Posted on 06/20/2004 10:53:48 PM PDT by ScaniaBoy
Often it feels almost impossible to explain to people who haven’t studied the history of EEC/EC/EU the weird politics of the European Union, and how it is encroaching on the liberties of the citizens in the until now sovereign member countries. Especially difficult is it to make believable the Alice in Wonderland world that exists in Brussels and the Foreign Ministries of most European states. This is a world where rules on the curvature of bananas or the size of strawberries are taken more seriously than questions regarding power sharing and democratic accountability.
It is therefore with some pride I present to you a fully fledged europhile who will serve as a perfect example of the thinking that permeates the Brussels “eurocracy”.
fdsa2 (FR member since January 9 2004) is a self confessed “functionalist”.
A “functionalist” is a federalist who is convinced that the his ideas and the ideas of his co-federalists are of such dignity that they don’t have to be subjected to the hurley burly of political debate. Although the “functionalists” have one final goal, the completion of European integration by creating a European state, that goal should never be spelled out so that elected politicians or the voters will be able to object. Instead a EU state shall be created by stealth.
Please read post # 49 carefully and ponder the implications of a “functionalist” approach on democracy, the Rule of Law and liberty.
My comments on fdsa2’s epistle can be found below:
"Only covered trade" - one of the most widespread misconceptions and as I will show below an outright lie.
When I wrote “trade” what I intended to convey was in essence the “Internal Market”. That was of course a very sloppy choice of word and definitely a “faux pas”, especially when discussing with someone schooled in EC Law and who himself is so careful with his vocabulary. So let me rephrase:
From its birth Europe has been an economic community. Coal and steel, atomic energy, agriculture, the common market, the single currency have been the building blocks of the European construction. Even the gradual formation of a political union has not explicitly raised the creation of a European government or of a European state - although this is what it will become, unless present trends are reversed. On the contrary, the true political nature of what is proposed has generally been disguised as increased co-operation or integration between member states. See further below.
Trade (and an European internal market) was never the ultimate goal but the mean chosen for integration as a compromise to satisfy everyone from the nationalistic De Gaulle who preferred a "union of nation states" to the "federalists" who wanted a "united states of Europe" (including Churchill, French Foreign Minister Schuman and of course Jean Monnet).
The canard that Churchill wanted a “united states of Europe” (notwithstanding his Zürich speech) has been refuted so many times that I’ll leave that discussion for the time being. At least it should be possible to agree on the fact that Churchill never, ever stated that Britain should be part of such a union.
Monnet who like Schuman was a great believer in European integration as a way to avoid future European wars, belonged to a subgroup within the "federalists" often referred to as "functionalists" who unlike their colleagues pragmatically realised a sector by sector approach would more easily gain the support of the European leaders.
I would be very careful to evoke such people as my “idols”. Both Monnet, Schuman, and Spaak (another father of the Union) have very checkered pasts - especially their politics prior to and during WW II ought to raise more than a few questions. I have commented on Robert Schuman in a previous thread:
Pontiff is accused of running a 'saint factory' (founder of EU on the road to sainthood)
Hence, the result we see today with overlapping legislation, hap hazardly patched areas of policies are the results of the eternal battle between federalists and functionalists and those who at all are not too keen on European integration.
Well, if the federalists of various persuasions had been good enough to state their objectives and allowed them to be tested in the election booths, in all probability there wouldn’t have been any “haphazardly patched areas of legislation” because the voters would have put a stop to this development a long time ago.
You insinuate that the "constitution" created EC-law supremacy over all current areas but trade. An ugly common spin from eurosceptics and a lie. Throughout the years more policy areas have been added to the competence catalogue of the EU but even the original one included policy areas such as transport, energy etc. In the very year (1952) the first Treaty (the Treaty of Paris) entered into force, the heads of states signed what was going to become the birth of the European political union. The initiative was shot down but the idea was born nevertheless.
Note this almost millennarian conviction. Compare another utopian ideology: The 1848 revolutions failed, but still the wheels of history would ensure the dictatorship of the proletariat, according to Marx and Engels. In the eyes of the “federalists” the fact that the initiative of a European political union was rejected is not important. In their minds this is “the future” and therefore it will come to fruition.
