Question: E.U. Membership vs. U.S. Statehood?

[jimboa24]

Alright, so this has been a bit of a point of confusion...well, more uncertainty for me. How does membership within the E.U. differ from a state of the United States belonging to the federal government of the U.S., aside from the fact that statehood is permanent and E.U. members can still opt out and leave if they wish? I honestly don't know much about how a country being a member of the E.U. works or retains its autonomy, and I must confess despite my knowledge of U.S. law, my knowledge of international law is more than a bit fuzzy. And from what I've gathered, even for people who are knowledgeable of such things, the E.U. and the laws pertaining to its member nations is in and of itself an extremely complicated set of affairs. And while many states of the United States are comparable to individual E.U. countries in terms of size, population and economies, it's obvious that they are completely different in terms of government.

As for the U.S., the states are all obviously united under the federal government (hence the name), and the laws and principals spelled out in the Constitution are the law of the land no matter what state you're in. However, there is a LOT the Constitution doesn't cover - it basically provides the skeleton for how the government as a whole works, and lays out what rights and laws will hold true no matter which state you're in, and it's not a very long or complicated document. You can (and if you're an American, you SHOULD) read through the entire Constitution in less than thirty minutes without skimming or skipping it.

Everything else is left to the states, who do operate and tax pretty much on their own. Different states will have different rules or laws in regard to traffic, how individual criminal procedures and violations are handled, family law, etc. And even within states, individual counties can have their own laws and regulations; for example, there are still some counties in the United States (known as "dry counties") where it is illegal to sell or purchase alcohol despite national Prohibition being lifted long ago. However, states are not allowed to have their own foreign policy or trade agreements, their own army, etc. International affairs are the domain of the Federal government, as are basically any matters or laws that affect more than one state. As for U.S. territories...I honestly don't know how much autonomy they have; I only know that they are still technically their own countries, but they still belong to the U.S. and while they do have a fair amount of autonomy, it is still limited.

Knowing all this, how does an E.U. member work in relation to the E.U. versus how a U.S. state work in relation to the U.S.? And please, no nation-bashing. This is a sincere question about how governing works, not a debate of which countries are better than which.

[Theodarzna]

Theoretically the EU isn't a country or a federal union the way the US is, in spite of what some Europhiles might think.

[jimboa24]

Theoretically the EU isn't a country or a federal union the way the US is, in spite of what some Europhiles might think.

Theoretically? Does it sometimes operate in ways that might lead one to think of it as a federal union?

[Swizzington]

One of the main differences I can think of is that (currently) when you sign up for the army in Europe, you can signing up under the flag of your own nation. In the states, you don't join the "New york army" or whatever, you join the U.S. army.

Although I hear they're trying to make an EU military headquarters so maybe this difference won't exist soon either.

[Deleted]

Alright, so this has been a bit of a point of confusion...well, more uncertainty for me. How does membership within the E.U. differ from a state of the United States belonging to the federal government of the U.S., aside from the fact that statehood is permanent and E.U. members can still opt out and leave if they wish?

well US states are barely sovereign, they don't have their own armies, a foreign, security policy.
No US state can ever 'Veto' any decision that the federal government takes.
But they are not terribly dissimilar, in the sense that they are both 'federations'.
And if you are a 'constitutional originalist' the EU is probably closer to what the founders intended than what the US is today.

- - - Updated - - -

Theoretically? Does it sometimes operate in ways that might lead one to think of it as a federal union?

Yes.
The EU stradles the divide between a federation and a international organisation.
They have their own name for it 'Supranational'

[Jacpierre]

The E.U. doesn't have a "tax". That is left to individual nation states. They do not have any say in things like welfare, education, national defense, self policing. Lots of differences.

[Kujako]

The E.U. doesn't have a "tax".

https://europa.eu/european-union/abo...enue-income_en

[Kalis]

The US is one country, with one head of state, one foreign policy, etc. whereas the EU is 28 countries, with 28 heads of state, 28 foreign policies, etc., so Texas can't declare war on Canada, but the UK could.

Whilst there are some similarities and overlap between the US and EU, there are fundamental differences such as those above.

[Theodarzna]

Theoretically? Does it sometimes operate in ways that might lead one to think of it as a federal union?

Depending on who you ask, it basically is or is not. People will argue that that is its intended goal and political union is what the EU is. Others say its merely an economic union.

[Independent voter]

I think the biggest barrier to a United States of Europe is that each country believes they are... well a country and they don't want to be submerged in a superstate. If you ask a Frenchman what his nationality is, he'll say French and not European.

[jimboa24]

The US is one country, with one head of state, one foreign policy, etc. whereas the EU is 28 countries, with 28 heads of state, 28 foreign policies, etc., so Texas can't declare war on Canada, but the UK could.

Whilst there are some similarities and overlap between the US and EU, there are fundamental differences such as those above.

So what rights or aspects of sovereignty does a country surrender when it joins the E.U.?

- - - Updated - - -

I think the biggest barrier to a United States of Europe is that each country believes they are... well a country and they don't want to be submerged in a superstate. If you ask a Frenchman what his nationality is, he'll say French and not European.

Before the Civil War, people often thought that way about their home states. A person from Virginia, for example, thought of him or herself first and foremost as a Virginian, rather than an American. There's still a lot of state pride, and that absolutely comes out in sports, but aside from personal pride in one's home and/or roots, it doesn't really go beyond that these days. Except maybe in Texas. And before anyone says anything about it, not even Texas could secede legally if they wanted to. They can, however, divide themselves into five states without approval from Congress or the federal government if they so choose to.

[Kalis]

So what rights or aspects of sovereignty does a country surrender when it joins the E.U.?

You would probably need a book to cover that.

Nations have to agree to certain uniformity, primarily in things that could potentially cross borders, so for example you would have minimum safety standards for cars produced in the EU, or labelling on products so that someone from Greece can read the instructions on a product made in Portugal.

[Deleted]

And before anyone says anything about it, not even Texas could secede legally if they wanted to. They can, however, divide themselves into five states without approval from Congress or the federal government if they so choose to.

The question of secession is always extra-legal, because the legal system is something they are leaving.
As for Texas more specifically, since they once were a state and then 'signed the US constitution' as it were, they retain the option of leaving:
Article 56 (Treaty of vienna)
Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal

1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:

(a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or (b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.

2. A party shall give not less than twelve months' notice of its intention to denounce or withdraw from a treaty under paragraph 1.

[jimboa24]

The question of secession is always extra-legal, because the legal system is something they are leaving.
As for Texas more specifically, since they once were a state and then 'signed the US constitution' as it were, they retain the option of leaving:
Article 56 (Treaty of vienna)
Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal

1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:

(a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or (b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.

2. A party shall give not less than twelve months' notice of its intention to denounce or withdraw from a treaty under paragraph 1.

Uh, the treaty of Vienna has nothing to do with states in terms of United States states. It instead pertains to membership in the OAS - Organization of American States. The OAS is a loose organization that promotes the unity of American "States", and in this case, "States" actually really does refer to countries, not U.S. states. It has no bearing on states like Texas or California. States within the U.S. cannot be a party to any treaty anyways dude.

[nextormento]

Far as I understand, the subjects of EU legislation are states, whereas the subjects of US federal legislation are the states and citizens, individuals, natural persons, corporations, etc.
It's one layer of abstraction above the (nation-)state: supranational and intergovernmental, or sovereignty pooling, they call it.

[Deleted]

Uh, the treaty of Vienna has nothing to do with states in terms of United States states.

It pertains to membership of any treaty that does not have have any way of leaving it.

States within the U.S. cannot be a party to any treaty anyways dude.

They are - Its all highly theoretical, but every single US state is a party of one treaty, the 'treaty of the U.S'

[jimboa24]

It pertains to membership of any treaty that does not have have any way of leaving it.

They are - Its all highly theoretical, but every single US state is a party of one treaty, the 'treaty of the U.S'

There is no "treaty of the U.S." The Constitution itself specifically assigns the power of treaties to the federal government, and more specifically to Congress. The individual states have zero power to form treaties with other nations. And no, the Constitution itself is not a treaty by any definition of the word.

[Deleted]

There is no "treaty of the U.S." The Constitution itself specifically assigns the power of treaties to the federal government, and more specifically to Congress. The individual states have zero power to form treaties with other nations. And no, the Constitution itself is not a treaty by any definition of the word.

The state of Texas was an independent polity and sovereign state - It still is a sovereign state.
At some point it joined the United states, as a sovereign state in accordance with a set of rules as to the responsibilities and rights of both parties - That is a treaty.

[Independent voter]

The question of secession is always extra-legal, because the legal system is something they are leaving.
As for Texas more specifically, since they once were a state and then 'signed the US constitution' as it were, they retain the option of leaving:
Article 56 (Treaty of vienna)
Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal

1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:

(a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or (b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.

2. A party shall give not less than twelve months' notice of its intention to denounce or withdraw from a treaty under paragraph 1.

LOL, that doesn't mean anything. The Civil War was fought on the basis that states can't voluntarily leave. It doesn't matter what some court in Vienna says. A court in Vienna would hurt the Texas cause more than help.

Basically they have to kick our ass to leave so that we finally let them. Not likely to happen.

Where do you come up with these ideas? lol

[Jacpierre]

https://europa.eu/european-union/abo...enue-income_en

You see the quotes I put around the word tax? like this - "tax"? It is used to denote that they don't have a taxing power similar to the way the countries do. That "tax" is minuscule compared to how much the federal government taxes compared to the states. Context friend.