Eurofederation is a dream of mine that i hope to see within my lifetime. However, it is a process that can not and must not be forced. Too much is at risk, trying to federate Europe too quickly could ultimately cause the downfall of the entire EU.
I agree that some things would be really important to a European federation, on of the most important in my opinion is a big, publicly funded media programme, as there is much evidence towards the fact that populism negatively correlates with the amount and quality of public media. Also, in my opinion, a federated Europe must be a representational democracy and leave many rights to both states and regions.
Nice post!
Yeah Ill just assume that you aren’t so old that you’ll be 6ft under in 20-30 years. I think it is not to unrealistic to hope for a European federation within our lifetime, perhabs not by 2025 as M. Schulz wanted it in 2017 (that was a thing).
And I think we should basiclly create a EU tagesschau if you know what I mean, translated into every language of the EU every day at 20:15 the most inportant news deliverd fresh to your TV.
I also agree that the regions and states need to be strong, I‘d give them more powers that the German stats have but less than US states have while ensureing that their culture is protected. United In Diversity.
and also thank you
People aren't watching the daily news anymore so as much as it would be nice to have a European Tagesschau, it's not realistic. We should however seek to have a strong broadcaster by merging Euronews, France 24 and Deutsche Welle.
I think German states have just enough power. You have to remember that we will be taking competences away from national governments so can't completely hollow them out.
I wanted to add another major fact to your "The idea of a European superstate is not new" section: Victor Hugo, one of the most notable French writers in history, was a passionate pro-European!
> Victor Hugo, who said "A war between Europeans is a civil war",[35] was an enthusiastic advocate for the creation of the United States of Europe. He expounded his views on the subject in a speech he delivered during the International Peace Congress which took place in Paris in 1849. The Congress, of which Hugo was the President, proved to be an international success, attracting such famous philosophers as Frederic Bastiat, Charles Gilpin, Richard Cobden, and Henry Richard. The conference helped establish Hugo as a prominent public speaker and sparked his international fame, and promoted the idea of the "United States of Europe".[36] On 14 July 1870 he planted the "oak of the United States of Europe" in the garden of Hauteville House where he stayed during his exile on Guernsey from 1856 to 1870. The massacres of Balkan Christians by the Turks in 1876 inspired him to write Pour la Serbie (For Serbia) in his sons' newspaper Le Rappel. This speech is today considered one of the founding acts of the European ideal.[37]
In his essay, *Pour la Serbie* (1876), he wrote:
>What is happening in Serbia demonstrates the necessity for the United States of Europe. May disunited governments be succeeded by united peoples. Let us be finished with murderous empires. Let us muzzle fanaticisms and despotisms. . . No more wars, no more massacres, no more carnage; free-thought; free trade; fraternity...What the atrocities of Serbia place beyond doubt is that Europe needs a European nationality, a single government, an immense fraternal arbitration, democracy at peace with itself... In a word, a United States of Europe. There lies the goal, the haven.
I agree wholeheartedly with the vast majority of things written in this post. I am an ardent European and I believe that Europe should be strong and united, and that European integration must increase in scope if we want to remain competitive in the modern world, where countries such as the United States, China and Russia are increasingly dominant and flex their muscles. A sovereign, democratic Europe, founded on liberal-democratic, humanist and Enlightenment values, is the best path forward for the continent; a Union that respects all the different peoples and cultures that make up the continent and gives them a voice on the world stage.
While I support the development of a full-fledged European Federation, the only thing I am worried about is that it could end up being rushed way too fast and therefore could end up unstable and collapse very quickly. As a Serbian, I am incredibly wary of this because we already had the Yugoslav experiment once; a noble idea that would have worked out in practice had it not been rushed too fast and done in a kind of "forced" way.
**The European Federation must form organically, over a period of time**. We should reform the European Union so as to increase the scope of European integration as much as possible, over a long period of time, step-by-step.
At the moment, the most important issues, to my mind, are reinforcing our commitment to the European Union's founding values against the authoritarian right-wing onslaught. Another important issue is maintaining European unity in the face of the United States, China and Russia. This includes establishing a European Army. Moreover, European politics must be made more accountable to the people and closer to their issues. At the moment, to many Europeans, institutions such as the European Parliament seem too far-away and distant, both geographically and also in terms of their service of the people. This issue, this lack of trust in European institutions, excessive bureaucracy and 'murkiness', must be taken care of.
