Heh, actually I realized after posting I forgot that part :).
Well I mean this is all hypothetical, I can’t “think” like someone born and raised in X European country because I wasn’t. But I really value what culture and history America has. Most Euros can trace things back about a thousand years farther than Americans can. They have cultural and political institutions that have stood for centuries or even millenia (one of the monarchies in europe is a dynasty that goes back uninterrupted for like over a 1000 years IIRC.)
I feel that a strong political union of European states would slowly erode that, it would make me (hypothetical Euro-me) no longer be a Frenchman but a European, or no longer a Dane but a European et cetera.
This is the same kind of stuff the American colonists went through but I feel it’s different here because we are talking about long established independent and sovereign states. All states that men have built and defended with their blood and souls.
Aside from the emotional aspect I’d be wary of trying to unify politically such an extremely diverse population.
And yes, I know in Europe the idea that the EU is going to “destroy” the culture or sovereignty of the EU member states isn’t a widely accepted idea (or at least it isn’t an idea that people like to be widely accepted.) But I think it’s pretty obvious a politicall strong EU does and will do exactly that.
But that would be a good thing, Martin – and an even better thing if we reached the point where we did not think of ourselves as “European” or “American” or “Chinese,” but simply “human.”
What’s more, a “European” cultural identity is already emerging, regardless of political events. According to The United States of Europe by T.R. Reid (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594200335/qid=1117513913/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-0689917-2160732?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), the younger generation of Europeans – what Reid calls “Generation E” – is much more cosmopolitan and international-thinking than their parents, and much less likely to live and work in the country of their birth; and practically all of them speak English as a second language.
The French are notoriously, … well, um… French. They are a little touchy about losing cultural identity and have gone so far as to enact a law that requires all foreign expressions be translated into French.
An economic agreement (such as NAFTA) might work except they are already flinging political spears at their economy. It will be tough to fight unemployment disparities between their Euro-brethren after they’ve mandated stuff like a 35-hour week.
I can’t speak for Martin, but for my part, I think that political decision-making is best left to the lowest possible level at which it can be made. The higher up the decisions go, the more remote they become from the people they actually affect, and the whole concept of representative democracy is weakened. I don’t see a need for centralisation for its own sake, and it hasn’t really been demonstrated to me, I think, what benefits it’s supposed to bring.
As for your points about cultural and social cohesiveness, I think those things are achieved not by political union, but by the free movement of people around the Union, an intrinsic part of free trade. I don’t feel any particular kinship with Germans because I vote for an MEP who sits in the same room as one that they voted for; I feel kinship with them because I meet them a lot, as I do Greeks and Turks. This to me has nothing to do with political union, and I don’t think it’s necessary to have some monolithic political entity just to let people move around more. In fact, I think it could be argued that political union militates against social harmony. It’s pretty undeniable that a large amount of the public resentment of the EU is caused (rightly or wrongly) by a perception that it’s taking decisions on everyone’s behalf but not in <X nation>'s interests. This pretty much breeds confrontation, and unless it’s clearly demonstrable that the decisions needed to be taken on a European level, I just don’t see why the confrontation is necessary at all.
I was taken aback by some of the vox pops they did with French voters afterwards, about why they voted non. I knew that the French were less keen on free markets than the British, but I had no idea how deep and wide that sentiment runs. So many of them seemed to object to the constitution because they feared that it enshrined open market competition, that their jobs would be taken by Turks or the legendary Polish plumber.
But what do the French think the alternative is? Protectionism, subsidies? Any car you like as long as it’s a Renault? I thought those days were behind us. Makes you wonder what we are doing in a Union with them.
No. But I’ve been discussing with so many no-voters, and each and every time it turned out they had not read even the summary of what really changes. Admittedly, there are even several politicians who don’t have a clue. And there’s a significant amount of evidence in the media that backs me up on this.
It may sound arrogant, but in fact it’s the very, very sad truth. This is a ‘the earth is round’ vs ‘the earth is flat’ discussion. This is SMDB newbies taking issue with the Board Rules and moderators because they weren’t there to see how they developed and why they were necessary.
What legal arguments? I’m hardly aware I used any. The comment you cite is me being bitter about the truth, because we are going to say “No” even though the best choice would have been clearly a “Yes”. If people had said “No” because they actually knew what they were voting on and they disagreed with that, it’d be a different matter. But the sad fact is that they don’t.
So basically, you agree with me that the ordinary people don’t want this new treaty, not because they disagree with the contents of the new treaty, but because of arguments like “hey, I don’t like your tone. I’m going to screw you (and unwittingly myself) and say ‘No’.”
That’s not what I said at all. I said that I think the people so far have been far to lazy to care what happens in the EU to inform themselves about it, and have been happy to leave it to the politicians, like they leave many other things to politicians they don’t like or care to think about. That’s what I said. Whether that’s fair, well maybe not, but so far I’ve not been able to find much evidence of the contrary. After all, I’m not a politician, but I have been informing myself, have always been interested, and read the revelant articles in the newspapers.
I think the Referendum Question should have been. Which treaty do you think is better. The (2800 pages long) Treaty of Nice, or this (450 pages long) new one.
You have missed smiling bandit’s point, which was a valid one - no serious attempt has been made to foster public debate of the merits of the constitution. It is not that the information is not out there, somewhere; it is that no-one has actually bothered to convince voters that the constitution is a good idea. We have been presented with three basic “arguments”, if you like:
Oh, it’s just a tidying-up exercise - don’t worry your pretty heads about it.
If you don’t vote for it there will be CRISIS! I say, CRISIS!
There is no alternative to the constitution!
Now, it’s pretty plain that the first two are inherently contradictory (I see that your most recent post is invoking a version of argument 1) ). The latter simply isn’t an argument at all, it’s a conclusion without justification. High-handed dismissals such as your own “simply inform yourself” are not arguments; the presumption that the constitution is so marvellous that one must simply read it to be smitten by its overwhelming benificence is again typical. Whether you find it distressing or not that the average voter (who you so comfortably earlier described as stupid) will not read the constitution in full, that’s how it is, and it behooves those proposing the constitution to actually, y’know, try and explain why it’s necessary.
It’s partly this disdain for public consultation, and the democratic remoteness of the EU that has caused this rejection, you know. For many people, this is the first time they have been offered a genuine, uncomplicated chance to express a democratic opinion on the EU, and even that has been begrudged them. Are you surprised, then, that people have used it as an opportunity to express their various dissatisfactions? Are you surprised that the scope of their objections go beyond mere objections to the text? Because I’m not.
Indeed, and such boundaries!
Sounds lovely, doesn’t it? But what, exactly, is that Protocol? I’m not going to quote it all because it’s quite long. But here it is, and here is my best attempt at a summary of it:
Article 1: There shall be “constant respect” for subsidiarity. Article 2: The commission shall consult “widely”, “as appropriate” on proposed legislation, except where it’s exceptionally urgent. Article 3: Definitions. Article 4: Procedural regarding forwarding of proposed legislation. Article 5: Proposed legislation shall include a “justification” with respect to subsidiarity. No mention of how this will be assessed or of any obligations with respect to actually heeding the justification. Article 6: Governments have 6 weeks to issue a reasoned opinion if they think subsidiarity is being violated. Article 7: The legislative body responsible for the law in question shall “take account” of the reasoned opinion(s). After doing so, they can choose to modify the legislation accordingly, or completely ignore the objection. Article 8: ECJ has jurisdiction over subsidiarity questions. Article 9: Annual report from the Commission on the application of subsidiarity.
Now, maybe I’m just a cynical git, but when I read that, I can see no binding commitment to the principle of subsidiarity whatsoever. It sounds great in the Competences section of the constitution, and conveniently the actual application of subsidiarity isn’t detailed there. But when one actually wades through what subsidiarity actually guarantees, one is left with precisely squat. Our concerns will be “taken into account”, but can be completely discarded, to be overridden with legislation which the constitution establishes as in primacy over our own legislatures. That, to me, sounds like unlimited ceding of power to the EU legislative bodies, save for the areas where vetoes have been maintained. So, you were talking about boundaries?
The Constitutional Convention was convened in order to bring the EU closer to its constituents. It has ended up as a document making it easier to enact legislation at the most remote level possible, paying lip service to consultation and subsidiarity, while simultaneously eroding the commitment to both.
I’m aware that this particular motive certainly exists for some, particularly the central European states of France and Germany.
That is where I disagree with you. An identity is an identity, and human has no more valyue than any other. And frankly, I’m not a huge fan of the human race anyway. Secondly, I feel the best goverment is local government, and this is a huge step in the wrong direction.
But even if you were right, which you are not, this is the wrong way to go about it. It’s an arbitrary idea being forced upon Europe by power groups, not from the demands of the people.
Legal as in “we can legally ignore them so they don’t count.”
[/quote]
Ah, no. People like you are the reason it fails, because you’re so contemptuous of the opinions of ordinary people. Pardon, but your elitism is showing.
Doesn’t matter what you say. It’s what you communicate that counts.
I am well aware of the arguments (and I believe they substantialy overestimate the common good and fail to describe how the huge new layers of bureaucracy will help people). I’m saying your side has failed to show it to the everyday Joe Dutch-guy.
… by dragging as many as possibly upstairs.
Irrelevant. The point is that the Treaty of Nice was not a Constitution. Enshrining this as a Constiution has extreme implications, which you apparently ignore.
I respectfully disagree. I’ve been patiently explaining the constitution as best I can to many, and so far I’ve only been able to partially convince one person - he considers the vote an opportunity to vote against any further integration of Europe at this point. He has admitted not reading the actual texts and is doubting now, but considers that his main point in voting “No.”
I’ve been saying the same a lot - that our governments have been doing a lousy job at selling the EU as a means to achieve what the voter wants.
Huge new layers of bureaucracy? Tell me again how you are well aware of the arguments … Can you really, with dry eyes, claim that the new treaty adds huge new layers of bureaucracy rather than actually remove some vis-a-vis the old one? Color me stunned.
A PR mistake, perhaps, as I mentioned. Because it is not really a constitution in the sense that most people know right now. To put it into perspective:
Well, I do agree that this should have been done better, and should have been done permanently, not starting a month before the referendum. Although it does have to be mentioned that the right arguments were dropped into the mailbox of all Dutch residents in the form of a small leaflet-sized summary, twice. That is not somewhere, but on your doorstep, in your house.
Although I don’t agree with these kinds of arguments, they have been used because the opponents of the Union did similar and worse things, and people were buying them. It’s hard to argue against an easy to understand emiotional appeal with a cite from a complex international treaty. Nevertheless, I think if the government had taken sufficient time and concentrating on telling the truth as clearly as possible, they’d have done better in winning the trust of the electorate. But consider the French situation, where you have this crook Chirac running the show, and a lot of disgruntled socialist voters still angry at having had to vote for Chirac after Jospin lost to the nationalist and racist Le Pen in the national elections. In effect, by forfeiting the better choice because of mistrust in Chirac, the French are screwing themselves over twice. I think they’ll survive, but it’s a bit like flunking math because you hate your math teacher - ultimately, you’re not hurting your math-teacher, but yourself.
By saying that the new 450 page treaty does a decent job at tidying up the previous 2800 pages, I guess I am.
Nowhere have I been arguing that voters should read the full text, but I have been bemoaning the fact that voters weren’t even up to reading a decent summary.
I know. And so does this treaty, which has specific chapters on precisely this problem. And several articles in this treaty are meant to deal with precisely this problem.
I’d like to take slight issue here with uncomplicated, which it very clearly isn’t. Also, as many no-voters seem to care more at finding an opportunity at a chance of expressing themselves about the national government. Not to mention that they have been able to vote for the European Parliament, but so far have hardly cared to. Not that this isn’t understandable, but lets see things in their proper perspective here.
