EU Constitutional Diversions
EU Constitutional Diversions
Last year’s proposed EU constitution (2005), was proceeded with a parsimonious type of discussion of it in Europe, culminating in the ensuing debacle which eventually caused the French and Dutch No vote on the constitution; thereby stopping further progress dead. The obvious lack of people involvement in the early drafting of the proposed constitution has raised some disturbing issues.
The UK and the rest of the EC have developed different interpretation on the ‘NO’ result, being varied in interpretation from the French dislike of its president, enthusiastic uncertainty of Turkey joining the EC, being uncomfortable with the suggestion of a move towards a Anglo American form of raw flexible economics, with its perceived growing attack on the French and Germans traditionally socially programmed driven economy and a tilt by elements of the ‘right’ at the uncontrolled ‘problem’ of immigration not being addressed by the EU.
The Dutch no vote, (prior to the French ‘no’ and the German referendum), in deciding upon the constitution issues, was based upon their past experience in their acceptance of the Euro monetary system and their recent perceived subsequent personal financial descent. This was caused by the undervalued euro which had many Dutch to feel a loss of wealth due to an increase in prices (i.e. depreciating the value of Guilder for the Euro) and a developing fear of loosing its liberal social views to be challenge by the stricture of European human rights. There may also have been an underlying fear of potentially greater muslim influence with an influx of Turkish workers and their recent discomfort experience of muslim extremism but this was not elaborated by political parties pursuant to a constitution vote.
In the limited consultation process all parties decided on a different public interpretation for the constitution, from proclaiming that it was just being a “bit of tidying up” process of existing treaties to a move to a type of federalism and greater power being taken by Eurocrats. The low-key promotion by governments skimmed over the more obvious concerns being expressed by the public, which insured that there is no mention of the insidious – not to be over hyped by anyone, the i word-immigration, nor social emaciation, EU expansion or racial tension. In looking at the subsequent fiasco and as far as politicians were concerned, apart from the actual votes cast, there was offered to the public an interpretation that other dubious non-specified or fabulous elements played a part in the constitution being afflicted with a resounding ‘NO’. Although these spurious elements or any unfocused concerns could be ignored or talked around by the politicians, the reverberating ‘no’ vote could not be.
There is the assumed feeling that the popular vote of ‘no’ was in fact a no confidence one and was a subtle coalesced polemic against the EC bureaucrats that indicated a contour under the disenfranchisement of the people over the whole direction of the EC, an EC that had pressed on with the constitution scheme and expansion without taking any notice of any public views or explaining the issues with the people.
That the constitution on which a vote was requested was too long, too complicated, too jargonised and seemed to have little relevance to the people, was a point that may also have had some public disinterest. However no matter what interpretation the political ‘elite’ want to attach to the result, the outcome was that the electorate turn out was unusually high and this only adds more weight to the clear importance that those that did vote attached to the referendum and makes the result more startling.
Bearing in mind that only 7 counties have actually had an open referendum on the constitution, the majority have taken a parliamentary decision to accept it without reference to their own populace and with some others now to defer any public referendum, like the UK. The French have tried to save face and override the issue by stimulation a diversionary tactic of the UK CAP ‘rebate’, this has to some extent backfired as the response by the UK is to once again seek to open the whole debate on the funding of the EU and the disproportionate amount of money allocated to the CAP, much to the annoyance of French, Germany, Italy, Spain and Ireland who benefit substantially from its largess. From this it does appear that the continuance of consolidation within the EU and a constitution is in serious trouble.
It need not be this way; the EU and the governments involved have altogether been negligent over the past 15 years. The EU has fallen into an organisational trap that most large public institutions fall into that do not have to test them selves against any measure of performance, or are allowed to be judge in any meaningful way by the people they are supposed to represent.
The EC has become a discordant structure and self inured to the wishes of the people, it has developed a culture of self-importance and evolved to engender its own persona for being in existence. It has overlooked the cardinal rule - that is, it has to be relevant to serve the needs of the power base, which should be the people, not the executive. It has neglected to promote and market itself as a body with clarity of understood purpose and a brand image that people feel that they have some understanding of. It fails to portray consistently what it is, why it is in existence and what it does. The essence of its problem is that it has not actively engaged with the desires of the consumers and its continuation has become the prime reason for its own existence with a constant stream of unexplained executive legislation affecting all people. This exercise of power is carried out by a raft of unelected people with little practical direct accountability or any easy recourse which is open to those affected by the avalanche of regulations. Today in Europe it is the most powerful public undemocratic created institution in existence.
The formation of the common market was, given the Geographic’s of the time, a logical step. With the EEC, this led to the greater freedom of movement of goods and people. The internal open borders eventually meant that a common currency was required and it acted as block against currency speculators affecting the old separate currencies, giving some stability to the euro market.
