Europe's hour of decision
Sometime on Thursday night the European Union's 27 leaders will gather for dinner in the Justus Lipsius building in Brussels. Lipsius himself was a Flemish intellectual who thought the ideal citizen was a man who acted according to reason. The 27 leaders have important choices to make but seem likely to be guided by considerations of power.
They will have to decide who will be the European Union's face to the world. For nearly ten years European leaders have been discussing how to sit alongside the Chinese and Americans at the top table. One of the key strands to the Lisbon Treaty was creating two high-profile posts; a president of the European Council and a foreign policy supremo.
But as the hour of decision approaches there is uncertainty and, just beneath the surface, there are real divisions.
The task of drawing up a short-list for these top European jobs falls to the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. His aim is to turn up at the dinner and give the leaders a small number of names to consider. What is not being sought here is lively discussion or a pitch from the candidates or an opportunity to tell Europeans what their vision is for the future of the union.The Swedish prime minister wants a dinner where the successful candidate is toasted, not debated.
The fear that haunts this whole process is that Europe might appear divided or that any public disagreement might undermine the authority of the successful candidate.
What this means, of course, is that these key posts will be decided by horse-trading, a familiar European way of doing business.
The mood that seems to be emerging is for a compromise candidate, a chairman rather than a president who strides the global stage. That suits many. The big countries, when it comes down to it, don't want to be over-shadowed by a presidential figure. The small countries fear a strong personality could diminish their influence. And those like the Conservatives in Britain who did not support the Lisbon Treaty want as bland a candidate as possible. As William Hague told the Financial Times: "It makes more sense for the president to be a chairman, not a chief." And a chairman sounds less like
a super-state in the making.
These jobs, however, are not being chosen on the sole criteria of who will be the most effective leader. As so often in Europe jobs are carved up between various political groupings. The socialists have indicated they want the foreign minister's post. That means that the president is likely to come from the centre-right. Then there is the gender balance. Two powerful women, Margot Wallstrom and Neelie Kroes, said today that it looked as if "only men would be nominated". They pointed out that "the right man in the right job is often a woman". Politics, gender and geography all are put in the mix.
So where does this leave Tony Blair, the original favourite for the president's job?
If the emerging consensus is for a meeting-chairer he won't get the job and he won't want it. Late last week he spoke to President Sarkozy among others and he has not removed his name from consideration. The British government is still backing him energetically. When the German foreign minister was in London last week a senior government figure made a strong personal pitch for Tony Blair.
There is one scenario where Tony Blair could still get the call. If there is no agreement at the dinner, the Swedish prime minister will have to call a vote and that would be weighted according to country size. In those circumstances, Tony Blair could sneak it. He could have in his corner Britain, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, the Czech republic and several other Eastern European countries. His problem would be whether he wanted a job when there was so clearly opposition to him getting it.
If, in the end, European leaders go for a little-known consensus-builder some will argue Europe flunked its moment of decision. Expect comments like this which I saw from a politician in the past few days: "We've been talking about these jobs for almost 10 years and it is now almost as if people are getting cold feet about giving them to serious global players."
A few weeks ago the President of the Commission Jose Manuel Barroso raised the old question of who world leaders should call to discover where Europe stood. After these new posts are filled, he said, Washington would call the high representative on foreign affairs. Just one call. But after Thursday the two most powerful figures in Europe will remain President Sarkozy abnd Chancellor Merkel.
The indications are that when it comes down to it, Europe's leaders aspire to speak with a more assertive voice, but not at the expense of their own influence. It is rare in history that leaders vote for a diminution of their own power. They seem unlikely to do so this week.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~38~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
He lives.
So Gavin, you've been off looking at how the sausages are made in Brussels, huh?
You wrote:
"It is rare in history that leaders vote for a diminution of their own power. They seem unlikely to do so this week."
Isn't that a bit simplistic?
The elite of any party chooses the figurehead of the party, and the figurehead votes as directed by the party elite.
Now the real power of the party elite is economic power. In precise terms, how much of the taxpayer's money they party can spend on those who constitute the collective organization of the party.
If the major parties of Europe have already agreed on increased taxation without representation in Europe, presumably they have also agreed how that taxation revenue will be split up.
So depending on how you measure power, these party figureheads are voting to massively increase the power of the hand inside the puppet.
But that is just me. I measure power and freedom by how much of the money I earn at work stays in my pocket, and how much goes to party hacks to further their grand schemes to save me from myself. And, of course, how much say I have in the laws that govern me and which allow taxation to be taken from me.
Europe is moving away from the dictum of non taxation without representation, which to me seems a good thing. Unfortunately I would like to see the move in the opposite direction: No taxation without referendum. Instead, we are moving towards "No taxation without commiseration."
Anyway, hail to the chief.
Complain about this comment
The love of power, which has so often led Europe to disaster, is the one thing that explains the EU. And since this love is especially strong amongst politicians, it explains why the political class support the EU where as the peoples of Europe, who are increasingly disenfranchised by Brussels decision-making, do not. The only remedy to this love of power is democracy, for only it forces politicians to subordinate their own appetite for power to the interests of the wider population. And democracy is undoubtedly the main victim of Lisbon.
We already have an EU Commission president who resigned the highest democratic office in his country (prime minister of Portugal) to take up a more powerful appointed position in Brussels. A political chameleon who started out calling himself a Maoist, then called himself a liberal before finding it expedient to call himself a conservative and who, throughout all these changes of political hue, has only ever demonstrated one consistent political belief; the pursuit of power. And now we are once again witness to the unholy sight of the prime ministers of Europe competing with one another to resign the highest democratic offices in their country to assume more powerful undemocratic positions in Brussels, where they will pretend to speak in our name, while all the while knowing that the power they would exercise was never delegated to them democratically but was usurped by the forced ratification of Lisbon.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1950/russell-lecture.html
Complain about this comment
As FBJ explains, Barroso sees himself as holding a powerful role. So, would he want a competitor? I doubt it.
My view is that the High Representative role will be the really powerful one. And, since the holder will also be Barroso's Deputy President, s/he will be (nominally at least) subject to some sort of overview (?) by Barroso.
"Mister Europe" (or, as Margot Wallström and others point out, "Madame EU") should be a consensus builder. Given the polemic around a possible Blair appointment, that's not a good start for consensus building. There are better candidates out there. But the EU leaders, like most people (despite Lipsius's views) are emotionally driven.
Can't say I'm really excited about the result of this "behind closed doors" selection, though.
Complain about this comment
Reinfeldt. Neutral and assertive. But he wont nominate himself. SO the EU loses out again.
Complain about this comment
One thing is clear now: The source behind this campaign for Blair is the British government.
Complain about this comment
#1 - democracythreat
In a moment of weakness in the last thread, I agreed not to refer to representative government as democracy. I am not sure how long I will hold out on that one but obviously political appointees have nothing to do with democracy so no problem there.
However, there may be a connection between representative government and political appointment because the heads of government would claim, with some justification, that they are in the position that they are because they have been duly elected by the relevant electoral process in their own country. Theoretically, then, there is no reason why they should not choose their own chairperson. The question in my mind is whether they have a collective mandate. While the president of the Commission may well be appointed through the time honoured tradition of horse trading, the appointment still needs to be approved by the EP so you could argue that is at least a tenuous link between the people and the post. The same is not the case with the president of the Council or the high representative. It is horse trading pure and simple.
Now without going through all 27, let's take a few selected examples of those who will make this decision. If the polls are to be believed and there was a presidential election in France, Sarkozy would probably be out on his neck. Brown will almost certainly not survive more than six months. Belusconi may well find himself in a position where he could not participate anyway now his immunity from prosecution has been removed. Fischer is an independent mandated by the Czech assembly but with no electoral mandate. Bajnai is a compromise leader supported by the coalition but looking electoral disaster in the face next spring. I could go on but you see my point. You have a group of leaders with a vested interested in driving this through now either because they will have no say in the matter a few months down the line or in spite of the fact that they have lost popular domestic support. Now throw in the fact that at least one possible candidate is one of those very leaders and it becomes a complete beggar's muddle.
Now bear in mind that the reason the leaders are making these choices at this time is by virtue of a treaty which has come into effect because 1,214,268 voted in favour of it (the remaining 328 odd million having not been consulted)and the whole process begins to look seriously flawed. On the other hand (I am open to correction here but I believe) no EU country has an electoral system which allows a government to remain in office unchallenged for longer than five years and, since the Lisbon process took eight years, you cannot reasonably argue that it was on the agenda of every government currently in office - (how they handled it domestically is a whole different question).
So I say again, it comes down to how much power is gifted to the new people - as Gavin says "It is rare in history that leaders vote for a diminution of their own power". (Actually it is not that rare - in one way or another most countries of eastern Europe had precisely that situation in 1989-90). So if they are choosing a chairperson, that's fine and dandy but in the unlikely event that they are choosing the EU's answer to Obama or Medvedev, there is no question but that they have no mandate and are exceeding the power of their office.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
"One thing is clear now: The source behind this campaign for Blair is the British government."
No way! You think?
Mathiesen, you have shone your white light of reason into the darkness of the political abyss, and though I am momentarily blinded by its brilliance, when my sight returns to me I will struggle to reconcile what you claim with the yesterdays' truth.
I have one for you now:
A peanut...... get this...... a peanut is a kind of nut.
Fact.
Complain about this comment
Good post Gavin.
"Lipsius himself was a Flemish intellectual who thought the ideal citizen was a man who acted according to reason."
Good luck with that!
"The 27 leaders have important choices to make but seem likely to be guided by considerations of power"
Human nature at work, again. Darn humans!
"But as the hour of decision approaches there is uncertainty and, just beneath the surface, there are real divisions"
Divisions, in the EU?
"What is not being sought here is lively discussion or a pitch from the candidates or an opportunity to tell Europeans what their vision is for the future of the union.The Swedish prime minister wants a dinner where the successful candidate is toasted, not debated"
A bit like my mother when hosting. Everything orchestrated.
"What this means, of course, is that these key posts will be decided by horse-trading"
The more things change……
"The indications are that when it comes down to it, Europe's leaders aspire to speak with a more assertive voice, but not at the expense of their own influence. It is rare in history that leaders vote for a diminution of their own power. They seem unlikely to do so this week."
Amen.
Welcome to the EU.
Complain about this comment
#5 - Mathiasen
"One thing is clear now: The source behind this campaign for Blair is the British government".
WHAT? You have got to be kidding. His great hope was that anyone who would do exactly what George Bush told him would probably do the same for Sarkozy and Merkel. By promoting him as an independent minded and forceful personality, Brown has left him dead in the water. Anyway, the support of the UK is probably the kiss of death in this particular contest.
Complain about this comment
threnodio_II wrote:
#1 - democracythreat
"In a moment of weakness in the last thread, I agreed not to refer to representative government as democracy. I am not sure how long I will hold out on that one but obviously political appointees have nothing to do with democracy so no problem there.
However, there may be a connection between representative government and political appointment because the heads of government would claim, with some justification, that they are in the position that they are because they have been duly elected by the relevant electoral process in their own country. Theoretically, then, there is no reason why they should not choose their own chairperson. "
Sure. But this precisely why I often bang on about the former soviet union, and the fact that the soviet union operated as a system of representative "democracy". Our propaganda said that the soviet union did not have democracy because it had a rigid system of representation. We said the elections that occurred in the soviet union were sham elections, because all the candidates were beholden to a central authority, and thus they all had the same policies, to a very large extent.
It is a reasonable postulate that if you accept a system of government in which you defer all power to representatives, you cannot then complain when the representatives do as they see fit. Including, of course, creating whatever power structures they deem fit and proper for your benefit.
Such as a constitution that prohibits "undesirables" from standing for election. Or such as a secret police that monitors the undesirables. Or an upper house staffed by people who are not elected (such as life peers and hereditary peers).
Or a central party that oversees the quality and policy of those candidates who are available for election as representatives.
Or a privately owned media that oversees the quality and policy of those candidates who are available for election as representatives.
In the end, if you have representation as a system of government then you have an ecology of representation. Representation has certain characteristics, as a system. there will always be rules for the representatives to play by. Vested interests will establish a framework wherein their sponsored apprentices compete to learn the rules, and become anointed.
The only difference between the westminster system and the USSR was that in the USSR the communist party controlled and promoted the available representatives, whereas in the westminster system it is the majority shareholders of banks who do so.
This is why real democracy is so very different to representation, as a system of government. In real democracy, which we call direct democracy, there are no representatives. The whole system of representation is simply removed from the political landscape. And so to, by default, are the systems of control.
Now you still have elections, and you still have parties, but when the people vote directly on law the role of politicians becomes profoundly different. Instead of representing folks, politicians are more like public servants. They are not father figures who do what is best for the children. They are like teachers and police, who serve the community and do as their job requires. Instead of preparing legislation in dark rooms, they draft legislation according to the advice of the people who will vote on it.
