You forget that the final hurdle is Klaus himself. Who knows what pretext he will find for delaying the signature of a document he desperately does not want to become law. (I've been out of circulation recently, so perhaps Klaus got all he wanted at the last EU Council - but it seems to me he remains a deeply unpredictable figure).
It seems that he's resigned to signing it and the Council gave him enough to save face with.
What Klaus got is a promise that a Czech opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be up for ratification during the next expansion round (when the Lisbon Treaty has to be modified anyway to include the new members). However, it is not at all certain that he'll get it ratified. For one, Hungary's prospective future PM (elections: 2010), opposition leader Viktor Orbán declared that he won't sign it. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Since that's been so clear for such a time, it seems poor sportsmanship for some who've benefited from unfairness to grouse about others who seek nothing less for their party's cause.
Then, there's always sarcasm. That worked so well in the run-up to the vote in France, for example. The poor, benighted French. If only they had a clue! Fortunately, their error will be (is apparently about to be) corrected for them. "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
I know, the point is all about the differences of opinion as to that. Still, when I pointed out that objections now to unfairness now cannot rightly be seen as other than special pleading, instead of your showing how that observation of mine is false, I get more of the same condescending sarcasm that was the order of the day in, what was it? 2005?
"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
The French "non" killed off the possibility of a politically legitimate, democratic Europe for a generation. We're in a standstill for a while more. Some have argued that this is not such a bad thing in the current context, when political legitimacy would have been used for neolib purposes. I say that political legitimacy prevents neoliberalism, which is all about not refusing the right to make political choices on economic issues in the name of freedom and pretending that any restriction on corporates is dictature.
Condescention and bad faith came from the "non", as far as I'm concerned. But hey, you won, you can rewrite history. Enjoy your "victory." In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
It's your right to view it that way. I see it differently.
"I say that political legitimacy prevents neoliberalism, which is all about not refusing the right to make political choices on economic issues in the name of freedom and pretending that any restriction on corporates is dictature."
And likewise for the above. In my view, by the time of France's vote, it was already beyond any reasonable doubt that "legitimacy", even assuming either that it existed somewhere, or might result from a "Yes" vote, was not going to even slow neoliberalism (already far advanced) down, much less prevent it.
I think that it's also safe to say that no matter what happens, as for "Some have argued that this is not such a bad thing in the current context, when political legitimacy would have been used for neolib purposes," proponents of neoliberalism will seek to use any legitimacy present, past or future, for their cause's purposes. To expect anything else wouldn't make sense. Opponents of neoliberalism, after all, would do the same.
If one day we're so fortunate as to live under a system which can lay fair claim to legitimacy, then surely every party on every side would seek to lay its claim to that legitimacy. (Now I'm in danger of sounding pontifical, but this is only my personal opinion) Legitimacy, if it exists, is something apart from any party's property.
Neither I nor any party I support "won" anything which today still has effect. To say that the "Non" proponents acted in "bad faith" (merely by voting "Non"?) is to assume that on this question there could be no legitimate alternative to a "Oui", which was indeed exactly what the "Oui" proponents did assert, not figuratively but absolutely literally. But, I know we've been all through these arguments already.
There are numerous points we agree on. But this isn't and apparently can't be one of them. We have fundamentally differing views about even such things as what constitutes good faith, legitimacy and what promotes them. I also want "a politically legitimate, democratic Europe" and I wouldn't have voted against anything which I thought would hasten its advent. So---and I know you see it, too---we differ over just that point, what would hasten or delay or preclude it. "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
I have argued on substance for these. I have no problems with arguments on the substance against it (and many of the regulars on ET, like Migeru, DoDo or others, have argued, often forcefully, against me on this topic), but the sneering words for he partisans of the 'yes' are nothing of the sort. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
We should get a more democratic and political Europe by 2014, when the EP elections will also be about the Commission Presidency and the new voting weights in the Council are phased in.
The following referendum in the countries you mention would then have become referendum on staying in or out of Europe, something which could have only positive consequences for Europe, by either giving it a massive stamp of legitimacy in these countries, or by allowing to push them out of the core Europe. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Huh!? I don't see how political legitimacy contradicts the "there is no alternative" narrative in neoliberalism. If you would be right, there would be no neoliberalism anywhere in countries with democratically elected governments. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Corporations can only be regulated effectively at the continental level - giving legitimacy - and thus power - to the very institutions able and keen to do it would have been a major step forward.
Boosting the bureaucracy would have been better than "throw the bums out" - as you know, when you throw the bums out, only one power remains: money. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
To attack the above argument too, technocratic regulation can mean the elimination of local regulation ("deregulation") and the prescription of 'market solutions', too. And claim that it's in the name of public good, too. Thi happened at national level, too. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The difference was not really in the actual processes, but about who would have had legitimacy after the vote. With the "non", as we've seen, the federalist institutions are been mocked and blamed, and all we get is the Council, increasingly assertive national governments, and open sneering by euroskeptics at Eurofederalists, calling their dream voted dead.
With the "yes", you'd have had renewed energy for pan-European action, and that usually takes the form of continent-wide regulation, or continent-wide empowering things with deep political meaning (think Schengen or the euro). The federalist institutions would have been reinforced, and they are structured to do regulation, not deregulation (deregulation is what they get to do when they have no legitimacy, because breaking things is easier than building them). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
all we get is the Council, increasingly assertive national governments, and open sneering by euroskeptics at Eurofederalists, calling their dream voted dead.
With the Lisbon Treaty, we now got even an European Council as independent fourth pillar.
(You do realise I am the devil's advocate here.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
If only it would not be all about nationalist grandstanding (on both sides), over one of those issues that shouldn't have been swept under the rug during EU accession (e.g. the Beneš Decrees). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
