From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Separation vs. integration (Was Re: The European Community Blackmailed by Greece)
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:30:04 GMT

In article <tahonen.28@katk.Helsinki.FI>, tahonen@katk.Helsinki.FI (Timo
Ahonen) writes:

|>The trend in North America: Canada's PM Mulroney didn't come to Helsinki 
|>CSCE Meeting since his state is about to break up (Quebec). The trend in 
|>Europe: Czecho-Slovakia is splitting (or isn't it in Europe?). Western 
|>Europe: Katalonia, more and more autonomy, just a mention of Spain is taken 
|>with a laugh there (watch the Olympic Games); Aland Islands, more autonomy; 
|>Faroe Islands, more autonomy, arguments with Denmark about its limits vis-a-
|>vis foreign policy; Greenland, quit the EC even if Denmark remained a 
|>member; Belgium, turning into a quasi-federal state just to keep it in one 
|>piece.

Local fragmentation is not really significant, Quebec is not a new
phenomena, The Catalonia is a country in Spain ads got a very frosty
response from the Barcelona council. What you are confusing is
devolution and separation. There are massive shifts of power from
central to local authorities, and equal shifts in the opposite
direction.


|>>I think you failed to understand what is going on. The Warsaw pact
|>>countries have not ceased to be communist, they have simply become
|>>capitalist. They are finding ways of sitting on both sides of the fence.
|>>in the same way they are perfectly capable of wanting independence and
|>>confederation at the same time.
|>
|>And how is this possible, please, to be communist and capitalist at the same 
|>time? Discuss.

Of course it's not possible, but it's possible to try. Or at least it is
entirely possible to end up with a mish mash of central planning and
free market enterprise. Becomming capitalist is the Eastern European
equivalent of the USA balancing the budget, everyone agrees that it has
to be done but nobody is going to face the hard decisions. Certainly
there is no way of passing a bill that turns a country into a Capitalist
one. 

Of course they were never really that communist, just a bunch of people
in charge of the Government controlling all the industry etc. Now many
of those same people turn up as the owners of said industries.

|>Wanting independence and integration at the same time is quite possible, it 
|>happens all the time in the whole Europe, and I haven't argued anything to 
|>the contrary. In fact Ulick wrote that it's stupid to split states when at 
|>the same time integration deepens, and I argued against that.

Ulicks views are constrained by the need to prove that a particular side
of a particular conflict is correct. He does not want to admit to the
possibility that the Unionists might have a right to claim a separate
state within Ireland.


|>>Phill Hallam-Baker
|>
|>On the whole, I must say that it seems that it's *you* who has failed to 
|>understand what's going on in ex-communist countries. But don't worry, that 
|>can be cured by reading more and guessing less.

It is always unwise to sum up the debate in USEnet. Wheras you may get a
more rousing cheer from your own side (who look for confirmation of
their beliefs rather than anything to challeng them), it is difficult to
do without appearing to indulge in name calling. Assuming that the only
reason why people disagree with you is that they are more ignorant is
not particularly edifying.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections