Sovereign State vs Federal State, Which is bestist? Options

[Andy Capp]

I see some argue for either, but what would you say are the pros and cons?

[Simon Kirby]

I see some argue for either, but what would you say are the pros and cons?

The UK is of course a federation of states already with a degree of power and autonomy delegated from the UK federal government to the constituent state parliaments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and within England other powers are devolved down to local government. We are also already in a federation of sorts with the European Union in that Directives control matters such as employee rights, environmental protection, state subsidised industry, health and safety, consumer rights, and civil rights.

If the question is one of the pros and cons of formal federation with Europe you have to specify the terms of that federation because a federated Europe could look exactly as it does right now with no additional powers ceded to the federal government.

So having a guess at what might change:

A federated Europe might well organise defence at a national level. That's not really much different from now because our membership of NATO already obligates us to defend our NATO allies as we would the UK itself, and as the rest of Europe are generally more reticent than the UK to use military aggression we might not kick quite so many hornets nests if the UK military was under the supreme control of the European Federation. It would be good to think that a European Federation would also unilaterally put its nuclear weapons beyond use.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

The UK is of course a federation of states already with a degree of power and autonomy delegated from the UK federal government to the constituent state parliaments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and within England other powers are devolved down to local government. We are also already in a federation of sorts with the European Union in that Directives control matters such as employee rights, environmental protection, state subsidised industry, health and safety, consumer rights, and civil rights.

If the question is one of the pros and cons of formal federation with Europe you have to specify the terms of that federation because a federated Europe could look exactly as it does right now with no additional powers ceded to the federal government.

So having a guess at what might change:

A federated Europe might well organise defence at a national level. That's not really much different from now because our membership of NATO already obligates us to defend our NATO allies as we would the UK itself, and as the rest of Europe are generally more reticent than the UK to use military aggression we might not kick quite so many hornets nests if the UK military was under the supreme control of the European Federation. It would be good to think that a European Federation would also unilaterally put its nuclear weapons beyond use.

You make a reasoned argument Simon. Personally I have a problem with giving up a deterrent that has kept us out of another world war without discussing it with other Nuclear powers. Especially with Putin at the helm in Russia. Unilateral disarmament although a decent thing to do would put us in a very weak position.

[Simon Kirby]

You make a reasoned argument Simon. Personally I have a problem with giving up a deterrent that has kept us out of another world war without discussing it with other Nuclear powers. Especially with Putin at the helm in Russia. Unilateral disarmament although a decent thing to do would put us in a very weak position.

Nuclear weapons have been a deterrent, but only just. We've taken a step back from the brink, I'd like to see us take a few more paces still. I don't see that as weak, I see it as pragmatic and conciliatory.

[Biker1]

I'd like to see us take a few more paces still. I don't see that as weak, I see it as pragmatic and conciliatory.

That's all very well but it MUST be unilateral.
How that can be achieved all encompassing question to which no-one has yet found the answer.
For one major nuclear power to disarm would create a dangerous imbalance.

[Simon Kirby]

That's all very well but it MUST be unilateral.
How that can be achieved all encompassing question to which no-one has yet found the answer.
For one major nuclear power to disarm would create a dangerous imbalance.

Not really. For starters Blighty isn't a major world power and of all of the nuclear states our unilateral disarmament would hardly raise an eyebrow. Much the same with France. If Israel were to disrm that might potentially embolden Iran, though of all the nuclear powers I worry most that Israel would use them. India and Pakistan are also worryingly bellicose and I'm not sure that now would be the best time for one of the to unilaterally disarm. America could certainly disarm without destabilising anything, as could China and Russia - I don't believe they face any potential aggressor for whome nuclear retaliationis a deterrent. If South Africa hss nucs I have no idear why and they certainly don't need them. That leaves North Korea who may possibly have a weaponised nuclear war head, and while I think the US would like to invade I'm not sure they're crazy enough to provoke the world's largest standing army and their Chinese allay.

So for Blighty then I see nothing at all to be gained by keeping Trident as it provides no deterrent to any credible aggressor and all the while we have it attracts hostility and raises tension that is wholly unhelpful.

[Andy Capp]

Not really. For starters Blighty isn't a major world power and of all of the nuclear states our unilateral disarmament would hardly raise an eyebrow. Much the same with France. If Israel were to disrm that might potentially embolden Iran, though of all the nuclear powers I worry most that Israel would use them. India and Pakistan are also worryingly bellicose and I'm not sure that now would be the best time for one of the to unilaterally disarm. America could certainly disarm without destabilising anything, as could China and Russia - I don't believe they face any potential aggressor for whome nuclear retaliationis a deterrent. If South Africa hss nucs I have no idear why and they certainly don't need them. That leaves North Korea who may possibly have a weaponised nuclear war head, and while I think the US would like to invade I'm not sure they're crazy enough to provoke the world's largest standing army and their Chinese allay.

So for Blighty then I see nothing at all to be gained by keeping Trident as it provides no deterrent to any credible aggressor and all the while we have it attracts hostility and raises tension that is wholly unhelpful.

Yes I think the UK could get rid of its arsenal without affecting its security, but it seems unfair to leave it to others to give us a nuclear shield; however, it's that 'could' word (in bold type) that undermines your argument. Replace it with 'have', then you might have a better argument, but who's to say the world would be more peaceful with larger multilateral conventional armies carrying no nuclear threat.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Yes I think the UK could get rid of its arsenal without affecting its security, but it seems unfair to leave it to others to give us a nuclear shield; however, it's that 'could' word (in bold type) that undermines your argument. Replace it with 'have', then you might have a better argument, but who's to say the world would be more peaceful with larger multilateral conventional armies carrying no nuclear threat.

Perhaps the US should give all of its citizens Nuclear Weapons. May stop them killing each other with guns.😞