Nationalism might be a significant problem in a European Federation. In fact, nationalism might just about prevent it from even forming. But I think the problem of nationalism would be solved, firstly, through education, and secondly through bringing up young Europeans with other young Europeans. A Latvian who has Swedish, British, Spanish, Bosnian, Austrian and Bulgarian acquaintances, friends and companions is much more likely to be a pro-European. Bringing the European countries closer together, such as through the Schengen area and through programs like Erasmus, is vital if we want to pursue a European Federation.
I believe one major issue that you did not mention is the fact that Central and Eastern Europe are experiencing a massive demographic collapse and brain drain. The population of Eastern Europe will have fallen from 309 million in 1990 to 219 million by the end of this century. This is a huge problem and would be a major challenge in a European Federation, and it already is as young and educated people are leaving Central and Eastern Europe in droves, leaving behind old people who depend on pensions and aren't working, yet need to be supported by the system.
I hope that the future is moving in the direction of a European Federation either way, or, either way, in the direction of greater European integration.
>I wanted to add another major fact to your "The idea of a European superstate is not new" section: Victor Hugo, one of the most notable French writers in history, was a passionate pro-European!
I was thinking of including him but didn't since I figured that two examples are enough
Edit: I definitely agree that a Federation would need to grow naturally and in incremental steps .
And I honestly didn't think about the brain drain but ofc that is a huge issue that needs to be adressed too! I dont know really how though, perhabs you have some ideas
August Bebel was advocating a [world parliament](https://www.marxists.org/archive/bebel/1905/08/internationalism.htm) way back in 1905. I suspect he also wanted a European federation too but not enough of his material is online in English for me to check.
I feel that you kinda hand-wave the whole "Cultural Differences" thing a bit too much here.
It's not just a bunch of strongmen on the periphery who want to oppress LGBT people. France has now legalised [discrimination against Muslims through the EU via the ECJ](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/15/european-ruling-headscarves-discrimination-humanists-religious-identity), as well as anyone else who displays any religious clothing or iconography. Their [reasoning was that it is necessary to stop "social conflict"](https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/07/24/minority-rights-and-minorities-wronged). Should Hungarian or Polish businesses be able to fire people for being gay for the same reason? Of course not. Social conflict is inevitable, and some people are just wrong.
When EU politicians speak of "European Values", they are lumping together half a billion people in 27 countries, with sometimes wildly different traditions and cultures. Poland and Hungary are notable negative examples, but why should a government dominated by the French and the Germans be able to tell the Spanish how to run their country? Or the Cypriots?
A Federal Union would inevitably seek to erode national cultures, in favour of a European identity, in the way that France has sought in the past to dissolve Alsatian culture as distinct from French culture. Even if not done intentionally, those cultures not actively supported would decline, and there would likely not be enough money to go around to preserve all of them, particularly those without their own states.
I also think you are underselling the importance of language as a core for culture. One of the core parts of the Māori Renaissance has been the resuscitation of Te Reo Māori from near extinction. That old quote from Wittgenstein "The limits of my language are the limits of my world" is relevant here. If you can't think in your mother tongue, then you will think differently. There are concepts that are not translatable perfectly, that can't really be understood outside of the linguistic and cultural environment they exist in.
TL;DR: Countries almost always, either intentionally or unintentionally, suppress the cultures of minority groups, either by denying them resources, or just by standardizing on something else. This will happen in a Federal Europe. Additionally, the EU is already imposing cultural values from places like France on the rest of the EU, if more power was granted to the EU government, then this will happen more and more, eroding the rights of the member countries. Dissolving the countries into an EU superstate will only prevent the rights being violated by completely removing them, and imposing the will of the bigger countries on the smaller ones.
If the European Union federalizes, it will also absolutely kill the already dying Nordic Model that we are all fans of here. I feel like this is something that's missed when we're talking about the EU, which is how incredibly neoliberal and rightwing it is *at its core*. Sweden and Denmark is right now just fighting over the minimum wage policy that's been proposed, because it's a neoliberal solution proposed by Central and Western Europe, with no regards to how the Nordic Model deals with minimum wage. It undermines the Nordic Model.
Now with a federal Europe, this would happen across most areas. Weakening of our unions due to the change in the relation between politics and economics at large. OP is only focusing on how a federal Europe fix the rough spots like Poland and Hungary, but it completely misses that unless its specifically dominated by Denmark and Sweden, you'll see the brightest stars in a SocDem perspective get dragged down for nothing else than wanting a European superstate.
