Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Yes. I'm happy to do so. The (third) link Migeru provides tells us "how it is". There's no openess to debate, there. None.

My point has been that there is no discourse open to citizens about EU defense.

by cigonia on Sun Jun 18th, 2006 at 05:27:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How much discourse on Defence is open to citizens of your country? You're supposed to be happy with your minister of defence making decisions at the EU Council meeting. We know that is not satisfactory, but that's what there is. How open is your minister to citizen input?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 18th, 2006 at 05:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am French.

How open is "my minister"?

That's what I want to know

by cigonia on Sun Jun 18th, 2006 at 06:11:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm Spanish. You are better placed to answer that question than I.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 18th, 2006 at 06:17:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that's a "non resonse"
by cigonia on Sun Jun 18th, 2006 at 06:29:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's the best I can give.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 18th, 2006 at 06:35:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
explain
by cigonia on Sun Jun 18th, 2006 at 06:42:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would expect you to understand the workings of the French government and its relationship with French citizens, specifically the avenues for citizen participation and input, better that I given our respective nationalities.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 18th, 2006 at 06:45:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Before this thread gets even more off track, a crucial point is missing here: the public consultation considers propsed new EU legislation -- and presently there are no new proposals in the Defense field.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jun 19th, 2006 at 03:46:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're right. But, as I point out in a parallel subthread, while External Relations has a history of consultations (just none currently open), there is no history of consultations on the Foreign and Security Policy even though it's been developing for 14 years.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 19th, 2006 at 04:31:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would expect you to understand the workings of the French government and its relationship with French citizens, specifically the avenues for citizen participation and input, better that I given our respective nationalities.

[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]

.

by cigonia on Mon Jun 19th, 2006 at 06:00:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is one implicit point in this diary and which only you picked on, and that is: what about the policy areas where we have an interest but there are no public consultations?

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.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 19th, 2006 at 06:16:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Very informative article by Alexander G. Rubio. Thanks for the tip.

I'll see what I can do to get a diary together on NATO.

.

by cigonia on Mon Jun 19th, 2006 at 12:21:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Your link is broken, here is the correct one.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 18th, 2006 at 05:38:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
 This is an extremely important insight into the real workings of the European Commission, where the power is held and kept.

 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

by proximity1 on Tue Jun 20th, 2006 at 09:06:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series