Netherlands to vote Nee on the European Constitution

[CapTVK]

Every European nation would have to scrap its own constitution before they can implement a US-European style one.

Simply not happening in the next 30-50 years

[lord of the mark]

"This situation creates a dire lack of European awareness among the population. This is why the population never openly criticizes the direction of Europe (considering that many still see politics strictly through the national scope)."


"The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people." John Adams.

Doesnt it seem that a European political consciousness needs to be established BEFORE common, democratic, European institutions are? When a common political discourse happens naturally (as it did here between 1763 and 1775) the press will follow.

[Winston]

Originally posted by CapTVK

Simply not happening in the next 30-50 years

As far as Denmark giving up its constitution in favour of a supranational one, call it never.

[CapTVK]

LotM


Try to imagine the orginal US states all being run by a different colonizer. With different languages spoken in each, different rules of law, different customs and traditions and each with their own ties to the motherland.


Now, explain to me how the American revolution would have gone.

[CapTVK]

Originally posted by Winston


As far as Denmark giving up its constitution in favour of a supranational one, call it never.

I was relying on Spiffor´s numbers

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
It looks like the budget restrictions imposed on nations that use the Euro are also a problem. Italy is considering withdrawing from using the Euro as currency. http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...Y-EURO-DC.html

One League nutjob, even if he's in the ruling coalition, doesn't Italy make. I wouldn't take it any seriously, unless Berlusconi starts mentioning the idea as something sane, or if a large chunk of the Italian population supports it.

The Northern League is a party of crazies however. They're necessary for Berlusconi to keep power, but many of their outrageous stances are never backed by their allies.

[Spiffor]

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.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Doesnt it seem that a European political consciousness needs to be established BEFORE common, democratic, European institutions are?

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.

[lord of the mark]

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?

[lord of the mark]

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.

Have you read the Federalist Papers? The issues that came up when the US constitution was being considered (which occured after independence, BTW) were difficult enough to generate one of the great works of political thought. Im not sure the Euro constitution is so difficult for the people intellectually, its just exceptionally detailed. Like State constitutions over here.

[Ned]

I have no idea why one would think that an EU member state would have to scrap its own constitution to ratify a federal constitution. Didn't happen when the US colonies ratified the US constitution. What makes European constitutions different?

Also, US states can spend what they want and can run budget deficits to their liking. I have no idea why Euro-currency countries have to restrain their spending. Makes no sense.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
I have no idea why one would think that an EU member state would have to scrap its own constitution to ratify a federal constitution. Didn't happen when the US colonies ratified the US constitution. What makes European constitutions different?

Also, US states can spend what they want and can run budget deficits to their liking. I have no idea why Euro-currency countries have to restrain their spending. Makes no sense.

1. Most states have limits on deficits
2. No state is really large enough to deliberately manipulate the macro economy by its actions - to run their deficits so high, that they can impact interest rates, and force the central bank to accomodate them. A Germany, or France, can run deficits high enough to singlehandedly raise rates throughout Euroland, forcing the European Central Bank to respond. Or thats my understanding.

[Spiffor]

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.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
No state is really large enough to deliberately manipulate the macro economy by its actions - to run their deficits so high, that they can impact interest rates, and force the central bank to accomodate them. A Germany, or France, can run deficits high enough to singlehandedly raise rates throughout Euroland, forcing the European Central Bank to respond. Or thats my understanding.

Maybe the rationale behind the stability pact is becoming like that, but it was definitely not the rationale at the beginning.

The Germans wanted the stability pact because they have an irrational obsession for monetary stability, and they didn't want the undisciplined French/Italians/Greeks/Portuguese to ruin this nice little currency (with good reason though: France and Italy had a history of competitive devaluations).

The stability pact was a way to create trust where there wasn't.

[lord of the mark]

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.