 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CapTVK
I was relying on Spiffor´s numbers  |
Well, I certainly don't want a US-like constitution. It's completely unadapted to Europe's situation:
1. Most countries hate the very idea of losing a bit of sovereignty. These countries would never fit in a US-like federation, at least until the common mentalities have considerably changed.
2. Even when we talk about countries that tolerate losing sovereignty, they definitely won't be ready for being integrated in the United States of Europe for at least several decades.
The reason why I opposed this particular constitution is because it was not only bloated (it was full of precise policies that have nothing to do in a constitution), but also because it was unchangeable. Over the decades, these precise economic polcies would have been doomed to be unadapted to the world (which changes), and it would have created the conditions of a nasty crisis.
If the constitution, as sucky as it was, was modifiable, then I'd have voted for it in a heartbeat. The EU desperately needs to be more dynamic, and this requires sensible rules to modify the rules.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
It's unlikely to happen. The current European institutions are extremely complex. They aren't an object that is easy to evaluate, like the King in London or the taxes. Besides, the different values and historical backgrounds in European countries make it even less likely for a European conciousness to occur.
OTOH, it has been noticed that the people gets to learn the values of its political system, if it's exposed long enough and intensively enough to these values. If the EU had a relevant Parliament, then the population's learning of European values would follow. |
I put the word "before" in bold for a reason. I really dont think a relevant Parliament will teach anything of value until theres a common spirit - otherwise you just shift the national differences to the parliament. When you have a common discourse, then the issues beofre parliament will unite across national lines. I think the common discourse must come first. In 18thc British North America it took a series of wars with France, and then an intense, 13 year long crises with Great Britain to create that common consciousness, even WITH the base of a common language, legal background, etc.
What Im leading towards, is that Europe may be better off with a Europe light, no more integrated than Nice, and perhaps accepting the limits on effectiveness created by expansion under the old rules. And let time under THOSE rules, and the natural growth together of society, and the course of history, and THEN revisit the matter. Why is political integration NOW required?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
LOTM:
When I said that the European institutions are extremely complex, I didn't mean that they relied on complex thought (quite the opposite actually, there is very little theoretical thought associated with the con), but that the "who hold what power" question is horribly complicated.
A EU decision originates in the Commission, which is a body of political technicians. It is then haggled by the Council (a body of technicians that each have the interest of their country in mind) for monthes/years, before being handed to the parliament, that may or may not have a binding opinion of it. When this little micrcosmos doesn't agree with each other, the process continues as there is an ombudsman between the Council and the Parliament, and there can be up to two conciliations IIRC ( during which each party can do some amendments) 
Among my circle of geeky friends, the European awareness has risen when the Parliament was pondering software patents, some years ago. What exactly happened is still puzzling to them, and it's not due to a lack of transparency (the Parliament and Commission publish everything). It's due to the fact that there is not one body that clearly decides what happens.
Besides, most important EU decisions are "directives", i.e. binding general guidelines that have to be turned into national legislation by the national lawmakers. When the lawmakers change the laws, and if it's unpopular, they blame the EU for it.
In a city, when you're unhappy with the local taxes or with the local services, you change the mayor. In a country, when you're unhappy with the country issues, you change the president/parliament. In Europe, it's different. Firstly, you don't really know if it's a European issue you're unhappy about: after all, it's national politicians that are doing the job. And even if you're aware that it's European, you don't know who to blame for. Was it the agriculture minister of Luxemburg or Poland's Industry ministry's envoy that pushed for it? 
In EU institutions, the decision-power over one issue is dissolved among dozens, if not thousands of unknown decision-makers. They can be known if you look (as I said, everything is published), but the complicatedness is just repellent for anybody but the parties involved, the relevant lobbies, and the political parties. The ordinary citizen can simply not get this crap straight.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
and spiff, in the period 1763 to 1775, there were NO demcratically responsible officials across British North America. IIUC there was a common postmaster, and someone in charge of the customs service, and both reported to the Colonial Office in London. Decisions were made in London, based on clout, bribery, lobbying, aristocratic patronage, etc. Individual colonies, landholders, etc hired their own agents to lobby in London. It was quite Byzantine - meanwhile the 13 colonies had different constitutions - 2 had elected governors, two had governors appointed by a proprietor with quasi feudal rights, and the rest had royal governors appointed by the colonial office. All had elected lower house of the legislature, and the situations with the upper houses was complex. Political relations between the colonies was largely informal.
The sense of common identity was NOT defined by common institutions - but by common experience, a gradually cohering society, etc. Society drove the state, not the other way around (a poor Marxist you are )
See by contrast the United Kingdom - where Scotland, England, and Wales sharing a common set of institutions, with power relations as simple and direct as one could hope for (much more so in post 1830 UK than in the US) has NOT generated a common idenity, or did so only when real historical circumstances (first european religious conflict, than the existence of the British empire) did so, and when circumstances changed, the underlying common identity was thin.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
Well, the US had a rather cohesive society, with fairly similar aims, and a fairly similar history. All this created a feeling of national identity, which is always useful when creating a country.
European society isn't cohesive at all. We have 20 official languages, 25 different countries. We have millenia of history that shaped completely different worldviews. Ever since the 18th century (your point of reference), we managed to view eye-to-eye on the following: War is bad, democracy is good. It's a fairly short list of what can be considered as Europe-wide shared values
Nobody here realitically calls for a USE anytime soon. The very idea behind the EU is that the trans-border cooperations shouldn't come from the top (from the political area), but from the bottom (from economic cooperation). This was the driving idea for the past 60 years.
This must remain the driving idea for many countries: those that are the most attached to their national sovereignty, and those that have only recently joined.
But for several core countries, the time is now right to create poltiical cooperations along with the exisitng economic ones.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
.
But for several core countries, the time is now right to create poltiical cooperations along with the exisitng economic ones. |
I still fail to see why.
AFAICT, the project of further centralizing the EU was heavily driven by the events of 1989 - 1991. Germany was united, and eastern europe, Germanys traditional sphere, was now out of Russian control and open to German influence. This was dangerous to everyone who wasnt Germany, since there was fear of German power, and dangerous to Germany as well, since fear of German power could lead to an anti-German coalition. Strengthening the EU meant that it would be the EU that would succeed Russia in Eastern Europe, not Germany per se, and that German binding to France would reassure everyone.
Well its not 1991 anymore. Its 2005, and the Eastern European countries have emerged as fairly solidly sovereign, with relations to all great powers, and not particularly easy to dominate. Germany, OTOH, has remained stubbornly pacifist. And whats more, the existing European institutions have proven adequate to bind it to Europe.
There IS a real issue that Europe works more creakily with its larger membership. But Im not sure that trumps all other considerations.
The only real impulse for significant further integration, is to maintain a larger European role abroad (larger than the individual powers could manage on their own). And frankly I dont see that most Europeans really care about that.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-06-2005 00:11
|