One of the reasons I bang on so hard about direct democracy is because I see it as inevitable. I think it is an inevitable stage in the evolution of human society. First humans believed in spirits of the forest and the dreamtime. Then polytheism and paganism evolved into monotheism, and a god who was made in the image of man the creator: homo faber.
Then human society evolved to displace god with mortal representatives. This happened in various cultures in various ways. The ruskis displaced the orthodox church with communism, the English speaking people replaced christian faith with the westminster system.
I believe that sooner or later, the next stage in the evolution of human organization and philosophy is to displace the representative with the individual.
The broad trend I perceive is that the one truth is the individual, and that this truth is slowly revealed to humanity as reason sets in, and becomes a hard fixture upon the beast.
Now Gavin has enough learning to quote Justus Lipsius, but I wonder if he is prepared to examine Russell's doctrine of the dragon that guards the gates of reason, and keeps humanity at bay.
Russells' dragon was religion, but I fear that dragon guarded only the outer door to the temple of law by reason. Now that god is dead, I fear we have encountered another mythical beast that sets us apart from what we might achieve: representation.
In a way, I suppose, representation is the left over remains of Russell's dragon. What was the priesthood if not the representive body of god on earth?
Now we have disposed of god, we just need to find a way to be rid of his henchmen.
Complain about this comment
To democracythreat (10):
I missed to answer on your juxtaposition of the political system that the USSR had and representative democracy. You make the argument that they are in the essence the same.
However, what you don't seem to take into account is that in modern representative democracy that we see in the most western states and in some other democracies like Japan, is that they have a feedback loop that works and changes who are in power and who are not.
In the Soviet union, this feedback loop from the people to the state wasn't working in anyway: A) there was no general freedom to become a candidate, B) there was no assurances of fair vote counting, and C) elected candidates didn't have any real power.
Now contrast this to western democracies, where A) everyone can become a candidate, B) there are assurance of fair vote counting and C) elected candidates have real power that manifests itself in both changes of figureheads and changes of actual policies and philosophies of policy making. People are voted in, people are voted out, cabinets come, cabinets go, policies change and positions change, and sometimes very dramatically.
So there is a feedback loop, a real feedback loop, and that is what democracy is all about, for the people, by the people. The connection is there and it is working.
Now you may complain that this is fine and dandy, but having parties and having organizations from businesses to labor unions and NGOs taking sides and supporting some and not supporting others in political elections, somehow tampers the systems and makes it non democratic. Well, I disagree.
For one, being in a party is not mandatory, and parties themselves act democratically inside, their leaders and elected by their members. For two, having businesses, unions and NGOs take part and influence is an extension of the feedback loop itself. While the people have the ultimate power via voting, hearing the voices of organizations that people have formed is important too, because these organizations are part of the society and make society functions as it is. If decisions are made that particularly hurt businesses, unions or NGOs, their voice should be heard on why a particular change is for worse. Now if the extension is too big or influence too high, the voters simply won't vote candidates that they have seen been non trustworthy.
What I would like to ask you is how much to your view of representative democracy has the British FTPT system had an impact? You do know that in continental Europe proportional voting is much more used and gives much more plural voting results than the FTPT method. When you don't have winner takes it all system, it does have effect on candidates, on parties, on policies and on elections in general.
I'm sorry, but I won't bargain on representative democracy. In my honest opinion representative democracy is real democracy, and truth to be told it is the best kind of democracy, the best kind of system of government there is.
Complain about this comment
#11 - Jukka_Rohila
No two systems of government are the same so your assertion that ". . . representative democracy . . is the best kind of system of government there is" requires some qualification. (DT will doubtless argue that representative government is not democratic. To the extent that the people are only directly consulted on separate policy issues under a system of direct democracy, he has a point.
The problem you have is that there are some decisions which are simply too urgent to be put to the people - we are under nuclear attack, should we fire back? Please respond in no more than 19.5 minutes. OK, it is a silly example but you get the gist. There are also policy areas in which a popular vote would simply produce the wrong answer. I would not mind betting that if you held a referendum in the UK on capital punishment, you would get a 'yes' vote. No way would it be done in practice. Should you hold referenda on changing interest rates, for example or emergency powers in the event of an unexpected disaster. Should we be consulted directly about a declaration of war. A sensible person would probably say not but a lot of people have been complaining here recently about Blair 'going to war in Iraq' without public consultation.
