HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hugh@sci.kun.nl (Hugh Osborne)
Subject: Democratising the EC (was <None>)
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:39:55 GMT

In <mikael.72.718567802@udac.uu.se> mikael@udac.uu.se (Mikael Lundgren) writes:

>Many say that the treaty is not democratic enough. Well, how shold a EU be 
>governed? Any ideas? What is a democratic EU in your opinion?

First approximation:
	A recognisable EC government (replacing the council of ministers?),
appointed by the national governments (lots of potential for
bickering here).
	The European Council looses its law proposing initiative and becomes
a civil service like any other.
	The European Parliament is given the right of dissolving the
government by means of a vote of no confidence.
	National govenrments retain veto rights for "vital interests"
(anyone care to define "vital interests"?)

--
Hugh Osborne             |            Dept. of Informatics
                       --+--          University of Nijmegen
                        /|\           The Netherlands
_______________________/___\_________ +31-(0)80-65.25.99
From: mikael@udac.uu.se (Mikael Lundgren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:15:33 GMT
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden

In article <harmic.718544837@Physik.TU-Muenchen.DE> harmic@Physik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Michaela Harlander) writes:
>From: harmic@Physik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Michaela Harlander)
>
>O.k, since you are asking for it :-)
>German constitution does not allow a referendum, i.e. the possibility
>of a referendum is mentioned nowhere in the Grundgesetz. There are
>some states in Germany allowing a referendum (e.g. Bavaria does),
>but these referenda are restricted to topics of local concern. 
>Maastricht is definitely not a local topic :-)

Thanks (to you and the others who answered my question).

I wondered, I seem to recall a newspaper article som time ago about some
Bundeslaender that wanted more to say about the integration process. They 
seemed to think that it was a more local question than the federal 
governement thinks. In a Europe of the regions it may well be the the power 
today held by national governements will fade both to the center (called 
Bruxelles in everyday speach) and "down" to local governements. 
Any comments?

>       Michaela.
>
>--
>Michaela K. Harlander             harmic@physik.tu-muenchen.de
>GeNUA Gesellschaft fuer Netzwerk- und UNIX- Administration mbH 
>und Physik-Department TU Muenchen

Ciao /Mikael
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas)
Subject: Re: European Democracy (was: Why did Denmark
Reply-To: ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE
Organization: SUNET, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:51:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.185712.15921@eua.ericsson.se>, etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund) writes:
> My interpretation is that most decisions in foreign, military 
> (defending the EC) and economic (seeing to that the single market 
> really works) areas are best taken at the European level. Decisions 
> on other things like social welfare, culture, education and economic 
> areas ought to be taken at the national level.  
> 
> The national economic decisions are those, which doesn't influence 
> the relative competetivness between EC nations. If a decision may 
> influence the relative competetivness, it must be taken commonly at 
> the European level. 

Let me make sure I understand:

1. Foreign, military and common-market economic decisions affect the relative
   competitiveness between EC nations and thus should be taken at the european
   level.

2. Decisions about social welfare, culture, education and economic areas ought
   to be taken at the national level, as they do not affect the relative
   competitiveness between EC nations.

Weird. That's not how I'd have classified foreign policy, military issues and
social welfare. I must not have been reading the right newspapers ;-)
Furthermore it seems that the EC considers culture, or at least alimentary
culture, a global concern. Brussels seems unwilling to let the Swedes eat
surstr|mming or the national traditional sausages, drink gl|gg (a traditional
Christmas beverage which has the misfortune of not falling into any of the EC
beverage categories, and Brussels obviously can't make a new one just for some
stupid idiots in a despicable 8M inhabitants nation) or use snus (wet tobacco,
which I personally find particularly disgusting, but if all things I found
disgusting had to become illegal there wouldn't be much traditional food to be
bought in Germany, for instance).

On the other hand, Brussels is concerned about the intolerance of some
countries regarding some types of aliments. Intolerance is recognized as being
undesirable, and for this reason they want the Italians to start importing a
certain quota of pasta from France and other european countries, where pasta is
not made with 'grano duro'. This type of pasta, in Italy, can be found in most
supermarkets if you look carefully enough - in the pet food department. I guess
italian dogs will now have to eat pasta more often than before, to make
Brussels people happy.