The new "constitution" has many advantages. It brings all the various Treaties competences into one, in comparison, easily accessible document.
A constitution of 330 pages! Remember that a constitution contains the ground rules for a legislation.
Of course the civil servants in Brussels have always been verbose (The Ten Commandments contain 70 words, the US Declaration of Independence consists of 1328 words, and the EU egg directive of 1997 contains 97 000 words) but this is just too much!
It tackles some of the problems which has caused the inefficiency of the EU and specifically deals with the enlargement problems. It even strenghtens the EU in areas such as law enforcement cooperation, certain defence issues etc. something I as a moderate welcome as the only way to deal with crossborder crime and terrorism.
Funny, I remember the terrorism in Europe during the late 70s. It was possible to combat that scourge without trying to supersede the sovereignty of the nation states. Also, note the coy reference to “certain defense issues”. It is no secret, although it probably should have remained so for another few years, that the real argument for a EU defence initiative is for EU to be a “counter balance” to the lone super power, USA.
I do object to Giscard calling it a constitution since I personally belong to the funcionalists and a lot of grievances could have been spared if it could have been named the Single European Act (sadly it already exists but something similar) - because thats is mainly what it is.
It is always a mistake to call a spade a spade in Brussels. Now you know why.
The majority of policy areas and the most sensitive for nation states such as defence and taxation etc. will still be a national affair - the red lines of the UK, Germany or Sweden etc. was not crossed anywhere since national veto rights were added.
However, as you would expect the “constitution” contains some weasel wording, which still makes it possible for the EU to make decisions in these areas without having to heed any national vetoes. See the leader in Sunday Telegraph 20 June:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/06/20/dl2001.xml
Your suggestion for me to travel to Brussels is superfluous since my work bring me there every other week, further my academic background is EC-law and I am perfectly aware of the failures and weaknesses of the system.
Actually I didn’t intend fdsa2 to study the EU bureaucracy but the Belgian bureaucracy. Belgium is a perfect example how a EU state will (or rather won’t) function.
I have a friend who is working in the Belgium Ministry of Health who has told me about some of the goings on inside the Belgium bureaucracy. To start with every mid-level managerial post and upwards is duplicated - one French speaker and one Flemish speaker do the same job. No wonder that Belgium has built up a state debt of more than 100% of GDP, which should have disqualified the country for membership in the Eurozone. But of course rules are only for some and not for others.
The language question is still dividing the country. Thus, the growth of the Flams Bloc and similar parties in the Vallon parts of the country. Brussels happens to be a “francophone” island in the flemish speaking part of the country. Therefore, Flemish people receive tax reductions if they move to Brussels. On the other hand the Flemish parts of Belgium subsidises the poorer French speaking parts of Belgium to an extent that, the Flemish pay more per head than the West Germans in subsides to East Germany. Of course the subsidies haven’t helped to enrich these regions, who are still among the most blighted in Europe. That of course won’t stop these policies to spread all over Europe - in fact they already have (eg the agricultural subsidies).
I think however that your analysis of the moderates work and success in Brussels is a typical case of over simplification. EU politics is not a typical bipartisan game. There are areas where the European conservatives have had a real and positive impact, often together with the liberal group (not to confuse with US left wing liberals).
One of the things that makes the EU policies and political positions taken on EU so confusing is the fact that people are unable to differentiate between fundamental issues and peripheral questions. Take for example the present vice chairman of the Swedish conservative party (Ms Gunilla Carlsson) who was a MEP. One of those things she was proud of having accomplished in during her tenure in Brussels, was that she eventually managed to stop a regulation regarding bus doors. Now, most free marketers would have agreed that such a regulation was unnecessary, and probably harmful. However, not once has Ms Carlsson questioned the fact that EU has been given powers that makes it possible to impose this kind of detrimental legislation on all European countries. In short; the conservatives have created much more harm than good by agreeing to empower the EU.
No, it wouldn’t do to confuse the Liberals with US left liberals. Even Ted Kennedy would look right-wing in that company.
I positively detest the fact that you have bought in to the Chirac policy idea of "flexible integration" where certain member states could move forward leaving the rest behind. It is already happening as can be seen in the monetary field but I strongly am against it spreading to other.
No, I have not bought into Chirac’s “flexible integration - I’m for a flexible disintegration. In other words I would dismantle the acquis communitaire (Horror!).
For those who are not familiar with the terminology the acquis communitaire is all the legislation so far on the statute book of the European Union. The French term implies that once on the statute books it will remain there, “giving it (EU) powers of occupied territory to move further forward in one direction” (to quote from a debate in the House of Commons).
Why, well I to have a quote and it is from the Costa vs. Enel (1964) case and aims at the importance of EC law supremacy but works also as an argument against your flexible integration:
"... the law stemming from the Treaty, an independent source of law, could not, because of its special and original nature, be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed, without being deprived of its character as Community law and without the legal basis of the Community itself being called into question."
Now this would be positively hilarious if it hadn’t been so serious. First of all note the circular reasoning: The EC law could not be overruled because it is special; if it could be overruled it wouldn’t be special, and then the legal basis for the EC law not to be overruled could be questioned, which the court had decided could not to be the case.
In any scientific discussion or endeavour that I have been taking part in this type of circular reasoning by a participant would immediately disqualify him from any further serious hearing. Obviously the same rules do not apply in Law. Strange.
Secondly, and here I will have to ask the readers to excuse me for quoting a rather long passage from “The Tainted Source” by John Laughland, let us look at the history and ideology of the legal decisions of the European Court of Justice of which fdsa2 seems so fond:
“The absolute supremacy of European law over national law, and even over national constitutions, which was never laid down in any of the original treaties, was introduced by a series of highly questionable rulings of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg in the 1960s and early 1970s. The Court adopted a “dynamic” approach to EC law; it saw itself as an important “motor” of European integration, charged with the task of pushing it forward. This is quite incompatible with the role of judges as it is understood in most legal systems, where they are supposed to apply the law rather than invent it. These claims to legal supremacy were challenged by the ruling of the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe in 1993, which said that the ultimate political and legal authority continued to reside with the member states. It was no doubt in reply to this, and perhaps because of embarrassment that the primacy of EC law had never been ratified by treaty, that a reference to “the jurisprudence of the ECJ” - and thus the endorsement of the primacy of EC law - was surreptitiously introduced into an obscure protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty, signed in June 1997 between the EU heads of state and government. The effect of this protocol, if ratified, will be formally to abrogate the supreme legal authority of the member states, even though neither the electorates nor even the parliaments of those states are aware that they are thereby asked to sign away their birthright. Although in all EC states - for the time being at least - it is recognised by explicit legal and constitutional reasoning that the EU’s (or, more precisely, the European Community’s) supreme legal authority derives only from the continuing will of the member states to remain members of the EC - in other words, from the ultimate political authority of the EU’s constituent nations - this position, in which power is (formally at least) enjoyed by the EU only as a result of revocable delegation, will be severely undermined, and probably overturned completely, if monetary union is introduced, for by common consent the very purpose of monetary union is to bind Europe’s states in an irrevocable fashion.”
Thus, the EU is in no small part created by an activist court. Activist courts are not unfamiliar to FReepers. The US Supreme Court during the 70s and the rulings of the Supreme Court of Florida during the aftermath to the presidential elections 2000 come to mind. Anyone who has followed the discussions on this site for some time will be aware that many posters feel that the most important power of the US President is to appoint judges to the Supreme Court to avoid a repeat of the “dynamic” court of the 70s.
And here you have it. The EU bureaucrats, supported by big business, civil servants and certain pressure groups in the various countries are intent on creating a European super state. This will take place by hook or by crook or by cooking the books, since they are convinced that the ends justify the means. In their view it is therefore in order to step on our liberties, as long as the long term goal of a unified Europe is achieved.
The “internal paradox” in their reasoning is that many of the allies in this project have very different aims. The conflicts will eventually surface and create a very unstable and possibly violent situation. That is why this crazy drive towards a supranational EU state must be stopped, and stopped before it has created an irrevocable rift between the peoples and their elected “masters” and between various countries.
(A caveat: One persistent fact about the europhiles is that they are almost to a man ignorant about the history of the USA. In their world the Civil War was a fight about slavery and nothing else.)
Thank you so much for all this information!
Thanks! From the mother of all information! That's praise indeed!
;D
ScaniaBoy
LOLOL! Thank you so much for the kind words!
I found nothing in your subsequent response that even attemped to refute it. Is the following accurate or not?
DIVISION OF POWERS
The constitution lists the areas where Brussels will have either full or shared jurisdiction. These cover virtually every area: transport, energy, trade, competition, agriculture, fisheries, justice and home affairs, space exploration, employment, social policy, foreign affairs, defence, immigration and asylum. Where sovereignty is shared, it states "Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent the Union ceases to exercise, or chooses no longer to exercise, its competence".
If the author is correct, then Scania boy is exactly on point, yes?
The EU's political calendar now bristles with dates for the political battle to be engaged.
On 17 June, EU leaders will try once more to agree the text of a legally-binding EU constitution.
On 20 July, the new European Parliament meets for the first time.
Another very interesting date is the 13th July. Then the European Court of Justice will deliver a verdict on the Growth and Stability pact. According to the pact countries with a larger deficit than 3% of GDP will have to pay fines. However, last year both Germany and France were saved by the other governments in the euro-zone, and didn't have to pay any fines despite overstepping the limits several years in a row.
The European Commission brought this case before the ECJ, and now ECJ will either have to say that the Euro-zone countries can no longer run their own econmies, or they will have to kill the "Growth and Stability pact".
A pact that neither promotes growth nor stability and most certainly hasn't shown itself to be a pact.
More like Swedish taxes on Ethiopian wages.
"That is why this crazy drive towards a supranational EU state must be stopped.."
Now that you mention it, we Americans are headed for such a regional government, as well. It is the form of the so-called "Free Trade Area of the Americas" (FTAA). This is like NAFTA, only broader and deeper. The real purpose of this is primarily about creating a socialistic, totalitarian, ever variable hemispheric government as one step toward world government. The Congress of the U.S. will be voting on this very dangerous treaty in early 2005.
Since mine, and most elected representatives are completely buffaloed by the "trade" thing in the title, they are currently in favor of it. This is where we come in; you all (the FReepers) have got to start educating your representatives as the differences between free trade, fair trade, regional governments, and national sovereignty. We must attempt to stop the proposed FTAA, and reverse other treaties, such as NAFTA, WTO, etc. OBTW; get US out of the U.N. right away!
National sovereignty surrender BUMP.
National sovereignty surrender BUMP.
It is the beast
I'm sure glad to be an American... and pigs will fly before we let Vincente' Fox pull the same thing in North America... (as he was squealing about last week)...
I already see that in recent comments made by Tony Blair. It sounds like the British Public has swung back so far left they won't notice but will cheer.
Nor should they be. They of all people living under communist rule so long, finally get freedom and start to move ahead only to be shoved into the EU -- I would scream at the top of my lungs NOOOOOOOOOO....
The British will have a referendum on the EU constitution. There is no way that Blair will win this and get a yes. At least one country, Britain, will remain free.
The Eurotrash politicians are doing through legislation and political correctness what Hitler tried seventy years ago through conquest. I'm betting this will cause a civil war between "Old" and "New" Europe (assuming "Old" Europe isn't taken over by radical Muslim immigrants first.) BTW, what happens to NATO?
I don't know what will happen to NATO but my guess is that it importance will diminish.
President Bush has said that he will bring back US troops from Europe. This proposal has a large support in the Congress and among the voters. Even if (God forbid) Kerry would win, he would also have to bring home the troops to be able to build up the extra divisions he has been talking about.
Politically the fact that EU is trying to build up an organization parallel to NATO will reduce NATO's political clout.
However, the European force won't have the same military power as NATO, and we will see a power vacuum in Europe. Therefore, your pessimistic view of Europe's future is not inconceivable. Actually, I am also afraid that the present development may well cause severe conflicts in continental Europe.
333 pages? They're kidding!
We have a government founded on one page, and the Europeans need 333 pages?
That thing has to be a lawyers wet dream.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.