So there is a sense in which DT is right that representative government and democracy are not one and the same thing. It is probably more constructive to think of democracy as a relative term and comment on the degree of freedom and consultation available to this country as opposed to another. I stick to my view that democracy as an absolute is a highly desirable but unattainable goal.
As regards FTTP, Rousseau puts it far better than me - "The English people believes itself to be free; it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during election of members of parliament; as soon as the members are elected, the people is enslaved".
Complain about this comment
#9. threnodio_II
In "The source behind this campaign for Blair is the British government", I was talking about the campaign here on this blog. It would probably have been better to mention that.
Complain about this comment
2. At 6:24pm on 16 Nov 2009, Freeborn-John wrote:
"The love of power, which has so often led Europe to disaster, is the one thing that explains the EU. And since this love is especially strong amongst politicians, it explains why the political class support the EU where as the peoples of Europe, who are increasingly disenfranchised by Brussels decision-making, do not. The only remedy to this love of power is democracy, for only it forces politicians to subordinate their own appetite for power to the interests of the wider population. And democracy is undoubtedly the main victim of Lisbon."
Source? While it ebbs and flows the people of Europe mostly support the EU. While the Lisbon treaty is not perfect it INCREASES the powers of the Parliament. You can moan about the Presidential post all you want, but it looks, as predicted, that it is going to be the chairman position most people said it would be.
Complain about this comment
You can vote here for your preferred candidate:
http://www.robert-schuman.eu/vote_en.php?lang=en
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8363264.stm
"The only woman who has been formally nominated so far is former Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga.
Known as the Iron Lady, she has attacked EU leaders for taking decisions behind closed doors and working, as she put it, like the Soviet Union. "
SB2: Well, she told the truth! That puts her out of the running! We don't want disgraceful people like that running "Europe!"
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @11 I'll be brief as I don't want to side-way etc. A./ you're wrong, B./ you are right C./ it depends. Meaning A./ all knew how to behave if you want to be Government and paths were open for everyone (own morals permitting :o) Become a member of the Com. Party, be active there at stupid meetings and keep serious face, bombast things "by the book" - and you'll be eagerly promoted up to very tops. C./ "no real power" - oh no, on becoming a regional party head or an industry top dog you became "tsar and God" in one flask as head and shoulders. Therefore titles type "Master of taiga" etc. B./ Granted no honest elections but, in fact, in the USSR they were far more honest than now, no need to fabricate, all were more or less in agreement or how to say, didn't scream and kick.
)
Complain about this comment
Jukka claims that:
"In the Soviet union, this feedback loop from the people to the state wasn't working in anyway: A) there was no general freedom to become a candidate, B) there was no assurances of fair vote counting, and C) elected candidates didn't have any real power.
Now contrast this to western democracies, where A) everyone can become a candidate, B) there are assurance of fair vote counting and C) elected candidates have real power that manifests itself in both changes of figureheads and changes of actual policies and philosophies of policy making. "
Alice has already pointed out that membership of the communist party was open to everyone, and further that in a system where a centralized authority grooms all the candidates, there is no need to cook the votes.
But your comments regarding the western model of representation are incredibly naive. It is obvious that you have never been personally involved with the election of a candidate in the westminster system.
Firstly, depending on the constitution not everyone can become a candidate. Most countries bar people with criminal records from being candidates, many bar public servants, nearly all bar "communists". But what what is most striking is the way the system of private media promotion bars candidates. Essentially, if you are not endorsed by the corporate community, you can't run. Even if you can run legally, you can't run practically.
So that means you need organizations to gather funding to back you if you want to run. We call those organizations "parties". The corporate community doesn't want surprises, so it funds both parties equally. And you can check that claim: most large corporations fund both the major political parties equally. And they expect the same thing. What they expect is transmitted to the parties via lobby groups, and then to candidates through the party "executive", which means the people in the party who are not elected by the public, but rather by its own members if at all. (much like the soviet duma)
Moving on the point B, your claim that vote counting is fair in the westminster system. This made me smile. Again, it is clear you have never had anything to do with the actual election of a candidate. Now I am willing to concede that in general terms the vote counting for the parliamentary run off's are legitimate. But if you want to talk about the long road you need to walk to get to that point, I can tell Jukka that nothing is honest or fair.
