Inertia

by Jerome a Paris
Thu Jun 19th, 2008 at 04:09:36 PM EST

Why EU and US geopolitical interests are no longer the same

It is difficult to know where this uneasy transatlantic détente of 2008 will lead. By now it should be clear that European and American geopolitical interests are not automatically in harmony. Europeans do not accept the Bush administration's strategic vision and the United States is unable to pursue that vision with success without European support. (...)

If left to their own devices, Europeans believe they would have a better chance of surrounding themselves with collaborative governments promoting prosperous harmony. Instead, American policies generate bitter intractable conflicts that point toward incipient wars of rival civilisations. Europeans fear that they will be the principal victims. In short, in the geopolitics of Europe's neighborhoods, America seems Europe's problem rather than its solution. Under these circumstances, the transatlantic alliance survives less from genuinely shared interests than from inertia – a dependency path leading to increasingly unhappy outcomes.


Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
Any word on this?:

Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

[...]

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.



"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
by maracatu on Thu Jun 19th, 2008 at 04:31:05 PM EST
It's actually a real battle, between a thrashing dinosaur and the way, however haltingly, to a sensible future (if one exists.)

Europe as a whole, with Germany's economy leading, is just a bit better prepared for what passes in today's political world as a sustainable future.  There are so many examples in the ECB's positions, in the position of European export leadership in products that matter, and in the general foundation of the economy... which doesn't exist in the US.

Today China announced an increase in energy prices for its citizens, an indication (but only an indication) that they understand at least some of the rules of the new game.

It is amurkan money which has led the globe down a false path, even though one of the largest conduits was through London.  But the economic foundation which is currently being built in Europe will be the deciding factor in trans-atlantic so-called relations.

Skennah Kowa

by Crazy Horse on Thu Jun 19th, 2008 at 05:49:00 PM EST
When the profits of capital go only to the capitalists, but the risk is socialized, you're fucked. Plain and simple. Hi Nero! How ya doin'?

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Jun 19th, 2008 at 06:00:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just fiddlin' around...

Skennah Kowa
by Crazy Horse on Thu Jun 19th, 2008 at 06:03:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Little wonder, after 2-3 ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Jun 19th, 2008 at 06:09:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So you want Germany's economy leading the EU !!! Doesn't their history count for anything!!! You all take a deep breath and understand once Obama is elected President; the EU countries and their leaders will want to stand beside, behing, just somewhere close to him and their hoping his 85% EU approval rating will wash over themselves.

The reality is the EU can't do without the US leading or coordinating in some capacity.

by An American in London on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 09:46:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is that snark?

Wait this is important. Someone is wrong on the Internet.
by generic on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 01:56:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On this side of the pond, yes.
On the other side, they may actually be a scarily high number of people who actually believe that sh_t...

Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.
by Bernard on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 05:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or trolling. I'm not sure which.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 03:36:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
David P. Calleo

 Americans have a rich constitutionalist tradition of their own, together with a long and successful experience with international cooperation. But following the demise of the Soviets, America seems to have lost its way. Something has gone wrong with its system of checks and balances; the Roman Republic has been turning into the Roman Empire. (My bold.)

This is the deepest fear of many of us still here.  May we reclaim that rich constitutionalist tradition and soon.

again


America's recent evolution suggests a broader lesson. Nowadays, too much power is agglomerated in Washington to be contained successfully within a purely national constitutional structure. Checks and balances at home require a correlative balance of power abroad. Constructing such a balanced state system for itself on a regional scale has been post-war Europe's great achievement. Successfully implementing that balanced system has depended heavily on a supportive America. Perhaps it is time for Europe to return the favour. Balancing, it seems, is always necessary, even among friends. And among friends balancing is also more likely to be successful. That Europe can find the will, the means and the confidence to rise to the occasion - to be America's balancing partner - can hardly be taken for granted. What does seem clear is that a Europe that wants to be cohesive and strong, and on good terms with its neighbours, will not fit easily in a close transatlantic alliance with an America actively pursuing global hegemony.

