United Europe;Confederal, Federalor an Unitarian government/Empire?

[Viriato]

Many people talks about european union. Some are in favour of an european union based on the confederal model, others prefer a federation.Finally, there are those who would like to see an European Union, based on a central government, but respecting regional and national identities.

[Marco Polo]

IE is something like the latter. Europe (imperium) controls defence (inc space), foreign policy, borders and racial preservation. the rest (dominium) is up to the nations/regions.

it could be considered a confederacy

[Marco Polo]

you mean simply an economic bloc?

[Marco Polo]

how can you remain sovereign if you dont have control over your defence?

sounds like IE to me. whoever wants to quit can imo.

[Marco Polo]

so how does it really differ from ie? cant a similar setup be made in ie?

[Viriato]

I voted for Unitarian government. Confederacy is something incomplete. It is a begining that is true, but our problems need a resolute answer and confederacy can't guarantee that. It would not differ much of our present EU. When it comes to take a decision, Irak's war for instance, there wasn't a common decision.

As for the Federal option, is a bit better than Confederacy, since it implies a commmon general politic, a single currency and a single army.However national envy and rivalry will not disappear in the Federal option.

As so, only a European Imperium could offer us a living space from Lisboa to Vladivostok, from Rejkiavik to Nicosia, capable of facing yankee, islamic and asian imperialism. The Unitarian option is the only chance to Europe's survival.

[Viriato]

I don't think it would lead to inter european multiculturalism, since regional and national identities would and should be preserved and promoted.

There are evident differences between a maltese and a sweden, but our similarities are superior to our differencies and the risk we face of not being united under the same banner, remaining in our individual and blind nationalism, is a big reason to create a european mentality or we simply be obliterated.

Finnaly, our roots are the same, swedish or maltese, russian or portuguese, we have the same origin, the same birth place and the same blod, we are Indo europeans.

[Jean Gove`]

I agree completely with IE as far as the material-political setup of Empire is concerned. If one was to put IE within current political jargon, it would be a Federal Republic.

However, the core of all right-wing pan-European movements towards Empire is in the values and principles that such an Empire would hold. Not all pan-European movements hold the same values, and I think that even some right-wing proponents of Empire have got it wrong - for example, Yockey's or Thiriart's definition of Empire stands almost entirely on territory, population and material resources, in the same way as those who speak of an "American Empire".

The best definition of Empire as meant here, and in significant but not complete part by IE, is given by the Italian traditionalist Julius Evola.

[Jean Gove`]

In regards to the poll:

Empire does not belong with "unitarian government". This is the modern understanding of empire, as mentioned before.

Empire, even if we solely take the material aspects of it, has always denoted decentralisation and several but intertwining and hierarchical levels of authority. Empire would thus belong with Federation or Confederation.

Also the difference between Federation and Confederation is tied to US history rather than to any real political difference.

[Jean Gove`]

I must note that I disagree with both Marco and Cristoforo's placing of the nation within Empire.

The nation-state was the product of the French Revolution, and depended entirely on the ability of princes to impose and crystallize a norm identity from among the varied identities of European peoples. For example, in essence, there is no Spanish, French or Italian nation - all three are variations from among a wider and varied Latin identity, variations that were crystallized by the power-mongering of the French Revolution. This is not to deny that in the current world one has to deal practically with nation-states and their spheres of power and claims to sovereignty. Nor do I deny the value of a certain kind of a nationalism in a world that would destroy all identity, difference and distinction.

The federal intermediate between state and person should more properly be local communities, small to the extent that personal interaction allows (I mean that communities should be allowed to follow their own 'natural' identities), where a form of democracy should take place (fashioned after the Swiss Canton system) and above that, regionalities, conforming to wider identities and the necessities of administration.

[Jean Gove`]

Actually, I've always had a problem with defining Maltese identity, but anyway...

By ethno-nations you probably refer to what I speak of as communities and regionalities. So basically it comes down to a semantic disagreement in regards to "nation".

[Marco Polo]

this is the whole problem see

define 'nation'.

in a united europe wouldnt it be better to allow different nations/identities to join?

Malta may wish to join as Malta and Gozo wheras Britain may wish to join as England, Scotland, Wales and NI. Belgium may wish to split and join as 2 nations wheras germany and france may join as several nations/regions/identities too.

self-determination but still all united under imperium.