Have you ever witnessed the cat fights and the cheating that goes on inside a party as that party chooses it's candidates? It is breathtakingly dishonest. Children and family members are registered as party members in districts where they do not live, competitors are struck off the list for minor infringements of obscure technical rules, and horse trading is rife.
Now as for your last claim, C, that elected representatives are free to make changes to policy: how do you reconcile that with the fact that party whips coerce every member of their party to vote the same way on nearly every issue?
And how do you explain the fact that both major parties on offer always seem to offer exactly the same policies? All the time?
War in Iraq: we go, we stay. No other option.
Bail out for the bankers: It is going to happen. Or the world ends. No other option.
EU enlargement: It is going to happen. You can have a referendum, but don't wait up for it.
In fact, the policies of the major parties are so incredibly similar that it becomes almost impossible to tell one candidate from another.
Now I concede that the reason these policies are so similar might be because both parties are right, most of the time. But that argument was made to explain the communist party line in the soviet system, too.
"We always say the same thing because we are right. Hey, the system works! What are you complaining about?"
And what is most striking about the similarity of the soviet and the westminster systems, to my taste, is the way history is totally irrelevant. The "We are right so the system is right." logic continues like a drum beat, regardless of the facts of the recent past.
Iraq was a nightmare and pursued for entirely false reasons. So what? The same people who were wrong are now right about the next thing.
The financial system was crooked and being exploited by bank shareholders for tens years. So what? All the people who said it was fine and working perfectly for the past ten years were wrong. But now they are right again, as they take money to make good their losses.
You talk about "feedback", Jukka. What you really mean is accountability, and there is none.
But what really kills me about the way you glorify representation is your certainty. You are absolutely certain this system is perfect. That, more than anything else, is what makes me think the westminster system is no different from the soviet system. The soviet system had no shortage of folks who were equally certain of its perfection. That servile response to a system of representation is fundamentally illogical. It cannot make sense to a reasoning human being. Why?
Because when you allow representatives to speak for you, you admit that you do not know what is best for yourself. That is the whole point of representation. And it kills me that you say to the party members "You know better than me. You should represent me." and then you turn around and you say to me "I am certain that i know what is best. You are wrong on this issue. I know my own mind."
The only way I can reconcile this hypocrisy about whether you know your own mind is as follows: you are servile to the party because the party is powerful. You tell me I am wrong because I am not powerful.
All hail the chief. Then find someone smaller and weaker than you, and beat on him.
Anyway, you are in good company. Threnodio is no better. He claims that direct democracy is impossible.
Now he knows that I and 8 million other europeans live under a system of direct democracy, and that it works perfectly well. He knows that. And he does not mean to provoke my ire by claiming that he is unaware of the facts, all of a sudden.
But he, like you, is able to think one thing and know another at the same time. Because that brings him closer to the fire of the largest warrior in the tribe, and away from darkness of his lonesome reason.
You guys defend representation like good communists defending the soviet system. Trying to argue with you is like trying to argue with folks who place their faith in god. In the final analysis the argument is with fear itself.
Complain about this comment
#18 - democracythreat
"Anyway, you are in good company. Threnodio is no better. He claims that direct democracy is impossible".
I have never made such a claim. All I have said is that there are issues which are so urgent that it is not possible for direct consultation to take place and that there is a limit on the size of the unit in which it is practical. It is a relatively simple matter to organise direct democracy in a neutral country of 6 million souls with no access to WMDs. It is an entirely different matter for those which have 60 million, international military responsibilities and the hardware to match. If it is not practical in a unit of that size, imagine trying to make it work for 450 million.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio stated:
"I stick to my view that democracy as an absolute is a highly desirable but unattainable goal."
Forgive me, but when somebody tells me something is unattainable, I take that to mean it is impossible to attain.
Your arguments about size and "access to WMD" are spurious, to say the least.
My own view is that if a nation is too big for direct democracy, then that nation ought not exist. Cue squeals from the peanut gallery, but that seems a fair position to take.
Likewise, I can't reconcile the logic that requires political emancipation to be secondary to the insane military hardware industry. So, if nukes and direct democracy do not go together, get rid of nukes. That seems a no brainer to me.
It is not good enough to argue from the practical standpoint of today if we are discussing what is attainable tomorrow. Using that logic, no political emancipation of any kind would ever have been possible. Nor would any peace treaty ever have been signed. "We can't make peace because we are at war. If we stop fighting, the enemy will destroy us. Therefore we must keep fighting."
One has to accept the possibility of a mutual recognition of a different future, and of mutual steps to achieve it, or there is no point in thinking about the future at all.
As for your examples of scenarios where there is not time to consult the people, these are woefully insincere.
Do you really think Switzerland has no command structure in its military? Do you suppose for one minute that Switzerland is routinely paralyzed because the Swiss idiotically apply a referenda procedure to every facet of public life? Of course this is not the case.
As for the war in Iraq example, this is a prime example of where the public right to force a vote in order to veto government action would have paid dividends. The Iraq invasion was not an emergency. It was built up over many months, if not years, of planning.
"International military responsibilities" is a curious phrase, at best. At worst, it is sophistry to excuse war crimes and imperialism.
Finally, you say "imagine trying to make it work for 450 million" [people].
Ok, here is a plan: Every member state of the EU is required to break itself down into regions of between 6 and 10 million folks. Each of these regions is required to break itself down into cantons of between 20K to 100K subdivisions, with the exception of large cities, which can exist an independent cantons.
Now the regions will be federations of cantons, and these regions will send delegations to a central council of Europe, where the entire federation of Europe shall discuss the wishes of the European people. Any grand federal policy shall be set out by the council of Europe, for ratification by the people of Europe in a pan European referenda. If the referenda fails, the council of Europe must begin again to formulate pan European law which the people accept.
Why is that so hard to imagine?
Why is it impossible for you to imagine a Europe where bulk nationalism comes second to the orderly conduct of similar sized districts?
Why is it impossible for you to imagine a Europe based upon the Swiss model of actual democracy?
You don't need to delve into fiction or fantasy. All you have to do is project the Swiss system onto the European people. But you cannot do that. Instead, you claim it is "unattainable". To me, this is willful blindness, a refusal to accept the reality of the Swiss model.
What I find most astounding about the faith in the current system, and the failure to envisage anything better or even different, is the lack of vision.
If a Europe united under direct democracy were to evolve, how do think that would affect both Europe and the outside world?
My own view is that it would absolutely rock the established world order, and that it would promote all European people to the very forefront of both social history and also economic power.
I believe that if Europe evolved in such a way, the American system of corporate representation would be on its death bed, and further that Russia would move swiftly towards a similar system. And nothing would do more to speed the decline of barbaric Chinese communism.
It is the lack of imagination and the lack of vision for a better future which really annoys me about the current EU structure. It seems to me that Europe has become the plaything of banker's grandchildren, a sketch sheet where the ordained offspring of divinely enfranchised aristocrats continue to draw pathetic self portraits, and call the result high art.
Even the title of this blog captures the frail and vain insanity of the class system in Europe. "Europe's hour of decision." What a joke. Europe has nothing to do with it. It is the parties hour of choice.
You cannot spend an hour discussing the best colour of the best flag in the world with a rich imbecile, and then call it philosophy so that the imbecile smiles. Not if you want to keep your dignity.
Complain about this comment
#18. and, democracythreat
The distrust in direct democracy was expressed very fine in Ibsen’s “Enemy of the people”, and it has been followed by other examples. Not few have seen the piece as an alarming forecast of the development in the 1930s.
The Danish constitution explicitly prohibits any referendum on taxes. Guess why! I would not even support the idea that you make the budget the subject of a referendum.
The constitution of the Federal Republic does not allow for referenda, as I have mentioned before, and the reason is based on historical experiences with referenda.
The representative Danish democracy is somewhat older than the German, but in both cases the electorate has time and again expressed their general endorsement of the constitutional structure. Particularly in the Danish case this is remarkable since the Danish constitution is rather outdated.
Changes can only take place after a referendum. I am sure it was meant to be a brake that is very difficult defeat. It has turned out to be precisely that.
Complain about this comment
To get back to the main point of this disussion: Who will be the European President/ Manager / Representative.
One thing is for certain, who ever is elected will have to negociate a minefield of countries; political ideals; personal self-interests;gender issues etc.
My feeling is that they will choose some hermaphrodite who is all things to all people. A bland puppet. Probably someone totally unknown to the European voters but who has spent his/her life climbing the greasy pole of European politics.
Complain about this comment
"Europe's hour of decision"
To be or not to be, that is not the EUSSR's question. First things first. Form an EUSSR and then figure out what it wants to be. Now that's what I call putting the cart before the horse. How do 27 fading peewees who have hated each other for over a thousand years assemble themselves into one gigantic peewee that someone besides themselves would take seriously? The answer is of course by the use of extreme force. It is hard enough to keep two like poles of two separate magnets together but twenty-seven is really stretching it especially when the mutual repulsion between some of them is so strong. Talk about 'Fractured Fairy Tales."
So they want to sit at "the top table." In many social gatherings where families have a sit down dinner, children sit together at a separate table. Their table is smaller and lower, their chairs are smaller and lower, and if they squabble among themselves, they don't annoy the adults at the main table nearly as much.
I've got an idea. They could all pretend it's 600 years ago, have people dress up like kings and queens of old, meet in a castle at a round table, while Merlin performs his magic and the court jesters and lute players entertain the royalty. Will it really be all that different wearing suits and ties in expensive restaurants at resort hotels? Either way, the commoners are the furthest thing from their minds. And why shoudn't they be, they don't have a seat even at the children's table. Out of sight, out of mind. Let them eat....whatever crumbs are left over if they can find any.
Complain about this comment
threnodio, "fine if it is to be a chairperson, but if it is meant to be Europe's answer to Medvedev or Obama..." (sorry, not your exact words, approx.)
Even if "the answer to Medvedev or Obama" Well, don't know ab Obama, but Medvedev is - was - an average lawyer, an average university teacher, of an average university , OK, a professor's, family.
He is Medvedev only because Russia stands behind him. (willingly or un-willingly :o)
Same happens to everyone here, and Putin, an average KGB colonel in the past, no shimmering heights, how to say, and Brezhnev a heavy-weight, and Yeltsin from Siberia (well, Yeltsin was quiet a substantial piece in himself). And even Stalin - 3 classes of parish school - what? never noticed in anything outstanding until quiet a substantial age when he got to power.
This happens with absolutely everyone once Russia gets behind.
Same will be with Europe may be. Automatically. So I wouldn't worry, may be.
Complain about this comment
Why did Gorbachyov went mad, destroying things around? We of course blame him, but I have a suspicion it was because Russia was in "let's blast things around moods".
Complain about this comment
simply, with Gorbachyov's case, something happened in people's will transmitting channels to the tsar. May be something got wrong with his whiskers, that he couldn't anthenna people's drive from the air.
Something went wrong in Perestroyka times in comm's channels (un-formalised and invisible, in Russia's tsar case - they ought to be able to receive signals from the air, act as a radio anthenna.
all the formal channels we've got have nothing to do with the , what Jukka wrote, that loop and return connection. :o)))
That's why a big disappointment with Gorbachyov at home - we only wanted him to clean away Communist party and he threw out the baby together with the dirty water.
Complain about this comment
besides, Gorbachyov's buisiness is un-finished. Soviet police and various other "force" ministries, neither KGB, nor Soviet army - were un-"perestoyed". They stayed now from the past and drag us behind. All other areas of life went through radical changes, complete turn-over, while the force" ministries only changed plaques on the doors. This is visible , how they stand wrongly out, and what can you do, ab. future - with wrong instruments, and they drag us behind.
Complain about this comment
So, what I really wanted to say, in this "decision hour", is that job makes the man. Whoever you chose, with challenges facing him, and Europe behind, he/she will change into an un-recognisable thing, to what it was before.
A "blushing violet" as Menedemus put it :o) - can become a quite an aj-jaj-jaj :o))) and a total, how to say, "now switch off the lights" :o)))).
Provided Europe is behind him - after he/she gets the job.
It's a matter of public support and aspirations - what people will be after - to get a leader made. High public aspirations - you'll get quiet a leader.
As to Russia - remember we never exactly asked LOL, un-like the USA, that "Europe speaks in one voice". We will adapt to whatever it ends up with. If she/he says "I am acting on behalf of Europe" - with any degree of confidence - we'll speak to her/him.
If won't show these signs of self-confidence - we'll speak to countries separately. What's wrong with that, we managed before, and others managed with us.
Complain about this comment
(what's the point to keep huge ministry of foreign affairs if they can't specialise and figure out how to reach agreement tailor-made to various countries :o). what are they eating their bread there then? o:)))
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS