its historic traditions and institutions. That is bad for those countries, but also means that the EU will be hard to govern, as there will be no communal bonds binding the people together.

[3] The EU is, in essence, a relentlessly centralising organisation; it accrues power to Brussels, rather than devolving it anywhere else. Moreover, such power will be highly unaccountable, because normal electoral mechanisms will not effectively control it; when there are no existing panEuropean political parties, and no leader can speak the language of everyone under their jurisdiction, issues will inevitably be very poorly understood.

Possible motions

This House would federalise Europe.

This House welcomes the United States of Europe.

Related topics

European Union, expansion of the

Euro, abolition of the

Should Britain leave the EU?