Having closer economic ties and integrated trading with agreed laws offered some large measure of protection against the terrible waste of new conflicts. This is still a valid strategy but the platform on which the strategy has succeeded has become much bigger than envisage yet the EU has not grown in statute to meet the larger realties of the 21st centaury. The foundation of the EU has not been consolidated enough to develop shared popular ownership in the ideology of the EU, especially as the young 20 year old something’s of today, unaffected by the post war austere years now have more to concern themselves with than listening to a bunch of irrelevant cosseted old farts.
That the EC still remains a largely undemocratic organisation, which has provided many instances of internal corruption, has rapidly been enlarge, is seen as wasteful, done little to discuss immigration, portraits interstate bickering, nor can it reach a corporate stance to be felt on the world stage; all undermine the world presence of the EU. That it may also be seen as a nice ‘gravy train’ for member and commissionaires must be considered a perception of popular issue so that this also may have moved the recent voting dissent of the people. Although it could be argued that the EU has, despite its shortfalls, done some good, unfortunately the post wars rationale for creating the EEC - common market, has been superseded yet it still has serious issues to address that are increasingly bogged down in national self-interested actions. The adoption of the Euro currency, the financial constraint that are ignored and the understated value placed on it by the currency market are perhaps seen as being a step too restrictive to cope with diverse individual country economies.
There is no obvious shared vision to aspire too so the current EU is left with retreating on occasions to a resurrection of older sovereign fears rather than join up to strategic strengths as the global context changes.
It could be argued that the constitution could have been a good thing, yet how can the EC offer an acceptable constitution of all member states when it cannot maintain a lawful or actively democratic house. Again for the 7th year the EC audit commission has refused to sign of the EC accounts and have qualified their statement. This should cause some considerable public concern but as it does not directly affect the populace, it is largely ignored but such corruption, which it effectively is, in this unaccountable body, must have an impact in that it consistently undermines the credibility of the EC’s overall bureaucracy and by reference the whole EU. What other public body or indeed private one would be allowed to continue to flout a law or good practice and deny proven corruption?
The pressure on the existing EU Countries can be encapsulated with the threads of discords in play now. Some members like the UK do not want to develop a strategy about global markets or un-wrap the rhetoric of economic convergence or divergence if it seems to disadvantage their sovereignty. Countries in the EC and aspiring members are being forced to denationalise public structure that have made them what they are, this arguably is not necessarily a good thing. As has been experience with the UK’s privatisation asset strip out, handing over large tract of public infrastructure to the vagaries of a market force does not secure future investment for strategic economic infrastructures.
To meet the ‘demands’ of a global market EC members are also under pressure to undo employment laws, to allow American style ‘economics’ with unfettered corporate actions, undermine hard won social protections and take on new member countries responsibility that the established members cannot easily assimilate. The EC has also been obfuscated on immigration issues, demographics and pension’s pressure on which people have earned a right to expect to be consulted. Fundamentally it has not listened to their population’s opinions, nor clearly or actively considered referendum soundings for key policy development. It has no joint defence capability or energy strategies as the debacle over Yugoslavia showed and so appallingly paralleled again with disagreement for support on the Iraq conflict. It is also introducing dubious precautionary measures on ‘climate change’ that will affect internal economies, impact developing ones and will not be matched by rapacious competitors. Also to be expected is the growing squabbles over energy supplies and its cost.
It does seem obvious that if the EU is to reach its hoped for maturity of a fully integrated entity, (as there is much to recommend it) and indeed in time it will be seen to be essential, then it has to move aside the individual ‘sovereignty’ elements that hold it back from standing on a global stage. Whether people like it or not, the pressure to achieve a high operational unity will be an imperative for the survival of all European cultures under an EU identity.
While there may be long term benefits of being in the EU there are some initial disintegrating factors. The prime impending potential degenerating affects are in play now. There is no shared limit on a new country membership vision i.e. how far does or should the EU branding need to reach? For example if Turkey is to join with the problems that it could bring, what about the inclusion other eastern block countries or even courting Russia which has to be seen as a more fruitful member. There is no joint defence strategy other than NATO, no attempt at immigration limitation, it is debatable if there can ever be a unified energy strategy and the strength of monetary union is still contentious. Also there is no shared consensus on handling of USA politics, Middle East, Asia, or China – the later to be seen as sink holes for exporting European growth and possibly the increase of internal social pressures as living standards in the EU countries are forced down to ‘compete’.
The initial main direct beneficiaries of the enlargement of the EU will be the corporations and the wealthy, however to be at the head of a new market opportunity fed with low cost and cheaper labour will mean that the existing ‘indigenous’ labour force being encourage to reduce their own financial and life expectations to make way for the newer less assimilated citizens. Unless the wealth creating can be of such a magnitude that it can support greater enlargement, the only way of funding the increasing social and energy requirements and be competitive in open markets is by reducing the existing financial holding of most people, to pay for it.
By ttasxtn the energy crises will be affecting the economies of the world; the cost of acquisition will be causing trouble on the economies of all countries that have a reliance on imported energy beyond 50% of consumption. In ttate the energy issue alone will become more effectual in forcing the EU to take on a global role or risk the potential of fractures. As more of the wealth of a nation is exported via the demand for energy the impoverishment of its own citizens will create a retrenchment attitude to protect ones own.
See Energy: Let us overcome our dependence EC white paper.
The failed constitution missed out the involvement of the people and did not pay enough attention to the undercurrent of unease that was developing with the proposed direction being taken by the politicians of the EU. The constitution might have been seen as a little tiding up exercise but it was not. It was an attempt to bring together greater consolidation of countries political drives. That it was badly handled and ineffectually promoted was a fiasco but it is still needed.
The prime drive of a new constitution should be emphasised on the improvement and safeguarding of social achievement, the supremacy of the people for the legitimisation of political power and laws, the access to and freedom of EU information, stronger methods of democratic accountability, referendum on major policy issues such as expansion, conflict resolution, external relations where there is national conflict against EU interest, EU economic probity, management of lasisez faire markets, the safety and security of its populace, mobility and trading benefits to be obtained and the essential need to address the looming energy and environmental crisis; little of this was done in a explicit way but was wrapped up in a turgid example of euro double speak. Unfortunately the EU also needs to pay attention to the drive to expand. It is difficult to see how taking in new member states can be acceptably accelerated when there is no internal cohesion on key task with existing members. How then can the new member therefore be easily absorbed? The cost and problems experienced with the reunification of east and west Germany should be a lesson in the long term effects of assimilation. Leaving aside the close geographic historic linkages, this assimilation was within a territory that had a much greater ‘right’ to belong to the EU than many other recently ‘absorbed’ east European countries and still others now that are manoeuvring to be allowed to get in.
For the future one could imagine the EU continent as a super large power and trading block expanded to make best use of more resources and shared wealth, with an ethos that put the people first in all things and not the slave to corporate and political power or alternatively see the slow bleeding out of its existing economy and energies, disillusioned hopes, apathetic sovereignty for the EU all squandered away to become a undefined and exhausted experiment.
So today, for the moment we have Germany now in the vanguard to promote the resurrection of the constitution, it is likely to be a much curtailed version of the original and will still face strong opposition but some sort of new unifying statute will be necessary before a potential European ELE forces the issue.
P 14.2.07
© Renot 2007
The Euro Debate
Being a keen follower of the whole Euro debate; is it appropriate for the UK to be in, can the Euro survive expansion, is it robust enough to stand stress? Are all questions that hang on the willingness of participating countries to support it despite their own individual level of economic standing and what ever else impinges on it and at least for the UK such questions and doubt is nearly always promoted within the sovereignty issue. It does not really concern me what the sovereignty overall issues are, for as I view it, sovereignty has been a way of disconnecting the people from the application of power. One puppet master can be as good (or as bad) as another. Puppets may not know or care who pulls the strings but one can discern from the effect of manipulations, compared to the best public of engagement, what is or is not beneficial. So it’s up the republic, referendums and PR for me.
However to paraphrase a Churchill tact, can someone give it to me on one sheet of paper what are the pros and cons are of adopting the Euro? I have yet to see a serious factual attempt, without the tedious vapid verbosity that has been currently flowing, to list what the effect of joining the Euro 'might be'.
As I see it there are two levels in this 'might be' scenario. One would be the effect on the 'UK national interest' what ever that might be (sovereign, economic, political, people?) but I translate it as the interest of the power of the 'state' and economic generators being exposed to greater openness and not on other scenarios, the more important effects to be inflicted on the majority of 'the people'. I would hope that there is potentially more positive benefits for ‘the people’, which given our past experience of decimalisation, VAT, weak free trade regulations and the duplicitous game re customs duty on booze, tobacco, motor vehicles, fuel taxation and the negative political antipathy to the social charter; I currently doubt the interest of ‘the people’ would be to the fore. However if people can be convinced though that individually they will benefit overall, I do not think they will pay much attention to the arguments purveyed for the vague 'national interest' or any arguments built around convergence hypothesis.
Listening to a Radio 4 programme on a Blair / Brown dialogue - do we, don't we join? Is there to be a popular vote? should continue to raise doubts about the illusory benefits. The awful appeal made to join in the euro for benefits to the national interest and patriotism, was a low point to make!
Little I have read can convince me that there is now, or is there likely to be a strong argument for joining the Euro to be expressed by a people’s choice. The convenience benefit of having one currency for travel and trade is not a good enough reason to participate in the great experiment if in the medium term, financially and practically, with the slow stealth dismantling of the social infrastructures, that the people are perhaps to be no better off. No doubt, sooner or later the decision will have to be made to join or not and if a vote is eventually placed before the people, it will be made largely on a visceral reaction to the dubious constructed pro / con arguments.
Although I think for the moment that I have an handle on more subjective reasons not to join the euro which has little to do with any national, patriotism or sovereignty issues, I am inclined to support, at some stage, the next step in EU integration but not before there is evidence of more democratic accountability on a UK and European level and something akin to clear obtainable tangible benefits. So far the UK governments have demonstrated a long-term degree of duplicity in dealing with Euro land, it has taken the bits that benefit the 'state' and corporate interest but has consistently fought off and delayed the bits that are designed for the people.
It may be crystal ball time so far, as to when or why we join Euro land but we seem not to have a ball to try and look into yet!
Perhaps it may be unreasonable to suppose that the state knows best and as it has been
democratically elected to make decisions on our behalf, that we should trust political guidance. This is a totally naive position to be in and if the proposed referendum takes place on the Euro for ill or not, people have to have a say. Unfortunately the whole debate is still of some slight minor concerns to too few people and rather lacks involvement by the people as a whole. So the view that democratic process works to allow elected members make such decisions, despite low poll turnouts, may not be a healthy one.
A referendum by the labour party was initially on offer to decide on the Euro but its delayed delivery indicates the political uncertainty on what is to be the basis of the question asked for a decision.
M. Foot in a news article, argued that low turn out in elections is a natural product of a voting
populace "choosing" not to vote because the choice between the parties's is insufficiently diverse to be able to make a real effective distinction between them. Also the feeling was that they are all the same and a vote for one or the other will have little difference for once in power they do as they please. I may have interpreted the sense of his article wrongly but the inferences I drew was that the political system is working well and required no alteration as a democratic process, and certainly did not require the holding of referendums.
This relaxed stance is no a defence for a democratic system. To leave the way voting is carried out knowing that it is a representation of only a minority of the people, is not government by the people for the people. Rather it should be seen as a dangerous sign of the apathy of a democratic structure under a collapsing pressure of disinterest. This disinterest sits well with those that seek to abuse power as it can use the apathy of the populace to gain their own ends, extreme or otherwise. Of course in this way, it is not in the interest of the existing system of ‘first past the post' winners to change it. Yet for the sake of retaining democracy some change must be enforced and perhaps the steps that need to be taken are: -
1 The compulsory teaching of the options of democracy and the need to vote. i.e. citizenship.
2 The making of casting a vote compulsory.
3 The insertion of no confidence vote.
4 The enacting of proportional representation.
5 Referendum to guide hung political positions and or authorise major state shifts such as proportional representation, the Euro, ID cards. starting a war etc.
The current debate on euro is not going to go away, it may be delayed and not being in the Euro may offer some flexibility of financial control and with interest rates but such safety is only possible just now as a petro pound, it may not last much longer.
Politics may be the only field that allows members to prevaricate, avoid truth, and instigate self-interest costly and destructive action without there being any ability to punish them - apart from being ejected out of office, into another well paid safe berth. The issue of the Euro is one that must not be allowed to drag on, the UK has to grasp an opportunity when it best can at a beneficial level willingly, or it might be forced to at some stage even disregarding any discussion of will the Euro be strong or fail.
© Renot 2007
165071600
Update 19.6.08
The Irish have this week, by referendum, decided to reject the EU treaty (constitution). This has thrown the other member governments that have ratified it, into some turmoil for legally if only one member state rejects the treaty; it falls and cannot be enacted. However mendacious action will abound on the veracity of the terms of enactment to release any straightjackets on progression.
As this is the greatest piece of geopolitical structural engineering ever to be attempted without any true democratic input, other than complicit politicians and their unelected commissioners, none of whom have not been up to now challenge by their own populace to validate the ‘project’ as it is known; it seem unlikely that any choice of direction will be allowed now. The project will be made to progress. It does not matter one iota what interpretation are put on the Irish rejection which again for the moment also get the UK of the hook for it kills off the idea of a UK referendum! The UK will though press on with the ratification of it as the project will continue using the same multi layered system that exists now to develop maturity of the project to the full enactment in due course.
However much people disagree with some, part, or all of the constitution, as there is no likelihood of ever having a majority people decision throughout the EU, the political and the unelected powerful civil servants will think they know best and manipulate for its success. Despite what is said such as "The rules are absolutely clear” by Mr. Miliband “If all 27 countries do not pass the Lisbon Treaty then it does not pass into law”. Existing treaties will if necessary be rolled up into the nascent constitution to be in time the de-facto state of affairs.
The apparent unpopularity of the formative constitution is understandable due the awful management of the EU with the secrecy and duplicity that has been carried out to drive the project through without the asked tacit support of EU populations. Even though it has some sovereignty flaws and will be a very testing to individual country problems, it is time EU unity is consolidated. The alternative was to rough along with a range of treaties, none of which demanded cooperation or could meet the calamity unfolding. It is this that is not spoken of for to do so would bring about premature corrosive self interest action and precipitate economic collapse that was unable to tackle the reduced territorial curtilage and rebuild. Humans are not good at long term survival planning.
2008.
Last year’s proposed EU constitution (2005), was proceeded with a parsimonious type of discussion of it in Europe, culminating in the ensuing debacle which eventually caused the French and Dutch No vote on the constitution; thereby stopping further progress dead. The obvious lack of people involvement in the early drafting of the proposed constitution has raised some disturbing issues.
The UK and the rest of the EC have developed different interpretation on the ‘NO’ result, being varied in interpretation from the French dislike of its president, enthusiastic uncertainty of Turkey joining the EC, being uncomfortable with the suggestion of a move towards a Anglo American form of raw flexible economics, with its perceived growing attack on the French and Germans traditionally socially programmed driven economy and a tilt by elements of the ‘right’ at the uncontrolled ‘problem’ of immigration not being addressed by the EU.
The Dutch no vote, (prior to the French ‘no’ and the German referendum), in deciding upon the constitution issues, was based upon their past experience in their acceptance of the Euro monetary system and their recent perceived subsequent personal financial descent. This was caused by the undervalued euro which had many Dutch to feel a loss of wealth due to an increase in prices (i.e. depreciating the value of Guilder for the Euro) and a developing fear of loosing its liberal social views to be challenge by the stricture of European human rights. There may also have been an underlying fear of potentially greater muslim influence with an influx of Turkish workers and their recent discomfort experience of muslim extremism but this was not elaborated by political parties pursuant to a constitution vote.
In the limited consultation process all parties decided on a different public interpretation for the constitution, from proclaiming that it was just being a “bit of tidying up” process of existing treaties to a move to a type of federalism and greater power being taken by Eurocrats. The low-key promotion by governments skimmed over the more obvious concerns being expressed by the public, which insured that there is no mention of the insidious – not to be over hyped by anyone, the i word-immigration, nor social emaciation, EU expansion or racial tension. In looking at the subsequent fiasco and as far as politicians were concerned, apart from the actual votes cast, there was offered to the public an interpretation that other dubious non-specified or fabulous elements played a part in the constitution being afflicted with a resounding ‘NO’. Although these spurious elements or any unfocused concerns could be ignored or talked around by the politicians, the reverberating ‘no’ vote could not be.
There is the assumed feeling that the popular vote of ‘no’ was in fact a no confidence one and was a subtle coalesced polemic against the EC bureaucrats that indicated a contour under the disenfranchisement of the people over the whole direction of the EC, an EC that had pressed on with the constitution scheme and expansion without taking any notice of any public views or explaining the issues with the people.
That the constitution on which a vote was requested was too long, too complicated, too jargonised and seemed to have little relevance to the people, was a point that may also have had some public disinterest. However no matter what interpretation the political ‘elite’ want to attach to the result, the outcome was that the electorate turn out was unusually high and this only adds more weight to the clear importance that those that did vote attached to the referendum and makes the result more startling.
Bearing in mind that only 7 counties have actually had an open referendum on the constitution, the majority have taken a parliamentary decision to accept it without reference to their own populace and with some others now to defer any public referendum, like the UK. The French have tried to save face and override the issue by stimulation a diversionary tactic of the UK CAP ‘rebate’, this has to some extent backfired as the response by the UK is to once again seek to open the whole debate on the funding of the EU and the disproportionate amount of money allocated to the CAP, much to the annoyance of French, Germany, Italy, Spain and Ireland who benefit substantially from its largess. From this it does appear that the continuance of consolidation within the EU and a constitution is in serious trouble.
It need not be this way; the EU and the governments involved have altogether been negligent over the past 15 years. The EU has fallen into an organisational trap that most large public institutions fall into that do not have to test them selves against any measure of performance, or are allowed to be judge in any meaningful way by the people they are supposed to represent.
The EC has become a discordant structure and self inured to the wishes of the people, it has developed a culture of self-importance and evolved to engender its own persona for being in existence. It has overlooked the cardinal rule - that is, it has to be relevant to serve the needs of the power base, which should be the people, not the executive. It has neglected to promote and market itself as a body with clarity of understood purpose and a brand image that people feel that they have some understanding of. It fails to portray consistently what it is, why it is in existence and what it does. The essence of its problem is that it has not actively engaged with the desires of the consumers and its continuation has become the prime reason for its own existence with a constant stream of unexplained executive legislation affecting all people. This exercise of power is carried out by a raft of unelected people with little practical direct accountability or any easy recourse which is open to those affected by the avalanche of regulations. Today in Europe it is the most powerful public undemocratic created institution in existence.
The formation of the common market was, given the Geographic’s of the time, a logical step. With the EEC, this led to the greater freedom of movement of goods and people. The internal open borders eventually meant that a common currency was required and it acted as block against currency speculators affecting the old separate currencies, giving some stability to the euro market.
Having closer economic ties and integrated trading with agreed laws offered some large measure of protection against the terrible waste of new conflicts. This is still a valid strategy but the platform on which the strategy has succeeded has become much bigger than envisage yet the EU has not grown in statute to meet the larger realties of the 21st centaury. The foundation of the EU has not been consolidated enough to develop shared popular ownership in the ideology of the EU, especially as the young 20 year old something’s of today, unaffected by the post war austere years now have more to concern themselves with than listening to a bunch of irrelevant cosseted old farts.
That the EC still remains a largely undemocratic organisation, which has provided many instances of internal corruption, has rapidly been enlarge, is seen as wasteful, done little to discuss immigration, portraits interstate bickering, nor can it reach a corporate stance to be felt on the world stage; all undermine the world presence of the EU. That it may also be seen as a nice ‘gravy train’ for member and commissionaires must be considered a perception of popular issue so that this also may have moved the recent voting dissent of the people. Although it could be argued that the EU has, despite its shortfalls, done some good, unfortunately the post wars rationale for creating the EEC - common market, has been superseded yet it still has serious issues to address that are increasingly bogged down in national self-interested actions. The adoption of the Euro currency, the financial constraint that are ignored and the understated value placed on it by the currency market are perhaps seen as being a step too restrictive to cope with diverse individual country economies.
There is no obvious shared vision to aspire too so the current EU is left with retreating on occasions to a resurrection of older sovereign fears rather than join up to strategic strengths as the global context changes.
It could be argued that the constitution could have been a good thing, yet how can the EC offer an acceptable constitution of all member states when it cannot maintain a lawful or actively democratic house. Again for the 7th year the EC audit commission has refused to sign of the EC accounts and have qualified their statement. This should cause some considerable public concern but as it does not directly affect the populace, it is largely ignored but such corruption, which it effectively is, in this unaccountable body, must have an impact in that it consistently undermines the credibility of the EC’s overall bureaucracy and by reference the whole EU. What other public body or indeed private one would be allowed to continue to flout a law or good practice and deny proven corruption?
The pressure on the existing EU Countries can be encapsulated with the threads of discords in play now. Some members like the UK do not want to develop a strategy about global markets or un-wrap the rhetoric of economic convergence or divergence if it seems to disadvantage their sovereignty. Countries in the EC and aspiring members are being forced to denationalise public structure that have made them what they are, this arguably is not necessarily a good thing. As has been experience with the UK’s privatisation asset strip out, handing over large tract of public infrastructure to the vagaries of a market force does not secure future investment for strategic economic infrastructures.
To meet the ‘demands’ of a global market EC members are also under pressure to undo employment laws, to allow American style ‘economics’ with unfettered corporate actions, undermine hard won social protections and take on new member countries responsibility that the established members cannot easily assimilate. The EC has also been obfuscated on immigration issues, demographics and pension’s pressure on which people have earned a right to expect to be consulted. Fundamentally it has not listened to their population’s opinions, nor clearly or actively considered referendum soundings for key policy development. It has no joint defence capability or energy strategies as the debacle over Yugoslavia showed and so appallingly paralleled again with disagreement for support on the Iraq conflict. It is also introducing dubious precautionary measures on ‘climate change’ that will affect internal economies, impact developing ones and will not be matched by rapacious competitors. Also to be expected is the growing squabbles over energy supplies and its cost.
It does seem obvious that if the EU is to reach its hoped for maturity of a fully integrated entity, (as there is much to recommend it) and indeed in time it will be seen to be essential, then it has to move aside the individual ‘sovereignty’ elements that hold it back from standing on a global stage. Whether people like it or not, the pressure to achieve a high operational unity will be an imperative for the survival of all European cultures under an EU identity.
While there may be long term benefits of being in the EU there are some initial disintegrating factors. The prime impending potential degenerating affects are in play now. There is no shared limit on a new country membership vision i.e. how far does or should the EU branding need to reach? For example if Turkey is to join with the problems that it could bring, what about the inclusion other eastern block countries or even courting Russia which has to be seen as a more fruitful member. There is no joint defence strategy other than NATO, no attempt at immigration limitation, it is debatable if there can ever be a unified energy strategy and the strength of monetary union is still contentious. Also there is no shared consensus on handling of USA politics, Middle East, Asia, or China – the later to be seen as sink holes for exporting European growth and possibly the increase of internal social pressures as living standards in the EU countries are forced down to ‘compete’.
The initial main direct beneficiaries of the enlargement of the EU will be the corporations and the wealthy, however to be at the head of a new market opportunity fed with low cost and cheaper labour will mean that the existing ‘indigenous’ labour force being encourage to reduce their own financial and life expectations to make way for the newer less assimilated citizens. Unless the wealth creating can be of such a magnitude that it can support greater enlargement, the only way of funding the increasing social and energy requirements and be competitive in open markets is by reducing the existing financial holding of most people, to pay for it.
By ttasxtn the energy crises will be affecting the economies of the world; the cost of acquisition will be causing trouble on the economies of all countries that have a reliance on imported energy beyond 50% of consumption. In ttate the energy issue alone will become more effectual in forcing the EU to take on a global role or risk the potential of fractures. As more of the wealth of a nation is exported via the demand for energy the impoverishment of its own citizens will create a retrenchment attitude to protect ones own.
See Energy: Let us overcome our dependence EC white paper.
The failed constitution missed out the involvement of the people and did not pay enough attention to the undercurrent of unease that was developing with the proposed direction being taken by the politicians of the EU. The constitution might have been seen as a little tiding up exercise but it was not. It was an attempt to bring together greater consolidation of countries political drives. That it was badly handled and ineffectually promoted was a fiasco but it is still needed.
The prime drive of a new constitution should be emphasised on the improvement and safeguarding of social achievement, the supremacy of the people for the legitimisation of political power and laws, the access to and freedom of EU information, stronger methods of democratic accountability, referendum on major policy issues such as expansion, conflict resolution, external relations where there is national conflict against EU interest, EU economic probity, management of lasisez faire markets, the safety and security of its populace, mobility and trading benefits to be obtained and the essential need to address the looming energy and environmental crisis; little of this was done in a explicit way but was wrapped up in a turgid example of euro double speak. Unfortunately the EU also needs to pay attention to the drive to expand. It is difficult to see how taking in new member states can be acceptably accelerated when there is no internal cohesion on key task with existing members. How then can the new member therefore be easily absorbed? The cost and problems experienced with the reunification of east and west Germany should be a lesson in the long term effects of assimilation. Leaving aside the close geographic historic linkages, this assimilation was within a territory that had a much greater ‘right’ to belong to the EU than many other recently ‘absorbed’ east European countries and still others now that are manoeuvring to be allowed to get in.
For the future one could imagine the EU continent as a super large power and trading block expanded to make best use of more resources and shared wealth, with an ethos that put the people first in all things and not the slave to corporate and political power or alternatively see the slow bleeding out of its existing economy and energies, disillusioned hopes, apathetic sovereignty for the EU all squandered away to become a undefined and exhausted experiment.
So today, for the moment we have Germany now in the vanguard to promote the resurrection of the constitution, it is likely to be a much curtailed version of the original and will still face strong opposition but some sort of new unifying statute will be necessary before a potential European ELE forces the issue.
P 14.2.07
© Renot 2007
The Euro Debate
Being a keen follower of the whole Euro debate; is it appropriate for the UK to be in, can the Euro survive expansion, is it robust enough to stand stress? Are all questions that hang on the willingness of participating countries to support it despite their own individual level of economic standing and what ever else impinges on it and at least for the UK such questions and doubt is nearly always promoted within the sovereignty issue. It does not really concern me what the sovereignty overall issues are, for as I view it, sovereignty has been a way of disconnecting the people from the application of power. One puppet master can be as good (or as bad) as another. Puppets may not know or care who pulls the strings but one can discern from the effect of manipulations, compared to the best public of engagement, what is or is not beneficial. So it’s up the republic, referendums and PR for me.
However to paraphrase a Churchill tact, can someone give it to me on one sheet of paper what are the pros and cons are of adopting the Euro? I have yet to see a serious factual attempt, without the tedious vapid verbosity that has been currently flowing, to list what the effect of joining the Euro 'might be'.
As I see it there are two levels in this 'might be' scenario. One would be the effect on the 'UK national interest' what ever that might be (sovereign, economic, political, people?) but I translate it as the interest of the power of the 'state' and economic generators being exposed to greater openness and not on other scenarios, the more important effects to be inflicted on the majority of 'the people'. I would hope that there is potentially more positive benefits for ‘the people’, which given our past experience of decimalisation, VAT, weak free trade regulations and the duplicitous game re customs duty on booze, tobacco, motor vehicles, fuel taxation and the negative political antipathy to the social charter; I currently doubt the interest of ‘the people’ would be to the fore. However if people can be convinced though that individually they will benefit overall, I do not think they will pay much attention to the arguments purveyed for the vague 'national interest' or any arguments built around convergence hypothesis.
Listening to a Radio 4 programme on a Blair / Brown dialogue - do we, don't we join? Is there to be a popular vote? should continue to raise doubts about the illusory benefits. The awful appeal made to join in the euro for benefits to the national interest and patriotism, was a low point to make!
Little I have read can convince me that there is now, or is there likely to be a strong argument for joining the Euro to be expressed by a people’s choice. The convenience benefit of having one currency for travel and trade is not a good enough reason to participate in the great experiment if in the medium term, financially and practically, with the slow stealth dismantling of the social infrastructures, that the people are perhaps to be no better off. No doubt, sooner or later the decision will have to be made to join or not and if a vote is eventually placed before the people, it will be made largely on a visceral reaction to the dubious constructed pro / con arguments.
Although I think for the moment that I have an handle on more subjective reasons not to join the euro which has little to do with any national, patriotism or sovereignty issues, I am inclined to support, at some stage, the next step in EU integration but not before there is evidence of more democratic accountability on a UK and European level and something akin to clear obtainable tangible benefits. So far the UK governments have demonstrated a long-term degree of duplicity in dealing with Euro land, it has taken the bits that benefit the 'state' and corporate interest but has consistently fought off and delayed the bits that are designed for the people.
It may be crystal ball time so far, as to when or why we join Euro land but we seem not to have a ball to try and look into yet!
Perhaps it may be unreasonable to suppose that the state knows best and as it has been
democratically elected to make decisions on our behalf, that we should trust political guidance. This is a totally naive position to be in and if the proposed referendum takes place on the Euro for ill or not, people have to have a say. Unfortunately the whole debate is still of some slight minor concerns to too few people and rather lacks involvement by the people as a whole. So the view that democratic process works to allow elected members make such decisions, despite low poll turnouts, may not be a healthy one.
A referendum by the labour party was initially on offer to decide on the Euro but its delayed delivery indicates the political uncertainty on what is to be the basis of the question asked for a decision.
M. Foot in a news article, argued that low turn out in elections is a natural product of a voting
populace "choosing" not to vote because the choice between the parties's is insufficiently diverse to be able to make a real effective distinction between them. Also the feeling was that they are all the same and a vote for one or the other will have little difference for once in power they do as they please. I may have interpreted the sense of his article wrongly but the inferences I drew was that the political system is working well and required no alteration as a democratic process, and certainly did not require the holding of referendums.
This relaxed stance is no a defence for a democratic system. To leave the way voting is carried out knowing that it is a representation of only a minority of the people, is not government by the people for the people. Rather it should be seen as a dangerous sign of the apathy of a democratic structure under a collapsing pressure of disinterest. This disinterest sits well with those that seek to abuse power as it can use the apathy of the populace to gain their own ends, extreme or otherwise. Of course in this way, it is not in the interest of the existing system of ‘first past the post' winners to change it. Yet for the sake of retaining democracy some change must be enforced and perhaps the steps that need to be taken are: -
1 The compulsory teaching of the options of democracy and the need to vote. i.e. citizenship.
2 The making of casting a vote compulsory.
3 The insertion of no confidence vote.
4 The enacting of proportional representation.
5 Referendum to guide hung political positions and or authorise major state shifts such as proportional representation, the Euro, ID cards. starting a war etc.
The current debate on euro is not going to go away, it may be delayed and not being in the Euro may offer some flexibility of financial control and with interest rates but such safety is only possible just now as a petro pound, it may not last much longer.
Politics may be the only field that allows members to prevaricate, avoid truth, and instigate self-interest costly and destructive action without there being any ability to punish them - apart from being ejected out of office, into another well paid safe berth. The issue of the Euro is one that must not be allowed to drag on, the UK has to grasp an opportunity when it best can at a beneficial level willingly, or it might be forced to at some stage even disregarding any discussion of will the Euro be strong or fail.
© Renot 2007
165071600
Update 19.6.08
The Irish have this week, by referendum, decided to reject the EU treaty (constitution). This has thrown the other member governments that have ratified it, into some turmoil for legally if only one member state rejects the treaty; it falls and cannot be enacted. However mendacious action will abound on the veracity of the terms of enactment to release any straightjackets on progression.
As this is the greatest piece of geopolitical structural engineering ever to be attempted without any true democratic input, other than complicit politicians and their unelected commissioners, none of whom have not been up to now challenge by their own populace to validate the ‘project’ as it is known; it seem unlikely that any choice of direction will be allowed now. The project will be made to progress. It does not matter one iota what interpretation are put on the Irish rejection which again for the moment also get the UK of the hook for it kills off the idea of a UK referendum! The UK will though press on with the ratification of it as the project will continue using the same multi layered system that exists now to develop maturity of the project to the full enactment in due course.
However much people disagree with some, part, or all of the constitution, as there is no likelihood of ever having a majority people decision throughout the EU, the political and the unelected powerful civil servants will think they know best and manipulate for its success. Despite what is said such as "The rules are absolutely clear” by Mr. Miliband “If all 27 countries do not pass the Lisbon Treaty then it does not pass into law”. Existing treaties will if necessary be rolled up into the nascent constitution to be in time the de-facto state of affairs.
The apparent unpopularity of the formative constitution is understandable due the awful management of the EU with the secrecy and duplicity that has been carried out to drive the project through without the asked tacit support of EU populations. Even though it has some sovereignty flaws and will be a very testing to individual country problems, it is time EU unity is consolidated. The alternative was to rough along with a range of treaties, none of which demanded cooperation or could meet the calamity unfolding. It is this that is not spoken of for to do so would bring about premature corrosive self interest action and precipitate economic collapse that was unable to tackle the reduced territorial curtilage and rebuild. Humans are not good at long term survival planning.
2008.
posted by Renot at 5:48 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home