  Eric
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: Advantages and Disadvantages
Keywords: Denmark, Maastricht
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:59:23 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

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.

|> - 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.

|> - Has somebody the right to reject the treaty ?

Sure, and the Danes already have.

|> 
|> 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.

|> 
|> 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.

|>                                      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.

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.

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 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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund)
Subject: Re: European Democracy (was: Why did Denmark
Reply-To: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:41:40 GMT

In article 92Oct10234201@loke.iesd.auc.dk, abraham@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
>
>I agree.  Now, do you belive that it is wise to FIRST delegate large
>amounts of power into a non-democratic institution and THEN think
>about making the institution democratic?

No, I think like you seem to think, that a large portion of the power as 
soon as possible has to be moved to the European Parliament. I hope this 
is politically possible in a near future, but I'm not sure. Do you think so?

It almost looks like, the Europeans think democracy is the same as national 
power. This national power is getting weaker and weaker all the time. Without
European supranational power, the single market is moving the power directly 
into the hands of the great company bosses. This is not democracy by my stan-
dards. 
(This I think I wrote about in an old article in the group eunet.politics .)

Peter Lund, 	mail: Peter.Lund@eua.ericsson.se
Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden

Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund)
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Reply-To: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:11:52 GMT

In article 1b80vaINNr1e@fido.asd.sgi.com, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.140206.27079@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>, Peter.Gorny@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Peter Gorny) writes:
>>
>> What Peter Lund defines, is the "mature democracy".
>
>Small correction: that's what he says *now*, after we pointed
>out several problems with his original, rather grandiose claims.

I was only naive to think that people reading my articles would be 
smart enough to understand what I meant. However, I soon figured 
out that I had to spell it out for some of them. (I ususally try 
to write short, so people don't get tired reading me. (This doesn't 
seem to apply to everyone.))

>> Take any of the democracies of today and you will find that they 
>> only fulfill the definition to some degree.
>
>Another small correction: it's not really a definition of democracy.
>It's democracy, plus good information, plus an educated electorate,
>plus a tradition of tolerance.
>
>You might as well say that this is the definition of countries-
>that-don't-go-to-war-at-the-drop-of-a-hat.

Exactly, you seem to have understood what I said!


Peter Lund, 	mail: Peter.Lund@eua.ericsson.se
Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 10 Oct 92 07:37:39 GMT
	<1992Oct2.185254.1442@eua.ericsson.se> <GUMBY.92Oct6095709@Cygnus.COM>
	<qopdhao@zola.esd.sgi.com> <1992Oct7.154027.1@sejnet.sunet.se>
	<mikael.69.718474872@udac.uu.se> <1992Oct7.175947.1@sejnet.sunet.se>
	<mikOrganiza
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University


>>>>> "Jon" == Jon Livesey (livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com)

Jon> A country ruled by a military dictatorship which killed 20,000 of its
Jon> own citizens in a 'dirty war' [....]
Jon> On the other hand, the French sold the same missiles to both 
Jon> Britain  and Argentina, so what's the big deal?

That the French where actually selling weapons to a military
dictatorship which killed 20,000 of its own citizens. The French knew
quite well what was going on in Argentina, mind you.

/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
CS Dept., Aalborg Univ., DENMARK. | these things.  -- Calvin
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: wild@access.digex.com (wildstrom)
Subject: Computers & International Affairs
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:27:19 GMT


I have no idea whether this is a reasonable forum in which to be asking this
but....

I'm looking for some help for a visiting Russian friend who is seeking articles
books, etc., on the use of computers in the conduct of international affairs.
Anyone have any ideas about where to begin.

Please reply here or by mail to wild@access.digex.com































Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas)
Subject: Re: <None>
Reply-To: ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE
Organization: SUNET, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:21:41 GMT

In article <1b2rbvINN4cp@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> You seem to have this back to front, or possibly you have two
> stories confused.   It was an Argentine ship that was torpedoed.
> There was a British ship that was sunk by a missile (plus others).   
> The torpedoes were not sold by France, although the missiles were.

I am sorry for this blunder and lick the dust at your feet. The 'Exocet' that
sunk the british ship is indeed not an underwater torpedo, but an above-water
missile. I apologize to the readership for having implied that the Exocet was a
torpedo sold by France, when it was in fact a missile sold by France.

