~ 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
Oh, and the corollary to the below post is: I don't think we're going to find significant stockpiles, for whatever reason (I believe they existed, but they're gone). So we're boned.
If you've read this blog long enough, you'll know that the WMD factor wasn't the main thing I focused on in the run up to the war. Like Tom Friedman, I believed and believe there were other significant reasons for getting rid of Saddam Hussein. But neither is the issue of the existance of WMD programs by hostile states with a history of involvement with terrorist organizations and assassination plots unimportant. Also, I'm far from one of these people who think that the Bush administration manufactured intelligence on WMD in order to justify the war. I also agree that it's an expression of ignorance - willful or otherwise - to claim that the Bush Administration snowed people on Saddam's weapons program (deliberately or otherwise).
To believe that, or to pretend to believe that, you have to believe that Clinton era officials were in on it, paving the way well before Bush reached the White House, so that the Nefarious Vast-Neocon Conspiracy could deceive the country into going to war.
"[A]n offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum...2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled scud warheads, and 157 aerial bombs."
that Iraq had. Indeed, one would have to believe the UN and foreign intelligence agencies were in on making it up over the years, because that's where much of this information came from initially. Indeed, we could keep linking to stuff that predated Bush all day - and also point out that we are finding some things. (Btw, for those who are considering saying "well, you didn't support Clinton, so using his words now isn't appropriate" - on matters like this, the only beef I had with Clinton is I don't think he went far enough. I think he should have done more, sooner. I didn't disagree with him about the nature of the problem. Also, I did vote for him in '92). But bringing up old statements to defend what the Bush administration presented is not the point of this post.
When I last brought up my concern (several weeks ago) about the failure to find WMD in significant quantities, I got mail to the effect that "well, it's not a problem. Only the usual suspects are going to make a big deal about that, and it doesn't matter what they say."
I beg to differ. Here's why:
Remember Tony Blair? Before the war I predicted that even if things turned out well, the hard Left in Labour would find a way to pay him back, to punish him for this, to remove him. They'd never forgive, and would use any excuse (even if it was on an unrelated issue) to remove him (like the Tories removed Thatcher, though the issues there were far different. The point is, this can happen in a Parliamentary system). Well, I'm here to tell you, Blair is screwed if the WMD aren't found. The replacement will not be someone you like. If you like him, or are grateful for his support on this issue and don't want him to lose his post over this (and therefore be a negative example for those who are tempted to help us out in the future), then this is bad.
You like the "Anglosphere" idea, right? Well, lets say you do, or at least you like having Britain and Australia, the two best allies a country can have, watching our back and helping us out. Well, see if we get their support, or the support of any sort of "coalition of the willing" in the future if we don't find more than we have so far.
A lot of people, myself included, understand that the Iraq campaign was not a separate war, but a campaign in the larger war. It needed to be won, but there is more to do. If you believe that there are things left to do, well, good luck getting enough support - both domestic and international (and, if you've read this blog long enough, you know I don't follow the pack in interpreting "international support" to mean "the support of the UN, France, and Germany") - to pursue those goals if we don't find significant quantities of WMD. If
It doesn't really matter if the weapons were destroyed before the war (see also this Peter Brooks piece, snuck into Syria (well, that matters in a different way), or Saddam played the Robert Shaw part in The Sting and was the victim of a weapons screw job. The fact is, we're hosed on a number of levels if we don't find out what happened to these weapons, and preferably find the weapons themselves.
I hadn't really wanted to make this post. I kept hoping they'd find a stockpile somewhere and render this unnecessary. But I'm beginning to think it's not going to happen, they aren't going to find a significant stockpile, and that therefore we're hosed. The narrative will be that we can't be trusted - either because "Bush lied and manufactured evidence to support his rush to war" or because there was an intelligence failure and whatever information we present in the future about the WMD programs of other dangerous folks who sponsor terrorists will be dismissed because "after all 'everybody knows' we were wrong the last time, right?"
Sorry, but I've felt all along that those who thought we shouldn't get too worried about the failure to find WMD in Iraq were underestimating the difficulties the fallout from that would cause for us, and for our friends who joined the posse. It doesn't matter if this fallout is unfair or not (some people, I think, unconsciously discount the potential damage here because they think, well, that there shouldn't be any huge damage caused by what is, at bottom, false criticism). This is politics, not cricket, and no one said life was going to be fair. Well, not me, at least.
Update: Oh, and puh-leeze. As Max Boot writes, Bush and Blair aren't so stupid as to doctor the intelligence to the degree that people are hysterically accusing. But it hardly matters if we don't find the stuff.
So, I haven't yet written that post on the importance of finding WMD in Iraq yet. I keep putting it off (maybe they'll save me the trouble and find more).
Instead I want to comment on something John Coumarianos wrote in this post, which I linked to here. John writes:
Moreover, it is questionable whether Europeans have the qualities required for self-government. Indeed their desire for a stronger European Union, a transnational authority, may reflect their failure at governing themselves on the state level and a slavish desire to be ruled.
