,
22 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
OK, some thoughts on the many replies/answers given to this tweet.
All of the following thoughts are stated in a constructive spirit.
/1
All of the following thoughts are stated in a constructive spirit.
/1
These two tweeted replies from @ottocrat probably got the most interest and require an exploration of the words 'superstate' and 'federalism' (and its variants like 'federation'.)
/2
/2
Chris's tweets also tie together with other respondants who openly supported a federal Europe and maybe referred to the United States as a kind of federal model (or even Germany).
Collectively, I'll call these 'the federalist answers' /3
Collectively, I'll call these 'the federalist answers' /3
Then there are those who reply that we have vetos and permanent opt outs meaning it's in our power to *stop* Britain drifting into a European state...and therefore "it'll never happen" (see also 'Russell Bretherton'). Cameron's Deal falls into this category of replies. /4
I'll call these replies "the opt out/pragmatic answers".
I could have also called them "the intergovernmental answers". /5
I could have also called them "the intergovernmental answers". /5
So....'federalism'.
Sceptics have long been accused of being against federalism because they don't understand it. That it's actually about powers being delineated and dispersed. That, in the EU context, it's about uniting peoples not uniting governments. /6
Sceptics have long been accused of being against federalism because they don't understand it. That it's actually about powers being delineated and dispersed. That, in the EU context, it's about uniting peoples not uniting governments. /6
But focusing on the F word is to wrongly focus on the specific *mechanics* or constitution of a state.
The Brexiter is bothered by the fact *it's a state*. The fact it is also federal is to put an adjective in front of the noun (giving some respectability to the noun). /7
The Brexiter is bothered by the fact *it's a state*. The fact it is also federal is to put an adjective in front of the noun (giving some respectability to the noun). /7
When sceptics attack federalism, they are therefore:
1. Using the term as a proxy for "building a state" (in the internationally-recognised 'nation' sense)
2. Trying to damage the respectability of the term. /8
1. Using the term as a proxy for "building a state" (in the internationally-recognised 'nation' sense)
2. Trying to damage the respectability of the term. /8
An EU federation thus likens Britain to Ohio, Alberta, Queensland, Lower Saxony or Vaud. In other words, no longer an independent nation.
One could thus argue that Brexiters are not against EU federalism because they don't understand it; they're against it because they do. /9
One could thus argue that Brexiters are not against EU federalism because they don't understand it; they're against it because they do. /9
The EU federalist narrative is precisely what they are bothered about, with all its implications of Britain being subsumed ("lost") into a bigger entity.
That ultimately is at the root of the feared loss of "identity" and why "It's not about the economy, stupid". /10
That ultimately is at the root of the feared loss of "identity" and why "It's not about the economy, stupid". /10
Why then the word 'superstate'? Simply, because it'd be like a large state. Nothing more than that.
A United States of Europe.
The word says nothing of its internal structure or how far powers would be devolved *because that is seen by Brexiters as secondary*. /11
A United States of Europe.
The word says nothing of its internal structure or how far powers would be devolved *because that is seen by Brexiters as secondary*. /11
"But", you may ask, "what about all that Brexiter stuff about centralising power in Brussels? Surely they're just seeing 'Brussels' through the prism of a very centralised British state?"
No, the centralisation they speak of comes from the power transfer out of the nations. /12
No, the centralisation they speak of comes from the power transfer out of the nations. /12
In other words, the very necessary bit of centralisation (out of constituent states to the centre) that is needed for a federation to operate. /13
The question is then "why is having an EU federal democracy a problem anyway?" As long as the people have votes surely it's no different to Westminster, probably better actually, "because, y'know, the House of Lords"? /14
That brings us to "the demos problem" - there isn't a European demos. People don't identify with it so it can't get the necessary legitimacy.
This is a point of contention between federalists & Leavers. Federalists tend to feel that bond; Others don't. No right or wrong. /15
This is a point of contention between federalists & Leavers. Federalists tend to feel that bond; Others don't. No right or wrong. /15
Moving on to the "opt out pragmatists" who take a different line to the federalists. For them it's about reassurance that EU federalism will NOT happen. "Germany, France, Italy etc won't give up their sovereignty". Even though they did with the euro... /16
Setting that aside, the argument goes that it'll never happen *to Britain* because of permanent opt outs and vetos. Therefore "what's the problem?" /17
On this, Brexiters take the "vortex view" - The view that centripetal forces will ultimately make the giving up of vetos and opt outs irresistible, especially as the British political class are pro EU and like to go along with the project. See Blair and the rebate. /18
Cameron's Deal also falls into this general space. It was considered by Brexiters to be a legally unenforceable sop and therefore of limited real value. /19
So where does that leave us?
With two contradictory Remain messages.
The opt-out one is very "British" but it also lost in 2016. The federalist one is arguably more attuned to the EU's goals but it wouldn't win in Britain (IMO) and only represents about <25% of voters. /20
With two contradictory Remain messages.
The opt-out one is very "British" but it also lost in 2016. The federalist one is arguably more attuned to the EU's goals but it wouldn't win in Britain (IMO) and only represents about <25% of voters. /20
Are there flaws in the above logic? Well maybe, but I'll leave you to find them.... /ends
Footnote: Writing this "took me back" - to days in the Bodleian Library poring over books about federalism. I recall some by Charlie Jeffery, Nevil Johnson and Thomas Franck. I vaguely recall a theme that federations centralise over time - the centripetal beats the centrifugal.
