Oh, the different types of elections in Europe are a mess indeed but at the same time I‘m aware that they are the result of a long chain of compromises which are the foundation of any meaningful iterative democratic agreement.

The other one would be revolutionary and the last couple of decades were not a time of revolutionary change. Perhaps this happens in the coming years (looking at the current world political situation it seems more and more likely). But do we know if the outcome will be beneficial?

I would like to see the EU reform itself, but at the same time I know that democratic process has to be complex. „Streamlining“ as the US shows at the moment is not desirable if you like all the advantages of a caring society.

I live in a city (layer1) in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia (layer2) in the federal republic of Germany (layer3) which is a member state of the European Union (layer4). I have voted in elections for all of the above and have always supported the idea of a united Europe. I would vote for a federal democratic world parliament as well, if the UN would become a more meaningful body.

Imho a federal world should be the goal and a united Europe is a step in this direction — especially in times of worldwide crisis like climate change or global economic collapse. I like the principles of bottom up and subsidiarity, but I‘m aware that there will always be the possibility of to much centralisation. It’s a struggle that might never end.

Germany is a federation as well as Switzerland and Canada, the US and India.

How centralised and integrated a federation is will always be an ongoing discussion, but one could argue that the EU is a federal state in all but name.

This is a paradox well described by Popper. The gist is: You can not be tolerant towards the intolerant.

And I don’t think they were wearing the right suits …