My point has been that there is no discourse open to citizens about EU defense.
How open is "my minister"?
That's what I want to know
[about to state the obvious] ... this is why I come here: to keep refining my understanding of government [French, EU and other] and with that knowledge be in a better position to evaluate arguments, mine and others'.
My apologies, Migeru, for having become a bit edgy, yesterday. -- My primary concern re defence and security issues is that Europe will find itself corralled into the US's foreign policy fold by virtue of agreements that no longer serve their original purpose and which should have been reevaluated, if not abandoned, years ago. Europe is presently in the midst of a tug of war between North America and Asia. Europe's policy in such matters is essential to pulling the world back from the vertiginous precipice we're staring down, by speaking reason to belligerent parties. Whether, despite its best and most reasonable intentions, Europe will be drawn into armed conflicts against its will is a matter that warrants discussion and clarification.
There's no question that the opportunity to be heard through the EC website's open consultations is potentially a positive thing, but I should have thought that one might find more substance here. [I see that this has been pointed out further down in the thread]
.
Now, regarding geopolitics, defence and NATO maybe you should consider writing a diary. Also, what exactly is France's position on NATO? It's sort of in it but not quite, isn't it?
It seems to me that NATO is destined to unravel like the Delian League. I think that subtext is what makes Alexander G. Rubio's diaries so appealing. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I'll see what I can do to get a diary together on NATO.
You needn't feel alone in being relegated to a position of being told "how it is" only after "how it is" has been decided for all practical purposes. That, indeed, is the very position in which Europe's national parliament-members find themselves. In that, it is very important to distinguish their total marginalisation from the marginalisation of European heads of state-- Prime Ministers and Presidents. These are often a deal more aware of and involved in the issues as they are discussed and hammered out--often in "informal meetings" between the Commission, its agents, and, most importantly, the tremendously powerful corporate lobbies who can as good as draft the Commission propositions themselves--as they have done!
For the Euro heads of state, the EU--i.e. the Commission-- serves a very handy dual purpose: it can and does do, effectively in what is tantamount to private dealings, what these heads of state could not do in front of their own parliaments and electorates. On the other hand, whether or not the European Commission does what the heads of state like or not, it is always a convenient whipping-boy, offered up as useful political cover for the heads of state to "blame", saying that these things are, alas, out of their hands. That is sometimes true and other times not true.
In any case, the fact remains that dealing with the Euro Commission is something like having a "tiger by the tail". It is extremely powerful, well-organized, and it is at the beck and call of the international corporate community which, while not a monolith, is the most consistent, unified, wealthy and powerful set of interests in the world today-- bar none.
I cannot urge strongly enough the importance of reading the information contained in Raoul Marc Jennar's Europe, la trahison des élites (édition augmentée), Fayard, Paris, May 2005.]
and, once more, the invaluable set of references (many in english) at Étienne Chouard's website . "In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge
