Ok, I'll do the counterpart here.
Nations are a form of policy enactment (the thing is in europe they vary - very much in size, so 'whats a nation'), where people are comfortable with, that they are still doing what is in their interest - because they are still close enough - so that a well placed month long strike will be able to topple governments.
Larger forms of political unions have a mutlitude of unsolved problems, that people arent very much into solving in general.
Direct democratic legitimization. None.
Media counterbalance. None (nobody watches european broadcasts - if they are not silly shows).
Transparency. Close to none (where it counts - even the americans tend to be better here).
Right on initiative on legislation. Not with parliaments.
Regional concentration of power. ("We'll then ship our best minds there.")
Higher actual detachment from the populous.
Higher risk of corruption ('environmental factors').
Basically - "fuck the United States of Europe" is a very popular stance to take, and actually a valid one - if you arent just retelling myths of friendship and connectedness. (Or are talking about limited political issues that can only be solved large scale.)
Read this: http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/file/DP9040.pdf
Its a little bit older, but its points are still valid.
Especially looking at the US, their political system is pretty much a circus, where you decide between red and blue. I wouldnt want for the european system to become that. And it stands to be argued, that - if you build larger political bodies - the topics that people can be confronted with ("trusted with") might get more shallow.
Nations are a form of policy enactment (the thing is in europe they vary - very much in size, so 'whats a nation'), where people are comfortable with, that they are still doing what is in their interest - because they are still close enough - so that a well placed month long strike will be able to topple governments.
Larger forms of political unions have a mutlitude of unsolved problems, that people arent very much into solving in general.
Direct democratic legitimization. None.
Media counterbalance. None (nobody watches european broadcasts - if they are not silly shows).
Transparency. Close to none (where it counts - even the americans tend to be better here).
Right on initiative on legislation. Not with parliaments.
Regional concentration of power. ("We'll then ship our best minds there.")
Higher actual detachment from the populous.
Higher risk of corruption ('environmental factors').
Basically - "fuck the United States of Europe" is a very popular stance to take, and actually a valid one - if you arent just retelling myths of friendship and connectedness. (Or are talking about limited political issues that can only be solved large scale.)
Read this: http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/file/DP9040.pdf
Its a little bit older, but its points are still valid.
Especially looking at the US, their political system is pretty much a circus, where you decide between red and blue. I wouldnt want for the european system to become that. And it stands to be argued, that - if you build larger political bodies - the topics that people can be confronted with ("trusted with") might get more shallow.
Last edited by notimp,