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 01:25:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.221456.17486@nntp.uoregon.edu>, bhelm@sisters.cs.uoregon.edu (B. Robert Helm) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.154056.1@sejnet.sunet.se> eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas) 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?
>> 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.

Mikael Lundgren wrote that, not me. Please check your attributions more
carefully.

> 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 agree completely with you. Maastricht is not, in my opinion, a good treaty.
It is inadequate and/or premature in many respects, just like a paper which
your boss has just ordered you to have finished by noon at the latest. But
instead of having put it to public review (at least in terms of general
directions) *before* signing it, the governments happily assumed that their
people would perform the necessary legalistic steps to amend the constitutions
as required and they did not have to bother with asking them for feedback. The
result is that we now have, on the one hand, politicians who refuse (quite
understandably) to change the treaty as it would send them all back to the
drawing board when they feel so close to the goal, and people who don't want to
accept it on the basis that "otherwise we have lost 5 years, PLEASE be nice and
vote yes! :(((((((". I don't think many politicians (apart perhaps from a few
very visible ones, like Delors) think the treaty is perfect. They just want it
approved because they know there is no way to get another treaty through the
Brussels bureaucracy in less than 5 years. And THAT is certainly not a reason I
will accept when visiting the booth!

The bottom line is that, in the "best" case (from Delors' point of view), the
treaty will be rushed through the various senates and accepted in Denmark by
50.4% of the population in the first half of 93. Then you will have to deal
with two serious problems. First, a very significant minority of people will be
and remain opposed to the treaty. This is no presidential election where people
try to select the lesser of two evils, this is a treaty that will both deeply
affect the everyday life of many people and require their everyday cooperation!
It is a bit like a company deciding to ask their employees whether they prefer
brand X or brand Y for their chair, and that would then buy brand X for
everyone on the basis of a 50.8% majority in favour of X, and in spite of the
fact that some 25% of employees reported that chair Y made their back hurt
after a few hours!

The second problem is that the EC wants to expand. The new prospective
countries are Switzerland (neutral), Sweden (neutral), Austria (neutral),
Norway and Finland (neutral). Quite obviously, it won't be a matter of routine
for them to sign up for a common army. One can venture an informed guess and
say that it does not seem a very intelligent bet to assume that 4 neutral
countries will suddenly renounce their neutrality for the privilege of joining
the new Empire, and then basing the foundation of a union on that assumption.
It *might* work, with a lot of luck, to tell the Danes that they would bear the
guilt of non-unification forever and ever if they were to reject the treaty
again, but frankly, I doubt this would work with Switzerland, especially not
with 3 other countries to back them.

I'm afraid I only see signs that confirm me in my belief that the "Union
according to Maastricht" will not come to pass. This doesn't mean there will
never be a union - it doesn't even mean that the treaty won't be accepted as it
is. What I meant is that the spirit of the treaty will have to be amended
before we have a real union - one where the people, rather than a handful of
politicians, have decided to unite. Unfortunately, our politicians seem mostly
concerned with finding patches of soft, cool sand suitable for hiding their
heads with the comfort expected of their rank.

  Eric