We are talking here about matters that can really only be dealt with properly within the context of the European Union. It is true that in these areas where power has, partly in the Nice treaty, partly in practice, already been conferred to the EU, member states can work together and overrule up to three other member states, albeit still in a limited number of areas thanks to exceptions on among others foreign policy. I say good luck running a democracy where every single member has veto rights, and I applaud this increase in government efficiency.
"Area of freedom, security and justice
All areas that fall within this domain will follow the Community method. Qualified majority voting will apply to a majority of areas, including the areas of asylum, immigration and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. However, ‘emergency brakes’ have been inserted allowing a Member State to appeal to the European Council if it feels that its national interests are at stake. [This was introduced at the request of the UK in order to prevent that upcoming legislation infringe on the fundamental principles of its legal system]."
Now, you mention the Competences section. I thought that this part was quite exceptionally clear and a grand improvement over the Nice treaty. Your comments and especially below, make me feel you haven’t fully understood it.
‘Easier to enact legistlation at the most remote level possible’? I can’t see how you say that. For clarity, I’m going to post the Competences section so that we can all see what we’re discussing here.
TITLE III
UNION COMPETENCES
Article I-11
Fundamental principles
The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Constitution to attain the objectives set out in the Constitution. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Constitution remain with the Member States.
Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.
The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National Parliaments shall ensure compliance with that principle in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.
Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Constitution.
The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of proportionality as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
Article I-12
Categories of competence
When the Constitution confers on the Union exclusive competence in a specific area, only the Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts, the Member States being able to do so themselves only if so empowered by the Union or for the implementation of Union acts.
When the Constitution confers on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence.
The Member States shall coordinate their economic and employment policies within arrangements as determined by Part III, which the Union shall have competence to provide.
The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.
In certain areas and under the conditions laid down in the Constitution, the Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States, without thereby superseding their competence in these areas.
Legally binding acts of the Union adopted on the basis of the provisions in Part III relating to these areas shall not entail harmonisation of Member States’ laws or regulations.
The scope of and arrangements for exercising the Union’s competences shall be determined by the provisions relating to each area in Part III.
Article I-13
Areas of exclusive competence
The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:
(a) customs union;
(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;
(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;
(e) common commercial policy.
The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or insofar as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope.
Article I-14
Areas of shared competence
The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Constitution confers on it a competence which does not relate to the areas referred to in Articles I-13 and I-17.
Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following principal areas:
(a) internal market;
(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in Part III;
(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;
(e) environment;
(f) consumer protection;
(g) transport;
(h) trans-European networks;
(i) energy;
(j) area of freedom, security and justice;
(k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in Part III.
In the areas of research, technological development and space, the Union shall have competence to carry out activities, in particular to define and implement programmes; however, the exercise of that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs.
In the areas of development cooperation and humanitarian aid, the Union shall have competence to carry out activities and conduct a common policy; however, the exercise of that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs.
Article I-15
The coordination of economic and employment policies
The Member States shall coordinate their economic policies within the Union. To this end, the Council of Ministers shall adopt measures, in particular broad guidelines for these policies.
Specific provisions shall apply to those Member States whose currency is the euro.
The Union shall take measures to ensure coordination of the employment policies of the Member States, in particular by defining guidelines for these policies.
The Union may take initiatives to ensure coordination of Member States’ social policies.
Article I-16
The common foreign and security policy
The Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.
Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union’s common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union’s interests or likely to impair its effectiveness.
Article I-17
Areas of supporting, coordinating or complementary action
The Union shall have competence to carry out supporting, coordinating or complementary action. The areas of such action shall, at European level, be:
(e) education, youth, sport and vocational training;
(f) civil protection;
(g) administrative cooperation.
Article I-18
Flexibility clause
If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in Part III, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.
Using the procedure for monitoring the subsidiarity principle referred to in Article I-11(3), the European Commission shall draw national Parliaments’ attention to proposals based on this Article.
Measures based on this Article shall not entail harmonisation of Member States’ laws or regulations in cases where the Constitution excludes such harmonisation.
There really isn’t any need to post such vast chunks - I’ve read the competences section, and I think I acknowledged that it sounds like it gives precedence to the principle of subsidiarity. However, my analysis of the actual subsidiarity Protocol is that there is no binding commitment to such a principle whatsoever, a point which you haven’t really tried to rebut. A constitution is supposed to place limits on the powers of governments, not empower them to make arbitrary legislation without limit. Read the Subsidiarity Protocol - do you honestly think it enforces any commitment other than the necessity of writing a justification, and “taking into account” objections? If it does, I can’t see it. Given the acknowledged arrogance with which the EU hierarchy has treated the objections of the electorate, how much confidence am I supposed to vest in that taking of account? Our concerns about the constitution itself have been dismissed with a handwave and a “no other alternative.” I would be a fool to expect things to change for no reason, would I not?
You say that a legislative system would be unworkable if every nation had a veto on every matter, and I quite agree. This is not an argument for unfettered legislative competency, however; it is an argument for a small and streamlined decision-making process with well defined limitations on the scope of the decisions made. If a legislative attempt is hamstrung by myriad objections, isn’t that the best indication that the matter is best solved locally, rather than having a universal solution enforced by fiat? Why, if no-one can agree on a matter, are we trying to make everyone do the same thing? You put the cart before the horse in presuming that making a decision at the European level is the best option, and arranging the decision-making process to achieve such an end.
Yeah, that wasn’t clear - I couldn’t think of a better word there. I meant that I believe it was the first time the French have been offered a chance to vote on a specific European treaty, rather than simply expressing their European preferences as part of their parliamentary or presidential elections. Uncomplicated as in “solely about Europe”.
Well, you’re skepticism is certainly understandable, but it is for the same reason that I applaud that this treaty states very explicitly as its " prime directive" that issues will be dealt with at their appropriate level, whether that is regional, national or on the European level, and that the burden of proof is with the legislative initiators. And the ability of independent groups to put items on the European agenda is also a great step forward.
You are worried about there being no guarantees that the European Council won’t push through whatever it feels like. You’ve read the same text as I have, so I don’t really have to point out that the procedure is:
one of the five originators proposes a law. If this is a law that supersedes national levels, the law needs to be well-documented with hard numbers documenting the quantifiable benefits on why the law is better handled at the EU level.
european parliament votes on it
national governments vote on it
if 1/3rd of the national governments vote against (for which they have 6 weeks, which admittedly, seems a tad short, but that’s also a healthy thing to be honest), the law is sent back (or 1/4th on more sensitive subjects, and on spending matters national governments keep their veto).
Then if the EU Council decides it wants to push the law through nevertheless, national countries can appeal the law in the european court, which will again judge whether the law fullfils the requirements for this level of jurisdiction, or whether it is an issue that should be left to lower levels of government.
Compared to the current situation, I have great faith in that this will work out. Certainly if the populace of the EU starts to interest itself more for what happens in the EU, there is ample means to make sure that this prime directive is followed. Certainly, many a national government could do well to put such a prime directive (thou shalt not deal with issues on a national level that are best dealt on a lower level) in their constitutions. But name me one that actually has!
Yes, but I maintain that the new text is a much better guarantee to achieve this, than the current treaty of Nice.
Ok. Though surely you will agree with me that the French have hardly voted ‘solely about Europe’. (And of course they have been able to vote for European Parliament.)
I’ll second this. It has always been my opinion that to both maximize individual liberty and governmental efficiency the central government should only have what power it must have to handle things that only the central government can handle.
Everything else should be done at varying levels of local government, as applies.
Look at Africa: War, poverty, corruption, despotism, environmental destruction… Yup, local government is the way to go. Sure beats the awful high-livel bureaucracy in that hellhole, the USA. :rolleyes:
But that would be a good thing, Martin – and an even better thing if we reached the point where we did not think of ourselves as “European” or “American” or “Chinese,” but simply “human.”