European values (not for domestic consumption)

[muckefuck]

"The head of government of a major European country should not endanger such a central project as the EU constitution purely out of domestic political calculations."

That's Vice-President of the European Parliament, Ingo Friedrich, on Tony Blair's decision to hold a referendum on the proposed EU constitution in Britain. A rather frank admission of the unpopularity of the EU among the people it supposedly represents, isn't it? It's one thing to demand that the Iraqis have a government perceived as legitimate and democratic with a constitution they can all get behind, but Europe? If we actually ask the people, then they might say "No"! How could we allow that to happen?

Comments

[pacotelic.livejournal.com]

fealty's a tricky thing, isn't it?
What makes this different than the state's rights/federalist debate in America?

[pacotelic.livejournal.com]

BTW I am not using state's rights as code for racism. I believe that the state's proper Bailiwick in America is a rather large one. If only funding wasn;t an issue

[lhn.livejournal.com]

If only funding wasn;t an issue

I'd guess that the reasons that funding is any more of an issue for states than the feds are contingent rather than systemic. The states have access to the same taxing powers the feds do for the most part (aside from import taxes, which aren't a huge part of the federal budget). Even assuming for the sake of argument that the amount of government spending we currently have is appropriate, there's no reason that the federal/state split has to be the way it is. States can't tax 30% of income because their citizens won't stand for that on top of federal taxes, but if the federal tax burden decreased the state tax burden could increase. (Assuming the voters agreed that it should. Obviously, the smaller the taxing area, the harder it is for voters to convince themselves that most of the money will come from Someone Else-- or from nowhere in particular-- and this seems to be a big factor in government expenditures.)

Of course, the feds have an obvious interest in not seeing this happen. Being able to tax money from states' citizens and then give it back to the states lets Congress legislate through the back door on issues that are prohibited to it directly. (E.g., using federal highway funds to set national speed limits and drinking ages.) But if there were political will to shift the balance between federal and state governments back towards the states, reallocating the money is a comparatively easy job. Start by cutting all programs that involve the feds giving the states money directly, and cut federal taxes by that amount. The states now have access to that pool of money, if they choose to exercise themselves. For that matter, there's nothing stopping any state from raising taxes in such a way as to take the exact amount of the Bush tax cut and reallocate it to the state. (Except voter reaction, of course, but Congress has to deal with that too.)

But I grant that I don't see that political will as materializing. To my extreme regret, federalism as a principle is all but dead. It's invoked alternately by different political wings on issues where the federal government won't give them what they want (pro-lifers on abortion, anti-prohibitionists on medical marijuana laws) but mostly they're fine with using federal power as a bludgeon for their own interests. There are a few principled stands in which someone will oppose using federal power for a goal they support (e.g., Bob Barr's opposition to a Federal Marriage Amendment despite his opposing gay marriage), but they're few and far between.

[pacotelic.livejournal.com]

Different states in different regions would have vastly different policies regarding taxation. They already do, and reap the benefits thereof. The Federal government clearly has too much power, exercised both through umbrella organizations such as the NEA and DOE (education, not Energy). But the problem is, what is appropriately doled out to the states, and what is best left to the feds? I believe the notion of the commerce clause and interstate coimmerce, so I ususlally think that environmental issues should be adminsitered from a federal level, but not one size fits all. The one size fits all model has served us disastorously in education, first with special education, now with "No Child Left Behind" (Good God where does he hide his spinmeisters?). We would wind up with greatly different educational standards if education was devolved to the states, and the states would get to reap the rewards of their poliicies. However, I advocate that for education as educational control should be as local as possible, being an eminently family-oriented issue (also offering creative solutions to the increasing number of confirmed bachelors and swingles in America). You are very educated on these matters, and I salute your thinking on the matter.

One thing about local will versus common missions. When Spain resoundingly decide to pull out of the Iraqi coalition, it was spun by the right as a lack of leadership on the part of the Spanish government. This seems like the opposite side of the coin. Y'all are too intelligent to be pigeonholed into Right or Left. But which is it, democracy or republic? I know I just committed a logic error there, but the original post was very much rubbing the EU's face in their deisre for representative control. Is democracy only desirable when it yields desirable results? Or is it desirable in its own right?

[lhn.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, I can't help but watch the machinations surrounding the European constitution with some degree of schadenfreude. On the other, the process whereby our Constitution was written and ratified didn't actually involve any popular votes, and the deliberations were done in secrecy to prevent public opinion from influencing the debate too much. (It was also technically in violation of the Articles of Confederation, which established a "perpetual union" that could only be altered with the agreement of Congress and the unanimous consent of the states. The Constitution, by contrast, came into effect when nine states signed on.)

That noted, it's not as if I'd favor repeating the process today (though we technically could, by calling a convention under Article V.) I trust open democratic processes somewhat more than the Framers did (though, perhaps, not so much as the Progressives who gave California its referendum/recall/initiative trinity, which I prefer to observe from a safe distance) and I trust secret back-room negotiations far less. Nor do I think that any deliberative body on either continent contains enough people of the caliber of Madison, Hamilton, Washington, etc. to trust with that sort of authority. I'd almost certainly be with Blair were I a European. But still, constitutional construction fully partakes of Bismarck's dictum regarding law and sausages, and I feel at least a little glass-housey tossing too many stones at the process rather than the content.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I feel some reservations, too (though clearly not enough), but, like you, I recognise that what was acceptable back when human chattle was reckoned at 3/5 a free person for purposes of determining representation would probably not pass muster nowadays. It's also not like we ever had popular votes on NAFTA either, but the EU is clearly embarked on a more ambitious project than a mere customs union and I feel that, before it stumbles much further down this path, it needs to shore up support among the electorate. Will this delay developments? Absolutely: Building consensus takes time. But the alternative is an even greater gulf between ordinary citizens and the political elites who claim to represent them. It seems that every time Europeans have indicated that they're not comfortable with the pace of political integration, the response from EU politicians has been, "Obviously we need to move faster!" When a political leader says, "Hey, before we bring into force this basic document (which the people never asked for), let's run it past the public to make sure they're okay with it" and the reaction is outrage at his self-serving populism, I get queasy.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

The thing that frustrates me about the attitude of the British is that they seem to want the economic advantages of belonging to the EU, without any of the disadvantages. Here in Germany, if there had been a vote about whether to keep the Mark or not, people would almost certainly have voted to keep it. Nevertheless, it is as much an advantage to have the member nations using one currency as it is to have the member states in the U.S. using one currency.

It seems to me that the British want advantages like being able to move freely within member nations, without the disadvantages like changing their units of measurement and currency. And my opinion is that they should be either in or out.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

And I'm not sure why the EU has to be so all-or-nothing. It's not a full-fledged federation like the USA, it's more of a NAFTA with pretentions. Several years ago, there was talk of a "multispeed" Union. Core countries who were willing to cede more sovereignty (like Germany, Italy, France, and Benelux) could do so, perhaps forming a military union, a common foreign policy, etc. whereas a "second tier" would draw the line at currency union, common agricultural policy, etc. and a third--or even a fourth--could settle for looser degrees of association.

What happened to that? I don't hear a glimmer of it in the recent talk. The newest members certainly don't want to be perceived as anything less than first-class members. Gung-ho politicians (especially in France, which I think sees domination of the EU as its best bet in retaining a significant role on the world stage) keep talking about the need to press for "ever closer union" no matter how much the populace balks. Why has it become so all or nothing? Why should Britain be forced to choose between ceding control of its currency system and being locked out of intra-European trade?