From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Bigger worries than which lane to drive in
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:31:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.183413.6554@unixg.ubc.ca> buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
> 
> But what's really worrying me right now is the referendum of Sep 20.
> In France, on the Maastricht treaty.  It seems only too possible
> that the peaceful unification of Europe could be brought to a
> screeching halt, on issues much more trivial in comparison to what
> is at stake than those that will decide many votes on the Canadian
> constitutional update.  And what doesn't move in geopolitics in one
> direction tends not to stay still, but to move in the other.
> 

European's have some very legitamate concerns about Maastricht.

> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the current peace,
> since 1945, between the great powers of Europe - Britain, France,
> and Prussia (later Germany) (and, if you exclude wars between
> proxies, Russia) - is the longest in the last three centuries at
> least, and shows promise of indefinite extension if the momentum
> created in the early post-WWII years can be maintained.  But that
> can only be done if the individual nations continue to yield
> their traditional powers to emerging central government.

It would be a shame if this peace needs to be enforced by an increasingly
centralized and unelected beauracracy.

Denmark has already rejected Maastricht, so the accord is already dead,
unless the EC decides to force Denmark out of the EC.

I'd like to put a more positive spin on it:

The French Government and not really the people have advocated a grand
Eureopean community: kind of a Napoleonic/de Gaulist vision of a great
empire. Obviously this is exaggerated, but there's a little bit of French
pride showing off.

The French people are tired of their government, and some of the NO vote
will be simply to piss off Mitterand. Others are probably nervous about
the centralisation of power, and the possibility of losing sovereignty.

THe latest buzzword in the EC is "subsidiarity". This is a bit of back
pedaling by the EC types (like Delors).  It says that most things
should stay at local control. Previous agreements were more centrally
focussed (for power and laws). Subsidiarity means more populist control,
instead of typical European centralist/interventionist government style.
Centralist governmnets may be accepted by one nation, but to give up
powers to a centralist European government is a different matter.
(BTW Maastricht wasn't going to make the EC regulate EVERYTHING, but 
many powers would be ceded to Brussels)

I'm glad Denmark (and perhaps France) shook up things a bit.
More needs to be thought out before giving power to a handful of
politicians many Europeans hardly even know.
-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegomony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________