|Source:Foreign Affairs- The flag of the European Union. And perhaps one day the flag of a Federal Europe.|
"In 1982, The Economist marked the 25th anniversary of the European Economic Community, the precursor to the European Union, by featuring a tombstone dedicated to the organization on its cover. “Born March 25, 1957. Moribund March 25, 1982,” it read. Then came an epitaph courtesy of the ancient Roman historian Tacitus: Capax imperii nisi imperasset, “It seemed capable of being a power, until it tried to be one.” Inside, the magazine pilloried the community for its institutional weakness, bemoaned its citizens’ growing disenchantment with European integration, and warned of a possible British exit. "
From Foreign Affairs
"Speech by Guy Verhofstadt [ ALDE MEP / Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe / European Parliament ] on :
Debate on the future of the European Union - Statement by Jyrki Katainen, Prime Minister of Finland (debate)"
|Source:Alde Adle- Guy Verhofstadt, at the European Parliament.|
I’m not suggesting that in the short-term the European Union go from essentially a regional United Nations, even though it’s a lot more effective and run a lot better and I would argue a lot more important and perhaps the most important international player in the Western world outside of the United States and the United Kingdom, to a Federal Republic and state. Even though long-term I believe that would be in Europe’s best interest would be as one federal state in Western Europe. Going from Belgium and Portugal in the West over to Poland and Italy in the East, with every other state in between.
The European Union as a Federal Republic would be a superpower economically, militarily, diplomatically and everything else. And the economies in Europe would be much better off as part as this one huge market of three-hundred and fifty-million people or so. Instead of one mid-size market of forty or sixty-million or so, or even smaller depending on the country. But short-term for the EU to be stronger and more relevant, they need to be a little more centralized as far as the Commission and Parliament being in the same European capital and being part of the same organization under the EU.
As well as the EU should be more democratic with a real executive branch lets say that comes under the President of the European Union. Who would be elected by European Union voters. Voters in each EU state, instead of the EU rotating the presidency every few years or so. The people in these states would elect the EU President. And Commission would come under the President, with the President having their own Commission and appointing essentially cabinet members to the Commission, that would need to be approved by the Parliament. Whether the Parliament is bicameral or unicameral.
These reforms would make the EU more relevant and more effective, because the EU under the President and their commission would be able to act and act effectively dealing with issues that effect Europe and have a Parliament. Organizations like a united European Defense Force, that could eventually replace NATO and be a major partner of the Britain, Canada and America would be able to respond to either attacks inside of the EU, or attacks nearby like human rights and military crisis’ nearby, like in Africa or in Arabia like with what we saw in Libya in 2011 or in Syria today.
The United Nations is essentially a joke and not much more than a debating society. But especially if you compare the UN with the EU and that is not what you want the EU to become a place where nothing is essentially done other than debating and critical issues are never addressed. Which is what we saw with Russia in their invasion of Ukraine and with Syria as well. A united EU whether it is a federal state or not with a strong Commission under a President and a strong Parliament, would be able to address these issues in a timely and effective way. Because now you wouldn’t need all the EU members to agree on anything before anything is done.