Europe: after the constitution

aEwkVS ftltyfekwvje, [url=http://hvycqwgzfelz.com/]hvycqwgzfelz[/url], [link=http://xpelgjvbzfeu.com/]xpelgjvbzfeu[/link], http://qelrafyrtdgv.com/

Having happily lived and worked with Moslems (including members of the Moslem Brotherhood) in both Egypt and Saudi Arabia I have never thought of myself as racist or fascist. According to Mats Engstrom however, the test I would now have to apply to myself in this regard concerns my approval or disapproval of a supposed tolerance test created by the state of Baden-W

Europe Day, the European Union's sole official holiday, quietly passed for most last week (9 May) with barely a mention in the American press and scant coverage in Europe - much of which was cynical rather than celebratory in tone. The holiday, marking French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman's 1950 speech launching what would become the EU, again failed to inspire the festivals of its billing. Why the subdued reception? Unfortunately, today's zeitgeist has obscured the EU's remarkable holiday-worthy accomplishments. In fifty-six short years, from the ashes of World War II and despite the rise and fall of an iron curtain, ancient rivalries have been replaced by unprecedented economic and political ties. Now, violence between the powers that drew the world into two tragic wars seems impossible - certainly this deserves celebrating around the globe.

It is generally agreed the European Union is in a time of trouble. With the rejection of the Constitution, the presence of more and more openly Eurosceptic and nationalist governments within our countries, the debate over enlargement and the low voter turn-outs for the European elections, many are even calling into question the fundamental democracy of the Union, and the fundamental ability of Europeans to stand united on issues facing them. At the same time, need for such unity has never been greater. The problems facing our world have taken on a global nature. From global warming and mass extinction, to epidemics such as HIV and bird flu, to international terrorism, to increased job insecurity caused by the nature of multi-national corporations and globalisation, to international criminal rings, drug smuggling and people trafficking, these are problems that are far beyond the scope of smaller nations to deal with. More and more international organisations from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to the United Nations, to the European Union, to the African Union, to the OIC have stepped into the gap of this new, international level of politics. But the further they are from their people, the less accountable and democratic their actions may feel. We see this problem already expressed in waves of cynicism and alienation among the population.

Well it’s nice to know that the people who attended the meeting in Warsaw (Democracy in the European Union, more or less) had such a great time. It would have been nice to be part of such a self-regarding bunch. Accepting for a moment the light-hearted tone of Krzysztof Bobinski’s report, and my general sympathy for their cause, I was saddened to see the ‘Euro troops’ one again doing the only thing they know how: retreating into their bunkers to hatch more grands projets for the construction of the new order. The only problem is, they don’t seem to see that this is what got them into trouble the first time round. The Charge of the Light Brigade has nothing on this lot!

Adam Chmielewski makes some excellent points. Europe does need a new dimension, perhaps retreating from those areas which could well be dealt with by individual countries, and becoming more of a facilitator for higher aspirations. There are many who would dearly love to remove the US from the equation, since their administration constantly does more harm than good in international activities of all kinds - from the G8 to the UN. It would be lovely to think that, if the US was ostrasized it would eventually 'come to heel' as it were, and be more amenable and less isolationist. - however... it should be remembered that it was largely the fact that the US would not play the game, and in effect went home taking the bat and ball, that the League of Nations foundered.

Everybody keeps yelling we need more democracy in the EU and in the next step diagnoses deficits in our institutions. However, if you need to build a relationship to the voting public, you need to have a connected, truly European public ready to take on democratic responsibility. Right now, there are several barriers to overcome: Division of the media public, especially along national and language borders. It is symptomatic that there is eg a nationwide German political public reached by TV, newspapers and web sites. This is the sphere directly affected by national politics. The same kind of national public probably exists for any other state. But I do not see any forum covering European matters where all the affected talk to each other. I have got the impression the European public is divided into parallel, mutually non-communicating media spheres.

The more one looks into current affairs, the more one realises just what a precarious age we live in. The assumptions that governed even the last hundred years are either rapidly breaking down, or have already gone. One is sadly left with an impression that Humanity today has no more idea of where it is heading, or how it is going to get there, than it ever did. In our rapidly changing world everything is to play for. The tussle over Europe epitomises the wider debate. On the one hand we have those who might broadly be called traditionalists, who see no reason why the future should not be an extension of, or return to the past. On the other hand, we have those who argue that the old rules no longer apply, and we need to invent new ways of doing things. Both sides have their faults: the traditionalists fail to comprehend that part of the problem is the failure and breakdown of the old order that they espouse, and that recourse to the established methods may no longer provide successful means of ordering societies; the progressives encourage the embracing of new models for society, even if they are not always sure exactly what these might be. Their ‘wait and see’ philosophy may be inevitable in a changing world, but it does not exactly provide a beacon to aim for.

"Simon Berlaymont" writes with characteristic elegance about the fact that the European Union is a union of Member States. He is also quite right to insist that the future of the EU does not lie in becomming a sort of European "nation state" of the kind which fuels the fantasies of those who rail against a European "super-state." But the EU is also "a Union of peoples." What Simon Berlaymont overlooks is that the enormous growth of the role of the EU, the responsibilities transferred to its institutions and the consequential power of its executive bodies (Commission and Council of Ministers) have indeed created a "democratic deficit" which can no longer be bridged simply by extension of the democratic legitimacy of its Member State governments.

In 21st century, the enemy of the United States is China and other countries can make small attack on the United States but can not affect the empire status of the United States because China is making efforts to build Chinese army into the strongest army in the world and because China is developing China's economy in order to hurt the economy of the United States and other western countries and because China is implementing patroitic education to teach Chinese to down with the United States and Japan and Germany and France and the United Kingdom and Russia. I believe that China has huge population which threatens the peace and security of the world. But in history, China had huge population before, the United Kingdom could easily defeat China and France-led army could easily defeat China. Who makes China so strong? The answer is the United States and Japan and Germany and other western countries because the United States and other western countries transfer technology to China and teach Chinese technology and invest in China.China is using the money and technology of the United States and Japan and other western countries to develop China and then to defeat the United States and other western countries.

Referendum is such a democratic instrument that it was the only voting exercise promoted by Franco during the latest Spanish dictatorship. In those cases 'the people' systematically backed the dictator: there was barely any need to cheat. In an article in El País today (14 June) -but I doubt that Mr Prins is much acquainted with European press, anyway- Julián Casanova provides some other illustrious examples of 'people' expressing its 'will' through referenda, most of them in France. If Mr Prins thinks that referenda and opinion polls have a superior democratic character, he is as wrong as when he says that the 'people' had anything to do with the carefully planned, US-funded change of government in Ukraine (you can find an interesting article on the subject in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago). If, in addition to that, one reads his considering that the Constitutional Treaty was the peak of European federalism and, therefore, European federalism is dead, one comes to the conclusion that his political notions are quite weird indeed.

In the light of the French and Dutch referendum results, there has been renewed talk about ‘bringing Europe closer to its citizens’. This certainly seems to be necessary, since for all the divergence of motives for the rejection of the Constitution in these two countries, a common theme is certainly the distance, or even alienation that many of Europe’s 400 million citizens feel from its central institutions. If we are honest, it is also a theme that has been underestimated by pro-Europeans, and the resultant bite-back in these referenda indicates the consequences. On the one hand, many technocrats have been just too wrapped-up in the whole political process of integration to consider whether the people on whose part it was supposedly happening were actually content with it; on the other, there are those, including I suspect many well-meaning politicians and officials, who had (and have) no idea how to tackle the issue. It is certainly an undeniable problem that large-scale politics can become more distant from individual citizens, and we can now see the dangers of this happening – in as much as people have distinctly felt that Europeanisation was something being done to them, rather than something they themselves controlled, or were willing participants in. It simply took a referendum to express long-simmering concerns.

Josep Ramoneda's essay "An identity against civil war" provides an interesting treatise on a possible future for the European project. He offers a compromise scenario that should allay the sceptics' fears of an undemocratic superstate. My hope is that people like the redoubtable Owly are not so cynical as to reject his thoughts outright. Eurosceptics make two mistakes. The first, at least in Britain, is to underestimate the power of ideals. The British may be an essentially pragmatic nation, but this has been their undoing on the European stage on numerous occasions; we need to understand and accept the reasons for our fellow Europeans to base their aspirations in idealism, even if we find it difficult to comprehend ourselves. We also need to see that the inclusion of us within their idealism is not necessarily a mere plot to ensnare us.

Two visions of the EU have been presented in recent years. First, we have Chirac's vision, in which greater EU unity gives more power to France in its opposition to America. That vision was clearly on display when Chirac chastised Poland and other Eastern European nations for daring to agree with America on Iraq. That vision is driven by the desire for world power, and has no place in it for real democracy; the place of lesser nations in this EU is to shut up and follow Paris. Second, we have the vision from Eastern Europe. When the Ukraine got its free government this year, its first move was to want to join the EU. Why? Because they hate America? No. Because they want to join the civilized world. Because they see the EU as the path to a modernized economy and a stable democracy.

How many more times must I hear the defenders of the EU Constitution proclaiming not to have a Plan B? It’s an open admission that the political elites in the EU are utterly bereft of any democratic imagination. What do they mean, there’s no Plan B? Democratic politics requires the possibility of choice – anything else could only be caricaturised as being undemocratic. How can it be that high-ranking EU officials couldn’t even imagine having a Plan B, or a Plan C and D? How can there be ‘only one proposal on the table’? This is not democratic politics; that is diktat and blackmail of the highest order. The political establishment in Europe are politically exhausted. They have no ideas whatsoever. In fact, our elites don’t really even want to talk about it – it's as if they hope it will go away quietly. But, hold on a minute, what about a British referendum? Where’s my choice Mr Prime Minister?

I'm afraid this article is nonsense, albeit sincere and well-meaning nonsense. A civil war is one where different factions within a country fight for dominance, and an international war is where one country tries to invade the territory of another. Sometimes these overlap; Cromwell's victory in the English Civil War led to a renewed invasion of Ireland, and Mao's victory in the Chinese civil war led to the Korean War. Josep Ramoneda presupposes that "Europe" has always been one country all along, with a unitary "European" self-consciousness; therefore all wars between European states were and are European civil wars. Arguably "European" could be expanded to "Planetary"; therefore all wars were and are Planetary civil wars. So the US invasion of Panama was as much a civil war as the American Civil War was. This is absurd. It's like saying that all violence is terrorism; therefore 9/11 and the Battle of Waterloo were both terrorism.

Great article! I especially appreciate the concrete five point plan. The Dutch no-vote hardly came as a surprise, did it? If the EU could not convince all the 15 members (before the enlargement) to sign up for the EMU, how on earth could it expect to get something as fundamental as a move towards common foreign policy through? It shows the remarkable detachment of EU policy and its leaders from the citizens. People in general are very conservative towards political change. If you are to succeed you need to consult, educate and involve people widely and let it take its time. I am a Swedish citizen and very Euro positive.

William Bobbitt wrote in his book 'The Shield of Achilles' that the twentieth century was one long war, from roughly 1914 to 1989, incorporating both world wars and the cold war. The European Project, from the Coal & Steel Pact to the European Union was an attempt to prevent a reoccurrence of the terrible things that happened between nations within the continent. The speed with which such change occurred was simply incredible. The rush headlong into deeper integration was almost uninterrupted through economic boom and bust. There were periods of consolidation, and there were periods of what must appeared stalled contemplation.

Contrary to the present speculation, the No vote in the French referendum is unlikely to lead to the disintegration of the European Union. Instead, it could be argued that it represents its coming of age. For half a century, the E.U. and its predecessors have been built by the political elites of Europe. Despite earnest attempts to engage with the citizens, they have remained very much an afterthought as the political framework has been put in place. Not any more. One might even argue that this rejection of the Constitution, however ill-informed, will come to be seen as a necessary ‘baptism of fire’ for an institution that even after fifty years still regularly needs to justify itself.