> In any case, do you a point to make here?

Yes, in fact I have two points to make. The first one is that the French were
delighted when they heard that one of their missiles had been used to sink a
ship of Her Royal Majesty. The official line was of course that the french
government was sorry to hear that, but magazines were full of jovial faces
pointing out that this is a big technical success on what turned out to be the
first test of the missile in a realistic warlike situation. Some army people
further explained that it would be interesting to see what would happen when
and if Argentina decided to use one of the missiles against one of the better
equipped ships, which in principle have specially designed missiles to destroy
this type of missiles before they can hit the ship. You could hear them rubbing
their hands in delight. These may not be representative of the average
Frenchman, but they were surely representative of the average officer in the
french army. And these are the kind of people you hope to see cooperating in a
non-nationalistic framework? :-)

> The Argentine armed
> forces used French, American and *British* equipment, while the
> British forces used French, British and American equipment.  In
> another case, an American ship, the Stark, was hit during the 
> Iran/Iraq war by a missile sold to Iraq by France.

And that is my second point. The UK, the US and France routinely sell arms to
underdeveloped countries, NOT to make money as most people think (although with
some countries they do make a profit) but simply to field-test them and/or for
political reasons. Many underveloped countries pay their weapons using loans
(which are part of the "deal"), which it is understood they will never pay
back. I think it's bad enough as it stands without being raised to a global
european scale.

  Eric
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas)
Subject: <None>
Reply-To: ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE
Organization: SUNET, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:40:27 GMT

In article <qopdhao@zola.esd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> Really?   Several European countries have had referendums on the 
> subjects.

Wow, a grand TWO out of 12! Now THAT is what I call wide scale democracy. The
Germans want a referendum, Kohl said no. The Danes have been asked to make a
new referendum. "The Treaty cannot be renegotiated, but it can be rediscussed".
In other words, while the Holy Treaty cannot be changed, in can be presented to
the population in another light, in the hope that, this time, they will vote as
they are told. We really shouldn't complain: the danish government could very
well have told its people that there would be no new referendum and the treaty
would be approved on the grounds that only a small majority was against it, and
it would still be democracy still that government has been elected
democratically - wouldn't it? It all depends on what you mean by "democracy".

The rethoric around the french vote was depressing, because both sides used the
fear of Germans that is built in the elderly age group to gain votes. And
indeed, many old people voted "so that it could never happen again".

  Eric
From: lindq@etek.chalmers.se (Johan Lindqvist)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 10 Oct 92 13:08:31 GMT
Reply-To: lindq@etek.chalmers.se (Johan Lindqvist)
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SWEDEN

In article <1b47gjINNp04@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct9.114553.11434@etek.chalmers.se>, lindq@etek.chalmers.se (Johan Lindqvist) writes:
|> |> In article <1992Oct8.181515.29511@fwi.uva.nl>, hm@fwi.uva.nl (Hans Mulder) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> It's two: France and Ireland.  A referendum on the Maastricht treaty only
|> |> |> counts if the "Yes" side wins, so the Danish referendum last June doesn't
|> |> |> count.  The Danes will be given another chance sometime next year.
|> |> |> 
|> |> 
|> |> So the Danes will have to keep voting until they vote like they're
|> |> 'supposed' to ? Democracy ?
|> 
|> The Irish had a referendum a few years back on abortion.   Now they
|> are going to have another.
|> 
|> Does this mean it's not Democracy?   Does Democracy mean that you
|> have one and only one referendum on any given issue?
|> 

No, but saying that a referendum, or any election or a single vote
only counts when it says what you want it to say, that isn't really
democratic, is it?

Of course Denmark can have a new referendum, but the idea of a new
one, on the same Maastrich treaty within six month doesn't sound
like the Danish goverment respected the peoples will. The same, of
course goes for France.



______________________________________________________________________________
Johan Lindqvist                     |Due to lack of interest, tomorrow
Gothenburg         Mail:            |has been cancelled.
Sweden      lindq@etek.chalmers.se  |
______________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund)
Subject: European Democracy (was: Why did Denmark ...)
Reply-To: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:45:01 GMT

In article 92Oct7221806@loke.iesd.auc.dk, abraham@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
>
>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:24:32 GMT, etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter
>>>>>> Lund) said:
>Peter> This way, Sweden will become an economic satellite state to the
>Peter> EC. The democracy for the Swedish voters will be reduced to
>Peter> only those few questions Brussels doesn't think have to do with
>Peter> implementing the single market. The only democratically ac-
>Peter> ceptable solution for the Swedish democracy is to join EC,
>Peter> whether Maastricht is implemented or not.
>
>Joining Maastricht will not help, since all important decisions will
>be taken at closed meetings.  Do you believe that your elected
>politicians will always take the best possible decisions for you -
>even though you have no way to control them.

The EC's Council of Ministers is an inter-governmental board, where 
government, not countries, are represented. There you will never get 
democracy, open meetings or not. Not either here in Sweden, we do have 
open government meetings, so why should the Council of Ministers have 
open meetings? The power must move to the European Parliament before we 
can get true European democracy.

Peter Lund, 	mail: Peter.Lund@eua.ericsson.se
Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Date: 10 Oct 92 20:13:42 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Peter Lund (etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se) writes:
>I would never use the word "democratic" and the name of the Serbian
>leader "Milosovic" in the same sentence. That would be a too big
>contradiction to be found serious.

Then please tell us how Milosevic was elected. Please also tell
us how many of his politic opponents that are in jail. Please
also tell us how many newspapers in Serbia which has been closed
down because they have been criticizing Milosevic.

Then explain why Milosevic and democracy is contradictory. It is
certainly not a trivial statement.

>>One should also remember that there are several cases where the
>>acts of war with a democracy on side where the democratic state
>>has been the agressor. The Suez crisis 1956, the American invasion
>>on Grenada 1983 are two examples.
>
>The point is not who the aggressor is. The point is, what the reasons
>for wars usually are. Well functioning democracies always resolve their
>arguments peacefully in negotiations, where they both respect the other
>party's point of view.

The point is not who the agressor is? Kiss my hum-hum. You mean
that if a democratic state runs into problems with a non-democratic
state it's OK for it to skip the civilized behaviour and go to war?

>Trustful negotiations are usually very hard to get with a less
>democratically functioning party.

One could just as well say the opposite. In a democracy, you never 
know whether the agreement you make with one government will be 
respected by its successor. In any case, that is hardly a reason
for going to war, because a country's government took a decision
you didn't like. (As was the case in the Suez crisis.)
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
There are many sorts of Macedonians: Greek, Bulgarian, Roumanian, Macedonian...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund)
Subject: Re: European Democracy (was: Why did Denmark
Reply-To: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:42:30 GMT

In article 1bi5uhINNfd9@fido.asd.sgi.com, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.185712.15921@eua.ericsson.se>, etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund) writes:

>|> The national economic decisions are those, which doesn't influence 
>|> the relative competetivness between EC nations. If a decision may 
>|> influence the relative competetivness, it must be taken commonly at 
>|> the European level. 

>I don't see why.    If we did that in the US, the feds would be
>interfering whenever the individual states tried to improve their
>relative competitiveness.

>|> If such a decision isn't taken here, it will never be taken in a 
>|> political forum. Instead, the market will take that decision for us. 
>|> This wouldn't be democracy!

>Democracy is useful at the political level,
>but we don't have democratic control of markets becasue markets
>are better at managing themselves than democracy is.    Set democracy
>loose on markets and what you get is the UK from 1945-79.    I lived
>through that, and I don't want it back, thanks all the same.

The US federative ecomonic model with rather small share of common 
economic policy, does of course work. But there is a choise here. 
Do we (Europeans) want the economically very loose American model or 
do we want something else? I'd say something else. 

The US model leads halfway to a economic policy, that I label a 
"lowest common denominator" policy. If one state lower its taxes, 
other states feel the presure to follow. If a large company wants 
to make a big investment somewhere, it will probably ask and deal 
with several different states before it decides where to invest. 
Then it will invest its money in that state where the best deal was 
struck (where the biggest concession from the political system was 
made). This type of political blackmail will move political power 
to the industry, away from our democratically elected leaders. 
This wouldn't be democracy, in my opinion!

This difference in where political/economical power is, has been and 
I hope will still in the future be, the biggest political difference 
between the US and Europe.

----------
Peter Lund, 	mail: Peter.Lund@eua.ericsson.se
Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden