National Sovereignty and the Universal Good

[GEddie]

It’s a gross error to compare any individual EU countries with the USA. Only the EU as a whole is a valid comparison to the aggregate USA.

In that light, we also see many EU countries expressing concern and frustration with the EU as an effective governing body.

The EU is roughly comparable to the USA in 1799, at which time, there was intense friction between the States and the Federal government. This tension was never fully resolved except by default in the events of 1865.

And the American States never had the centennial overburden of sovereign loyalties and institutions, that the EU nations do.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vouthon]

It’s a gross error to compare any individual EU countries with the USA. Only the EU as a whole is a valid comparison to the aggregate USA.

In that light, we also see many EU countries expressing concern and frustration with the EU as an effective governing body.

I’ll admit that is a very good point.

I had been thinking in retrospect about the history of single European nations and how state-building transpired over here compared with the US. In that very narrow context, I do think that my argument is correct in its essentials and points. European nation-states do have stronger, bigger and more effective governments, along with less potential for moneyed lobbies to exert power over decision-making processes.

Since the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957 and especially following the formation of its successor the EU in 1992, the situation in Europe is very different now. You’ve hit on something interesting here.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674013094

In The Rules of Federalism, Kelemen shows that both the structure of the EU’s institutions and the control these institutions exert over member states closely resemble the American federal system, with its separation of powers, large number of veto points, and highly detailed, judicially enforceable legislation. In the EU, as in the United States, a high degree of fragmentation in the central government yields a low degree of discretion for member states when it comes to implementing regulatory statutes.

Public criticism of the European Commission over here is more visceral than mistrust of the Federal Government in the US, primarily owing to the fact that member states of the EU have national identities whereas US states do not. The EU is not just a (quasi) federal, continental-sized Union like the United States of America. It is also, due to the fact that its Member States are nations as well as states, a “supranational” entity.

Otherwise, there * is* an undeniable similarity. Demands that ‘Brussels’ return powers to Member States is not all that dissimilar from demands that ‘Washington’ do the same in the U.S. Perhaps this a common theme in very large continental economic-political Unions?

 

[GEddie]

member states of the EU have national identities whereas US states do not.

Except Texas and Vermont.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vouthon]

Except Texas and Vermont.

ICXC NIKA

Good point.

Texas and Vermont are intriguing exceptions owing to the fact that both have a history of sovereignty outside the United States.

The Republic of Texas was an independent, sovereign country for a decade between 1836 and 1846 when it was annexed by the USA. Vermont, likewise, was an independent republic between the years 1777 - 1791 when it was admitted to the American Union as its 14th state. I’ve heard there is a “Texas Nationalist Movement” and a “Second Vermont Republic” secessionist group, though I doubt they’ll be very powerful at present.

Not quite like the centuries of independence and sovereignty that many European nations have had (i.e. the UK formed in 1707, modern France in 1789, Germany in 1871, Italy in 1871) but still significant enough, I suppose, to mark them out as different from the other US states - even the collective of Southern states that attempted to secede in 1861, since this secession was not internationally recognized.

I would wager that most Texans and Vermonters see themselves as primarily “American” in identity, whereas a majority of Europeans are not likely to designate “European” as their main identity over and above that of their national one.

 

[GEddie]

Good point.

Texas and Vermont are intriguing exceptions owing to the fact that both have a history of sovereignty outside the United States.

The Republic of Texas was an independent, sovereign country for a decade between 1836 and 1846 when it was annexed by the USA. Vermont, likewise, was an independent republic between the years 1777 - 1791 when it was admitted to the American Union as its 14th state. I’ve heard there is a “Texas Nationalist Movement” and a “Second Vermont Republic” secessionist group, though I doubt they’ll be very powerful at present.

Not quite like the centuries of independence and sovereignty that many European nations have had (i.e. the UK formed in 1707, modern France in 1789, Germany in 1871, Italy in 1871) but still significant enough, I suppose, to mark them out as different from the other US states - even the collective of Southern states that attempted to secede in 1861, since this secession was not internationally recognized.

I would wager that most Texans and Vermonters see themselves as primarily “American” in identity, whereas a majority of Europeans are not likely to designate “European” as their main identity over and above that of their national one.

Having not been to Vermont, I can’t say about them. In Texas, there are quite a few who identify first with TX.

Again, think 1799; if the EU still exists in 2216, we will never see it, but I imagine the loyalties will have undergone an interesting change.

ICXC NIKA

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vouthon]

No offense but you were very vague. Perhaps you can provide a specific example to clarify what you are saying. My observation is Govt in all it’s forms suffers from constant creep in their desired oversight.

Here is a specific example, again from an authoritative ecclesiastical document Gaudium et Spes, the Pastoral Constitution of the Second Vatican Council:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

It is our clear duty, therefore, to strain every muscle in working for the time when all war can be completely outlawed by international consent. **This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of some universal public authority acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power to safeguard on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights. But before this hoped for authority can be set up, the highest existing international centers must devote themselves vigorously to the pursuit of better means for obtaining common security. **Since peace must be born of mutual trust between nations and not be imposed on them through a fear of the available weapons, everyone must labor to put an end at last to the arms race, and to make a true beginning of disarmament, not unilaterally indeed, but proceeding at an equal pace according to agreement, and backed up by true and workable safeguards…

It is a work of supreme love for mankind. Today it certainly demands that they extend their thoughts and their spirit beyond the confines of their own nation, that they put aside national selfishness and ambition to dominate other nations, and that they nourish a profound reverence for the whole of humanity, which is already making its way so laboriously toward greater unity.

 

[Theo520]

My impression is the EU is

• more dominating in terms of regulatory control, even dictating what size of beer mug can be used, etc.
• weaker in terms of police, military and intelligence gathering, since these have not be centralized
• weaker in terms of foreign policy, except for trade.

I think the decentralized control of Police, Military and Intelligence agencies is part of why the EU member governments are more trusted. History is the other key factor, since every member country was previously a monarchy of sorts.

I’ll admit that is a very good point.

I had been thinking in retrospect about the history of single European nations and how state-building transpired over here compared with the US. In that very narrow context, I do think that my argument is correct in its essentials and points. European nation-states do have stronger, bigger and more effective governments, along with less potential for moneyed lobbies to exert power over decision-making processes.

Since the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957 and especially following the formation of its successor the EU in 1992, the situation in Europe is very different now. You’ve hit on something interesting here.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674013094

Public criticism of the European Commission over here is more visceral than mistrust of the Federal Government in the US, primarily owing to the fact that member states of the EU have national identities whereas US states do not. The EU is not just a (quasi) federal, continental-sized Union like the United States of America. It is also, due to the fact that its Member States are nations as well as states, a “supranational” entity.

Otherwise, there * is* an undeniable similarity. Demands that ‘Brussels’ return powers to Member States is not all that dissimilar from demands that ‘Washington’ do the same in the U.S. Perhaps this a common theme in very large continental economic-political Unions?