From: mikael@udac.uu.se (Mikael Lundgren)
Subject: Re: Advantages and Disadvantages
Keywords: Denmark, Maastricht
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala University, Sweden
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:23:01 GMT

In article <1bkannINNnqd@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
>Subject: Re: Advantages and Disadvantages
>Date: 15 Oct 1992 17:45:27 GMT
>Keywords: Denmark, Maastricht
>
>As a European, I tend to believe that arrangements like 
>subsidiarity work as long as people see value in them and 
>want to make them work.    I see little value in written 
>Constitutions except to record what one generation thought 
>was a reasonable way to run things.    I believe that when 
>you use the word "Constitution" and the word "guarantee"
>in the same sentence, you are just setting yourself up for
>disappoointment.   The way to get your children to emulate
>your ideas on running the country is through education.
>Writing them down in a Constitution is something you do
>for the tourists.
>

Funny, the feeling I get is that subsidiarity will remain an empty word if 
it remains just a guiding principle without substance. The impression I get 
is that the word subsidiarity got into the Treaty in order to calm some 
leaders that worried about central power becoming too strong. Who is to say 
that subsidiarity will actually be implemented by the governements?
 
Maybe a constitution is not necessary but there have to be some rules by 
which even governement has to abide (maybe the treaty text maybe something 
else).

I understand that there are no 100% guarantees, anything can happen, a 
constitution might just make it a little more stable.

>|> 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.
>
>I'm not aware of any credible prediction of catastrophe for
>Europe.   We not erecting the EC because we have ten years to
>go to the Big One.   The consequences of failure are more
>likely to be stagnation than warfare.   If the countries of
>Europe cannot agree to merge, they won't just fall to arms
>in reaction.

I am sorry, I was very unclear. I was referring to the swedish debate where 
one can easely get the impression that Sweden is heading towardS catastrophe 
if we join/do not join the EC/EU. By catastrophe i did not mean war but 
social catastrophes. Unemployment will rise, there will be poverty, income 
will diminish, the environment is going to suffer, we will lose our 
independence completely, British hooligans/german skinheads/italian maffia 
 will take over the streets, crime will rise, the welfare system will 
be but a memory ... etc etc This is the levelof the debate. (all right 
maybe i exagerate (sp?) a little ;-)


>
>|> 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).
>
>Well, I'm an enthusiast for the EC but definitely a skeptic
>on a United States of Europe.    I see no reason why the
>European countries need to ape the US by forming a federal
>state, while the current generation - we don't know what the
>next one will think - has feeling of uneasiness about losing
>national identity.    If we can get most of the economic
>benefits of cooperation by agreeing to free trade, free
>movement of labour, dismantling border controls, joint
>industrial and scientific projects, then of course we
>should do that.   Also, it seems that cooperation between
>still-sovereign countries up to now has *not* aroused deep
>feelings of insecurity among ordinary Europeans.    Yet
>the step to full Union *does* seem to make a good many
>people uneasy in ways that they sometimes can't express
>very coherently, so why don't we leave that step until
>people feel a little more relaxed about it.    It won't
>destroy Europe to keep its separate flags and currencies 
>for another generation, but it might destroy Europe if we
>try to force people into a Union they don't want to be in.

I too favor the EC, I also favor a European Union in principle but I am 
skeptical about the present proposal. I agree with what you write above
(althoug I have a feeling that we also have some disagreements somewhere),
I can see dangers ahead if integration goes too fast and peple get the 
feeling that they are getting forced into something. If a union is 
established then there will be a need, in my view, for rules governing the 
governements power (I call that the constitution).

I also think that if a European Union is established it should not happen
all at once, rather it should be a progressive development. The Maastricht 
treaty is one step, the problem is that it might be to large a step to take 
now. Considering that 1993 is just ahead and that it constitutes a major step
forward it may be correct to question the timing of the Maastricht treaty.

Well, I get the impression that my views are not entirely stable, I manage 
to confuse myself when writing News but I hope you will bear with me anyway.
I find this to be an interesting discussion among europeans.

Ciao /Mikael
-
Mikael Lundgren  UDAC, Uppsala University, Sweden!You saw an opinion up there?
Phone: +46 18 18 78 86       Fax: +46 18 18 77 70!It's my personal view, but
Email: mikael.lundgren@udac.uu.se                !you're welcome to share it!