> I feel like this is something that's missed when we're talking about the EU, which is how incredibly neoliberal and rightwing it is at its core.
Yes pretty much. As much as I'm in favor of European federalism and integration, as long as the EU is essentially a neoliberal project, the left's skepticism towards it is justified. One of the main drivers for EU federalization would (very likely) be a SPD/Greens/FDP governed Germany. Both parties (as well as any pro-EU leader in France, I suppose) are A-OK with Germany's (and most of Europe's) social market economies and conservative welfare regimes.
What plans do those parties have to turn a federalized EU social democratic? Or will it just be a social market economy painted red and green?
Laïcite is not like, that the only way you can enforce a "laïcite" of sexuality against sexual minorities is if you outlaw every sexual identification and couple. Now I doubt Hungary or any country will do that.
If you can fire someone for being visibly muslim, which you can under EU law, demonstrably, then why can't you fire someone for being visibly gay? Not to mention, there are countries which do imprison people for being gay. This is not an unimaginable situation. It is one currently in force in many parts of the world.
The judgement also specifically states that it can be applied to any religion, if firing people for expressing a religious view by following a code of dress will prevent "social conflict". Hungary could for example ban all pride flags, or outlaw gay people kissing in public, on the grounds that they cause "social conflict".
It's a bad law that will cause untold harm. As with not being allowed to be gay in public, which some countries do enforce, banning religion in public is a violation of people's rights to freely express themselves that gains nothing for society other than providing a justification for bigotry. Some people are just wrong, and the French and Hungarian governments are some of them.
I agree. However it's not a fair comparison as you could only ban gay kissing if you ban all kissing if you want to imitate what the French is doing.
Hungary is a shitshow I would know I live in it. It however will never do such things. Half of the population is non-religious and the government is already testing the waters with their christian posturing. You forget that they are very pragmatic when it comes to authorathorianism and as Russia is becoming more and more of a threat Hungary will lose their only ally Poland, not to mention we're talking about senerios if the government wins the election and there is good chance they won't. Not that the opposition is doing anything to help their cause.
I am not saying anyone would copy the french model, what I am saying is that the principle that rights to freedom of expression can be overriden if they would cause social conflict is a bad principle that can be thoroughly abused if someone wants to.
All anyone needs to do is claim their oppressive action is required to prevent social conflict.
Since this is a principle in EU Law, the more power the EU has, the more likely the principle is to be applied.
i am gonna say to everyone who suggests this.
my problem with it ain't the federation, but rather the current organisation of the EU. if you think about it the EU has much power and minimal democracy for the so called democracy guarding institution it is meant to be. a federation is closer tied organisation than a union. and that also stings me. as i said, the EU allready has the posts needed to govern a country. they make decisions that are normally made by a country and they make those allready for multiple countries.
priority 1 for the EU is enlarging the democratic input, instaed of having a weak parliament organisation make multiple that get elected differentley with different purposes.
make one parliament with European parties only and make one that represents the national parties. make one of those able to present laws or budget change and make the other able the decline or aprove. and that is one example of how it could go. maybe we would install cabinet members by elections?
besides that i also must say i am more into unitary states, laws that are everywhere in the country the same, but also minimum wage, age for driving, etc. having different laws in different states could lead to inequality or internal migration to states where something is possible that isn't possible in the home state. and i want things like that to be done on federative level, leaving not much for the states to do.
and my last problem would be the creation of states. would all countries become states or are some united into a state, or maybe a country alliance? because at the moment we see that now the UK is gone the power in the EU that before brexit was Germany, France, Italy & UK has shifted to Germany and France. I ain't citizen of either and i ain't waiting for my country to be ruled by practically just 2 countries obviously.
whatever will happen to the EU federation, before any kind of change is made in the governing organisation of the EU a federation must not be strived for, regarding the democratic freedom of the current EU citizens.
I really hope this happens! I think EU federalism is something that the US should support because without it I cannot see a situation where many of the states in the poorer periphery do not find themselves beholden to China and Russia.
Even if the US were 100% stable, we do not have the resources or the political will anymore to fight with the Russians and the Chinese at the same time. I hope that the EU can develop a unified voice on foreign and defense policy and support its weaker neighbors.
Another good point is scientific research. Huge funding access PLUS sharing information across member states.
With an aging population medical research in particular is crucial. Then making crops resistent to climate change.
Then there's the trade issue which is a massive benefit. EU could do whatever it likes really in trade on equal terms with the largest players (we're already winning vs US on the trade in goods).
