Posted on 12/30/2005 8:11:07 PM PST by definitelynotaliberal
Bold Choices to Quell E.U. Crisis An advance guard for Europe As predicted, the United Kingdom’s six-month presidency is coming to an end having achieved nothing. In the meantime, the E.U. crisis deepens with each passing day. The constitution project has been laid to rest and the problems of enlargement are engulfing what until now has been a point of strength for Europe, the Union’s budget with its give and take. Infringements of the stability pact seem to have become the order of the day and the much-criticized Franco-German axis, which long served as at least a surrogate for the E.U.’s non-existent political muscle, has been consigned to the past with the demise of the Schröder chancellorship and the destruction of the Chirac presidency. But Europe is too important to be allowed to die like this, as it certainly will unless there are changes. The construction of a continental-weight supra- or multinational political unit is the only hope if Europeans are to have a future that is neither irrelevant nor subordinate. This failure has not come about by chance. Sooner or later, it will be necessary to face the errors of presumption and superficiality committed by large sections of our political classes, just as we will have to draw up a list of those who all this time have continued to sound on the pipes of Europeanism the message that everything was for the best. But right now, this counts for little. It is not time for recriminations. What is urgently needed is a way forward that will prevent everything from unraveling and coming to a halt. We must save the heart of the European project. Evidently, this is only possible through politics, and a political initiative driven by imagination and determination, which above all has no fear of thinking on a grand scale. Obviously, it is improbable that such an initiative could involve all 25 current members of the Union. That doesn’t matter. For the time being, it can be accomplished by some of them. We might, for example, hypothesize the original core of six founder nations plus any others who want to join in, provided of course they are already part of the euro zone. These countries would state their intention to act as an advance guard for the rest, as the anticipators of a closer union to which in the future all could of course adhere. What would be the characteristics of this closer union? There are many ways in which it can be imagined but it seems to me indispensable that those ways should have strong symbolic impact. They should appear to be, and actually be, a quality leap of will and political decision. I shall mention some, purely as examples. The first founding provision of the new pact could be a sort of extension of political citizenship beyond national frontiers, not in order to create another transnational parliament like the present one but to grant the right to vote in national parliamentary elections to citizens of all the subscriber countries. This would start symbolically to eliminate, or at least reduce in importance, the separation between internal politics and what we could call the federal political level that has so far prevented the Union from existing as a political entity. In a sense, there would no longer be a real domestic political life in countries subscribing to the pact. If only 100,000 Italian citizens were to vote in French elections, or 50,000 Dutch citizens voted in Belgium, it would I believe be the start of a genuine revolution. That revolution would be further reinforced if other measures were taken. For example, governments involved could appoint a single commander-in-chief for all their armed forces, and there could be the election by direct universal suffrage of a European Union president, perhaps with a penalty for voters choosing a candidate of their own nationality. Of course, the powers of such a president would inevitably be largely symbolic, but it is easy to imagine that the president would in any case immediately become a significant point of reference for the internal politics of the various states. Above all, the president would be an even more important engine driving the countries along the road of increasing integration. It goes without saying that a single military head with powers of command – for example, making certain appointments – would probably serve to induce a virtuous mechanism of increasingly close collaboration in the crucial area of foreign policy. What we have summarily described is of course only one of at least ten proposals that could be envisaged. What matters is the direction and scope of the project. It would be nice if Italy could take the initiative on this. Our Foreign Ministry may not have a think tank, which would be the most appropriate setting. It does, however, have the means to organize a study conference or something along similar lines to discuss and focus on proposals for action that go in this direction, and to involve politicians from all parties, as well as diplomats. Needless to say, there are a number of legal and constitutional issues to be tackled, some of them complex, and I can already hear the thousand other objections that the guardians of good sense will have no trouble in raising. The point is that Europe no longer needs good sense. Good sense is killing Europe. What Europe needs is politics on a grand scale and leadership on a grand scale. It needs bold projects and courageous people. Only these can release the energy that brings forth what is destined to endure. Ernesto Galli della Loggia
English translation by Giles Watson www.watson.it
If you want people to read your posts, you need paragaphs.
