The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Even on big issus like global climate change or energy security of supply, awareness has been gained by oversimplifying and personalising. Same thing on institutional reform. It's the British "red lines" - the "Sarkozy dynamism" - the Polish brinkmanship, etc...
People complain about the lack of transparency and the demagoguery but vote for it anyway, when they actually have a choice about it (and if they didn't understand the choice, it's because od the demagoguery).
Even trying to explain something as basic, from a technical pov, as the difference between average pricing and marginal pricing, is beyond what most people will ever bother to learn about.
The problem is not the lack of transparency. It's the lack of care by most people, and their corresponding willingness to be fed lies and disinformation that they vaguely feel is lies and disinformation, but cannot be bothered to actually unravel.
In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The EU has to solve complex coordination problems. To a large extent technocratic answers ARE what's needed. And we know that the public simply does not care to enter into complex issues - they always vote for the demagogue over the technocrat/the wonk (the guy you'd have beer with).
I do not have a problem with technocratic solutions. What I have a problem with is that those technocratic solutions are incorporated into the same document that regulates the functioning of the technocrats that make them. For instance, what in the name of the Union are articles on preventing fraud and organizing an inner market doing in the same text as clauses on citizenship and separation of powers? What prevents us from making a nice, clean constitution that covers the establishment of a set of institutions and the powers vested in them without having a hundred and fifty-odd pages of riders concerning specific policies?
Then we could discuss the specifics of those institutions and the specifics of the attached bill of rights without getting bogged down in meaningless details that are important only because they are given the force of constitutional law. I noticed that the original treaty imposed a blanket ban on reproductive cloning, for one thing - how does that belong in a bill of rights? That's a discussion I'd have loved to have had without having to give an up-or-down vote on simultaneously encasing twenty or thirty specific policies.
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by Migeru - Nov 17 38 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 14 135 comments
by Oui - Nov 13 37 comments
by Oui - Nov 17
by ARGeezer - Nov 7 74 comments
by Oui - Nov 7 5 comments
by Oui - Nov 7 11 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2 71 comments
by Migeru - Nov 1738 comments
by Oui - Nov 17
by Oui - Nov 152 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 14135 comments
by Oui - Nov 1337 comments
by Oui - Nov 132 comments
by Oui - Nov 9
by Oui - Nov 75 comments
by Oui - Nov 711 comments
by ARGeezer - Nov 774 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 271 comments
by Oui - Nov 14 comments
by Oui - Oct 31
by fjallstrom - Oct 315 comments
by gmoke - Oct 302 comments
by Oui - Oct 29
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 2521 comments
by Oui - Oct 243 comments