The three things, EU, Europe and Europeans, are not the same thing at all. In fact, Europe and Europeans are often defined, in my mind, in opposition to the EU.
First, the EU's political development has coincided with the decline of the democratic politics of left and right across Europe over the last 25 years or so. The rise of EU has been part of a truly historic convergence that has tended towards the diminution of the political in favour of the technical.
Secondly, the European idea, or rather ideas, predates the EU and, arguably, had its source in concepts the Union is now fairly hostile to. One key issue is that of liberty.
The EU and the political establishments it serves across Europe is no friend of liberty - the growing area of justice and policing cooperation provide ample evidence. Alain Lamassoure's idea for a universal ID card already fits the trend. All Europeans by the end of decade will have beneath their national passport covers EU biometics (requiring fingerprinting), part of a much wider security infrastructure.
In fact in the era of "interoperable" databases, a dominant trend to increased surveillance, the rise of the securocrat and a frankly dismissive approach to civil liberties, Lamassoure's idea would make things worse by extending their reach into more areas of our life.
Such a development would definitely "take on a strong symbolic value". But it would be probably be an unintended one. The move to restrict liberties in the name of security is premised on the organised mistrust of free interaction (travel for example) between Europeans.
ID cards are a more or less explicit declaration of hostilities between the state and individuals - people who are actually existing Europeans. It is one thing to frighten people with scares over terrorism or security but another to make them love the officialdom and interference such risk consciousness spawns.
One of the insights that we can take from the referendums (in France, the Netherlands and Ireland) is that there is a profound disjuncture between the EU's elites and Europe's peoples. In all three referendums a unified political establishment support for the Treaty was unable to carry the day. In fact, voter turnout to OPPOSE the outlook of the political establishment rose in all cases. This division could, in embryo, be a basis for a new politics - a European politics.
So liberty it is. I actually suspect that liberty has no real meaning for you beyond cutting taxes, regulations consumer protections etc. So it is obvious why you dislike the EU.
Alain Lamassoure's idea for a universal ID card already fits the trend.
The British dislike of ID cards is well know but in my opinion completely irrational.
It is one thing to frighten people with scares over terrorism or security but another to make them love the officialdom and interference such risk consciousness spawns.
And that is coming from a guy who works for the xenophobic Telegraph. Who is actually scaring people with scares over terrorism. Has the Telegraph ever written a critical report about the War on Terror of your American pals?
In fact, voter turnout to OPPOSE the outlook of the political establishment rose in all cases. This division could, in embryo, be a basis for a new politics - a European politics.
Well, that is in fact a pretty good idea, but at least in France and Ireland many voters rose to protest neoliberal policies you most likely support.
If you really support any type of institutional order in Europe then you might want to show that on your blog or in your articles by making constructive suggestions. So far you have mostly behaved like your fellow Europhobe Daniel Hannan, who can not decide if the EU is the rebirth of Nazi Germany of the Soviet Union (or maybe both?).
Found on A Fistfull of Euros. The French recently had a really bad idea:
The so-called "3 strikes" law foresaw that ISPs would be required to cut off service to anyone who was found downloading or distributing copyrighted material three times - which of course implied that the ISPs would be expected to filter all traffic by content, a wildly grandiose, authoritarian, and insecure idea.
Oh, those evil pro-Europe anti-Liberty French. Fortunately the idea failed. But what is this:
But the legislation failed in France; so here it is, coming straight back via the European Parliament. The odd bit, though, seeing as it's a French idea chiefly backed by the EPP (=European Conservative group), is that it's being pushed by the British Tories in Brussels - half of whom don't believe there even should be a European Parliament.
Will we here something about this in the Telegraph? I doubt it.
which of course implied that the ISPs would be expected to filter all traffic by content, a wildly grandiose, authoritarian, and insecure idea.
In actual fact I don't see quite how its implied that ISPs are going to have to do the filtering mentioned. I think that's a possibility once the precedent that ISPs will store then necessary logs for the time period has been set, that at some point in the future the content providers will attempt to palm off the investigation role to the ISPs. However the ISPs will resist that mightily, as it will push their costs in hardware and staff up considerably and why should they pay for the content providers problem? plus that assumes that someone wont come up with a technological/philosophical bypass to the scanning methodology that is currently in use. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
I think the distance between the EU, the idea of Europe and living, breathing actual Europeans is greater than suggested here.
When you talk of actual "Europeans," are you not more refering to citizens of the UK?
There is a huge difference, you know. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
I know some people, you meet them from time to time here in Brussels, would rather Europe was a more cosy club. It ain't
51st state anytime soon? Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
Reading you, one might have the impression that you had anarchist leanings. You see the individual as opposed to the repressive force of the EU, on which you heap the blame for, at least, "the decline of the democratic politics of left and right across Europe over the last 25 years or so". But how do you show in what way the EU is responsible for this decline? How do you show that such a decline hasn't happened concomitantly elsewhere? What role do you see for national governments? Have Thatcher and Blair, for instance, had nothing to do with it in Britain? And, when you speak of the "diminution of the political in favour of the technical", how prepared would you be to admit that, beyond the technical, it's the reign of the economic that has debilitated democracy over the past three decades? Isn't it the rise of globalising financial capitalism that has deprived the nation state of many of its levers of power, reducing citizens' belief in the capacity of political figures and parties to influence essential outcomes? Isn't it the notion that it's the economy that decides, and it's economics and economists that hold the keys, responsible for the fall in prestige of political ideas, movements, and institutions?
But your main beef seems to be with a card proposed by Lamassoure, that you quite unfairly line up with a "security" concern. Whether the proposal is a good one or not (I'm not necessarily 100% behind it), Lamassoure is simply suggesting a card that would be some damn use to people, unlike the others. It's a civil and social card he's proposing, not an ID card. You oppose encroachment on personal freedom by means of biometric ID linked to databases, and I don't think we'll hear many voices here on ET to disagree. Where you take shortcuts is by assuming 1) Lamassoure's proposal is a security card, a "declaration of hostility" against citizens, a "move to restrict liberties", when it is nothing of the kind; 2) that the EU is to be identified with this type of measure, when in fact it's a general tendency that sprang from 9/11 in the US and finds an extremely willing pupil in the UK. The big move to ultra-security anti-liberty measures has a US-UK axis first and foremost. And please remember that it is national governments, in every case, that issue passports and ID cards: the "European Union" on our passports is pretty hollow in terms of real citizenship, which is precisely what Lamassoure is saying.
Finally, is this (overblown) complaint about a card all you oppose in my portrayal of Lamassoure's arguments and propositions, and in the discussion in comments here?
"That is coming from a guy who works for the xenophobic Telegraph. Who is actually scaring people with scares over terrorism. Has the Telegraph ever written a critical report about the War on Terror of your American pals?"
All ad hominem. Do not confuse the editorial position of a newspaper with the views held by one of its journalists. Do not be stupid enough to assume that employees share the same world outlook as their bosses, that would be moronic.
I am not a Conservative or a conservative. If you want to froth at the mouth and swivel your eyes about The Daily Telegraph feel free. I am not its representative on earth.
Liberty is freedom from the state in terms controlling our lives and democratic rights. As a leftie, I support democratic control of the economy - and planning.
In terms of liberty, Britain is becoming one of the least free places in Europe and leads the way at the EU level for diminution of democratic rights. I do not need any reminding of that from anybody else. I do not fly the Union flag. The main enemy is always at home.
Taxation is more complicated, I do not see any particular virtue in high taxation as an end itself. I do see a virtue in talking about how to make society more equal, direct taxation is a part of that, political control of the economy (raising productive forces etc)
"If you really support any type of institutional order in Europe then you might want to show that on your blog or in your articles by making constructive suggestions. So far you have mostly behaved like your fellow Europhobe Daniel Hannan, who can not decide if the EU is the rebirth of Nazi Germany of the Soviet Union (or maybe both?)."
Key words: "institutional order". I have made a number of constructive contributions on my blog, in terms of free speech, abiding by referendum Nos and arguing that secret discussions (particularly the invisible hand of Coreper) on the construction of public office should be a matter of public record.
If you ever read my blog or what I written on Spiked or elsewhere you will see that I do not subscribe to fatuous anti-historical hyperbole about the EU. You could also note that on a number of occasions I have written that "Brussels" is as British as Whitehall. I have, as a republican, linked, many times, the EU to the undemocratic constitution of the British state.
afew, Thanks for the welcome, at least. My criticism of Lamassoure, who is an interesting man, would be his emphasis on technical measures to create something more elusive: European citizens. I think in the current context of inter-governmental consensus on security - something I have blogged about - such a card would be pushed in that direction. The US is a bit of a red herring. The EU, its governments, uses what the US demands as a alibi for what it wants to do anyway. Securocrats know no frontiers.
It is very telling that while the EU can agree a very backward step such as the European Arrest Warrant (because it has led to miscarriages of justice, led to a lowering of legal norms, eg trials in absentia, and made it too easy for the police to have someone banged up) it can not agree accompanying safeguards. That is the context. This is not simply Made in the EU but Brussels has become a nexus for security measures. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/bruno_waterfield/blog/2008/05/13/eu_passports_the_awful_truth
I do not blame the EU, or global markets, for the decline in the political. These things are political products. The idea that that impersonal cross-border forces (terrorism, the environment or capital) have made democracy redundant is an ideology, of globalisation, not a fact. Paradoxically, the ideology actually creates more state not less. More bureaucratic undemocratic state and less accountable representative state, the EU is part, just a part, of this trend.
I support the European idea, as I see it. I am not a British nationalist but an internationalist. I just do not equate the EU with the ideal - that is all. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/bruno_waterfield/blog/2008/06/14/the_irish_speak_for_us_all
I was under the impression, probably mistakenly, that European Tribune was about these kind of debates. Whoops.
The key problem, here, with the EU is that national politicians like to use it as a way of getting unpopular measures in through the back door. The EU is only authoritarian because national politicians make it so: they're the ones with pretty much all the positive power. The EU has also been a force for improved civil liberties and rights when the national politicans either choose or are forced to use it as such.
I still think that a key reform that is required - and to be honest I've forgotten whether it was in the Lisbon or Constitutional treaty at this stage - is that the Council needs to debate in the open and vote in the open when it's acting as a legislature. You can argue executive sessions need a certain level of confidentiality, but it would be nice to see Gordon Brown or whoever visibly voting for or against measures that they've failed to get passed in Westminster and want brought in via the back door.
But one step further: the EU is primarily inter-governmental and as much about unelected national civil servants as our dearly beloved elected leaders.
I agree on on Council acting in the open. But the need for records of the exercise of public authority need to go further.
Coreper precooks around 90 per cent, by some estimates, of legislation. There is no record of this body's deliberations and many of the documents it discusses are on no registers.
The Antici system is completely unacceptable for the EU's highest plenary body, the European Council and this modus operandi has knock on effects right down the line.
The EU can not be organised as a diplomatic club where elites talk to other elites in secret.
But reducing the intergovernmental character of the EU would entail either voiding the EU of content or transferring sovereignty to the supranational institutions (Commission and, preferably, Parliament). Which do you prefer? When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I would happily support the creation of European federal institutions based on democratic movements. I don't think that is what the EU is.
I personally see an embryo of a potential representative European politics in the referendum Nos. A view that is not widely shared here I know
Who are the "eurocrats" you speak of here?
An internal staff survey leaked to this blog finds that fonctionnaires are deeply unhappy over a French EU presidency stunt to create some good green publicity for the Parliament's Strasbourg seat. Euro-MPs and staff are to get a special private high-speed direct rail connection when making their monthly trip from Belgium to the Strasbourg seat of the European Parliament. The same service is not available to the public. But sadly for pampered eurocrats the new service will require them to use the same station, the Gare du Midi or Brussels Zuid, that ordinary members of public also use.
Euro-MPs and staff are to get a special private high-speed direct rail connection when making their monthly trip from Belgium to the Strasbourg seat of the European Parliament. The same service is not available to the public.
But sadly for pampered eurocrats the new service will require them to use the same station, the Gare du Midi or Brussels Zuid, that ordinary members of public also use.
Also, many MEPs use the Eurostar into Zuid for their personal travel.
And, finally, not everyone "making the move" actually makes the move. Some MEPs and their staff would go back home from Brussels over the weekend and travel directly to Strasbourg for Monday.
So, who are these 400 Eurocrats we're talking about here? When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I was having a pop at the other worldliness of wanting police protection.
Some of the staff, interpreters and translators, do have a problem because the late air charter back on Thurs has been cancelled in favour of the train.
It is not compulsory, not VIP either - any person authorised (carte d'access etc) for Strasbourg can a get a ticket in the parli travel office. Not sure why there is only two trains (mon morning and Thurs early afternoon) the cost is quite high I think, although with the cancellation of 6 air charters there is a samll net saving, I understand.
I am just today kicking myself for being disorganised and missing the deadline to get a reservation - means I will be on the slow train next week. Duh
The unions are, rightly, not too happy either, especially with increased travel times and inconvenience for some staff.
But the need for records of the exercise of public authority need to go further.
So, the "Constitution" is dead, and maybe Lisbon is, too, but whatever comes next will also have to be a "EU Treaty" agreed by the governments of the member states in the Council. We have also proposed a number of "mini treaties" which do not touch the existing treaties but simply set up a bottom-up constitutional process base around the European Parliament. It is hard to imagine such a treaty 1) being agreed by the Council (turkeys don't vote for christmas); 2) being accepted by the sovereigntist faction in a number of member states (which could possibly carry the day in the UK, Ireland, Denmark, even in France and the Netherlands).
So, is there a way forward for the EU as a political entity, or should we just be content with the single market?
The Yugoslav wars showed the need for a Common Foreign and Security Policy, and here we're discussing the way in which harmonization of civil law (and social contributions, for instance) makes it very hard for people to be mobile in Europe. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
By the way, I totally agree with any measures that allow people, not just Europeans, to move freely.
Care has to be exercised with some aspects of civil law, on applicable divorce law for example, because some laws are better than others.
[T]he EU is [...] an international treaty organization.
I could imagine a «Common Market Office» within an enlightened constitutional framework regaining the same prestige, results and popular approval as the commission of the sixties.
Within the current treaties we are stuck, I'm afraid, and cannot go forward nor back to the halcyon days of the common market alone. [insert some game-theoretic argument here that I read about but fail to remember anymore :)]
What counts against a (real) Constitution, but inertia?
I agree that it works nowadays like the WTO and that its results are not better. But in the beginnings, it was different. What changed was, however, not the organisation, but the environment.
The legislation would not only increase the Commission's powers, but the Parliaments in an attempt to build a supranational structure and be rid of the power of veto. Because of this President Hallstein won support from the Parliament who had long been campaigning for more powers. Indeed Hallstein played to the Parliament by presenting his policy to the Parliament on 24 March, a week before he presented them to the Council. By this he associated himself with the Parliament's cause and demonstrated how he though the Community ought to be run, in the hopes of generating a wave of pro-Europeanism big enough to get past the objections of member states. However in this it proved that, despite its past successes, Hallstein was overconfident in his risky proposals.[2] When Hallstein put forward his proposals, the Council was already troubled[2] and then-French President, Charles de Gaulle, was sceptical of the rising supranational power of the Commission and accused Hallstein of acting as if he were a head of state. France was particularly concerned about protecting the CAP as it was only accepted by the other states after difficult negotiations and under a majority system it may be challenged by the other members.[3] Empty chair crisis This, and similar differences between France and the Commission, were exacerbated when France took on the Presidency,[3] thereby losing the normal system of mediation. Further more the Commission became marginalised as the debate became one between France and the other members, making the Council the centre of debate. Thus any chance of using the expertise of the Commission to come up with proposals was lost.[2] Finally on 1965-06-30 Paris recalled its representative in Brussels stating it would not take its seat in the Council until it had its way. This "empty chair crisis" was the first time that the operation of the EEC had failed because of a member state[3] and it exposed failures in the Council's workings.[2] Paris continued its policy for six months until the impact upon its economy forced it back into negotiations. Meetings were held in Luxembourg during January 1966 where an agreement was reached. Under the "Luxembourg compromise" a member could veto a decision that it believed would affect its national interests - but it did not detail what kind of national interests or how to resolve a dispute. However since then it had been used so often it became a veto making unanimity in the Council the norm and was removed under the Single European Act.[4] After the crisis, the commission became a scapegoat for the Council, with Hallstein being the only person to lose his job over what happened when the Council refused to renew his term, despite being the most 'dynamic' leader until Jacques Delors.[2]
Empty chair crisis
This, and similar differences between France and the Commission, were exacerbated when France took on the Presidency,[3] thereby losing the normal system of mediation. Further more the Commission became marginalised as the debate became one between France and the other members, making the Council the centre of debate. Thus any chance of using the expertise of the Commission to come up with proposals was lost.[2] Finally on 1965-06-30 Paris recalled its representative in Brussels stating it would not take its seat in the Council until it had its way. This "empty chair crisis" was the first time that the operation of the EEC had failed because of a member state[3] and it exposed failures in the Council's workings.[2] Paris continued its policy for six months until the impact upon its economy forced it back into negotiations. Meetings were held in Luxembourg during January 1966 where an agreement was reached. Under the "Luxembourg compromise" a member could veto a decision that it believed would affect its national interests - but it did not detail what kind of national interests or how to resolve a dispute. However since then it had been used so often it became a veto making unanimity in the Council the norm and was removed under the Single European Act.[4] After the crisis, the commission became a scapegoat for the Council, with Hallstein being the only person to lose his job over what happened when the Council refused to renew his term, despite being the most 'dynamic' leader until Jacques Delors.[2]
But what do you want to say? That the ECE was stuck even then? But what about its accomplishments, its reputation? Do you consider it really a failure?
Regarding the veto: it is a question of homogeneity. You cannot expect a member state to put itself in a permanent minority position. Constitutions as a rule comprise regulations designed to alleviate such fears, say the famous «itio in partes» in the Holy Roman Empire.
When c.1970 the Common Market was accomplished, the union became less homogeneous, both extensionally by adding members, and intensionally by extending its competences. So it is evident that the Council should be dominant, and the veto crucial.
That was unfortunate, because of log rolling and atypical composition of the council (e.g. all police ministers together -- the results are easy to predict). The countervailing power of the Parliament but adds to the confusion, by feigning homogeneity where there is none.
So in my opinion, the fundamental error lay in aspiring to emulate existing states and planning for a kind of superstate.
More transparency is clearly needed so these are some good Ideas. But let me just not that the Irish voted for Ireland, not for the rest of the Union.
I think most people on this blog agree that this is amjor problem and we should have more of a Union build on Supranational Institutions (like the parliament). But look at the Referendum in Ireland, despite the fat that the country is mostly pro-EU, a major point of concern was the loss of veto rights in the Council.
This means that there is a great unease about giving power to supranational institutions.
Someone might call that troll-baiting. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I think the causes of the Irish No were more structural in character.
One of the most telling incidents in the Irish referendum was McCreevy's "no sane person" would read this, underlining a popular sense of the Treaty as someone else's (the elite's?) document. This reaction seems to be shown in the Eurobaromter poll.
Giscard, who is often right about a lot of things, picked this up as a problem years ago which is why he spent so much time drafting the Convention text (I think he even had the French checked at the Academy) before Piris and others got their hands on it.
The demographics of the No vote also seem to show that young working class people and women, who do not vote in general elections, used the Irish referendum to score a hit on the political establishment. The establishment that to a man or woman urged a Yes.
I guess that is the issue: political establishments in many, or most, European countries are increasingly unable to mobilise or to take voters with them.
This seems to be a genuine European trend. That's why I likened it at the time to a James Larkin moment, after the rousing words by Camille Desmoulins on his monument in Dublin.
I know some Eurosceptics on the right who are secretly horrified by this development which I think is more profound than numbers of commissioners, Nice vote weighting etc.
Personally, I find it very heartening, could it be a pre-political-party stage of the beginning of the beginning of a new oppositional politics?
It is interesting that while turnout in standard elections is dropping (a probable sign of disenchantment with established politics) the referendum turnout grew (in Ireland, the Netherlands and France).
Could it be that as Europeans we have mistrust of our national governing classes, and their expression in the EU, in common? Could engaging with this be a potential representative European politics?
The question for both inter-governmentalists and supra-nationalists is, in this context, the same as for national political elites, that of accountability and representation.
I as posted a bit earlier I would very happily support the creation of European federal institutions based on democratic movements.
No, not trolling - what I meant was that borderline ad-hominem reactions to a new poster are inappropriate, and if you were a troll we might have a flame war going on, which is thankfully not the case.
To a large extent the French and Dutch no votes were also a hit on the political establishment. It has been pointed out that some of the no voters may have (correctly) interpreted that there was no downside to voting no: the EU has been operating under the current (Nice) treaty for about 6 years, with 25 members for 4 years and with 27 members for two years and the sky didn't fall.
It is also interesting to note that the one large country which approved the "constitution" in a referendum, Spain, saw turnout under 50% for the first time since Franco died, while turnout in the last two general elections was relatively high.
But in the case of Spain, while there was as much reason to be annoyed at the way the Establishment carried the referendum campaign, we have the hungup of wanting to bee good Europeans and so the referendum passed with over 70% for. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I hope I am not trolling.
You are certainly not trolling. In speaking to rz of "troll-baiting", Migeru meant provoking or attempting to provoke trollish behaviour - not that your behaviour was trollish.
As I said to you, you are welcome here.
Not that McCreevy is "a sane person" in my opinion...
You make someone like him your Commissioner at your peril.
Though, reportedly, Cowen hadn't read the treaty either. Probably a side effect of the deliberate delay to publish a consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, so as to prevent any sane person actually reading it. The consolidated version won't win any prizes for literary merit, but it can be read. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I was under the impression, probably mistakenly, that European Tribune was about these kind of debates.
European Tribune is a community blog that is "about" what its members make of it, since any member (and you are a member, not a guest as you say below) can post an opinion, an article, as a "diary" - basically a blog post - using the "New Diary Entry" choice in the User Menu (centre top screen mouse-over, or upper right under your user name; see also New User Guide). If you want a discussion on a topic or an idea, posting a diary is the best way to start it. (This doesn't mean you were wrong to comment in this thread, of course).
Now it's possible to see from your comments a bit more where you're coming from, I'd say we'd agree on a number of things. (Complaints are frequent here about "security", terrism as a pretext, top-down opaque no-listening-to-citizens EU governance, to name but those.) Without picking up on the detail of the exchanges in this thread, what I'd be interested in is understanding your view of how the No votes might be the beginning of a political movement that could lead us to a bottom-up Europe. If you had time and felt it was worth your while, a diary on this would be welcome. There's no guarantee everyone would see things your way, but I'm pretty sure there'd be constructive debate.
All europeans have already a "European Health Insurance Card" And a credit-card format (as opposed to paper) Driver's Licence As you can see, the driver's licence has protection against forgery but it's not "biometric".
What would be so wrong with a European ID card, assuming it doesn't contain RFID chips like the new-format passports do?
Now, let me say that I am comfortable with ID cards because of habit (coming from Spain) but that I understand British opposition to introducing them. However, state-issued ID cards would solve the mess people have to go through to, say, open a bank account. A single, state-authenticated and forgery-proof document would suffice. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I am not against ID documents per se. I am suspicious of the present climate surrounding and generating calls for new forms of ID document.
The ID discussion is sadly not about forgery proof documentation but is being used to redefine the realtionship between the state and individual in a negative way. That is my objection
Of course, the democratic control needs to be exercised and the current Labour government doesn't command enough trust for me to actually want them to have my data - and this is both on authoritarian instinct and on technical incompetence. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I don't feel uncomfortable about the state having my data, in fact i feel it would be more worrying to think that the state didn't have my data. (although strangely comforting that they probably cant find it when they need it) A trely technicallly competent government would be a scary thing to behold. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
The best control is not give the state data, such as fingerprints, as a matter of course. To limit the state's capacity to exercise its monopoly.
