From: mikael@udac.uu.se (Mikael Lundgren)
Subject: Re: Advantages and Disadvantages
Keywords: Denmark, Maastricht
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala University, Sweden
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:57:07 GMT

In article <1bi57rINNfd9@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.121729.21662@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, bialek@i43s3.ira.
uka.de (Boris Bialek Betr. Tichy) writes:>|> I read this group now for some 
weeks. All the time, exspecially>|> the nothern european opinions, the 
discussion is about thew following>|> subjects:
>|> 
>|> - who has the right to decide about europe ?
>
>The citizens of the individual nations.   However, they decide 
>in different ways.  Some have a tradition of using referendums 
>for such questions, and some don't.

I agree on this.

>|> - what's wrong with the Maastricht treaty ?
>
>There's always lots wrong with any Treaty, since treaties are 
>like contracts.    Getting an agreement always means each side 
>having to give up some of what it wants.

Very true, strangely some people who always (in words) favor democracy seem 
to have a strange relation with the word "compromise". To them it seems as 
if in a democracy compromises are not necessary: the majority always wins. I 
wonder how they imagine a majority is formed ...?

>
>|> - Has somebody the right to reject the treaty ?
>
>Sure, and the Danes already have.

Yes.

>
>|> 
>|> Any solutions for the real dilemma of bruessels bureaucracy ?
>
>What do you have in mind?   The principle of subsidiarity, if
>applied, ought to keep the bureaucrats from getting too out of
>hand, but in the end they are probably no better or worse than
>any of the bureaucrats the individual countries have.

Subsidiarity (thanks for writing that word ;-) is a good concept, however
I think it should be formalized by laws (constitution ?), we all (?) know how
bureaucracies have a tendency of always wanting MORE. Without the 
constraints of laws it will be very difficult to draw the line (I understand 
that the Commission is of the opinion that subsidiarity is a principle but 
that it cannot be coded into a law because it would be too difficult to draw 
the lines). I also think that people in Europe will want to see some 
guarantees that national power and independence will completely vanish to 
Brussels.

>|> 
>|> My opinion about europe: The last centuries were full of wars 
>|> over europe.
>
>And Africa, and Asia, America and the Pacific and the Middle East.  
>What's your point?   Europe is by no means unique in this.

I think the point is obvious, Europe is certainly not unique. Its uniqueness 
is the kind of war that we would have if one ever came to pass, just think 
about it for some time .....
What is somewhat unique is that countries that were formerly violent rivals 
now are working together in order to prevent wars between them to ever 
happen again.

>|>                                      Why are so many people too
>|> blind or nationalistic that they want to break up the process of 
>|> becoming a europe nation ?
>
>Maybe they are not blind or nationalistic.   Maybe they just
>notice that the EC seems to have obtained a great many benefits
>already - free trade, cooperation, peace, shared science, shared
>industrial projects - *without* becoming a single European state.

This might be true, but we won't know if the debate that is going on will 
stay at its current general level of just predicting catastrofies (sp?)
either way.

>And maybe, having noticed that, they question whether the process
>of European integration may have reached a statge of diminishing
>returns, where what you have to give up in national identity to
>get the next stage of integration is more than the benefits you
>get back.

Perhaps people just want to slow down and think this thing through,
maybe it is a question of giving some time to a discussion without a 
political campaign going on at the same time (which probably would rise the 
level of the debate considerably).

>I'd love to see a discussion about that, but unfortunately we
>are beset by idiots who only want to talk about the EC in 
>terms of 1984, the Reich, or the Mark of the Beast.

I am in complete agreement with this statement.

>I think it will be a great pity if history records that when
>the Europeans were supposed to be discussing the EC, all they
>could talk about was semi-religious nonsense instead.
>jon.

Ciao /Mikael