From: mikael@udac.uu.se (Mikael Lundgren)
Subject: Re: <None>
Summary: Parallels between U. S. Constitution and Maastricht
Keywords: Maastricht, constitution, US, parliament
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala University, Sweden
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 15:17:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.221456.17486@nntp.uoregon.edu> bhelm@sisters.cs.uoregon.edu (B. Robert Helm) writes:
>[Mikael Lundgren] wrote:
>> 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?
>> A parliament like the one in place today, is that satisfactory? A lot of 
>> people will say NO. Too much representation for large, densely populated 
>> continental countries with no feeling for what it is like to live in a 
>> country with only 19 people/sq.km.
>
>(Apologies to U. S. and other readers to whom the following is familiar)
>
>The authors of the current United States constitution faced a similar
>problem -- the 13 original member states of the United States varied
>widely in population and size.  The authors of our constitution
>compromised.  The created two divisions ("houses") of parliament, and
>required that all laws be approved by both houses.  In one house (the
>"House of Representatives"), each state received a number of seats
>proportional to its population.  In the other house, (the "Senate"),
>each state received two seats, regardless of its size.
>
This was what I had in mind, I didn't want to make it obvious ;-)
I think that something along the lines of the american senate may be a 
solution. However there is a modification that may be required, perhaps not 
immediately but in a longer perspective. Instead of representation of 
national states there may be representation of regions. 
I don't know whether this is good or bad, would such a suystem give needed 
rights to regions or would it just be a forum where ethnic animosities would
have a breeding ground ? Any opinions ? 

>I dislike many aspects of the U. S. system (such as the
>"winner-take-all" rules for parliamentary elections, and the powerful
>President), but the division of powers between House and Senate might
>be worth considering in European constiution.

One thing in the american system that would not work in Europe is the 
executive power held by an elected president. Europe is Europe after all,
any single president would have to come from ONE nation! Imagine a Norwegian 
president (ok, ok just Swedish humor ;-) !

>
>The history of the _adoption_ of the United States Constitution might
>also be of interest here.  It was substantially amended after its
>introduction, because people feared it made government too powerful.

In a previous posting I mentioned amendments to the Maastricht treaty,
many people find that there are many good intentions in the treaty but that
some vital things are missing. This would be like you mention, changes can 
be made at a later date if the contents are not satisfactory. One problem is 
that the Maastrich treaty is a very complex text, furthermore things will 
probably have to be removed from it in order for it to gain wider acceptance.

>If Maastricht fails due to popular opposition, this might not kill
>European integration.  Rather, its failure may lead to a more
>democratic treaty, and from that a stronger union.

I am hope this will be the case, what I am weary about is the possibility 
that the whole idea might be scrapped if Maastricht does not succeed. 
Hopefully the Maastricht treaty will lead Europeans into an open discussion 
on what kind of union we want (yes I'd like to have a union, you guessed that
didn't you?), a better union. But I must share what I think is Eric Thomas 
opinion, it is better to have no union than a bad union. The consequences of 
a bad union are really scary... (Remeber the good old (;-) USSR, an example 
of a bad union)

>I would be interested in further discussing what a new treaty might
>look like.  This seems more interesting than bashing the old treaty,
>or the process by which it is being ratified.

Yes, I agree fully! Maastrich bashing is leading us nowhere.
-
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!