If ever there was a politically imperative agenda for the European Union Calleo has just stated it.  Come the day!  Policy may change in 2009, but the precedents set by the current administration may not be extirpated. Should Europe substantially implement the requirements to defend their interests militarily this would likely obviate the ambitions of the next Republican administration for a policy of World Imperial Dominion. That by itself could be the best bulwark for continued representative government in the USA.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 19th, 2008 at 10:08:37 PM EST
Constructing such a balanced state system for itself on a regional scale has been post-war Europe's great achievement.

But is not yet accomplished, is it? Or is the Lisbon Treaty, or the Nice Treaty, even, enough?

Successfully implementing that balanced system has depended heavily on a supportive America.

Who now sees the EU as a threat and actively plays EU member states --- who don't know better --- against each other.

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 Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 02:14:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Should Europe substantially implement the requirements to defend their interests militarily this would likely obviate the ambitions of the next Republican administration for a policy of World Imperial Dominion.

Well... If by "defend their interests militarily" one understands being able to patrol the sealanes, defend one's own territorial integrity and aiding other lawful governments in accomplishing the same objectives, then I agree that this is a desirable policy. If, however, one understands it to mean resort to traditional gunboat diplomacy, then... not so much.

Of course, Europe doesn't need to resort to traditional gunboat diplomacy to achieve our strategic interests, if our strategic interests are simply independence and good relations with our neighbours.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 03:22:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
could be to show how relations with Russia could be based on dialogue rather than diatribe. Listening to this guy and basing our policy on hearing and understanding what he says would be a nice exemple.

Actually, this is what most of "Old Europe" is doing in practice: it's just demonized as weak and cowardly by the snarling AngloDiseased lapdogs (those who have forgotten what "long term" means) and those who fan the flames of residual worries in Central Europe.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 04:37:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To my mind it would be enough that few in the EU see any need to rely on US military power in any possible scenario.  I would expect that it would be much easier to achieve consensus on a defense policy than on some gunboat adventurist policy.  But the EU would have to be able to stand up to the US where US policy aim are harmful to EU interests.  

EU needs would have to take precedence over US appeals to NATO obligations. There is at least some controversy over the sufficiency of EU military capabilities absent US assets.  I will leave it to Europeans to settle whether that is reality or US spin.

I think this would clearly benefit the EU and would probably be supported by a Democratic US administration.  It could be vital should a recurrence of the current situation present itself in eight or twelve years.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 12:05:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Depends, again. Mostly on what you mean by "standing up to" the US military. I don't think it's particularly productive to try to build a military machine that could have a realistic chance of preventing Europe from losing in a serious shooting war with the US (or any other great power). All we have to be able to do is protect our allies and defend our own territorial integrity. Of course, "protect our allies" might end up including defending them from proxy wars started by client states of the other great powers.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 04:18:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
All we have to be able to do is ... defend our own territorial integrity.

Does that include maintaining air superiority? How likely is that in a serious shooting war?

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 Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 04:31:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It involves preventing the enemy from acquiring it, and preferably being able to support your own troops with tactical air strikes more than half of the time, while preventing the enemy from doing the same thing.

Against a great power, it is unlikely to be possible without the kind of military buildup that would endanger our political system. But since we won't be starting any wars with the other great powers (right?), we don't really need to be able to win such a war. We just have to be able to make it too expensive for them to bother.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 05:22:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We just have to be able to make it too expensive for them to bother.
This is a dangerous policy which is based on an axiom the 20th century showed, time after time, is completely wrong. Namely that governments always act in a rational way.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 11:03:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So MAD doesn't work?

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 Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 11:11:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It works 99 % of the time. Which is not good enough and which means we must strive to abolish nuclear weapons in the long run.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Wed Jun 25th, 2008 at 06:37:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
After all, nuclear weapons have been around just 60 years and we have already almost blown ourselves up at least three times.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Wed Jun 25th, 2008 at 06:39:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but additional military buildup is not going to significantly mitigate the consequences of the remaining 1 %, so there is no reason to bother with it and quite a lot of reasons to not build up the ability to project power beyond our own territory and our allies'.

And I am not sure that completely abolishing nukes is necessary, even if it might be desirable. Cutting down the aggregate global stockpile to less than 50 megaton should be sufficient. Fifty megaton would hurt badly if they were used, but if you assume that one megaton creates roughly one megadeath (1 million dead) it would not be worse than a major shooting war between two great powers using 21st cent. conventional weapons (by way of comparison, the Soviet theatre of WWII is estimated at between 20 and 100 megadeath depending on how you count and who you ask, IIRC).

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jun 25th, 2008 at 07:22:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nobody is going to win WWIII. The best you can hope for is to lose the least.

If any of the great powers is determined to make us bleed, there is nothing we can do to avoid bleeding. We can make them bleed in return, but in a 21 cent. war between even moderately industrialised countries with population above a quarter billion, everybody loses. Except the war profiteers.

So if we spend a lot of money building up our military to defeat an irrational invasion, we have wasted our money, because Europe is going to be a smoking ruin after the war anyway. The best we can do is build up enough to deter a rational invasion.

And be sure to remind everyone how successful the biggest, nastiest military machine the planet has ever seen has been so far in subduing the third- and fourth-world countries that it invaded. The record from Viet Nam to Vietraq kinda speaks for itself...

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 12:12:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"I'll take 'Stating the Obvious' for $200, Alex."

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 08:50:25 AM EST
I don't see it happening. To convince the East Central European states to stop being Atlanticist the EU would have to provide a substitute for the American alliance, both structurally and rhetorically. That would hurt EU-Russian relations. The problem is that those most interested in ending the Atlanticist model, like Jerome, are also the most unwilling to pay the price required to do so in terms of poorer EU-Russian relations. The Schroeder-Chirac stance that Jerome likes was just as effective in reinforcing Atlanticist sentiment in the new member states as the Bush-Rumsfeld one was in undermining it in old ones. There ain't no free lunch.
by MarekNYC on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 01:08:45 PM EST
What can Russia do to make it possible for Western Europe to improve EU-Russia relations?

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 Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 01:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Simple and low cost - return to the rhetorical stance of the Yeltsin era concerning the Soviet past - a consistent policy of lots of condemnation, apologies, and regret. However, my impression is that neither the general population nor the elites have any desire to do so.
by MarekNYC on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 01:19:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But they're not Zhirinovski either.

However, Western Europe cannot convince Russia that it is in their interest to have good relations - they have to come to that conclusion themselves.

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 Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 01:40:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bend over.  

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
by poemless on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 01:42:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Right, that's what "sound like Yeltsin" is going to look like to Russians.

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 Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 01:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
to which I have no answer.

Unless we manage to build enough windfarms in Poland and Lithuania so that they only need Russian gas marginally!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 06:54:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Windfarm heat? I believe most of Poland's electricity comes from coal, and the natural gas is used mainly for heat.

More seriously, what I had in mind is a substitute NATO made up of EU members - i.e. a formal institutionalized military alliance. Rhetoric matters too. In practical terms Merkel's policies haven't been that different from Schroeder's, but her tone has been. That didn't help much with the hardline PiS government, but it is paying dividends now that the less Russophobe and Germanophobe moderates are in power. Contrast that to the tensions between the equally moderate SLD government and Germany during the Schroeder years.

by MarekNYC on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 09:19:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
At some point Poland is going to have to learn to live with its neighbours, to the East and to the West. Clearly the PiS is incapable of that.

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 Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 05:49:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Electric heat pumps and district heating.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 01:43:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Socialist!

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 Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 01:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see it happening. To convince the East Central European states to stop being Atlanticist the EU would have to provide a substitute for the American alliance, both structurally and rhetorically.

ECE is a net recipient of EU funds. Assuming political will existed, some pretty serious arm twisting could be applied to make them stop acting like total morons.

And ultimately, when push comes to shove, ECE can't choose to be in the American sphere of influence. They have to choose between Moscow and Berlin/Brussels. For geographic reasons if nothing else. What we need is for them to have a Suez moment. Or rather, for someone from Western Europe to have them a Suez moment.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 04:03:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
away from the destructive nature of the US government.  The big excitement in the US is that IPOs have flocked to the slave labor camp called China in search of solar cell arrays for....well China of course.  Excellent of Ireland to stand up against the Lisbon treaty, although they are going to shove it up your......anyway.

Am I delusional in assuming there is a plan by global corporate elites to depopulate the US and create a gigantic nature preserve?

by Lasthorseman on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 09:38:48 PM EST
The answer to that question is: no, you are delusional.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 11:04:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why? 300 million vs 6.5 billion.  The extraction of profit margins from the larger populations are far better.  It is and will be the value of life in corporate global world.
by Lasthorseman on Sat Jun 28th, 2008 at 07:14:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The reason the EU will always be led or have to be coordinated by the US is because the EU, particulalrly the original countries, espouse human rights and social justice while at the same time are under the control of the very same corrupt interests which also guide US policy. So the EU needs the US to be the unambiguous corrupt power to fully make the case for the entrenched corrupt interests while the EU postures tht it actually is concerned with its citizens when in reality it will always be led by the corrupt capitalistic elites within their respective countries and the multi nationals which govern the world.

Anotherwards; EU is good cop, US is bad cop. Until the capitalistic system destroys itself and it is on its way to doing that; and a new system emerges-the EU and the US will always be under the influence of the multinationals etc.

The film Network contains a scene from Paddy Chayefsky's script where Ned Beatty is playing the multinational CEO which owns the network and he is speaking to Peter Finch who plays the anchorman gone wild and surmising it states ' There are no such things as countries which control the world. Its only companies'. The script was written in the early 1970's and if anything, the corporates have even increased their domination over governments.

So please you EU proponents; please get off your high horse and realize we are all screwed until we can take away the levers of power from those whose only concern is profit and forge a new system which guarantees social justice as the priority and the individual's freedom to coexist with each other.

by An American in London on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 02:58:40 AM EST
This is the first position re the EU that I've seen here at Eurotrib that makes sense.  I don't share the premises (failure of capitalism is not inevitable; current European leaders are not vassals of the US/NATO/whatever) but if I did (and many here seem to), what you say follows.

That is why I wrote elsewhere:

It also took me a while to understand the paradox (to me at least) that you are pro-Europe, and pro-EU, and even pro-Lisbon...and yet you also fear that most of your leaders (who are also pro-EU) are irredeemably corrupt vassals of NATO -- so corrupt that they cannot even speak legitimately on issues of human rights.  Won't these same leaders, or their colleagues drawn from Europe's bureaucracy, be responsible for implementing Lisbon (or whatever variation or subsection of Lisbon that eventually passes)?

This takes some getting used to.

I suppose the genius of the Lisbon treaty is, the language is so vague and general (except where it is technical and obscure), it becomes an empty vessel into which anyone and everyone can pour their ideals and aspirations.

My politics are heterodox, but if I had to label them, I suppose neo-con would do.  So, 'An American in London' and I probably have zero in common politically, yet we both have a similar instinct about the EU (or at least, the current implementation and its variants).

While there is of course some democratic input, the essence of the EU superstate is a technocracy.  Don't bureaucracies tend towards slow, carefully managed change?  Isn't that, by definition, conservative?  I just don't see a technocracy leading the kind of revolution that seems to be expected of it.

Or, if the Eurocracy does lead a revolution, I don't understand why anyone expects it will create the kind of revolution that is in the interest of "the people", or what would cause it to give power back to "the people" once the status quo has been swept away.

Maybe we Americans just don't understand?

__
I am the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you will ever meet.

by John in Michigan USA on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 03:05:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who told you the EU is a superstate? The EU is not even a Confederation.

On that note, and why did the US scrap the Articles of Confederation?

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 Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 05:11:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry if I was unclear - I meant the phrase 'EU superstate' to refer to the entity that would result if the EU constitution (Rome treaty was it?) or the Lisbon treaty were to become the law of the land.  But of course the entity you have now, based on Maastricht, is also called the EU.

I agree that the Maastricht EU is neither a superstate nor a Confederation.  I think it is fair to say that Rome, or Lisbon, would be a superstate, roughly analogous to my federal government.  My complaint is not that Europe is building a superstate, rather, that the superstate will be too technocratic, and not democratic enough.

Does that make sense or am I still misunderstanding something?

We scrapped the US Articles of Confederation because we wanted a stronger union of the states.  Which is certainly a legitimate thing for Europe's people and countries to do, if you so choose.  Keep in mind I am not against a pan-European political entity of some sort, and really, the decision isn't up to me.  I just don't understand the appeal of the particular type of entity that is currently at issue.

My main problem with the current EU entities (existing and proposed) are that they are inelegant and (in spite of the fetish for a thing called 'transparency') too opaque.  Informed consent requires that the operation be explained to the patient in terms that he or she can understand, without specialist training in medicine.  The same principle should apply to decisions about dramatic and not-easily-reversible changes in systems of government.

(Well I have other complaints about technocracy vs. democracy but this is the main question I'm interested in at the moment)

Both the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, could be understood by anyone who was literate.  Of course, most Americans weren't literate at the time, but the principle still stood, that you didn't have to have any specialist training, in order to understand the government you were voting to create, or to evaluate whether its ongoing performance remained faithful to the Articles or the Constitution.

I just do not believe the same can be said about Rome/Lisbon, or even Maastricht/Nice/etc.  But at least Maastricht is more modest in scope that Rome/Lisbon.

__
I am the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you will ever meet.

by John in Michigan USA on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 07:24:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
John in Michigan USA:
I think it is fair to say that Rome, or Lisbon, would be a superstate, roughly analogous to my federal government.
Not by a long shot, IMHO.
My complaint is not that Europe is building a superstate, rather, that the superstate will be too technocratic, and not democratic enough.
Fair enough.
Does that make sense or am I still misunderstanding something?
Yes and yes?
We scrapped the US Articles of Confederation because we wanted a stronger union of the states.
Who is we? And how come there was an Anti-Federalist Party and it took over 80 "Federalist Papers" to convince New York State to ratify?
My main problem with the current EU entities (existing and proposed) are that they are inelegant and (in spite of the fetish for a thing called 'transparency') too opaque.
They are "inelegant" because they are attempting to square the circle and being "all things to all people". On trasparency, the least transparent of all the EU institutions happens to be the Council (which groups together the National Governments). That is not the technocratic part of the EU, but a political part.
Informed consent requires that the operation be explained to the patient in terms that he or she can understand, without specialist training in medicine.  The same principle should apply to decisions about dramatic and not-easily-reversible changes in systems of government.
In practice, informed consent is given because the doctor is trusted. The problem in this case is that the National Governments are not trusted by their own populations regarding the EU treaty the governments have agreed to among themselves.
Both the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, could be understood by anyone who was literate.  Of course, most Americans weren't literate at the time, but the principle still stood, that you didn't have to have any specialist training, in order to understand the government you were voting to create, or to evaluate whether its ongoing performance remained faithful to the Articles or the Constitution.

I just do not believe the same can be said about Rome/Lisbon, or even Maastricht/Nice/etc.  But at least Maastricht is more modest in scope that Rome/Lisbon.

I happen to disagree - while the treaty won't win any awards on literary merit, I do think it's readable. But in any case the Treaty of Lisbon is not a Constitution and the EU would remain an organization defined by treaties among states as amendments to Lisbon still need take place by an amending treaty negotiated by the States.

By the way, the current treaty is the Treaty of Nice, Maastricht was superseded (amended) twice, by Amsterdam and Nice.

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 Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 08:20:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]