Tweet
Originally posted by Spiffor
Actually, I think that the Europeans must decide on their general visions for the future fo the Union before a constitution is drafted.
I don't think that so many European countries want political integration. At least, some countries (Britain, Denmark, Poland) are very adamant about their sovereignty, and I don't think it'll change.
If the constitution is rejected by the people, I actually expect the European political elites to ask the real questions about the future of Europe, and to acknowledge the deep division among countries on that issue. The reason why our European institutions are nearly stuck is because we can't "agree to disagree", which is something the EU dramatically needs.
I think that our European elites will finally be forced to "agree to disagree" if France and Britain (and maybe Poland) reject the constitution, especially for different reasons. The issue has been hinted enough in the past (actually, there are occasional talks about it since Maastricht), but it has never been dealt with seriously.
If we finally agree to disagree, maybe the pro-political Europe will stop dragging the reluctant British along. And maybe the British will stop hindering the trailblazing European countries.
Actually, I think that the Europeans must decide on their general visions for the future fo the Union before a constitution is drafted.
I don't think that so many European countries want political integration. At least, some countries (Britain, Denmark, Poland) are very adamant about their sovereignty, and I don't think it'll change.
If the constitution is rejected by the people, I actually expect the European political elites to ask the real questions about the future of Europe, and to acknowledge the deep division among countries on that issue. The reason why our European institutions are nearly stuck is because we can't "agree to disagree", which is something the EU dramatically needs.
I think that our European elites will finally be forced to "agree to disagree" if France and Britain (and maybe Poland) reject the constitution, especially for different reasons. The issue has been hinted enough in the past (actually, there are occasional talks about it since Maastricht), but it has never been dealt with seriously.
If we finally agree to disagree, maybe the pro-political Europe will stop dragging the reluctant British along. And maybe the British will stop hindering the trailblazing European countries.
However these days I'm not so concerned with further integration as I am with the politico-economic direction the Commission is taking. I think it is far too liberal and since the EU countries have given away a very large part of their sovereignity ecnomically speaking I think its role and direction is critical and affects me directly. I have a feeling the Commission has been breached with too much liberalism in its policies. In short I see a "Europe of capital" being more and more created instead of the "Europe of peoples". Of course there's a universal swift towards neoliberalism but I think the Commission dances dangerously close to being detrimental to a wide arrey of social wins of the past.
But anyway I see your point. A constitution that would lead the way for the integration not to be so burdened by the "unwilling".
This is because of Nice's utter failure that they called the convention. And the convention has done an almost decent job at providing some change in the EU (because the rules weren't decided by diplomats representing the short term interests of their individual government, but because the rules were decided by a supranational body, even though it was very imperfect).
In levels where the democratic deficit is more pronounced like in the Commission, I think it shows even more and is as or more capable of impact as a national government.
Comment