Display:
Don't confuse what I think with the Daily Telegraph's editorial line. They are two different things. I couldn't agree with you more on Nato and wars - and with quite a lot of what you are saying.

I have a slightly different take on financial markets, that privatisation became a very attractive means of out-sourcing authority and bypassing democracy.

In other postings here I have differentiated between the EU's various breeds of official. The inter-government aspect is the most important, it is the EU in its purest form.

Personally, I do not equate the EU with any desire to build a European Fedreal State, I see it organically arising out of the degeneration of nation state (as a democratic form) across Europe.

by Bruno Waterfield (brunowaterfield(at)gmail(dot)com) on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 07:26:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The degeneration of the nation state is a good thing. It's just our follow on hasn't been the greatest. Nation states are nasty, petty, artificial little things.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Oct 13th, 2008 at 12:42:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you two are using the term "nation state" in two different ways. I think Bruno is using the term to mean "states that existed when I was a kid" while Colman is using it to denote "states whose borders precisely coincide with cultural/ethnic/linguistic boundaries."

The latter type of state is, of course, silly. But it's not like there's all that many of them. The former kind may or may not be silly in and of themselves. What's a little weird in my book is to expect a state - any state - to survive indefinitely with its borders, international commitments or indeed sovereignty intact. European history since the invention of the railroad has been one of smaller states surrendering their sovereignty (or having it forcibly removed) to integrate into larger economic and political blocs.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 12:15:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think Bruno means the disconnect of elected officials.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 04:53:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
About the first two paragraphs, I am quite happy to hear.

In other postings here I have differentiated between the EU's various breeds of official.

However, it does matter for your line of argument that you haven't done so. And for understanding I still have to ask: don't you use 'breed of official' with the meaning of bureaucrat (which may or may not properly describe government delegates in the Councils and elected reps in Parliament), and what the hell does "purest form" mean vis-a-vis an organisation with different institutions?

I do not equate the EU with any desire to build a European Fedreal State,

"Equate" is definitely the wrong word; but if you can't recognise the motivation (even if one out-powered by the intergovernmentals) among the majority of its creators, its bureaucrats and EP members, I don't know what to say.

I see it organically arising out of the degeneration of nation state (as a democratic form) across Europe.

The (progenidors of) the EU were created with the explicit wish to degenerate the warring national states in their economic-competing and warrior form. I do see the strengthening of the intergovernmental aspects (above all, the codification of the European Council) as arising organically out of the degeneration of the democratic credibility of democratic nation states across across Europe (and the rest of the world).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 04:51:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series