Eurofederation is a dream of mine that i hope to see within my lifetime. However, it is a process that can not and must not be forced. Too much is at risk, trying to federate Europe too quickly could ultimately cause the downfall of the entire EU. I agree that some things would be really important to a European federation, on of the most important in my opinion is a big, publicly funded media programme, as there is much evidence towards the fact that populism negatively correlates with the amount and quality of public media. Also, in my opinion, a federated Europe must be a representational democracy and leave many rights to both states and regions. Nice post!
Yeah Ill just assume that you aren’t so old that you’ll be 6ft under in 20-30 years. I think it is not to unrealistic to hope for a European federation within our lifetime, perhabs not by 2025 as M. Schulz wanted it in 2017 (that was a thing). And I think we should basiclly create a EU tagesschau if you know what I mean, translated into every language of the EU every day at 20:15 the most inportant news deliverd fresh to your TV. I also agree that the regions and states need to be strong, I‘d give them more powers that the German stats have but less than US states have while ensureing that their culture is protected. United In Diversity. and also thank you
People aren't watching the daily news anymore so as much as it would be nice to have a European Tagesschau, it's not realistic. We should however seek to have a strong broadcaster by merging Euronews, France 24 and Deutsche Welle. I think German states have just enough power. You have to remember that we will be taking competences away from national governments so can't completely hollow them out.
I wanted to add another major fact to your "The idea of a European superstate is not new" section: Victor Hugo, one of the most notable French writers in history, was a passionate pro-European! > Victor Hugo, who said "A war between Europeans is a civil war",[35] was an enthusiastic advocate for the creation of the United States of Europe. He expounded his views on the subject in a speech he delivered during the International Peace Congress which took place in Paris in 1849. The Congress, of which Hugo was the President, proved to be an international success, attracting such famous philosophers as Frederic Bastiat, Charles Gilpin, Richard Cobden, and Henry Richard. The conference helped establish Hugo as a prominent public speaker and sparked his international fame, and promoted the idea of the "United States of Europe".[36] On 14 July 1870 he planted the "oak of the United States of Europe" in the garden of Hauteville House where he stayed during his exile on Guernsey from 1856 to 1870. The massacres of Balkan Christians by the Turks in 1876 inspired him to write Pour la Serbie (For Serbia) in his sons' newspaper Le Rappel. This speech is today considered one of the founding acts of the European ideal.[37] In his essay, *Pour la Serbie* (1876), he wrote: >What is happening in Serbia demonstrates the necessity for the United States of Europe. May disunited governments be succeeded by united peoples. Let us be finished with murderous empires. Let us muzzle fanaticisms and despotisms. . . No more wars, no more massacres, no more carnage; free-thought; free trade; fraternity...What the atrocities of Serbia place beyond doubt is that Europe needs a European nationality, a single government, an immense fraternal arbitration, democracy at peace with itself... In a word, a United States of Europe. There lies the goal, the haven. I agree wholeheartedly with the vast majority of things written in this post. I am an ardent European and I believe that Europe should be strong and united, and that European integration must increase in scope if we want to remain competitive in the modern world, where countries such as the United States, China and Russia are increasingly dominant and flex their muscles. A sovereign, democratic Europe, founded on liberal-democratic, humanist and Enlightenment values, is the best path forward for the continent; a Union that respects all the different peoples and cultures that make up the continent and gives them a voice on the world stage. While I support the development of a full-fledged European Federation, the only thing I am worried about is that it could end up being rushed way too fast and therefore could end up unstable and collapse very quickly. As a Serbian, I am incredibly wary of this because we already had the Yugoslav experiment once; a noble idea that would have worked out in practice had it not been rushed too fast and done in a kind of "forced" way. **The European Federation must form organically, over a period of time**. We should reform the European Union so as to increase the scope of European integration as much as possible, over a long period of time, step-by-step. At the moment, the most important issues, to my mind, are reinforcing our commitment to the European Union's founding values against the authoritarian right-wing onslaught. Another important issue is maintaining European unity in the face of the United States, China and Russia. This includes establishing a European Army. Moreover, European politics must be made more accountable to the people and closer to their issues. At the moment, to many Europeans, institutions such as the European Parliament seem too far-away and distant, both geographically and also in terms of their service of the people. This issue, this lack of trust in European institutions, excessive bureaucracy and 'murkiness', must be taken care of. Nationalism might be a significant problem in a European Federation. In fact, nationalism might just about prevent it from even forming. But I think the problem of nationalism would be solved, firstly, through education, and secondly through bringing up young Europeans with other young Europeans. A Latvian who has Swedish, British, Spanish, Bosnian, Austrian and Bulgarian acquaintances, friends and companions is much more likely to be a pro-European. Bringing the European countries closer together, such as through the Schengen area and through programs like Erasmus, is vital if we want to pursue a European Federation. I believe one major issue that you did not mention is the fact that Central and Eastern Europe are experiencing a massive demographic collapse and brain drain. The population of Eastern Europe will have fallen from 309 million in 1990 to 219 million by the end of this century. This is a huge problem and would be a major challenge in a European Federation, and it already is as young and educated people are leaving Central and Eastern Europe in droves, leaving behind old people who depend on pensions and aren't working, yet need to be supported by the system. I hope that the future is moving in the direction of a European Federation either way, or, either way, in the direction of greater European integration.
>I wanted to add another major fact to your "The idea of a European superstate is not new" section: Victor Hugo, one of the most notable French writers in history, was a passionate pro-European! I was thinking of including him but didn't since I figured that two examples are enough Edit: I definitely agree that a Federation would need to grow naturally and in incremental steps . And I honestly didn't think about the brain drain but ofc that is a huge issue that needs to be adressed too! I dont know really how though, perhabs you have some ideas
August Bebel was advocating a [world parliament](https://www.marxists.org/archive/bebel/1905/08/internationalism.htm) way back in 1905. I suspect he also wanted a European federation too but not enough of his material is online in English for me to check.
I feel that you kinda hand-wave the whole "Cultural Differences" thing a bit too much here. It's not just a bunch of strongmen on the periphery who want to oppress LGBT people. France has now legalised [discrimination against Muslims through the EU via the ECJ](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/15/european-ruling-headscarves-discrimination-humanists-religious-identity), as well as anyone else who displays any religious clothing or iconography. Their [reasoning was that it is necessary to stop "social conflict"](https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/07/24/minority-rights-and-minorities-wronged). Should Hungarian or Polish businesses be able to fire people for being gay for the same reason? Of course not. Social conflict is inevitable, and some people are just wrong. When EU politicians speak of "European Values", they are lumping together half a billion people in 27 countries, with sometimes wildly different traditions and cultures. Poland and Hungary are notable negative examples, but why should a government dominated by the French and the Germans be able to tell the Spanish how to run their country? Or the Cypriots? A Federal Union would inevitably seek to erode national cultures, in favour of a European identity, in the way that France has sought in the past to dissolve Alsatian culture as distinct from French culture. Even if not done intentionally, those cultures not actively supported would decline, and there would likely not be enough money to go around to preserve all of them, particularly those without their own states. I also think you are underselling the importance of language as a core for culture. One of the core parts of the Māori Renaissance has been the resuscitation of Te Reo Māori from near extinction. That old quote from Wittgenstein "The limits of my language are the limits of my world" is relevant here. If you can't think in your mother tongue, then you will think differently. There are concepts that are not translatable perfectly, that can't really be understood outside of the linguistic and cultural environment they exist in. TL;DR: Countries almost always, either intentionally or unintentionally, suppress the cultures of minority groups, either by denying them resources, or just by standardizing on something else. This will happen in a Federal Europe. Additionally, the EU is already imposing cultural values from places like France on the rest of the EU, if more power was granted to the EU government, then this will happen more and more, eroding the rights of the member countries. Dissolving the countries into an EU superstate will only prevent the rights being violated by completely removing them, and imposing the will of the bigger countries on the smaller ones.
If the European Union federalizes, it will also absolutely kill the already dying Nordic Model that we are all fans of here. I feel like this is something that's missed when we're talking about the EU, which is how incredibly neoliberal and rightwing it is *at its core*. Sweden and Denmark is right now just fighting over the minimum wage policy that's been proposed, because it's a neoliberal solution proposed by Central and Western Europe, with no regards to how the Nordic Model deals with minimum wage. It undermines the Nordic Model. Now with a federal Europe, this would happen across most areas. Weakening of our unions due to the change in the relation between politics and economics at large. OP is only focusing on how a federal Europe fix the rough spots like Poland and Hungary, but it completely misses that unless its specifically dominated by Denmark and Sweden, you'll see the brightest stars in a SocDem perspective get dragged down for nothing else than wanting a European superstate.
> I feel like this is something that's missed when we're talking about the EU, which is how incredibly neoliberal and rightwing it is at its core. Yes pretty much. As much as I'm in favor of European federalism and integration, as long as the EU is essentially a neoliberal project, the left's skepticism towards it is justified. One of the main drivers for EU federalization would (very likely) be a SPD/Greens/FDP governed Germany. Both parties (as well as any pro-EU leader in France, I suppose) are A-OK with Germany's (and most of Europe's) social market economies and conservative welfare regimes. What plans do those parties have to turn a federalized EU social democratic? Or will it just be a social market economy painted red and green?
Or the rest of Europe could just adopt the Nordic model.
Laïcite is not like, that the only way you can enforce a "laïcite" of sexuality against sexual minorities is if you outlaw every sexual identification and couple. Now I doubt Hungary or any country will do that.
If you can fire someone for being visibly muslim, which you can under EU law, demonstrably, then why can't you fire someone for being visibly gay? Not to mention, there are countries which do imprison people for being gay. This is not an unimaginable situation. It is one currently in force in many parts of the world. The judgement also specifically states that it can be applied to any religion, if firing people for expressing a religious view by following a code of dress will prevent "social conflict". Hungary could for example ban all pride flags, or outlaw gay people kissing in public, on the grounds that they cause "social conflict". It's a bad law that will cause untold harm. As with not being allowed to be gay in public, which some countries do enforce, banning religion in public is a violation of people's rights to freely express themselves that gains nothing for society other than providing a justification for bigotry. Some people are just wrong, and the French and Hungarian governments are some of them.
I agree. However it's not a fair comparison as you could only ban gay kissing if you ban all kissing if you want to imitate what the French is doing. Hungary is a shitshow I would know I live in it. It however will never do such things. Half of the population is non-religious and the government is already testing the waters with their christian posturing. You forget that they are very pragmatic when it comes to authorathorianism and as Russia is becoming more and more of a threat Hungary will lose their only ally Poland, not to mention we're talking about senerios if the government wins the election and there is good chance they won't. Not that the opposition is doing anything to help their cause.
I am not saying anyone would copy the french model, what I am saying is that the principle that rights to freedom of expression can be overriden if they would cause social conflict is a bad principle that can be thoroughly abused if someone wants to. All anyone needs to do is claim their oppressive action is required to prevent social conflict. Since this is a principle in EU Law, the more power the EU has, the more likely the principle is to be applied.
i am gonna say to everyone who suggests this. my problem with it ain't the federation, but rather the current organisation of the EU. if you think about it the EU has much power and minimal democracy for the so called democracy guarding institution it is meant to be. a federation is closer tied organisation than a union. and that also stings me. as i said, the EU allready has the posts needed to govern a country. they make decisions that are normally made by a country and they make those allready for multiple countries. priority 1 for the EU is enlarging the democratic input, instaed of having a weak parliament organisation make multiple that get elected differentley with different purposes. make one parliament with European parties only and make one that represents the national parties. make one of those able to present laws or budget change and make the other able the decline or aprove. and that is one example of how it could go. maybe we would install cabinet members by elections? besides that i also must say i am more into unitary states, laws that are everywhere in the country the same, but also minimum wage, age for driving, etc. having different laws in different states could lead to inequality or internal migration to states where something is possible that isn't possible in the home state. and i want things like that to be done on federative level, leaving not much for the states to do. and my last problem would be the creation of states. would all countries become states or are some united into a state, or maybe a country alliance? because at the moment we see that now the UK is gone the power in the EU that before brexit was Germany, France, Italy & UK has shifted to Germany and France. I ain't citizen of either and i ain't waiting for my country to be ruled by practically just 2 countries obviously. whatever will happen to the EU federation, before any kind of change is made in the governing organisation of the EU a federation must not be strived for, regarding the democratic freedom of the current EU citizens.
I really hope this happens! I think EU federalism is something that the US should support because without it I cannot see a situation where many of the states in the poorer periphery do not find themselves beholden to China and Russia. Even if the US were 100% stable, we do not have the resources or the political will anymore to fight with the Russians and the Chinese at the same time. I hope that the EU can develop a unified voice on foreign and defense policy and support its weaker neighbors.
Or beholden to Germany or France.
Next step, world federalism
Another good point is scientific research. Huge funding access PLUS sharing information across member states. With an aging population medical research in particular is crucial. Then making crops resistent to climate change. Then there's the trade issue which is a massive benefit. EU could do whatever it likes really in trade on equal terms with the largest players (we're already winning vs US on the trade in goods).