Here I have to disagree. While Europeans want a stronger EU in the abstract, it's not clear that they are that enthusiastic about being ruled.
I believe the ambitions for the EU, expressed in the draft Constitution (which is clearly, for its proponents, only a step forward on the path they want to take, not the arrival at their hoped-for destination) are to rule. I think that it's clear that there is a difference between European elites and our elites - while one can certainly find (increasing numbers) of people here who see themselves as fit to govern the lives of others, we are exceptional in that at least some portion of our "elite class" has had respect for independence, the right of the individual to govern their own lives, and for a decentralized country as opposed to the dream of central control.
I think that this is what is lacking in Europe. There, the ambitions of the vanguard, the elect, to rationalize the whole of society through a proper central authority where the guiding hand of meritocratic elite (graduates of the proper colleges, who have worked their way through the civil service) following a wise intellectual blueprint insure things work smoothly and maintain a harmonious continent under enlightened rule is the norm. Again, one can point to counter-examples (plenty of European intellectuals, political and business leaders, and the like, who don't fit this mode), just as one can find counter-examples to what is the norm in America.
I don't think the majority of the people of European countries have a "slavish desire to be ruled". Quite the contrary. While they might express a desire to see a "stronger EU", in an abstract sense (thinking of something that will make for economic betterment and also allow them to thumb their nose at the Great Satan across the sea), when it gets to particulars, strong majorities in every European country oppose the schemes put forward by the visionaries of a federal EU with a strong central government to rule them. Indeed, as I mentioned in the previous discussion, this is why the Builders of Europe have increasingly resorted to euphemism and impenetrable bureaucratese to disguise their ambitions, and to move more gradually than they would prefer (Romano Prodi, for example, dislikes the draft EU Constitution because it's not ambitious enough in its centralizing aims). But even so, it's not clear that this draft Constitution has popular support - and it's less clear that it will gain popular support if people learn what's really in it.
I don't think the people of Europe have a slavish desire to be ruled. However, most (not all) the populaces of countries in Continental Europe do differ from Americans in that they may not have a "slavish desire to be ruled", but they are much more resigned to having things imposed on them than an American would be.
This struck me the other day when Bush decided to put 850,000 government jobs up for bid open to private sector companies. Right now, Frenchmen are in the streets over a few, fairly modest by U.S. standards, attempts to reform their government perks. But Americans didn't fill the streets over this - there is some grumbling from the usual suspects, but no "Mass Action". Meanwhile, Americans are more likely to be incited by impositions on their personal choices - we'd never stand for (and never have for long) the sort of regulations that many Continental Europeans resign themselves to and accept. Even there, though, it's not really clear they like it (now, as is usual, they're less upset about regulations that supposedly stick it to others, and have been less quick to understand that a regulation that affects someone else directly, may have a significant indirect affect on them. People haven't been as aware of the "Law of Unintended Consequences" in Continental Europe as we unsophisticates in America are. But that may be changing, and this is why in Germany and France, politicians who openly advocate reforms do have enough support to win elections).
But whenever asked, the majority of European people have stated their opposition to a centralized EU authority. The difference between most Europeans and most Americans on this score is they're less likely (but not entirely unlikely) to make it plain to their politicians that this is absolutely unacceptable and anyone who tries to impose it will lose their comfortable government sinecure in the next election. Europeans may fill the streets when their benefits packages are threatened, but silently accept the latest Grand Vision being imposed on them. But I don't think that's the same thing as desiring it.
I was going to rip on the background but then I thought "hey, 'salmon' colored is good enough for the Financial Times, then it's good enough for Common Sense & Wonder".
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
Part IV of the "Constitution for Bureautopia" series will not be aired today. If you can't get enough EU Constitution stuff, check out this (and the article it is based on), and here. For a more Panglossian view of the draft Constitution there is, the BBC's rundown (which, interestingly, is titled "What the Constitution Says", but which doesn't quote from it much. Not nearly as much as I have).
The reason no Part IV today is I'm going to be writing a post on a different topic, which may take a bit of time. The more so since it's a post I don't want to write. It's on the failure to find WMD in Iraq, and the consequences thereof.
Makes me wonder how much of this went on before, without the "Fact Check Your Ass" of Bloggers. And the High Commissioners of Reporting say blogs are bad because of their error rate.
These aren't errors, though. They aren't mistakes. The editors (the huge advantage newspapers have over blogs) looked it all over and discussed it with the writer, and approved it for publication. So it's ok. Right?
Now hundreds of neatly standardized American journalists have been set loose on liberated Iraq, and they all go to the same locales, ask the same questions, and file the same stories.
Well, that way you don't have to stray too far from your friends (fellow reporters) and from your sweet digs down at the Palestine Hotel.
Lets start off today with Colin Glassey's comments. He's right that there are no meaningful checks and balances that I can see, and that the point of this Constitution is to give the Union maximum "flexibility" - the opposite of limited government. But the member-states do have the ability to select members of the various Councils (which are insulated from the governed thereby, being at a remove from election); we'll be getting into some of that, today. This doesn't seem to be quite true:
The natational governments are unable to take any independent actions.
National governments will retain the ability to take independent actions to the degree the Union lets them (a small distinction, perhaps; I think that in the initial stages, they will have the apparent ability to take quite a number of independent actions. After all, "how do you boil a frog?" - slowly).
What a member-state clearly has decreasing latitude to do is to "opt out" of provisions they find unacceptable, which is the definition of sovereignty. This is reinforced by the introduction of the concept of the "qualified majority" (which I'll discuss today) - the elimination of the national veto over a increasing array of policy matters. Various countries are already raising concerns over the power distribution arrangement in this draft Constitution and what it may mean with respect to their ability to influence policies that will affect them.
Colin is also right about the length of this codex. An American can carry around in his or her pocket a copy of a Constitution that has successfully governed their country for over two centuries. It's only exaggerating a bit to say you'd need a pack mule to cart the EU's draft Constitution around, and it is designed to be impenetrable and incomprehensible to the average person. I had originally planned to go through each section and analyze the whole thing. I may still try. But this is going to be like the journal of a spelunking expedition lost in the steam tunnels of Ball State University ("Day 43: Provisions low. Dave has a lot of meat on him. May need to take extraordinary action. Hungry. So hungry."). I shall do my best.
The Councils
The main governing bodies remain the Council(s) of Ministers (Title IV, Articles I-21 & I-22) (not to be confused with the Council of Europe - Title IV, Article I-20); every member-state has representation here, and this is where most of the real work is done. The Council of Europe (not to be confused with the Council(s) of Ministers) seems to set the broad agenda, and consists of the heads of state of the various member-states, as well as the Union Foreign Minister and the President of the Council (both selected separately by the Council). They meet four times a year, and if they see their shadow. . .um, no. They meet quarterly, and decisions are taken "by consensus". Consensus is the favorite decision-making device of the passive-aggressive. As opposed to unanimous consent, "consensus" usually involves a lot of pressure to do what the "in" crowd wants (the "in" crowd otherwise known as the vanguard). In any case, the Council of Europe's main role seems to be cheerleading ("define general political direction and priorities"). Legislating and the making of actual policy rests with the Council(s) of Ministers.
The Council(s) of Ministers "enact(s) legislation and carr(ies) out policy-making and coordinating functions" (Article I-22 #1); these decisions to be made by qualified majority except where the Constitution provides otherwise (I-22 #3). What in the blue hell is a "qualified majority", you ask. The draft Constitution defines it in Article I-24 as:
When the European Council and the Council of Ministers take decisions by qualified majority [Hey, wait - I thought the European Council was supposed to take its decisions "by consensus"? Yah, they are, "except where the Constitution provides otherwise" (Article I-20, #4).] such a majority shall consist of the Majority of Member States, representing at least three fifths of the population of the Union"
So that's what they mean by "qualified majority". One can see from this why the smaller countries might be concerned about this set up (but they shouldn't worry - they get to retain their sovereignty, except in the areas where they don't). But back to the Council(s) of Ministers.
The Council(s) of Ministers it consists of Ministers from each member-state. Why do I keep calling it the "Council(s) of Ministers? Because though the draft Constitution refers to it in the singular this "Council" actually consists of a series of Councils:
The General Affairs Council, that prepares meetings ("where should we go for lunch?").
The Legislative Council, that approves the laws presented to it by the Brussels Bureaucracy.
The Foreign Affairs Council that "flesh(es) out the Union's external policies, and ensure(s) that its actions are consistent." (Which is going to be tough, considering that Union Foreign Policy will be, judging from what we've seen so far, resting on a firm foundation of the double-standard. Consistency will therefore be hard to attain). This Council will be chaired by the Union's Foreign Minister.
Economic and Financial Affairs Council
Council on Justice and Security
The General Affairs Council may also form other Councils if they want to, at their discretion (Article I-23 #5).So that's the Council(s) of Ministers. The next body is one we've already mentioned,
The European Commissione
Now, this is actually a very important body, and it will have a limited membership. We discussed how the members are selected in yesterday's post: backroom deals among a set of nations will determine the composition of this fifteen-seet Council. A majority of member-states don't even have to be represented (each member-state submits three names, including one female, and the Capo de Tuti Capo - er, Commission President - picks and chooses among them. The Capo could pick all three of the people proposed by one member-state, and in a Union of 25+ members, clearly some won't have a piece of the action even if the Capo doesn't pick more than one from any member-state). The draft Constitution says the Commission President should "take account of . . .geographic balance", but this is easily fudged, especially since there are a whole raft of things the CP "takes into account", apparently based on his own discretion and interpretation (Article I-26, #2).
In its current incarnation, whatever other flaws it may have, the smaller EU members look to the Commission as their guardian (this is a big point in that Finnish article I linked to at the top of this post). The draft Constitution clearly transforms the Commission away from that (small states are the biggest losers here). But by now you're probably asking why the Commission is important. It is key, because all Union business is filtered through it: it is the bureaucratic "hub" of the Union, and the sole source of legislation. The Commission's powers are:
Constitutional interpretation ("ensure the application of the Constitution, and steps taken by the institutions under the Constitution", along with the vague, open-ended "safeguard the general European interest") (Article I-25 #1).
The Commission is the source of legislation and policy proposals ("except where the Constitution provides otherwise, Union acts can be adopted only on the basis of a Commission proposal" - so, for example, the European Parliament doesn't have the ability normally found in such assemblies, of drafting legislation. Even the Council of Europe and the Council(s) of Ministers are dependent upon the Commission submitting them something to ratify.
Article I-25 #4 stipulates that the Commission is insulated from the governed (it will not seek or take instruction from any government or any other body - such as the Council of Europe, Council(s) of Ministers, or the European Parliament). This body of appointees and lifelong bureaucrats is the real power in the Union. This is what I was talking about when I said that Parliament didn't make laws, as we usually understand it: they simply pass what the Brussels Bureaucracy submits to them. They lack independent authority to draft legislation or even propose it.
The Commission thus has executive, legislative, and judicial functions. Also, what can clearly happen here is the same set of nations (wonder which ones?) can elect the President, get their guys appointed to the Commission, set the agenda theirby, and then pass what they want via "qualified majority".
Well, that's all I have time for. Up next: the rest of the institutional bodies.
Update: As with the previous posts, the stuff discussed in this post can be found here.
Zinn’s account of the Pequot war is a microcosm of his book as a whole which is little more than an 800-page libel against his country.
It's also widely used in classrooms and parroted by those who lack a better, more accurate and informed, understanding of history (and this is, as they say, "not accidental"). So much for the idea that this is only some tiny element of the Left out there.
This is how the founding of the country is described:
“Around 1776,” A People’s History informs readers, “certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from the favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership". . .
"When we look at the American Revolution this way, it was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they have received over the centuries. They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command.”
French orgy! Multiple orgies with prostitutes! Totally implausible stories of sexual depravity! Pornography industry and sado-masochistic parties!
Hey, if it's good enough for the BBC, then. . .well, ok, the BBC is like Old Faithful (it both sucks and blows at the same time!) and I shouldn't stoop to their substandards.
So in the update to yesterday's post I admitted I made one error. That error has to do with the fact that there is a kind of "Legislative branch" in the draft Constitution.
however, not quite, for reasons we'll get into. Turns out that a number of bodies can craft what has the force of law, and the Parliament is (and will remain) as important to the functioning of the Union as the appendix is in a human body.
Before we get to analyzing the institutional structure of the EU, however, a few more overarching points. Just as with the fact that, whatever people may say, it's deceptive to claim that the member-states will retain sovereignty under this Constitution, so to is it a sham and a mockery that the document does not use the word "Federal". I bring that up because a big deal is being made of that. Indeed, the draft Constitution avoids a lot of words and phrases that set off alarm bells among "Euroskeptics" (actually, among the majority of European people, and thus the chance of the draft Constitution being ratified would be nil if it contained those terms. After all, it's going to alarm "Euroskeptics" - such as myself - as it is, based on its substance. Mollifying "Euroskeptics" wasn't the reason for the choice of words, so much as trying to disarm them by substituting other words while aiming at the same goals). However, though it avoids using certain terms, as a matter of function and intent, it aims for the substance. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and a heaping pile of rotting garbage still stinks, even if it's called a rose.
This is another case where they refuse to be honest because they know that if they were, they'd lose. Most of the people of Europe do not favor a Federal Union (the EUrophiles would say they "aren't ready for" a Federal Union, which is rather indicative of how they view the people - what they want is not as important as what we, the elect, the visionaries, know is best. The people will come around, we just haven't had enough time to manipulate them good and hard yet. In the meantime, while we work on that, achieving this vision is far too important to wait till it has public support. So some deception and sleight-of-hand, sugar to make the pill go down easier, is not only necessary and acceptable, but imperative).
This, then, is another one of those rationalistic projects that are predicated not on designing institutions suited to the people, but upon designing people to fit institutions that the visionaries know would make for a better society (and world, going by the preamble). If the people don't want it, well, they need to be shaped till they fit the institutions (rather than the other way around). Then, perhaps in fifty years, when the architects of the vision have produced through their efforts (on behalf of all humanity) a better sort of person, things can be more open and democratic. But until then, well, they need to have the ability (through these institutions) to work towards producing that population, or it will never happen. So the good end justifies the means, and shaping people to fit institutions is the more rational way of going about things.
Once again, though, these things never work out well in practice.
In any case, federal is as federal does, and we'll take a look at the institutions the draft Constitution sets out for this federal Union (as with yesterday's post, what is discussed can be found here):
Title IV: The Union's Institutions
According to the draft Constitution, legislation is produced by two bodies: the European Parliament, and the Council (actually, there are several Councils, but it is fairly clear - well, sort of - that they mean the Council of Ministers; Article I-22, #1).
European Parliament
Lets face it, this body has been a cypher and probably will continue to be. It's been possible to describe the workings of the European Union, how power is exercised and how policies are made, and make hardly any mention of the Parliament or its members.
What is the reason for this? Well, the primary reason is that this is called a Parliament, and its members are drawn from countries with Parliamentary traditions, and so are familiar with the Parliamentary way of doing things. But the EU really isn't a Parliamentary system, and so applying their experience in such systems (such as voting for the bills "their government" puts before them) is more misleading than helpful. In systems where the Parliament is an important body, the Parliament forms a government. There is a Prime Minister and various Cabinet Ministers which oversee the bureaus (Ministries) and are accountable to Parliament. Under many of the systems (France being an example, also Italy), where Parliament is comparatively weak, the accountability of the bureaus is atrophied, and the Permanent Bureaucracy runs things, rather than Parliament.
The EU Parliament has this problem to the Nth degree. This Constitutional draft does seem to move the ball a little, but still does not produce a structure that is likely to make the Bureaus democratically accountable, or responsible to Parliament. This tendency is exacerbated by the fact that, due to its composition, the EU Parliament will have all the drawbacks of a system of Proportional Representation, without the virtue of having to keep a "governing coalition" together (there is no pressure of the possibility of a coalition collapsing and forcing new elections, because there's no governing coalition in the first place). Thus it is certain to continue to be the case that legislation for the Union is drafted elsewhere (likely in a building in Brussels), and the Parliaments role will be to rubber-stamp it, just like the old Supreme Soviet.
The Union will be governed not by Parliament, but by a series of Councils.
What is the role of the Parliament? The most significant seems to be the election of the President of the European Commissione. He gets to select the other Commissione members. However, Parliament does not really elect the President so much as be presented with a President by the European Council (Article 1-26: "the European Council, deciding by qualified majority, shall put forward to the European Parliament its proposed candidate for the Presidency of the Commission". They only have to present one candidate, there will be extreme pressure just to accept him (or her), and if they don't then the European Council just picks another candidate. How often do you think Parliament will actually reject the candidate selected by the European Council, and how likely is it that they will simply rubber-stamp their choice?
The stuff about the Parliament electing the President of the Commissione is just put in there to gull the rubes. Now lets skip ahead a bit (we'll go back later) and further discuss the composition of the Commissione.
The European Commission
Consists of the heads of the Five Families and. . .oh, wait. No. It says here that the President gets to select the other members of the Commission. But he does it in a very. . .special. . .manner (Article I-26, #2):
Each Member State shall submit a list of three persons, at least one of which must be a woman [so they have affirmative action built right into the Constitution. How enlightened of them.], whom it considers qualified to be a European Commissioner. The President-elect, taking account of who voted for and against him - er, taking account of European political and geographical balance, shall, from the names submitted, select up to thirteen person chosen for their {snip}
Lets get real, ok? As someone familiar with history, I know how these "lists" go - you put two completely unacceptable candidates on the list, and your real candidate (oh, no no no - this will be done in the spirit it was intended, out of a sense of loyalty and mutual solidarity. Yah, right, pull my other leg).
Here's how it's going to work in practice: All of this will be a done-deal beforehand. The Commissione members will be selected on the basis of vote-swapping ("I vote for you as President of the Commission, you pick my crony as a member of the Commission. You scratch my back, I scratch yours"). This is the meaning of "European political. . .balance". Pre-arranged deals will rule, as they currently do.
All of this will be worked out before a candidate is submitted to Parliament and rubber-stamped. (By the way, Article I-26 #3: LOL. Yah, that's gonna happen). This is all properly called "the illusion of choice". At this point, the Commissione will be several-stages removed from any real democratic accountability and are insulated from the governed. Remember this when Chirac and various admirers of the EUropean way talk about "international democracy" and accountability and the like.
Well, that's enough on this for today. In the next installment: further discussion of the Union's Institutions.
The American constitution is written in clear prose (admittedly, some of the more recent amendments are done in legal jargon). It's concise and stated in plain language. The writing of the era could be florid (and often was), but the Constitution was drafted, rather consciously, to be read by everyone - we the people, writing for the people. The EU's draft Constitution, in contrast, is written in bureaucratese. It is lengthy and employs many terms of art (bureaucratic jargon), written by a specific subculture and for a specific subculture. That subculture is the culture of the bureaucrat.
The Preamble: Constitutionally Mandated Gratitude
So, I think most Americans (with the exception of the multicultural Left that condemns the American founders) are grateful to those who wrote our Constitution. But I think one of the things we can be thankful for is that they didn't make a point of it in the Constitution itself. The members of the European Convention seem to have a self-esteem problem, because they felt it necessary to make sure everyone was Officially Grateful, within the body of the Constitution itself, for their efforts. They seem to have calculated that they wouldn't get any props unless gratitude towards them was Constitutionally mandated.
Starts off with platitudes; the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Anyone can (and has) said such things. The notable thing here that stood out for me was the invocation of the phrase "social market economy" within the document (Article I-3, #3): this is not a politically neutral term. This indicates that the only legitimate political expression within the European Union will be those of the Socialistic sort. This is to be the Union of European Social-Democratic Republics. The rest of #3 reinforces this, with more of the usual blather (how could anyone oppose this, right? Let me count the ways).
When we get down to Article I-5 "Relations between Member States", things get interesting (actually, Article 1-4 is telling, too, but I'll return to it). We hear all these reassurances that the member-states retain their sovereignty, but then there is this:
The Member-States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardies the attainment of the objectives set out in this Constitution.
Who defines whether a measure "jeopardies the attainment of the objectives" or not? Note also that these objectives are defined (elsewhere in the document) in sweepingly broad generalizations.
Look, what defines whether a entity is sovereign or not is not whether someone assures you that it is, but whether it is able to set and enforce its own policies. One sees already that there is a conflict here: either the member-states of the European Union are sovereign entities, able to decide what their policies will be and implement those policies, or they are not. Is it the European Union (backed by its Constitution) that has supreme jurisdiction here, or the individual member-states?
Article I-6 states simply "The Union shall have legal personality". It's a good thing that this is put right in the Constitution, otherwise the EU might not have any personality at all.
Title II: Fundamental Rights
Article I-7, point #2, says that the European Union "shall seek accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" but goes on to say that this "shall not affect the Union's competences as defined by this Constitution". Does anyone else find this strikingly contradictory and ominous?
The rest of I-7 is notable for the fact that it uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing (except "see another document"). It's also telling that the "fundamental rights" aren't included in a document that is otherwise, well, to put it politely, exhaustive. It isn't as if they were trying to keep this draft short or anything. Some might say that I'm making too much of this but given the general attitude of the draft European Constitution towards the concept of rights and limits on government power (see below), it cannot be accidental that these "fundamental rights" receive no real Constitutional recognition; they'll instead be embodied in a piece of legislation, subject to the usual modification and amendment that legislation is subject to. If the Constitution is the supreme governing document of a entity with "Legal Personality", it is striking that the powers of the Union are detailed point by point, and broad, sweeping terms (again, see below), but as for the "fundamental rights" the people are to have, they are in a separate, secondary document, not in the supreme one.
Before you ask, no, this is not for the prudential reason that many of those involved in the drafting of the American Constitution thought it would be wise to not try to specify the rights people had (that some might be left out, and thus lead to the implication that others didn't exist - which led to the creation of the 9th and 10th Amendments). After all, the draft European Constitution does spell out some rights (see below), and indicates that others will be laid out in a piece of legislation. It's just not enough of a priority to put them in the Constitution itself. They are to be the grant of the State, via legislation the Union will seek to pass - which is hedged with qualifiers indicative of the attitude that rights are bestowed by the grant of the State, rather than inherent to the people and which the State ought not violate.
Citizens of the Union of Sov - er, Europeans
Title II, Article I-8 defines rights as a Grant from the State ("Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in this Constitution"), and oh, joy: a "Union Ombudsman" exists. Powers: Nil. (The Ombudsman is probably some little grey-skinned hobbit with a cubicle in the bowels of the Ministry of Love. I just wonder if the Ombudsman will be assigned the name "Locutus").
Note that these "rights" are to be subject to modification at the Union's discretion ("These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by this Constitution and by the measures adopted to give it effect"); apparently "measures adopted to give it effect" means that these rights can be changed whenever the "measures" are, or new "measures" are adopted, and thus are subject to the whim of the State. Note also that this is one of the few times the word "limits" appears. Limits are associated with the exercise of the rights of the people rather than the powers of the government in this Constitution.
Title III: Union Powers
Note two things: that they go to great lengths to avoid the word "power" and its variants, substituting "competence" instead, and that the competencies are defined in extremely broad generalizations. Therefore, what is stated in Article I-9 might seem to those who don't understand the bureaucratese to preserve the sovereignty of member-states (and indeed, this clause will likely be invoked to make such an argument), that isn't the case. The only thing that is guaranteed here is that the governments of the member-states will execute the policies determined by the Union, and this is described on simple utilitarian grounds. National Parliaments exist to "ensure compliance", and though "the scope and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Constitution," those objectives are defined in sufficiently broad terms to justify whatever action the Union may want to take, in virtually any aspect of life, regulating nearly everything.
Article I-10 then gives away the game, and demonstrates which entity has the sovereign position here. Assurances in public statements and media reports to the contrary notwithstanding, it is not the individual member-states, but the Union ("The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competencies conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States").
I find it interesting that "Institutions" is capitalized, and that the legitimate source of law in this Union is rather vague (it's not the "Legislative Branch", Congress and the Senate, that makes law here; it's "Institutions" - again, a very broad, general term is used. These institutions could be anything. It could be a cabal of bureaucrats - and usually is).
Article 1-11 reinforces who has real (as opposed to rhetorical) sovereignty here. What are the "Competencies" (that word used repeatedly, as if the Constitution's authors are self-conscious of the fact that the Officialdom in Brussels has a reputation for the opposite of competence) that the Union will have? The Union will have the exclusive power to:
"Coordinate" economic and employment policies. Otherwise known as being "Harmonized".
Define and implement foreign and security policy.
In other words, the Union shall have power over only two things: domestic policy and foreign policy. In case you're not convinced covers everything, the Constitution goes on more explicitly, stating that the Union's power to
Carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member-States.
In other words, meddle in whatever it pleases. Though it claims that this would not "supersede" that of the member-states, it's hard to see how there would, in practice, be any real limit on the degree of meddling that can occur in the name of "supplementing" things. If you're still not convinced, though, read on:
"Shared" Competence
Areas of "shared powers" (not really - you'll see) are defined as:
Everything the drafters could think of that wasn't already given to the EU as an exclusive power ("competence").
Well, ok, not quite. The areas that are "shared" govern the following spheres of policy:
Internal market
All areas of freedom and justice.
Agriculture and fisheries (the land and the sea)
Transport, communications networks and the like
Energy
Social policy
Economic and social cohesion (You cannot be "divisive")
Environment
Consumer protection
Common safety concerns in public health matters (and if they aren't common enough, the EU can just whip up the propaganda engine to make them common. Or declare them "common" by fiat. After all, who defines what is a "common concern"?)
Research, technological development, and space
international development and humanitarian aid
Again, the issue of sovereignty is addressed here rather emphatically, keeping in mind Article I-10. These things aren't really "shared" - EU law will have primacy over national law. Thus, these things are only "shared" to the degree to which the Union, at its own discretion, decides not to meddle in any of these things. To the degree that the Union does, it's will takes primacy, and the member-states have no discretion to nullify it. This is emphasized in the fact that it is only in the last two categories (research et al and aid) that the Constitution says that "exercise of that competence may not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs"; in all the other areas this limit is not mentioned and does not apply. Article I-17: Flexibility Clause makes this point clear, under point #3, where it says that you are immune from Harmonized only in those areas the Constitution says you can't be Harmonized. The areas the Constitution says you won't be Harmonized in are very narrow categories. Otherwise, you can (and no doubt will) be Harmonized. So, in other words, though the draft Constitution talks about "shared competence", it is shared in the sense that the national government will be able to set policy in these areas only at the Union's discretion. Otherwise the national governments will "share" in the exercise of these powers in the sense of implementing the policies that the Union tells them to implement.
Only in a few spheres do the member states supposedly retain policy control, with the Union limiting itself to "supporting, coordinating, or complementing" them rather than having sovereign authority. However, as we'll see, even in these spheres the Union is able to meddle, based on powers granted elsewhere. These areas are:
you can engage in technological research, in space, and in international aid.
You can also set heath care policies - subject to Union intervention in areas of "common safety concern" - like what drugs or medical equipment you can or can't - or must - use
In culture - subject to the Union's absolute right to intervene in social policy
In industry - subject to the Union's power to regulate every aspect of economic, environmental, employment, "common safety concerns", consumer protection, trade policy, transportation and communications
Over education, vocational training, youth, and sport - subject to the Union's power to intervene on behalf of "the Child" at will
Civil protection - subject to the Union's power over all aspects of "freedom and justice".
Everywhere else (with one interesting exception, which I'll get to below), the Union's power is supreme. Member-states of the European Union will retain less authority than an American state.
So it is the Union that will be the sovereign entity, and it is a charade to pretend otherwise.
The sections that follow provide further definition of the wide scope of the Union's powers in several of the spheres that are mentioned. Again, they define them in extremely broad terms, with the intention of demonstrating not the limits of these powers, but the unchallengability of the Union's authority over them. Lets take an example:
The Common Security and Foreign Policy
Just so it's clear to everyone involved in the late disharmony, "The Union's [power] in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security", and, furthermore, if you're still under the misimpression that member-states will retain any sovereignty (that, for example, Britain might in the future to have a foreign policy that is not that of France), it says in no uncertain terms that "Member-States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign policy and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with all the acts adopted by the Union in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair it's effectiveness." This is very telling, considering that the EUropean press was all full of accusations of dissent being suppressed in the U.S., but our Constitution doesn't attempt to mandate attitudes (and, indeed, not a few of the governing bodies - town and city councils and the like and the Governor of at least one state, Vermont, expressed not their "active and unreserved" support for our national foreign policy in, say, Iraq, but quite the opposite). A Constitution that mandates what your attitude will be (unreserved support in a spirit of solidarity) is, well, I'm going to say it: Totalitarian in nature.
I'll also note here as I come to the end of this post that we're not even a quarter of the way through this Constitution, and say that though there's a "Flexibility Clause" in the EU Constitution, as the Marx Brothers would point out, there's no such thing as a "Sanity Clause".
Closing Observations to Part I
Apparently, the Union doesn't have the power to tax. That's one "competence" it doesn't claim in the draft Constitution. But since it does have the absolute power to dictate policies over most areas of public policy, and the member-states must execute those policies "unreservedly" (in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. Are you Happy, Citizen? Failure to execute all assigned tasks Happily is Treason. Trust the EU. The EU is your Friend.), it has the power to determine levels of taxation thereby, while avoiding the blame for imposing them (it's the member-states that, in funding the execution of these policies, will have to come up with the dough).
This is actually rather dangerous and highly indicative of the attitude those who run the Union have, overall: they shall exercise power, but not the responsibility for implementing their policies. They will make the rules, but it will be up to others to find the means to carry out these policies and who will have to impose them on their nations. The Union officials will be insulated from the consequences and the practicality of their measures ("anything is possible to the person who doesn't have to do it themselves", as they say). This never works well.
If some other entity is determining your foreign, economic, and social policies for you (and environmental), then you're not really sovereign. I make this point repeatedly because I think that, at minimum, the advocates of this draft Constitution should be forthright about things, and this is just one of the areas where they've been less than candid.
In Part II, coming soon: the Union's Institutions, and beyond.
Update: There is one error in the above, in that I did find what constitutes, in the Constitution, a sort of "legislative branch". However, things are not as clear-cut as that might imply. That'll be covered in Part II, tommorrow, so I'm going to leave the error unchanged.
Also, Paul Jaminet comments (if the Blogger link doesn't work, go to Brothersjudd and scroll down to "THE ONLY THING WE LEARN FROM HISTORY").
So, I'm watching ESPN's coverage of the French Open today, and there's Chris Fowler showing off an "old school" wooden racket, and his parting thought is that "they" (the gang in charge of Tennis competitions, whoever "they" are) "should make Serena Williams use a wooden racket, so it will be more fair for her opponents."
And I'm sitting there, dumfounded, "like, huh?"
But this is really how a good number of people look at the world: Someone who has great skill, and excels, should be hampered somehow. Held back, with special limitations placed on them, and this is "fairness" in action.
Anyhow, this is probably one of the underlaying philosophical tenets (or attitudes, if you prefer) that led me away from Liberalism. Because for me, "fair" is defined as having people go out, compete on equal terms, and the better one wins. If that means Tiger Woods dominates golf, or Serena Williams dominates Tennis, then they're winning fair and square - it doesn't mean that the field is now "unfair", because a few people "disproportionally" win, thus keeping others from having their "fair share" of victories. Their "fair share" is what they're able to win, without artificial efforts to "fix" the outcome and make the chances of everyone winning more equal.
Now, I'm sure Fowler didn't think anyone was going to run out and adopt his proposal. But he made it in an offhand manner, as if they perhaps should.
In Golf, they've actually done that some, "Tiger Proofing" Golf courses. Now, it isn't just Tiger - there are a number of players now who have really long drives off the tee (Tiger among them), so efforts have been made to lengthen the course, ostensibly to de-emphasize the impact of really long drives.
Now, as is usual with these things, this has had an unintended consequence: the actual result of doing that has been to insure that three quarters of the players don't have a chance. Last week, and the few weeks preceding, there was all that tempest-in-a-teapot over Sorenstram playing an event on the men's tour. The argument (fairly reasonable) was put forward by some who dared to oppose this breakthrough for Women's Liberation overcoming Male Domination to the effect that "well, she doesn't really have a chance to win, or even come close. She'll be lucky to just make the cut - she doesn't really have a prayer of winning the event."
But the dirty little secret is, most of the men on the tour really don't, either, at the vast majority of the courses the tour is played on.
Is this wrong? Unfair? Not really - if it's because a player (or subset of players) are so dominant that no one else can be said to have any real chance, then that's life. They should improve their game.
Same in Tennis. As it turns out, both the Williams sisters had tough matches today (and Venus lost hers). The sport definitely wouldn't be improved by somehow artificially hampering them. But it would apparently appeal to some people's sense of "fairness".
Oddly enough, it seems to be the same sort of person who, just a few short years ago, lauded the appearance of Tiger on the PGA tour and the Williams sisters on the tennis circuit as a victory for equality and fairness. Irony of ironies, all is irony.
