Draghi: the only way forward for the EU is pragmatic federalism

https://en.ilsole24ore.com/art/draghi-one-way-eu-and-pragmatic-federalism-AHt3SELD

by goldstarflag

38 comments

  1. We need a two speed system first, it’s the only way a federal EU is achievable or even desirable.

  2. Reforms from the Banks is the only way to get rich for all. Otherwise, it;s just federal Palantir.

  3. Draghi for Emperor of Europe!!!

    I’m willing to compromise with EU Commission President.
    For now.

  4. Not a hope in hell of europe becoming federal.Just look at Germany supplying and supporting israel for example and Van der idiot going totally off script also Merkel opening the borders to all.
    Now all the effort and cost of trying to get to grip with just those two decisions.

  5. This is absolutely true.  Once you get past uniformity and have people recognise EU politicians as the key decision makers it will be possible for Europe to address the issues it is facing. 

    Right now Europe is unable to address Russian military advances and trade issues from both China and US.

  6. Also my opinion – and it is of the best interest of europeans. Although it would be extremely difficult, with fierce resistance of “don’t touch my local small power” type.

  7. Yes. We need to get rid of parochial cuntries and act as a huge single democratic bloc.

  8. Federalism in the EU is such a complex topic—this adds an interesting angle.

  9. Would be nice. Literally just not happening. The current system is nice and all, and yet with all of this we see nations using the EU to serve their own interests and using EU mechanisms to fuck over other members that they see as rivals. Also, if you thought far right parties using the EU as a claim to being a danger to their own sovereignty then imagine how they would use it if the EU actually tried to push toward federalism or even some form of more integration.

  10. We folks in eastern bloc would lost everything (language, freedom, culture, etc.)

  12. Lol, i agree in principle but suggesting this now after the EU has bowed to the US is hilarious, in the last months all that talk about strategic autonomy and european unity has disappeared, I won’t believe any of this untill our leaders show some will to be sovereign, untill then it’s all empty discourses

  13. I don’t see how you can have a federal EU that’s not completely dominated by the big countries. I’m guessing they don’t want a system like the US senate where each state gets two representatives.

  14. Draghi will be remembered in history books as the biggest traitor in modern Italy, well, unless the EU succesfully becomes an Orwell-like dictatorship.

  15. Draghi is honestly the only competent Italian politician that did more good than bad

  16. How can we achieve a sense of European identity people can identify with?
    I fear without it we never unite.

  20. I would say we should move towards an elected president of the Commission and a maybe parliament with more power first. To me it seems like the head of the individual states are the problem. Just skip them and let the people elect the president.

  23. He’s right but it will never happen. The EU is not and will never be a single, unified entity

  24. The European Union is a union of nations not a quasi federal state under whose control?

  26. A New Rome!

    I would gladly aspire to be a Patrician of the Empire!

  28. While I like Draghi and I want federalism, “pragmatism” is a word in politics that has mostly been used to justofy and sell right wing policies that do nothing but harm to the people.

  30. As long as we can skip out on bs like chat control. And maybe try to be a bit more welfare oriented. Yet I agree.

    Europes future is dependent on a federation

  32. “to compete with china we must become more like china” economically at first, ie, the ability to more explicitly direct strategic investments etc (never mind the fact that the eu strategic priorities change all the time), but eventually they will mirror china’s social ‘cohesion’ policies too imo.

    Chinese fascism with European characteristics.

  33. No thanks. The EU has a severe democratic deficit. And such a federation would be 90% controlled by Germany + France.

  34. We won’t solve anything under capitalism. It would not be federation, but yet another empire. Work starts with people and as long as they can’t see anything wrong with capitalism, nothing will change.

    We can think about uniting, once we have actual democracy, not facade.

  36. I wouldn’t take any current federal state, like the United States, as a model. That kind of system isn’t suitable for Europe. The current EU is something that doesn’t exist anywhere else, and if it were to integrate further, the end result would surely also be something unique. Altough there are similarities too.

    Historically, the Holy Roman Empire is one point of comparison. It too was a decentralized, rather interesting structure. In that sense, it could be seen as a positive example — the empire consisted of countless small, semi-independent principalities. One could argue that their unification actually made it possible for such small principalities to exist at all. Otherwise, larger neighbors or stronger princes would have conquered them. The region that was part of it is still more decentralized than other parts of Europe. Even today, Germany is a federal state with many medium-sized, strong cities. France, on the other hand, which has historically been more centralized, has one large Paris while the other cities are smaller.

    In my view, the optimal EU is one where the principle of subsidiarity plays a central role. In other words, all matters that don’t have a strong justification for being decided at a higher level should be decided at the lower level. This is one of the core ideas of the current EU. There are lots of rules and institutions that guard the subsidiarity principle, and this is good. I do think, however, that nowadays the EU regulates some issues in too much detail (where deciding them at the EU level brings little actual benefit), while in certain areas where centralization would be justified, the EU still has too little power.

    So, in my opinion, the EU’s common foreign policy should be stronger and decided by majority vote like other matters — and even include its own armed forces (in addition to national ones). I think that a military force under joint command would have a much greater interest in defending the entire EU (and also Finland) than, say, the French army would have in defending Finland. Political entities tend to defend themselves. I would by no means abolish national armed forces, because for Finland, especially, they are existential — and their existence also keeps open the possibility of moving in the opposite direction (even leaving the EU), which would be difficult for external security reasons if all armed forces were under central control.

    At the same time, I consider the subsidiarity principle absolutely essential. You could say that states also compete with each other over who has the best institutions and systems — whether it’s Finland’s, Germany’s, Romania’s or Belgian education system, judiciary, healthcare, and so on. Too much centralization leads to a powerful central authority, but also to rigidity. China and the United States are powerful, but their domestic institutions are extremely rigid because of their size. That’s their weakness. Diversity is a strength — it’s essentially an experiment to see what works best.

    So, the optimal EU, in my view, defends its own values, has real foreign policy power, ensures peace within Europe. Some of the desicions can’t even theoretically be made at national level at all, so either we do them collectively or we let others decide. Also purely nation-state Europe has tended to be quite warlike. But at the same time, it respects national differences, keeps subsidiarity at the core, and that ensures societal flexibility. Such a combination could be functional, in my opinion, maybe even the sort of “winning strategy” in the end. The current EU is already something like that, but it could still be refined further.

    Why is the EU the way it is today? I’d say that states fiercely defend their own turf in the big matters (like defense and foreign policy), but in many smaller matters, that tends to slacken — simply because there isn’t enough time or attention to guard everything. We need to integrate further on some issues in my opinion: economy (we need to be able to compete with others, Draghi and Letta reports have analyzed this), and also have stronger defence and foreign policy. But on most things, the subsidiarity principle is good and let the countries decide themselves as so far. And honestly I’m quite optimistic.

  37. ”War made states”, is they saying goes. It can also make a federation, I think.

    Even though it would be very hard to trust other Euro states with our common defence, as a Finn. I don’t think Finns would be on board with that.

  38. Yeah, he’s right. Problem is that to get federalism, member states have to voluntarily give up power.

    Not a single member state is willing to give up an iota of power.

Comments are closed.