.png)
3 hours ago
8
If it’s wrong, as some would say, for European countries to come together as a fully federal European Union, rather than individual states, why is it right for the US to be a federation rather than separate states? It always strikes me that the EU gets unfairly criticised for a system that was established over the Atlantic many years back. The US hasn’t looked back, but has become powerful as a result of being an umbrella for smaller entities. Just imagine if each state needed its own army, air force and currency, with its own customs and border controls not to mention trade tariffs! There’d be no White House and no Congress. Why is it so wrong for European countries to want similar strength, coming together as a union? Howard Phillips, Lisbon
Send new questions to [email protected].
Readers reply
There’s no nostalgic past for US states to hark back to. What the US achieved it did as a union. That’s the difference which prevents would-be secessionists from causing the harm they have done in Europe. John_Brown1955
The US absolutely needs a secession amendment to the constitution. Based on the lessons of Brexit and limited to five states every 20 years. Each departing state should be able to take non-fixed assets in proportion to their net contribution to the federal budget over 20 years. That would mean the states that would like to leave – Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma – would take nothing, while California and New York could take the cake. Politicians would be motivated to pander to the left. Elliot, by email
Language? English unites the US but divides the EU. jno50
I’m very much in favour of collaboration between European countries and the integration of resources, but I’m also very much against the EU. After decades of staring into its navel and failing to resolve petty problems with its single market, continental Europe has found itself to be totally insignificant in the contemporary geopolitical turmoil. This despite having a larger population than the US and a greater GDP than China. Discussions on the future of Europe are characterised by two opposing teams of ignorant players hurling soundbites at each other. This lack of informed Europe-wide democratic debate is, perhaps, at the heart of the problem. Roger Irwin, Italy
In a word: history. Too many wars over the centuries based on nationalism in Europe among the Indigenous populations mean that small differences can be exaggerated for political gain, which prior to the EU led to military conflict. In America, the main target of military intervention by Europeans was the Indigenous populations, while violence also had an outlet when taken out on those that they had transported there against their will. Although the latter in the guise of slavery led to a civil war, the former helped to bind the American states together. Dr Peter Davis, Bristol
The US has had its share of growing pains. Can the EU become the US without its own civil war? Is abandoning the veto power, because pro-Russians and populists abuse it, so that we can finally have a unified defence force, a good idea, keeping that part of history to mind? I find that reforming veto power is needed, but let’s keep it for things where lack of unanimity threatens our existential principles. I wouldn’t want to see European troops marching in Budapest in 2056. Luca, by email
First, the US was put together 200 years ago. Second, they sort of speak one language, not 20 different ones. Last, no one has even bothered asking European citizens if a federal Europe is something they would like, mostly because they are afraid of the answer. We already have a situation where people in smaller countries have a disproportionate amount of say over EU laws. David Michaels, by email
I suppose you suggested the strongest answer yourself: “The US … has become powerful as a result of being an umbrella for smaller entities.” Vanished “customs and border controls, not to mention trade tariffs”. Who doesn’t want the EU strong? Economic competitors. Forces that see their global dominance waning. Separatists seeking salvation in the past. All that speaks for a strong EU. And for countries on the European continent to join, rather than to leave. Erik A Sevapiragasam, by email
The US was born under a sense of honesty and togetherness. The founding fathers thought hard as how to serve the best interests of the people. The EU was born out of deceit and divisiveness. To hide the fact that its aim was always political union, populations were fed the “common market” ploy and not informed of its ultimate goal. The EU is fundamentally undemocratic. In the US, the president is elected by the eligible voters of the 50 states. In the EU, the president is elected by some 700 council members and, in many cases, not in a competitive ballot. Chris Zisimides, by email
I think the same forces that try to break the EU up are also trying to do the same to the US – they are just doing it more covertly. Regardless of whether these are state actors like Russia, large corporate entities or tech billionaires, they all would rather have smaller political units to deal with, if any at all. The only big difference is that there are now people inside the US government who want to break the EU up, while the reverse is not the case. anda_skoa
If you watch the TV show How the States Got Their Shapes, you will see that the US federal project was not predicted to work. Narrow necks of land join states to waterways or the sea. They didn’t trust their neighbours. Early consolidation was the result of conflict alliances for independence. Later it was federal colonisation of Native American land or conquest of Spanish territory. Why not break it up? It might still happen. Windyday
All empires fall eventually. GrannieSal
The civil war. There have always been movements to break up the US, and even today there are lots of Americans who like to talk about how the country can’t survive, or how it’s really made up of numerous different regions. But the civil war addressed that very question. The south said the states could leave at any time, the north said no you can’t, and the north won. Carnthebombers
I’m surprised by the question. I’ve never considered the EU breaking up – well, not so much until Brexit. And why not break up the US? From my view over here is that the European Union has succeeded at so much that the United States has not, especially now with our wavering on those truths we hold to be self-evident. dallastxhollywood
Because EU is more recent. Everyone is just used to US being one country, with some internal separations, more organisational than existential. Most of the states and territories became part of it long before anyone currently alive. But Europe has never been unified in any way. Except for geographical proximity, there’s virtually nothing European countries have in common. And unlike the US, the EU is still relatively new, making it a change. Change is something that terrifies many people, and is far easier to undo than something that no one remembers being any different. GrumpyMat
As a US citizen, I have no right to an opinion about the EU. As a student of history, I am profoundly grateful that the EU exists. Other than Russia’s horrible invasion of Ukraine, this is the longest period of peace among European nations since the Roman empire. AnneinMaryland
Russia feels threatened by a united Europe, hence the need to encourage as much disunity as possible. It is less affected by a united US. It’s not just the US that offers a model of successful unification. Germany was only unified into one country in 1871. TobermoryNightlife
I think the US is already broken. eibhear
Well, I sincerely hope that European states are discreetly stirring various secessionist pots in the US in response to the Trump administration’s blatant attempts to destabilise/break up the EU. Sauce for the goose. And I’m sure that Russia is. DaBishop
In reply: The stirring they do is a measurement of the fear felt of a cohesive EU. Onward towards unity increased, I say. Time for the UK to start the process to rejoin as a committed equal member. Also time to get serious and talk to the Canadians about some sort of associate membership. ErasmusVanBaltimore
Is the US truly unified? There have always been cultural and political differences between the states, and some of these seem only to be widening. Are there not real secessionist movements in California and Texas? kingscrosscowboy
In reply: I don’t know about Texas, but the California secession “movement” or “Calexit” is fake, the product of Russian meddling. There’s also the more popular “Cascadia” idea where California, Oregon, and Washington secede together, but that’s not going to happen either. You’re right about the illusion of “unity”. The only time the US was anything close to unified was during the second world war. Didn’t last. fantod
A group of nations that have evolved over 2,000 or more years, frequently at war with each other, with differing governing systems, are coming together via trade and an understanding that war is futile. Negotiations are more careful and considerate as a result, and more often a compromise. The US, on the other hand, came together as a nation building its own, modern identity, and the first to do away with inherited monarchy. In what was felt to be an “empty” continent, this made sense. It sticks together today, through a shared sense of independence and “freedom”. It’s like comparing apples with elephants. GrasmereGardens
Since many of the people investing money and effort in breaking up the EU are in the US, while no people in the EU have made corresponding efforts to break up the US, it might just be down to relative levels of malice. CharlieApples
It’s a good question. I suspect one historical reason, in addition to what has anyway been mentioned, is language. The US white population is, of course 100% immigrant (which makes the current anti immigrant rhetoric all the more depressing). But the lingua franca is English (for now, at least). My understanding is that this wasn’t a given – there was a very significant German- speaking minority in the early days, and that could have changed things. But they voted to have a single, common language. I like the level of integration the EU has – I would not want to see everyone speaking a single language as their mother tongue – it enriches us all, and maintains cultural diversity (a good thing). I have no doubt there are state-level differences, beyond different political and religious preferences/biases in the US. But from the outside, the difference looks to be more pronounced at the individual person level than at the state level. scobie27
I don’t think it’s an easy binary of “deeper integration good/bad”. Broadly speaking, deeper integration can give you efficiencies of scale, the more frictionless existence that comes with uniformity, and a more powerful whole, but it also (pretty much by definition) reduces the ability of the component parts to do their own thing even if they want to. The US is one level of integration (but states still have, say, their own laws, agencies and taxes); the EU is another, less integrated one. There are lots of possible levels, and people may favour different ones under different circumstances.
One obvious reason people might be more in favour of doing things at the nation-state level in EU countries is they have been doing so for much longer – all but two states have been part of the US for over a century now, and many pre-joining were fairly new, low-population territories, rather than countries with centuries of acting as such. Jebedee
