From: mikael@udac.uu.se (Mikael Lundgren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:10:02 GMT
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden

In article <1992Oct8.154056.1@sejnet.sunet.se> eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas) writes:


>I agree that a second referendum would make sense IF there are substantial
>changes to the treaty. If the change is just "ok, for another 2 years you will
>not need to join the common foreign affairs policy", it makes no sense at all
>since I haven't heard any complaint from Danes about integration delays, but
>about the *contents* of the treaty.

Maybe I was unclear, I agree that the contents of the treaty will have to be 
changed if it is going to be voted on again.

I wonder how the EC will solve this, now both Ireland and France have said 
yes to a treaty that will have to be changed in order to accomodate Denmark. 
This affair may go on forever ;-)

>
>> By the way how can you be so sure that in two years the Danes will 
>> not have changed idea? If I remember correctely the difference between Yes 
>> and No was quite tiny. 
>
>I cannot say that in two years the Danes will not change their mind, and that
>is not what I said. The new referendum is for the beginning of next year, 
>not in 2 years. Do you think that in a few months the Danes will say "Oh, 
>probably in two years we will have changed our minds, so let's vote now 
>under that assumption :))))))"? :-) The bottom line is that people who in 
>1992 don't want a common army in 1993 will probably not vote in 1993 for a 
>common army which would not start before 1995.

Well actually you wrote the the "Danes won't change their minds in two years"
(I just looked it up, but I might not have phrased it exactly as you wrote 
it). Alright, assuming that they will vote on the same treaty again then you 
are right. If it is the common army that is the problem and a modified treaty
does not adress that problem, then Denmark will probably say no again.

>
>> When the discussion is about a 
>> joint army with the task to defend a European Union the matter could be 
>> different.
>
>But that is not the only task! The debates have concentrated on one point: if
>there is a united army, there will be a strong military superpower called
>Europe which even the US will have to take into account, and Europe will be
>able to make strong interventions where the US might hesitate.

So?

> This is not
>about protecting the territory, let's be sensible, the US would back any
>european country against an invasion from Russia and so would the european
>superpowers. Do you really think the generals are afraid someone will attack EC
>countries in the near future? :-)

There are other assets that are worth protecting. Important seaways, 
important sources of natural resources are two examples. There may be 
situations where the US might decide that some asset is not of great 
importance to them, while Europe might look at it in a completely different 
manner. The question is, should Europe base its policy on what the US may or 
may not want to do?

Granted, a European Army poses great problems, there have to be clear rules 
for when, how, why and where such an army might be employed. A greater 
democratic control of its use is imperative, this means that the EU will 
have to build up a system of governement which is different from today (more 
representation, a greater degree of democracy if you will).
So, what I seem to be getting to is that a European army today is premature, 
vital political infrastructures are missing.

Maybe the best way for the unions treaty would be to drop (for the time 
being) any references to a joint army and instead go for some kind of 
alliance (WEU?) where member nations still have control over their own 
armies. There is still room for joint forces such as the Franco-German 
brigade, where nations may want to cooperate bilaterally.

I could go on here but this has got long enough already. Let me just say
that I agree with those who think that the Maastricht treaty is inbalanced
(common foreign policy, common army etc, but no common parliamentary system 
with power to match). It is here that I think we can have a fruitful 
discussion. We seem to agree (many of the readers of this group) that the 
ambitions of the treaty are positive but the means to achive them are 
lacking.
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.
There has to be some kind of agreement (call it constitution) that declares 
which power lays where. Today many people get the impression that Brussuls 
want to steer everything.

Etc etc etc....

Ok this got even longer than I thoug so I will cut it short :-) :-)

>  Eric
Ciao  /Mikael
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec