~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
China's lightning advance into the production of cars, computers and high-tech industry poses a serious threat to Europe's economic base, according to a report by the European Commission.
Guenther Verheugen, the new enterprise and industry commissioner, said the EU must improve to avoid quick relegation down the world's economic league as Asia storms ahead on every front. . .
The Commission blamed much of Europe's sluggish performance on suffocating red tape. It said the EU could raise overall GDP by 12pc through adopting an American-style "regulatory burden".
From the economy to military and diplomacy to technology and science, the EU's various report-prepairers are actually very good at recognizing the existence of a problem.
But they seem to treat that, and the follow-on plans for solutions, as dealing with the problem. These are necessary preconditions for solving any problem, but they aren't sufficient in and of themselves. One has to take meaningful action - bite the bullet to reform an economy, spend what it takes to build up a European reaction force capability, free things up to encourage scientific and technological innovation, reduce regulation and control. All of these things go directly against the inclinations of the people who run the EU, so grand plans to deal boldly with deficiencies have invariably fizzled. Will it be any different this time? I wouldn't bet on it.
I read this piece by Richard Miniter in their "dead tree" version when it originally came out, but didn't think to look for it online. I just found it now, by acccident, when I was wandering around on the web. Anyhow, within it is a good synopsis of how the EU works. Here's a section:
Part of what makes the E.U. confusing to Americans is that each of its institutions seems to do a bit of everything. The Commission, now composed of 20 members selected by 15 national governments, is a hodgepodge of executive, legislative, and judicial functions. It oversees the work of agencies, known as Directorates General (DG), that have much more power than American cabinet departments or regulatory agencies--including the power to write legislation (although it must be approved later by the other institutions), enforce the rules they write (sometimes over the determined opposition of national governments), and interpret the rules (like American courts do).
There are very few checks and balances. Europe's courts cannot overturn these regulations unless they violate a specific treaty provision, which is rare. Individual citizens or businesses cannot bring a case to overturn a regulation, only that rule's application to themselves. Commission employees can't easily be reined in, as they are not appointed by commissioners or elected officials but rather by a Civil Service-like procedure. They can only be transferred, not fired. "Maybe if they sleep with a commissioner's wife. Maybe," says a Dutch Commission staffer. He's not joking.
Nor are there external checks on their authority. Bureaucrats are not required to open their meetings to the public. Reporters have no "Freedom of Information Act"--like powers to force the E.U. departments to release documents. Not that they would use them if they did--many European reporters are funded directly by national governments or indirectly through political parties. In Brussels all journalists must register and have government-issued "press cards," which can be taken away at government discretion. These controls are rarely necessary anyway--the Continental press is a compliant bunch. Attend the daily press briefing at the Commission and you'll hear lots of questions like "When will the quarterly agriculture report be released?" If it gets too tedious, journalists can wander a few steps outside the briefing room to the subsidized bar.
And while the 20 commissioners can kill or rewrite the legislation that is drafted for them by unelected junior staffers, they usually timidly adopt most of what the bureaucrats hand them. "About 95 percent of what the Directorates General write is taken on board by the Commission," estimates Rod Hunter, a lawyer-lobbyist working in Brussels for the past decade.
This weekend I wrote that the expanded EU would lead to greater efforts by the "vanguard" to control the whole project, not increased internal democracy. John Rossant writes on the pernicious rise of "core Europe". Key graph:
Core Europe's precepts? First, a kind of protectionism lite, which promotes national champions and, when necessary, uses market methods to advance its dirigiste goals. . .The other traits: a determination to keep U.S. influence at bay and bend EU rules to promote the interests of the core, even at the expense of the periphery. Witness how France and Germany got away with breaching rules on budget deficits last November. Or how Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder have coddled Russian President Vladimir V. Putin -- despite the European Commission's more critical stance on Russia.
Check it out.
Yes, I know, a lot of "Yah, What I Said" posts this week. Just a bit distracted getting ready to go &tc.
So, like the Grinch's heart, the EU grew by three sizes this weekend. Not the EU's heart though, but it may have gained a better half. The new Eastern European members are bound to be more suspicious of the supposed benefits of bureaucratized centralization, given their historical experiences.
But more important than those is the post on the collectivist internationalism behind the EU and why efforts at transcending the nation to impose unity of practice on differing countries is wrongheaded and bound to fail (a bit more here, and supporting evidence here and here). There is also this post on transnational governance more broadly, and a Terry Cobb guest blog on Progressive Reactionaries and the anti-democratic attitude at the base of the EU.
For this post I'm going to concentrate on one element of this, and that is the way language is used to structure the terms of debate. In one of the forums I frequent, one of the members wrote, half in jest:
I'm British, we just do what America tells us
This is the conclusion one can reach from listening to the European, including British, news and commentary. Things are phrased to lead people to the conclusion that Britain just supports America because it, or Tony Blair, is obediently servile. The idea that both countries are pursuing the same policy because of mutual agreement over what the policy should be is slighted. Indeed, this is one device that is used to take the debate of the merits of a policy off the table and change the debate. Once this is raised, one is no longer discussing what should be done and why and in cooperation with who, but whether Britain should "join Europe" in forming an "independent foreign policy" or just be America's lapdog/poodle. One doesn't even have to reflect seriously on whether the later is even really the case. Instead of an argument, you carry forth from the assumption, which is based on a false premise.
The flip side, of course, is the premises upon which assertions that a common EU foreign policy is desirable are built. Here it is not usually termed "we'll just do what Europe tells us". Instead the terminology of debate is quite different: are we going to cooperate in Europe? Shouldn't Europe have an "independent foreign policy" (independent of America's)? As put in this NYT editorial on the new EU:
The new members have adopted thousands of pages of laws shared throughout the union. They have had to reform their economies and clean up their environments. And they must endeavor to support the "common foreign and security policy," despite their significant ideological differences with "old Europe," most notably on relations with the United States.
The underlying assumption being that isn't possible unless and until all European capitals submit foreign policy formation to Brussels and the EU, and that otherwise Europe will be "bullied" to comply with America.
This of course ignores the fact that America is less demanding of its allies than this "common EU foreign policy" would be. As the example of Belgium, France, and Germany demonstrate, any country in Europe can freely make foreign policy not only differing from America but in opposition to it. It is a "common European foreign policy" which would compel all members to comply, as I pointed out here.
The false dichotomy of "will we join Europe in having a foreign policy independent of the United States, or simply be obedient satellites of the Hyperpower?" also shifts the debate terms from what foreign policy will that be and whose interests will it serve. Not only are the merits and demerits of this removed from the debate, but it distracts attention from the fact that this "European" foreign policy is to be determined by the elites of a few EU members: the Franco-Belgian-German position was given the status of "Europe's" foreign policy perspective, not the policy of Britain, Spain, Italy, Holland, Norway, and the Eastern European countries that formally joined the EU today. The premise of whether members are going to cooperate on a common European foreign policy or not pushes many important issues to the side, including why France's policy on Iraq was what it was. Well, the Chirac-Hussein connection goes way back, and French motives were self-interested rather than high-minded. Indeed, the real blood-for-oil policy was that of the opponents of the war, who were engaged in corrupt deals with Saddam using oil as the means, and so was the institution - the UN - that we were told we should defer to.
Such subjects receive scant attention in European discussions of public policy. That is because the elites manage the terms of debate in such a way that only "bad" people are uncouth and Europhobic enough to raise such questions in polite company. Thus the merits of an argument are rarely addressed, and the issue of how policy is going to be made and in whose interests are rendered invisible, the argument is whether we are going to join in cooperation with others or not.
But in the real EU, it was always difficult to form a consensus with fifteen members. It will be even harder now with twenty five. Or at least it would be, if the structure remained the same. So that is why great effort is being put towards changing that structure and further centralizing policy authority, and even greater rhetorical effort is being made to manage the terms of debate so that refusing to adopt "the consensus" is rendered illegitimate in advance without the reasons for disagreeing mattering. Phrases like "dividing Europe" are rarely if ever invoked to describe the Franco-German position and attitude, that is only used to describe those members whose opinions are different. That method is also key in insuring that the merits of the two sides of a disagreement are not the focus of debate. You are simply asked to drop your position to avoid "dividing Europe". With more members, the pressure on all to "go along to get along" will be that much more intense, with the vanguard countries and opinion leaders in Europe working overtime to render any dissent out-of-bounds.
That has been the case already with respect to the draft Constitutions, where countries differing from the Franco-German position have been characterized as bad actors who need to change their position and mend their ways. Maybe, as Chirac once said, they're just not well brought up, but whatever it is their position is ruled a priori illegitimate. The entire debate over whether to adopt the draft EU Constitution or not has been shaped in this way: either you are a good European interested in cooperation and integration and accept it in toto, or you are a Europhobic xenophobe because you don't. Thus people are kept from discussing whether this draft, written as it is and with the provisions that are in it, is a worthwhile Constitution to live under or not. The changes it will bring are handwaved away and if you are a European you accept that it will bring with it nothing but good. Another NYT editorial puts it in Orwellian terms:
The European Union's governance will be further tested, though Europe's proposed constitution may help. The E.U. has to become as much a union of citizens as it is of nations. It needs to be more democratic, and its member nations will have to surrender even more sovereignty for this to happen.
Yes, the draft Constitution asks for sovereignity to be surrendered, but is it really more democratic?
There isn't even a democratic attitude in how it is written, much less in its content. How many of those who are being asked to accept it are being asked to read it? Why, indeed, is it written in such an unreadable fashion? Again, language is used as a tool and as I noted throughout the "Constitution for Bureaucratopia" series, in the draft EU Constitution it is used to keep the people of Europe from having any interest in reading the Constitution they will be asked to live under. The contrast between the Bureaucratese of the EU's draft Constitution, written of, by, and for the elites of Europe rather than the people, is at stark contrast with the easy-to-understand language that America's Constitution or Iraq's interim Constitution are written in.
This way, the citizens of the EU are simply told what is in the draft Constitution by their betters. It is not expected that they read it and come to their own conclusions. Indeed, it is made as difficult as humanly possible for them to do so. The draft Constitution is rife with terms of art and jargon that would be unfamiliar with people who are not in the subculture of governance. You need a special "EUrocrat Decoder Ring" to decipher phrases that could easily have been put in plainer terms if the goal was to involve the electorate in understanding how they were to be governed. Language is used to obscure, and it is not a matter of working within a country of multiple languages. The Iraqi draft Constitution is equally understandable in both Arabic and English translations. The draft EU Constitution is equally indecipherable in all languages save that of bureaucratic subcultures.
None of this is accidental. It is all done with purpose. That purpose is to shape the terms of debate and make some questions simply unaskable. Today, Europe is bigger. Do you feel you're involved in something bigger, Citizen?
Update: More here. Check out the dichotomy in this paragraph:
French President Jacques Chirac was one of many European leaders who yesterday cast the expansion in the context of Europe's troubled ties with Washington, with the French leader stressing during a 90-minute press conference that Europe would now be a major economic force and a stronger economic competitor to the US. British Prime Minister Tony Blair took a different tack, boasting in an article in The Times that Britain's hand in Europe would be strengthened because the new entrants shared its strong support for the US and for free trade and market-based economic policies rather than the big-government, welfare state traditions of nations such as France and Germany.
Chirac is pretty much expecting that everyone in the EU will go along with his ambitions, and France's dreams of Glorie harkening back to Napoleon. But the new members may not be that enthralled with bureaucratic centralization on the French model and seconding all their decision-making to the Gaullists:
When the EU's expansion into eastern Europe was first proposed, it was assumed this would strengthen the influence of Germany and France, the continental powers, but Blair noted that English was the second language in most of the new entrants and "importantly we also share the same vision for Europe's future direction".
"Having just escaped from the dead hand of communism, they share the British view that their future prosperity rests on a liberal, competitive economy," Blair said. "I believe the accession ... will be a catalyst for change within the EU, helping to give a new push to Britain's agenda."
Europe Joined: as divided as ever. This, of course, is the solution to that:
Chirac proposed yesterday that countries that sign the constitutional treaty but do not ratify it within two years should be expelled from the EU, an all-or-nothing strategy that would put enormous pressure on voters in such referendums. Britain, The Netherlands and several other countries would be likely to veto such a high-risk strategy, but Chirac's proposal showed how worried he is about the prospect of the constitution being torpedoed.
"Do what we say, or else!" Yep, the EU, not bullying at all. . .a respecter of different positions and opinions, and highly democratic at that. . .
Regular reader Alene sends in this link on the banning of a political party in Belgium.
You don't have to share that Party's views to see this as a triumph of authoritarianism over democracy, and note that the real "stifling of dissent" is more common in continental Europe than it ever has been in the U.S. There are a lot of political parties and voices in America, most of them quite small but none of them banned. Fringe views either remain marginal because they lack wide appeal or they are absorbed by the Democratic Party, but they are not outlawed. All sorts of views are allowed to be expressed in the political arena and countered not with prohibitions but with counter-argument. Sure, the radical fringe claims that counter-argument is a "chilling effect" on speech, but such silly assertions are shown to be hollow by the Belgian example. That is what real suppression looks like.
It’s a sign of Belgium’s lack of confidence in Democracy and civic discourse that they feel they must ban parties the elites do not approve of. If such Parties are so outlandish, they can be beaten at the ballot box. But it's also a sign of how those in power in many European countries have insulated themselves from the governed and made themselves unaccountable to the electorate. Parties with "fringe" views would lack appeal if the political process was more responsive to issues people cared about, rather than simply a dialogue among elites.
He seemed very opposed to the idea in the past, but he's come around:
Cabinet ministers said yesterday that Mr Blair had shifted his position partly because of fears that in the run-up to the European elections on June 10 the Tories would make political capital out of his reluctance to hold a referendum.
The Prime Minister, they said, had gradually been persuaded that the pressure was unstoppable.
The Telegraph has learnt that Mr Blair began to shift his position after the Brussels EU summit on March 25, at which he called for negotiations on the constitution to be concluded by the end of June, when the Irish are due to pass the presidency to Holland.
Whatever the reason for his change of position on the idea of a referendum, it's a good thing. Having examined the draft EU Constitution at length, I can only hope the British people reject it (enter "A Constitution for Bureaucratopia into my search engine and relevant links will come up).
Check out this report in the Telegraph. The key paragraph is somewhat buried:
The EU suppressed a report last year by German academics concluding that Arab gangs were largely responsible for a sudden surge in the anti-Jewish violence, allegedly because the findings were politically unpalatable.
It goes on and gets worse:
While far-Right and traditional "Christian" forms of anti-Semitism still exist, the report homes in on a new form of "anti-Zionist Left" prejudice.
This demonises Israel and subtly leaks into prejudice against all Jews. The study describes Belgium as a country where anti-Semitism has become almost fashionable among the Left-leaning intelligentsia.
But most of the report focuses on Jew-baiting by Muslim youths. It paints an alarming picture of daily life for France's 600,000 Jews, the EU's biggest community.
In schools, Jewish children are beaten with impunity, and teachers dare not talk about the Holocaust for fear of provoking Muslim pupils, it said.
Another consequence of the election in Spain is that the once moribund draft EU Constitution has been given new life. Therefore, it makes sense to revisit it once again (for past posts on this topic, enter "Constitution for Bureaucratopia" into my search engine). Jonathan Kallmer had a piece on it in the last issue of American Enterprise. He writes, in part:
The problem is not precisely that the constitution is too ambitious; constitutions should be ambitious. The problem is that it is ambitious in ways that exacerbate the problems it was meant to remedy.
I think it's a question whether the drafters meant to remedy those problems, or just want people to think the Constitution addresses these things (which we'll get to) while actually deepening the degree to which the EU is governed by a impersonal bureaucracy, insulated from the governed.
An effective constitutional document not only sets out the core rights of citizens and the basic structures of government, but does so in a way that is clear, concise, and accessible. A constitution is for people, not bureaucrats, and it is imperative that it speaks as plainly as possible. The European draft constitution shows few of these procedural virtues.
Is it an accident, an unwitting mistake, that the EU's draft Constitution is written in the manner it is? By bureaucrats and for bureaucrats? I think not.
One could argue that it is impossible to draft a constitution that is both succinct and unambiguous. The U.S. Constitution is wonderful in large part because of its simplicity, but that has not stopped successive generations from arguing over how to interpret its more imprecise terms. However, the vagueness in Europe's version does not approach the rich ambiguity found in phrases like "freedom of speech" and "unreasonable searches and seizures."
Actually, those terms had specific meaning at the time the U.S. Constitution was written. They were defined in common law. The problem our succeeding generations have is that we've become disconnected from that common law, and indeed the rule of law generally (though not as much as in Europe). So that, for example, the Supreme Court can decide that when the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law", it actually means they can, if they really really want to (see the below post). But just because we ignore the meaning of the Constitution doesn't mean that it was ambiguous on these points. Kallmer next writes that the EU draft Constitution's problem is "is unacceptably vague because in many instances it has no meaning at all," but I'm not sure about that. They do have meaning to the intended audience. Earlier in the piece, Kallmer writes:
Whether the intrepid eurocrat can understand such terms is irrelevant. Constitutions must be written so that ordinary citizens can understand them.
That's what we think. That's probably what the typical citizen of the EU thinks. But the drafters of the EU's Constitution do not. One can discern what someone believes from their actions. All these phrases that have no meaning to the typical person are understood by its intended audience - which is not the voting citizens of the EU, but precisely those "intrepid eurocrats" for whom the EU is being built. Kallmer writes:
An essential characteristic of a well-drafted constitution is that it establishes an equilibrium of power among institutions, lest one institution become structurally capable of dominating the others. This notion is at the heart of the "checks and balances" that typify the American Constitutional system. The proposed E.U. constitution, however, largely fails to establish such an equilibrium. Despite delivering some modest gains to the European Parliament, the institutional structure proposed by the document (when it is clear enough to be discerned) systematically favors the centralization of power in Brussels.
Now, I would agree with Kallmer on what a well-drafted Constitution should do, as would Steven Den Beste who looked at the Iraqi interim Constitution and found it doing that. But the drafters of the EU Constitution do not have that view. They believe that a system that puts power in the hands of those who know best is the preferred way to go. Anything that would check that power and make it difficult to do what the vanguard/visionaries know needs to be done is an impediment to good government in their eyes, not a positive feature. The view Kellerman has is one held by people who believe in limited government, and that limited government is essential to the preservation of liberty. Continental Europe hasn't really had that tradition. It's alien to their experience, which holds that government power in the right hands is necessary for progress (see the French Revolution and succeeding efforts along these lines). A separation of powers that allows one branch to check things just holds things back and prevents progress. That's why the draft EU Constitution is actually designed, to the extent currently possible, to reduce the ability of any one part of the EU, be it a member-state or states or one institution of the EU vs. another, to obstruct the enaction of something. It's also why the draft EU Constitution enforces within it what policies the EU must have, taking them off the table and insuring that political debate is reduced to how to advance those policies rather than a debate over what policy should be. It is designed to enforce the vision of its drafters and make it impossible for their policies to be overturned or resisted by something that might check or balance them. So for them, what Kallmer sees as a deficiency in the draft Constitution is a strength. Indeed, for EU proponents, the problem isn't that it reduces checks and balances too much, the problem is that it doesn't go far enough in centralizing power and giving the EU "competencies" over matters. If you read the pro-EU press commentary on the draft Constitution, that's what they highlight: they praise the steps taken in that direction but see more still to do in the centralization of power and removal of limits that curb the EU's ability to advance its goals. That, they say, will be addressed in the future.
Update: Regarding the different views of what governments are for, and thus what a well-drafted Constitution would look like, Gabriel Gonzalez writes in the making of French foreign policy the following observation:
[W]hereas state power is perceived as inherently dangerous by Americans in our historical tradition of scepticism towards official power, the French centralized state is glorified by its citizenry as the ultimate protector of citizen interests, rather than as a danger to them. As a result, the citizenry has little interest in the details, substance or moral dimension of foreign policy, which are fully delegated and blindly entrusted to this Collective Protector.
Note that this also implies that Constitutions aren't written for the people to understand, but as technical documents for those in power.
The EU isn't doing so hot in economic reforms - by their own standards. Germany is considering compromise on voting processes under the proposed EU Constitution. This has all been like picking at fleas and ignoring the rampaging elephant. Now is an opportune time to set aside comparisons with the U.S. Constitution, and compare it with the interim Iraqi Constitution. The first thing to note is that the Iraqi version is about 25 pages in length, much shorter than the EU's draft Constitution, which was written of, by, and for the bureaucrats and is almost ten times the length of the Iraqi interim Constitution as a result. For more on this subject, see:
Update: Oh, I almost forgot. There's a super-secret network of groups opposing EU membership in Norway, so whatever you do don't talk about it, and certainly don't write articles about them, since it's a secret. *shhhh*
An update of yesterday's post on the brewing battle in the EU, here - the Vice-President of the European Socialists finds any suggestion that if the center-right parties win, the losing Socialists will not control the EU Commissione "arrogant".
Projection has long been a hallmark of Leftist political rhetoric, and it's on display here. I have no doubt that they're outraged by the concept that an election result might matter and it might mean they will no longer be in the driver's seat in Their EU. Denis MacShane has confirmed exactly the point I was making.
Then there's the Franco-German Plan to help bring peace to the Middle-East. The French and Germans have long practice in cooperating in Final Solutions of this sort, and there are many Arabs who look to them for the historical example to emulate.
No, not the U.S. election. I'm talking the battle for the control of the EU. I've mentioned before that the Socialists in the EU have a proprietary view of it. So we'll see how well this goes over:
Socialist candidates were warned yesterday that they stand little chance of becoming the next European Commission president if the centre-right wins an expected victory in the June European elections.
Hans-Gert Pöttering, leader of the European parliament's centre-right group, said his colleagues would not accept the choice by European leaders of a social democrat for the top job in Brussels. . .
"If we win the elections we would expect that the heads of government would propose someone from our political family," he said in an interview with the Financial Times. "It is a question of principle which heads of governments should respect."
The idea that an election might matter and should affect how the EU is governed, and that the result might not be the pre-eminence of the Left, may go over badly with some. How this is handled - if the elections produce the "expected" result - will be an important signifier for how the EU will develop. It will be a good sign if election results are respected, it will be a bad sign if they are resisted or dismissed and the same old gang tries to function in their role of an entrenched bureaucracy insulated and unaccountable to the governed.
Then there is this:
The next Commission president will have to rebuild morale at the EU executive and show it is capable of standing up to big member states in applying EU law and coming up with new initiatives to boost European integration.
That's another move that would go over like a lead balloon in a couple of capitals, the "core area" vanguard Restored Carolingian Empire that sees the EU as their demesne. It's the other, lesser, vassalary fiefdoms that are supposed to submit to the EU's authoritah.
Steven Den Beste is already all over this one, and I don't really have anything to add, but I can't resist blogging this, because it's so revealing of the contempt for the electorate that is at the heart of the EU and its champions. This isn't the problem:
"Referenda are in fact pure gambling. There is no guarantee of a positive outcome, unfortunately".
Referendums aren't random, their outcomes aren't a roll of the dice. It's just that the typical citizen of an EU country tends to reject what the EU's elites put in front of them. That is, the outcome of referendums aren't a matter of chance - they are definite expressions of the will of the voters, and those voters tend to reject the vision of the EU's elites whenever they're given a chance.
So the solution, obviously, is to stop giving them the chance. It's a very predictable solution. As for this:
"Referenda have a very conservative effect on development. If the other countries copy us, the EU will fall apart"
Denmark (the country alluded to here) doesn't really have a reputation for being a bastion of conservatism. Denmark's electorate is fairly Liberal. What this quote characterizing the voters as "conservative" really tells you is how extreme the champions/vanguard of the EU are.
This also puts yet another nail in the coffin of the idea that the Left is all about "power to the people" and giving voice to the wishes of the masses of common people. It's always been a crock, of course. But it's increasingly evident to anyone who is paying attention. It also shows, in my non-humble opinion, that material egalitarianism and redistributionist politics have no connection, except perhaps a negative one, to maintaining a robust civic discourse based on respect for the interests and wishes of the citizenry as a whole - that is, all the citizenry, not just those who have escaped "false conciousness" and are "aware and enlightened" enough to support what they're supposed to support and oppose what they're supposed to oppose in accordance with the vision of progressives, rather than express "conservative" views in random, gambling ways. One wonders if Charlotte Antonsen has thought of characterizing letting the electorate vote on how they are to be governed as a "risky scheme". Bob Shrum should give her a call.
Update: Michael at Discountblogger comments on referenda and I blather on more here.
The BBC continues to admonish Spain and Poland for their intransigent refusal to accept their proper role as vassalary sattelites of the Restored Carolingian Empire. The core areas are planning on forging ahead with the Restoration anyhow:
Other diplomats have confirmed that France, supported by Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, had been preparing to release a call for closer integration among a selected group of countries.
In possibly related news, the Pope proposing an Imperial beatification. If things continue on this road, perhaps Romano Prodi will beat out Vladimir Putin in getting a mandate that all portraits show him with a halo.
Well, credit where credit is due. Not all is bad in Europe. Major blogosphere whipping-boy (though overshadowed by his partners in weaseldom across the Rhine) Gerhard Schroeder has pushed through a much needed package of tax cuts and spending reductions, including reforms of the German welfare system. The BBC's not quite amused, but not as harsh as they are when such things are enacted in America.
It's always amusing watching the pro-EU elite twist themselves into ideological knots to rationalize deference to the Authoritah of the EU's Frankenreich avant garde. Nelson Ascher highlighted this gem in the Guardian yesterday. The editorial staff of the Guardian channels Bob Novak, analogizing government to a bank:
The immediate crisis came because it was intolerable for Germany, a rich modern nation of more than 80 million people which contributes 25% of the total EU budget, to allow Poland, a poor undeveloped nation of around 40 million people which is about to become one of the largest beneficiaries of that budget, to have almost as many votes as one another in the EU decision-making process. A bank in which the borrowers have as much control over the money as the lenders is a bank that will go out of business. That was the predicament Europe faced this weekend.
Now, this is respectable right-wing opinion: that those who pay taxes should perhaps have greater say than those who are net recipients of government benefits. After all, people voting themselves largess out of the treasury can be a worrisome problem.
It will be interesting to watch the Guardian apply their newfound insight. Perhaps they'll come out for a further reform of the House of Lords, advocating that its membership be elected by the top 20% of British wage-earners and taxpayers, and that the poor who receive government welfare assistance should be excluded from voting on the grounds that it is ruinous to British welfare - after all A bank in which the borrowers have as much control over the money as the lenders is a bank that will go out of business, right?
Oh, you're saying they're only going to apply this reasoning selectively? Not even across the board when it comes to the EU but only on occasions when it can advance the power of the EU elites? This doesn't reflect the Guardian's principled position on these things, you say?
Such a pity. I'm so disillusioned. I thought the Left was infused with high principle, not just the pursuit of power over others by any rationale that comes to mind at any given time, changing said rationales at whim.
Extraordinarily, the summit did not fail over an issue of principle: no one was objecting to the supremacy of EU law, or the creation of a European criminal justice system, or the huge increases in power for the European Commission and Parliament or, indeed, the very fact of having a European constitution.
Rather, the process foundered on the most tangential of questions: voting weights. It is as though the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 had failed because no one could agree on where the signing ceremony should take place.
Actually, it's as though the Philadelphia Convention failed because they couldn't agree on representation - a House of Representatives apportioned by population and a Senate with all States having equal representation. But I quibble (and on a morning like this).
This process had seen an astonishing - indeed, almost sinister - agreement on the broad picture. Everyone agreed that the EU should cease to be an alliance of states bound by international treaty, and become instead a single polity with its own constitution. So what on Earth happened?
To answer this question, it is necessary to recall a little of the EU's history. In the early days, there was near unanimity about Europe's unitary destination, the so-called finalite politique. The arguments only began in earnest when the six founder members were joined, in 1973, by Britain, Ireland and Denmark.
While the political elites of these new members were broadly happy with ever-closer union, they were constrained by the scepticism of their electorates. Indeed, it was at around this time that the word "Euro-sceptic" was coined.
Read the whole thing, when you get time. It includes this:
Whenever a new initiative was announced, the old Carolingian members would push for maximum harmonisation.
"Restored Carolingian Empire" indeed.
Update: Meanwhile, still lost in a haze of fantasy and delusion, Chirac is blaming Blair for the Constitution Summit's failure.
The dream of EU Apparachics everywhere has met the irresistable force of reality, and has been crushed:
Many issues could have tripped up the summiteers
You can say that again. It goes on:
Many issues could have tripped up the summiteers, but the voting dispute involving Poland and Spain on the one side and Germany and France on the other was the deciding factor. . .
Today there was no sign of any concession from the Spanish and Polish leaders, with French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder equally tough in insisting that any deal reflected their greater EU muscle.
Proves that the rest of Europe isn't going to be the catspaws of the Frankenreich.
The BBC World Service radio News portrayed this as simply Poland (and perhaps Spain) threatening to derail what the rest of Europe ("led by France and Germany") wanted, and that this Draft EU Constitution was the only possible way of doing things and if it is scrapped because of an uncompromising Poland, then that would destroy the possibility of European integration.
Of course, to present things that way, they not only slipped this down the memory hole, but made no mention of this In fact, more EU countries have serious doubts about the Draft Constitution than are for it, but the BBC's EUBC's radio program presented things quite differently - not referencing things that the BBC's own website does - because it would undermine the sense they strive to convey that this Draft EU Constitution has widespread consensus support, which is far from the truth.
We allow the BBC to continue being the "EUBC", but in exchange, the BBC doesn't charge me their onerous license fee. After all, I hate their propaganda, and seeing my hard earned cash going on such things turns my stomach. However, presumably the various Eurocrats love it, so I think -they- should pay for it.
I'm sure d'Estaing would appreciate that, an opportunity to make a selfless donation to the Voice of the People.
They can pay for their propaganda out of their own pocket, not mine.
I think that's perfect.
Note also that this EUBC article mentions the EU "avant-garde" nations. See here, here and here for more on their "Vanguardism" (also here). The BBC radio news program's news-spinners were also keen to emphasize that the Draft Constitution was "more democratic". Well, regarding that, I refer you to my "A Constitution for Bureaucratopia" series if you haven't already read it
Responding to this post from yesterday, Christopher Smith sends, via e-mail, a link to this article from Tuesday's Guardian:
The government should not approve an EU constitution drawn up by a self-selected European elite, Labour's representative on the convention that drew up the draft constitution said yesterday.
Gisela Stuart also demanded that all MPs be given a free vote on the ratification of the treaty if the government continues to rule out a referendum. She went as far as she could to back a plebiscite without breaching government policy.
"Self-selected European elite", eh? Sounds like what I've been saying about that lot.
Of course, it sounds like what a lot of people have been saying about that bunch, but they used to be invariably dismissed as xenophobic Europhobes. But the reality is becoming too obvious for people to ignore:
Other MPs, including some loyalist ministers, privately signalled their support for her comments, surprising Ms Stuart, who had expected to face widespread criticism.
Ms Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, who was born in Germany and went to school there, was appointed to the convention by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. She has long been a critic of the centralising direction of the European commission, but the scale of her disenchantment with the convention's federalist mentality has startled Westminster.
My friend Last Toryboy writes, via e-mail, about a subject reminding the British Monarch of her Royal duties:
A blogger sent this as an open letter to the Queen. I heard in the Telegraph a while back that the Queen was worried about the EU constitution, so maybe this sort of thing is on her mind...
Slender hopes to be had here, but I'll take what I can get.
LTB didn't send me the link and isn't online at the moment (looking at ICQ) for me to get it from him. But he did send the text of the letter, apparently in its entirety. If I can get the link, I'll link to the site of its origin later:
Your Majesty, I have seen a report in one of the weekend papers that you have received many appeals from British Subjects to veto the proposed EU constitution, and apparently your position is that it is up to your ministers to decide such matters.
Well, i[f] that is your position, it is my duty to advise you that you are mistaken.
Just like your subjects, you are bound by the terms of Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights (1689).
Magna Carta requires that the monarch guarantees the liberty of the subjects, while the Bill of Rights prevents their being handed over to the government of any foreign power.
The raison d'etre of the EU is the destruction of the nation states of Europe, and the creation of a single country that spreads from the Atlantic to the Urals.
No group in our society, however exalted its members might be, has any authority to ignore, amend or overturn Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights.
For that reason, should Parliament pass any bill which accepts the EU constitution as binding on the British people, you are legally and morally obliged to veto it.
The Royal Prerogative may not be used innovatively, i.e. against the interests of the British people. Should any minister or ministers use the Royal Prerogative to sign any treaty to enforce the EU constitution as binding on the British people, you are similarly legally and morally obliged to veto it.
You are now the only person in this country with the authority, and the power, to protect and preserve our constitution and our liberty. The survival of our country, your subjects, and your crown is now in your hands. Please preserve and defend them.
The EU has been trying to put square objects in circular holes and issuing decrees for the objects to be more circular and the holes to be more square, for so many years that people has lost all faith in that institution.
Well, it turns out that being the EU's "core", as France & Germany like to think of themselves, or their "vanguard" means, as I've written before, that the rules you make are intended to constrain others, not so much to apply to yourselves. You need flexibility.
Well, the good news is that even the BBC, which used to dismiss any questioning of the EU's democratic underpinnings as Europhobia, is starting to open their eyes at least a little. Of course, they're still platitudinous and haughty about the whole thing, showing that they still haven't faced up to the problem and clearly need admonishments like the one Vaclav Klaus gave about their bureaucratic regulatory ambitions as well.
For those of you coming late to a phrase I haven't used in awhile, enter "Restored Carolignian Empire" into my search engine (located to screen left) and its relative, "Frankenreich". That said, here is a piece in Canada's National Post on the vision that a union between France and Germany would expound:
This vision of the EU encompasses a bureaucratically "harmonized" state with a semi-command economy, a kind of glass-cockpit socialism for the 21st century. Such a Franco-German construct would be "nuanced" and "civilized" -- the code words denoting a state with a pragmatic bent, flexible ethics and a commitment to realpolitik. It would have a defence force separate from NATO, and held as aloof as possible from Anglo-American cultural, political and judicial influences.
In short, it would split Western civilization into an Atlantic and a continental branch. . .
This concern has prompted them to consider either a stronger union between the two European giants of France and Germany, or possibly a two-tiered EU in which a core group -- i.e., France-Belgium-Germany -- would forge ahead, then invite second-tier countries in the "euro-zone" to join them. Join them, that is, as long as these minor or new-EUers are prepared to commit to what Strauss-Kahn and his co-authors described in an earlier article in Le Monde (June 20, 2001) as "a model of social solidarity and external independence" -- the code words meaning a state of centralized bureaucracy that is as resistant to Anglo-American as it is receptive to Franco-German influence.
This is the polite way to describe the Strauss-Kahn model of anti-Anglo-American statism. Less polite would be euro-national socialism sans genocide: Nazism with a human face.
Well, there you go (that last phrase there is I suppose rather harsh and begs for the invocation of Godwin's Law, but, well...). As I was saying. . .
The attempt to resurrect the ancient Frankish empire of Charles the Great as a counterbalance to American "unilateralism" is no doubt motivated by what I once described as phallUS-envy, but even more by historic opportunism. France and Germany are glimpsing a chance. Having been continually frustrated in their global ambitions, they don't want to see Europe slip out of their grip. Charlemagne, legendary ruler of the "First Reich" in the 9th and 10th centuries, is a hero in the national mythology of both France and Germany. It seems the two heavy hitters of old Europe, having failed to build their empires in modern times, are now hoping to excavate one.
Check out the whole piece though, because there's a more positive alternative vision.
My british friend sends me this link (via ICQ), commenting: "The latest [EU] kleptocracy story, but I'm becoming jaded. More resignation than righteous anger now". Boyo, that's how they want you to react. He goes on, though, saying:
"'This summer Mr Solbes angered many MEPs by pleading ignorance. "I can't be blamed or asked to take responsibility for something I don't know about," he said.'
Ha! incompetent technocrat at large. Fire him!
Oh, we cant.
'Democracy' in action."
He also sends this story and comments (likewise via ICQ):
"I dont believe this. He's lost the confidence of just about everybody in the entire country, and yet he's 'fighting on'. An honourable man would just resign gracefully. This is going to be ugly and utterly counterproductive thanks to his 'defiance'. He just doesnt have the ability or the gravitas. Its not something to be ashamed of, he's done some good stuff, but its time to step aside and let someone prime ministerial have a bash. Instead he's clinging to the mast of the sinking ship as it goes down, battling to the very last fag end. I notice all the plotters lean to the Left of the Tory party too, that irks me That tells me that if a perfectly acceptable person on the Right ends up being the leader (like Michael Howard) they'll probably keep bitching. Seems anybody of leftwards persuasion, even those ostensibly on the right, can only do damage, no matter what guise they have Its like the wets in the 1980s all over again.
I really like LTB, but I wish he'd just come out and tell me what he really thinks about things. 8-)~~~
I know what he means, though. I do hope IDS goes down. He's been a disaster. Anyhow, in response I sent him a link to this John Sullivan piece.
The transcript of the Think Tank show where Ben Wattenberg interviews Robert Kagan is up now, and worth a read. Here's a key point made by Kagan:
Well the truth is they don’t have as much to worry about as we do because they don’t occupy the same position in the world that we do. Now what I think Europeans sometimes forget is one of the reasons that they can enjoy this paradise that they have in Europe is because the United States is still manning the walls. The Europeans once understood that. During the Cold War, they understood that America was playing this critical role, not only in providing security but allowing Europe to evolve in the direction that it has evolved in. But today I think Europeans have forgotten that to a large extent and spend most of their time worrying about the United States, not against the kinds of people out there in world that the United States is protecting Europe against.
And a interesting exchange:
BEN WATTENBERG: I thought that there would be a good deal in your book about America’s goals in the world. Freedom, democracies, civil society, free press, the sorts of things that have in point of fact and I’ve got some numbers around somewhere - I’m sure you’ve seen them,the Freedom House has one index, and the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation do another - as to how what we call western values have expanded. And yet you don’t really push that, that that’s America’s goal in the world. Is that America’s goal in the world? To expand and extend human liberty?
