open Democracy News Analysis - Europe under scrutiny, - Comments

mmmmbuti on "Europe under scrutiny"

mmmmbuti — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 17:44:01 +0100

First of all, I am italian so please forgive me for my poor english. I think the reason of these two "no"s is that this constitution is just a bad compromise between two views of Europe, that have grown too different to find an appeasement. Even the name shows that: "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" what is supposed to be? a treaty or a constitution? in its formal appearance, quite long and complicated, and full of technical details, it looks a treaty, but it as the ambition to be a "Constitution". Why? because the first faction I was referring about, the so called "europhiles", demanded for it.. in fact, they would like Europe to become a federation, with a constitution, a federal government (maybe with a directly elected president), a real parliament, unified armed forces, unified intelligence services, federal policies helping economic growth, federal policies implementing social security, federal taxes that take the place of some of the existing national ones. This is the classical federal model, and in our case it would be a multi-national federation, like switzerland or india. But, there is a big part of europe that opposes this project.. this is the second faction, called "eurosceptics", which want Europe to be just a common market, and not much more. Until now, this two views have lived together, making continuatively compromises.. some steps to a federation have been made (single currency, euro-parliament ecc.), but the eurosceptics have prevented Europe to do many others. Now i think that the story is over.. the constitution "abortion" means that no more compromises are possibile, these two factions have to part: the countries were there is a majority of people favoring a federal europe (Italy is among them), should step off and simply create it. This new federation should be part of the existing Union, which will continue to exist as a free-trade area, just like eurosceptics want. Then, if the federation works, the EU states that didnt join, will be able to do it eventually, if their people change their opinion. I think that this is the only reasonable solution.

sandistock on "Europe under scrutiny"

sandistock — Tue, 31 May 2005 09:40:22 +0100

Owly- I have no wish to get back into the slanging match we had before; it is not particularly constructive, and I do not participate here for that reason. I think we will have to agree to differ; my regret is that you have not the generosity ever to conceed anything to anyone, and this is not the kind of discussion I seek. In my mind at least, this arrogant intransigence is the achilles' heel of your sometimes plausible case, and exactly what I object to in many people who hold similar views to yours. You are not as well informed as you think you are, at least when taken outside the narrow confines of the argument you put time and time again ad nauseam. I freely admit that your previous contributions helped me to develop my thinking on a number of issues, and to confront some awkward dilemmas; If you could learn to listen, you too might actually develop and learn something , instead of remaining the old stuck-in-the-mud who has nothing better to do than dissect the minutae of other people's phraseology. However, you lack the humility or desire to do that. I did not seek yesterday's spat - I was minding my own business conducting a discussion with people who have a more civil approach. You muscled in in your usual cynical, destructive way - quite your right of course on an open forum - but you should not be surprised at the irritation it caused. I feel rather sorry for Jan, who must wonder what lion's den he has stepped into. Best wishes, IJS

sandistock on "Europe under scrutiny"

sandistock — Mon, 30 May 2005 18:41:31 +0100

Three points: 1. by 'no Europe' I meant 'no form of integrated Europe'; no geographical Europe is clearly absurd. 2. the Euro has not been around long enough to assess its long term benefits; it take no expertise in economics to see that. 3. Owly's previous posts have almost entirely criticised the existing E.U.; there is very little to develop any new ideas. He has no answer other than a return to the old nationalist status quo, which he dresses up as an 'alternative Europe'. He has no answer to the new problems and issues of a changing world, except to bury his head in the sand and retreat into the past. How typically English! With Owly's aggressive, personalised response being what it is, and his still having failed to address the original issues (which I suggest explains his aggression), I rest my case. Message was edited by: sandistock Message was edited by: sandistock

owly on "Europe under scrutiny"

owly — Mon, 30 May 2005 17:29:45 +0100

Sandistock in all his many post shows all the 'zeal' of the zealot with even less understanding of what he is supposed to be talking about. Any view which questions his cherished belief has to be marginalised and ridiculed, which he does not by looking at the arguments made, but usually by attacking the messenger, as he did me on the very first post on one of these threads. I have actually gone to some trouble to write very long replies giving an Anti-EU stance, partly because he moaned that no one ever did that on web sites he posted on. It was a waste of time: he wasn't listening, but then again the Eurofascists never do. To say Owly wants no kind of Europe at all is pathetic and stupid and does not represent what I have consistently said. I want a Europe composed of Nation States who co-operate on things which they deem to be of mutual benefit, but where there are differences and different ways of doing things. I do not want to 'impose' anything on anyone else, unlike sandistock who screamed the word like some petulant child on one post. He just seems incapable of seeing this simple creation, of a loose association of Nation States, founded upon mutual respect, tollerance and diversity, with democracy as a common binding philosophy would actually work, unlike the nightmare we now have. You cannot 'impose', decree call it what you will that all the many and varied countries of Europe do things exactly the same. It is a nonsense and it is also dangerous. Is there any wonder there is a backlash growing against such thinking ?? Nor have I heard any argument worthy of the name as to why the EU should have so wide a remit to meddle in the internal affairs of States. The French have said 'Non' for two sets of different reasons, but they have their roots in the same source: sovereignty. On the left, where sandistock sits the no was because they see it as an attack on their 'social Europe', where the winds of economic liberalism might actually blow. Public sector workers like sandistock usually have a huge problem understanding how things they regard as quite sensible and 'fair' impact on small employers who make up the majority of employers within most economies. There was outrage at am MEP who said he wouldn't employ a woman of childbearing age because it could cripple his business. He was quite right. On the right the 'No' was founded more on sovereignty as I have mostly articulated. These are not abstract things, but goes to the heart of political power and how that power is controlled. I am unwilling to give up sovereignty, only to loan it under very restricted circumstances, and again my reason for this view are soundly based. I have yet to hear an argument which in any way challenges the picture I have painted. On the Euro 'Even so, it is debatable that the short term side-effects of the Euro outweigh its long term benefits, but then cynics like Owly are not strong on the essentially long-term 'vision thing' this shows a lamentable lack of understanding of economics. I was reading the other day that Italian exports have declined by 25% since the introduction of the Euro and it is now facing a crisis like that which effected Argentina. I also read that the Bank of England no longer treats Greek Bonds at par, simply because there must now be a question mark over their credit worthiness. All this talk about 'short term side effects' is all very well, but it isn't his business which is going bankrupt, or his P45 in the paypacket at the end of the week. Where are the 'long-term benefits' to be found ? Just because a tourist can use the same money in Berlin and Barcelona is neither here nor there, monetary union is about far more than that. All we have now is stagnant growth, a restricted labour market and deterioration Public Finances in all EU countries. The simple fact is that half the countries which joined should not have done so even under the rules as they were then laid down. Since the rules have been rewritten when the going got rough would you buy into such a project ? No of course not. It's a false prospectus. The damage this idiotic idea is causing will not be repaired in a generation, possible in two. It is because of the zealotry of people like sandistock that we are in this God awful mess. Will they ever learn ?

sandistock on "Europe under scrutiny"

sandistock — Mon, 30 May 2005 15:40:52 +0100

To demonstrate some of the conciliatory approach that Owly so manifestly lacks, I will agree that he speaks some sense here; it is unfortunate that his true game is given away by the last paragraph. Owly wants no kind of Europe at all, only that his unquestioning devotion to Queen and Country need not be disturbed by those tiresome idealists and devious autocrats across the Channel. He has one valid point - the politicians have run too far ahead of the electorate, and we are now seeing a rightful re-balance, as Jan expressed in his first post. I would actually be more worried were this not happening. As I do not live in the Euro zone, I am not in a direct position to comment on the effects of the Euro; though Owly's comments seem quite plausible, I have heard of a more mixed picture. Even so, it is debatable that the short term side-effects of the Euro outweigh its long term benefits, but then cynics like Owly are not strong on the essentially long-term 'vision thing'. Where he fails utterly is to explain why the E.U. is at fault, either ideologically or practically, because national politicians are often inefficient, manipulative or even corrupt. It is right that people should be sceptical of any 'politicians bearing gifts', but not that they should throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you are looking to attribute blame for the failings of the current system, look no further than the political institutions and figureheads of the nation-states - the self-same ones that Owly seeks to preserve.

owly on "Europe under scrutiny"

owly — Mon, 30 May 2005 12:19:06 +0100

Jan, Please vote No. All my Dutch friends are doing just that, but may be for slightly different reasons. You are right: this is not a 'constitution' but a 'Treaty', but the 500 pages of very badly written text deserves to be thrown out just as it has been in France. I would not mind subscribing to a constitution that contained basic principles relating to human rights, commitment to peace, to equality, to anti-totalitarianism, etc. Why not use the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a basis for a European Constitution? In this you are wrong. The idea of the Constitution was to provide a 'frame' or structure upon which the EU could work. But not only did the political elite get that frame wrong, they allowed too much current political ideas to be added to the document. But I think there is another point here which most of the Eurofanatics are missing. A member of the Dutch Central Bank recently admitted that the Guilder was undervalued by at least 10%, and probably 15%, when it was converted to the Euro. The effect of the Euro has made many people very wary of anything the political class tells them. Everyone I have met in continental Europe has said the samething: prices went up massively. But there was also a feeling that the people were being treated like dirt. The time has come not to 'construct Europe' but to de-construct the EU and return power back to member states.

janfreijser on "Europe under scrutiny"

janfreijser — Sat, 28 May 2005 21:32:41 +0100

Why I cannot vote 'Yes' in the Dutch Referendum. To begin with, the EU Constitution is not a Constitution. This is a point made, even laboured, by some commentators, but ignored by many. I am with those that labour the point, because if you step lightly over it, you have committed yourself to an Orwellian mindset which will imprison all your consequent thinking about it. So to set this record straight, the vote is about a Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (a draft treaty, even). This treaty comprises 500 pages of text, of which I haven't read a single one yet, two days before we're having the referendum in the Netherlands. If you're talking about a constitution, then let's have the text of that constitution, a set of basic principles that we are all sworn to. I would not mind subscribing to a constitution that contained basic principles relating to human rights, commitment to peace, to equality, to anti-totalitarianism, etc. Why not use the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a basis for a European Constitution? You need mechanisms and regulations to make the EU work as a transnational economy, regarding ecology, immigration, and you need anti-kartel rules and all that, but do those aspects need to be addressed in detail in a Constitution? I think not. I am a committed European. I was born in the Netherlands in the mid 50s, early enough to experience the nightmare of threatening nuclear war in the early 60s, and to experience the psychological fall-out of the 2nd WW, growing up in the southern province of Limburg, a few miles from the German border. In my life I have worked closely together with people from all over Europe, and travelled to many European countries. I developed a particular fascination with the English, and have extremely positive memories of working with colleagues from most European countries. I deeply admire each individual nation for what it has achieved, and for their native character and culture. They are all different, sometimes profoundly and surprisingly different, but that is what human life is all about. What I find downright obnoxious is that the European Commission in my view has failed totally to create a method for raising awareness about this process of moving towards a European Constitution. This was a missed opportunity of the first order. In the age of the world-wide web Europe could have taken a lead in developing a true platform for information exchange, communication, and surveying people's opinions on an ongoing basis. They could have set an example making useful use of communication technology, but they didn't. In my opinion the European movement deserves its existence not only by laying down rules and regulations for creating a working European economy, but should first be focussed on promoting civilization. In the Netherlands we have a term which has become the talk of the town over the last few years, and I hate it, because it is a term that does the opposite of promoting civilization. It is the term 'inburgeren'. The closest in English I can think of is a term like 'acculturation'. In my view becoming a citizen of Europe ('burger' means citizen), means that you develop an attitude that does the opposite of 'inburgeren', call it exculturation, meaning you're always working on picking up on the aspects that are typical behaviour in other nations and work on understanding them, and if necessary integrating them into your own behaviour. This does not mean that you have to sell your own national soul (whatever that is), it merely means that you are better geared to understanding people from other cultural backgrounds. I propose to use the word 'uitburgeren' in Dutch, not a pretty word either, but at least it proposes to look at the issue from a 180 degree different perspective, namely that of the individual person, and not the supposed monolithic culture that the natives, the autochthones, supposedly all know so well. Our own culture is not monolithic and many natives don't know it well either. So, we're voting for or against a draft treaty, the content of which escapes 95% of Europeans. I can't vote in favour of that because, in spite of the attempts by the Dutch government to summarize the contents in 8 page leaflets, I have no knowledge of its content. The fact that the draft treaty is advertised as 'the European Constitution' makes things only worse: I cannot possibly vote in favour of something that is not what it is. The most logical response should be to not vote at all, but I will probably go for the less logical response of voting against it. It would be a typical protest vote, and I hope that my vote, among a probable majority voting against, will generate some dawning awareness inside the EU's megamachine bureaucracy of what the European Union should be about.

Christian Lönnholm on "Europe under scrutiny"

Christian Lönnholm — Wed, 25 May 2005 19:41:12 +0100

Even though much is already said I find many central questions about the EU unaddressed and that is somewhat a tribute to the complexity of the issue. What is the point of EU? Let’s look in the new constitution for answers... "Peace, values and prosperity of the people". Later there are some paragraphs that mainly centers on the environment and social justice. Peace It seems more common with civil wars and armed struggles for independence then war between nations in today's world. What have the EU really done to relieve the Northern Ireland-conflict? The Basks in Spain? Would a further integration of the EU members really give more then a theoretical security or is it just a theory of wishful thinking? One can even argue that there is a greater chance for armed national or regional independence movements emerging out of this project, considering the nature of independence movements. Values What makes EU great at values? Because it has so many? Or is it the vague and unique "European values" that for example makes Morocco disqualify as a potential member? I might over do this when it could just be a fraise that states that the goal of the union is to do politics and that can be anything, right? How good is EU at politics? Still to everybody’s dismay the entire political and administrative institution is moving between Strasbourg and Brussels. Still they have yet not agreed on a single administrative location. If it would have been such a great idea how come no one else had copied it? Making money Here we have the free trade as the main money maker. But isn't that what we have the WTO for? Why only have free trade with a few when you can have it with all? The third world and China, they are also convinced in the economic theory that supports free trade as wealth generating. And they really need it. No one can argue that the people in Morocco couldn’t do without some market access into Europe. Environmental control This issue really does call for international cooperation in any and all forms. What makes EU the best way to pursue a habitable future? It can make laws and punish nations that don’t live up to them - and it does! That is actually something quite unique. Social justice Honestly, I have no idea what makes EU qualify for dealing with the equality of sexes and such... Why would a larger political body be more capable of executing our democratic ideals and ambitions when it is at the same time, the weakest democratic intuition in Europe? Why other would social reforms been such a low priority with a long majority of socialist governments and strong public support. The French left are not stupid when they trust their own eyes before the speeches of anonymous politicians. Conclusion I don’t think I’m the only one having problems understanding the point of the EU. It seems as if they are not so sure themselves – their only argument is “how can doing things together be anything but good”. It is well worth challenging that idea. How can a political body do anything when it can‘t even decide where it should have their meetings? Somewhere reason and logic is lost when all energy and prestige are spent on “how” and not on “what for”. And as long as “how” is on the top of the agenda, “what for” has been a projection surface for the imagination of politicians that lost the political vision with the cold war. //CL

owly on "Europe under scrutiny"

owly — Wed, 25 May 2005 10:47:57 +0100

tom_19, I hardly think the Europeans have much to crow about re democracy. After all the Eurocrat position on democracy is relatively simple: the people must vote until they give the desired answer. Rather pointless wouldn't you say if one can't actually say and mean No ? Their past record does not inspire confidence either. The only democracy which has not succumbed to revolutions of one sort or another and to totalitarianism is the UK, and yet this seems to be the one loathed and hated the most. Odd that. As to the 'social model' and all the rest of that clap trap perhaps it might be of benefit to realize that the world does not stop at the straits of Gibraltar or the Urals. The Europeans need to wake up to this fact and start to reform their economies so they can survive in an increasingly small world. The EU in its present form is an idea of the past. Time to move on.

tom_19 on "Europe under scrutiny"

tom_19 — Mon, 23 May 2005 22:52:03 +0100

Vibert's article was thought-provoking, sure. He took pains to doubt the validity of (French) fears that their "social model" was endangered by this constitution and to argue that we should stand behind "the Americans" as they attempt to "spread democracy". Actually this particular constitutional proposal is precisely co-designed by Jack Straw and Blair to roll back social-democratic gains and support the privatisation strategy of the IMF+World Bank + WTO, to ratchet down 'social models' everywhere, not just in France. It is explicitly committed to 'the intensification of the market and the minimal state (read maximal business control). Defeating the proposal for this particular constitution of Europe would be a very good thing. Europe needs a different constitution, one explicitly committed to a social democracy not an anti-social business oligopoly. Similarly, I do not see the Americans as "spreading democracy": their record in subverting democracies they don't like in Latin America and elsewhere over the past 100 years or more is unparallelled in its length and in its systematic nature. I look forward to a Europe that is committed to reducing the satellite status of European nations vis-a-vis the USA and to rolling back the transnational privatisation strategies driven by the military arm of "the Washington concensus". Am I alone?

sandistock on "Europe under scrutiny"

sandistock — Thu, 19 May 2005 14:05:31 +0100

Thanks Sarah, Frank Vibert's article was thought-provoking, and informed my last response. Not sure what we should make of this - I can't see why a new constitution shouldn't be negotiated if the first one is unacceptable, though it may create some logistical problems for the E.U. in the meantime. On the other hand, Valerie Giscard d'Estaing was quoted on Radio 4 this morning as saying this is impossible. Is this just typical political brinksmanship/ scaremongering? If so, he is doing the credibility of the E.U. no favours at all.

sarah.lindon@opendemocracy.net on "Europe under scrutiny"

sarah.lindon@opendemocracy.net — Thu, 19 May 2005 13:45:50 +0100

In case you haven't read them, the following articles published on openDemocracy might be useful for your discussion. French referendum lessons Frank Vibert The European constitution is a turkey, says Frank Vibert. If the French reject it, Europeans should cheer, pause – and prepare a better one for next time round. The big fear: the European constitution divides France Johannes Willms The anguished French debate about whether to endorse the European constitution in the 29 May referendum reveals to Johannes Willms a nation torn. Best, Sarah - forum moderator

sandistock on "Europe under scrutiny"

sandistock — Thu, 19 May 2005 08:10:25 +0100

I'm glad you agree! This sounds rather like the points I was making in my previous exhaustive discussion with Owly. The big mistake the politicians make (as with all specialist groups, I suppose) is to assume that their specialist concerns are everybody's specialist concerns. The only difference is that politicians are, at least in theory, chosen to reflect our concerns not their own. This is probably the same the world over - but then they wonder why people lose interest and they lose legitimacy. I am convinced that the key to further European progress is to pause the political developments and take time to flesh out the community that is supposedly represents. What we are actually seeing, rather hearteningly though also frustratingly, is the demos forcing its politicians to stay in touch with reality. The fact that they are doing it via the medium of continued ignorance does not invalidate the assertion. We need to ask why people are still ignorant.

cjhughey on "Europe under scrutiny"

cjhughey — Thu, 19 May 2005 00:49:05 +0100

Not much to add here as you addressed my main worries: yes, it is being rejected out of ignorance, but rejected it must be, because while the logic may not be sound, the basis for skepticism is. I would prefer that the people of Europe reject the current Constitution on the basis of its true, not perceived, failings. Either way, I think the rejection will be a wake-up call for a more realistic approach to unification. Let's move outside the halls of Brussels and form a constitution based on shared values, something to excite the nations, not alienate them. Give Europe her openness, transparency, freedoms and liberties, let her vote on it, then move forward. Details are for bureaucrats and legislators working in the framework of an inspired document, not the other way around.

sandistock on "Europe under scrutiny"

sandistock — Wed, 18 May 2005 21:07:09 +0100

And if the People aren't happy with it, then rejected it should be. I agree with Owly, that is is an unwieldy and uninspiring document, which commands even my (unfailingly Europhiliac) support more because of the issues it addresses than anything more lofty. Naturally I don't share his wish to see the idea die altogether! Once again the E.U. has made its perpetual mistake (not surprising considering which individual drafted it) of producing a document for the politicans of Europe, not the People. Will they never learn? While I have big concerns over the grounds on which it is being rejected (I suspect ignorance is a key one, followed by misguided nationalism), then democratically, this is as it should be. Then at least the likes of Owly could not claim that it is being undemocratically foisted on us. I don't think that a rejection would be the disaster they claim (unacceptable scaremongering going on here?) - maybe it would actually be the signal that the E.U. needs to think hard and come up with something more inspiring. Please bear in mind these points however: the Constitution forces the Council of Ministers to meet in the open for the first time; it permits early national scrutiny of proposed legislation and it provides for a planned withdrawal from the E.U. At least the first and third of these should be retained in any future replacement; the second I would personally like to see go, to get the pesky nationalist parochials out of the way - but it seems that most people would want it, so it should be there too. Message was edited by: sandistock

Europe under scrutiny,

m_esta — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 07:28:02 +0100

It is encouraging to see an article on Europe on the homepage once again. While I find the article interesting (and even inspiring in its Europhoria), I hope that it generates more concrete/research-led analysis and discussion. I joined this web-site in the hope that I would gain/contribute to in-depth analyses of European states and EU policies and practices in a range of areas, but particularly on foreign policy. In general, I find very little specific discussion and only tantalizing allusions to specifics that should be 'discussed further'(eg Fred Halliday'comments on Spanish foreign policy). Read the rest of this post...