And the worthless Democrats continue to advise the American people to follow the European model. What a bunch a fools!
I don't especially care for people to read my posts, and that article is not written by me. It is from an Italian newspaper and the link is included.
Paragraphs ground the article, no doubt, but I copied and pasted and thought that that would suffice. I was wrong. Sorry!
It's better if you click on the link.
Happy New Year.
Oh, alright!
Bold Choices to Quell E.U. Crisis
An advance guard for Europe
As predicted, the United Kingdom’s six-month presidency is coming to an end having achieved nothing. In the meantime, the E.U. crisis deepens with each passing day. The constitution project has been laid to rest and the problems of enlargement are engulfing what until now has been a point of strength for Europe, the Union’s budget with its give and take. Infringements of the stability pact seem to have become the order of the day and the much-criticized Franco-German axis, which long served as at least a surrogate for the E.U.’s non-existent political muscle, has been consigned to the past with the demise of the Schröder chancellorship and the destruction of the Chirac presidency.
But Europe is too important to be allowed to die like this, as it certainly will unless there are changes. The construction of a continental-weight supra- or multinational political unit is the only hope if Europeans are to have a future that is neither irrelevant nor subordinate. This failure has not come about by chance. Sooner or later, it will be necessary to face the errors of presumption and superficiality committed by large sections of our political classes, just as we will have to draw up a list of those who all this time have continued to sound on the pipes of Europeanism the message that everything was for the best. But right now, this counts for little. It is not time for recriminations. What is urgently needed is a way forward that will prevent everything from unraveling and coming to a halt. We must save the heart of the European project.
Evidently, this is only possible through politics, and a political initiative driven by imagination and determination, which above all has no fear of thinking on a grand scale. Obviously, it is improbable that such an initiative could involve all 25 current members of the Union. That doesn’t matter. For the time being, it can be accomplished by some of them. We might, for example, hypothesize the original core of six founder nations plus any others who want to join in, provided of course they are already part of the euro zone. These countries would state their intention to act as an advance guard for the rest, as the anticipators of a closer union to which in the future all could of course adhere.
What would be the characteristics of this closer union? There are many ways in which it can be imagined but it seems to me indispensable that those ways should have strong symbolic impact. They should appear to be, and actually be, a quality leap of will and political decision. I shall mention some, purely as examples. The first founding provision of the new pact could be a sort of extension of political citizenship beyond national frontiers, not in order to create another transnational parliament like the present one but to grant the right to vote in national parliamentary elections to citizens of all the subscriber countries. This would start symbolically to eliminate, or at least reduce in importance, the separation between internal politics and what we could call the federal political level that has so far prevented the Union from existing as a political entity.
In a sense, there would no longer be a real domestic political life in countries subscribing to the pact. If only 100,000 Italian citizens were to vote in French elections, or 50,000 Dutch citizens voted in Belgium, it would I believe be the start of a genuine revolution. That revolution would be further reinforced if other measures were taken. For example, governments involved could appoint a single commander-in-chief for all their armed forces, and there could be the election by direct universal suffrage of a European Union president, perhaps with a penalty for voters choosing a candidate of their own nationality. Of course, the powers of such a president would inevitably be largely symbolic, but it is easy to imagine that the president would in any case immediately become a significant point of reference for the internal politics of the various states. Above all, the president would be an even more important engine driving the countries along the road of increasing integration. It goes without saying that a single military head with powers of command – for example, making certain appointments – would probably serve to induce a virtuous mechanism of increasingly close collaboration in the crucial area of foreign policy.
What we have summarily described is of course only one of at least ten proposals that could be envisaged. What matters is the direction and scope of the project. It would be nice if Italy could take the initiative on this. Our Foreign Ministry may not have a think tank, which would be the most appropriate setting. It does, however, have the means to organize a study conference or something along similar lines to discuss and focus on proposals for action that go in this direction, and to involve politicians from all parties, as well as diplomats. Needless to say, there are a number of legal and constitutional issues to be tackled, some of them complex, and I can already hear the thousand other objections that the guardians of good sense will have no trouble in raising. The point is that Europe no longer needs good sense. Good sense is killing Europe. What Europe needs is politics on a grand scale and leadership on a grand scale. It needs bold projects and courageous people. Only these can release the energy that brings forth what is destined to endure.
Ernesto Galli della Loggia
English translation by Giles Watson www.watson.it
Thanks--I appreciated the article, and your efforts.
Similar to Napleon. --- Yeah thats the ticket.
He united Europe on a Grand Scale and had a few Bold Projects.
Who are you calling fools - the Democrap politicians or the Dummycrats who keep voting to get us all sodomized?
I don't know about the bold projects but I highly doubt that Europeans have courageous people (besides our Europeans FReepers like an italian and Kristopher). How about the part where he says, "Obviously, it is improbable that such an initiative could involve all 25 current members of the Union. That doesn’t matter. For the time being, it can be accomplished by some of them. We might, for example, hypothesize the original core of six founder nations plus any others who want to join in,..." The orignial core of 6 plus any others who want to join in. Hmm. So really, all he wants is for the non-Euro zone types to stay out - the UK and Denmark, right? Fabulous!
later, talking about the 'characteristics' of the closer union: They should appear to be, and actually be, a quality leap of will and political decision - See the brilliance? You can't just 'appear' to be. You have to actually be.
But I think that this is my favorite: penalty for voters choosing a candidate of their own nationality. Ooh la la!
Really, his call for "politics on a grand scale and leadership on a grand scale" sounds like a call for a "man on horsbeback", like he had just put down a copy of Nietzche's "Beyond Good and Evil". As Europe sinks further into its dangerous stagnation, we may be hearing more proposals like this.
When I was in the Army stationed in Germany in 1959 & 60, the guys used to tell the German Girls that the reason the US sent them over was to strengthen their gene pool so they wouldn't lose next time.
I guess it didn't work.
And they all look away, too. I read that 850,000 people in Switzerland live below the poverty line and remarked on it to a Swiss lady. Her response? "It wasn't like that while I still lived there." She's been here 30 years (still going on about how fabulous it is in Europe. Why are you here? Because years ago, facilities weren't great for kids with muscular dystrophy. My son has it. Well, it's great now, right? Why still here? No response.)
David Brooks said in a colum that a country is better off poor and looking ahead that rich and looking back. Truer words have never been spoken.
Your boys didn't work hard enough. Or your fish can't swim? Either way, it's all your fault.
Oh yeah, just like the multinational UN. I really am skeptical of the ability of organization on this level to ever work. It quickly becomes inept and sclerotic, but without the ability to reform because you will never get enough countries to go in the same direction to achieve progress.
About the only thing you can achieve in a uniform fashion is for the beauracrats to entrench themselves and become unbelievably corupt. The curse of Kofi's throughout such orginizations is all that will result, the spiral downwards will be dramatic.
They talk a hilarious game, but when it really comes down to it, what is the raison d'etre of the European Union? Only the construction of a continental weight suprapolitical unit? Do you think they hear themselves? 485 pages, starting with the words "His Majesty, the King of the Belgians" and containing such important arguments as lard and 'other rendered animal fat'.
Our Constitution - too fabulous. I'd re-read it every time I was standing in line at an immigration office. Love it. 12,000 beautiful words.
I guess you are right. I didn't participate, so I didn't contribute.
Oh well ----
"But Europe is too important to be allowed to die this way." Unfortunately, Europe has already found another way to die that has nothing to do with the lack of supra-political structures. The problem, as stated by another Italian, is "too few cradles and too few graves." Without children, Europe has no future, and the geriatric survivors of Old Europe need not expect to be supported by the new Moslem population.
The only Democrats who are not fools are sociopaths.
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.