HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund)
Subject: Re: Advantages and Disadvantages
Reply-To: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:38:14 GMT

In article 719157427@udac.uu.se, mikael@udac.uu.se (Mikael Lundgren) writes:
>In article <1bi57rINNfd9@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct14.121729.21662@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, bialek@i43s3.ira.uka.de (Boris Bialek Betr. Tichy) writes:
>>|> - who has the right to decide about europe ?
>>
>>The citizens of the individual nations.   However, they decide 
>>in different ways.  Some have a tradition of using referendums 
>>for such questions, and some don't.

Only the people in the nations that are members of the EC, has the right 
to decide about the EC. In some moral sence, you could say that the EC 
also has the right to decide about the rest of Europe. The condition for 
this is, that people there are oppressed in some way. 

Maybe this also is a *bold* statement, but does anyone say, that we have 
the right to not bothering about people beeing oppressed, e.g. killed or 
tortured?

>>|> - what's wrong with the Maastricht treaty ?
>>
>>There's always lots wrong with any Treaty, since treaties are 
>>like contracts.    Getting an agreement always means each side 
>>having to give up some of what it wants.
>
>Very true, strangely some people who always (in words) favor democracy seem 
>to have a strange relation with the word "compromise". To them it seems as 
>if in a democracy compromises are not necessary: the majority always wins. I 
>wonder how they imagine a majority is formed ...?

The democratic deficit, that still is there. This despite the growing impor-
tance of European level politics.

>>|> - Has somebody the right to reject the treaty ?
>>
>>Sure, and the Danes already have.
>
>Yes.

Yes in principle, but no nation can stop the other nations from deepening 
their relations. If a nation tried that, the others would probably leave the 
EC and form another organisation without that country.

>>|>                                      Why are so many people too
>>|> blind or nationalistic that they want to break up the process of 
>>|> becoming a europe nation ?
>>
>>Maybe they are not blind or nationalistic.   Maybe they just
>>notice that the EC seems to have obtained a great many benefits
>>already - free trade, cooperation, peace, shared science, shared
>>industrial projects - *without* becoming a single European state.
>
>This might be true, but we won't know if the debate that is going on will 
>stay at its current general level of just predicting catastrofies (sp?)
>either way.

Conservative and traditional thinking is a basic feature of mankind. A 
Swedish way of saying: "You know what you got, but not what you'll get", 
exemplifies this. So if people know more about something, they will be 
more willing to accept that change.

----------
Peter Lund, 	mail: Peter.Lund@eua.ericsson.se
Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: European Army?
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:05:57 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct8.203747.27162@eua.ericsson.se>, etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund) writes:
|> 
|> No, Europe ought to have its own policy and means to enforce it. 

That depends on what you mean by "Europe".    At the moment, the
word "Europe" is something between a geographical expression and
a loose alliance.   It's something like Italy before unification.
Lots of people think unification is a good idea in principle, but
when they consider the question in a little more detail, it turns
out that they have local interests that unification might impact
in a negative way.

|> Depending on what kind of President that is in charge in the White 
|> House, the US may reduce its interests in Europe's security, 
|> democracy and stability. The general American opinion and the US 
|> President will as in all democracies vary.

No.   No matter who is elected in 1992, the US will reduce its
involvement in Europe.    It's not a question of personality,
interest, wisdom or strategy.   It's a question of money.

|> 
|> Europe has always been politically instable, and the democratic 
|> forces in Europe have always needed external support to survive.
|> When USA has failed to supply that support, Europe has also 
|> failed. To make Europe democratically independent, the political 
|> union has to be implemented. This would create stability in Europe, 
|> and thus also in the rest of the world.

Once again, you are assuming that everyone knows what you mean
when you say "Europe" and "stability".   Europe exists whether
it's unified or not, and stability could mean anything from an
alliance of inter-dependent nations to a military or economic
hegemony by one nation or group of nations.    Political 
unification is not necessary to preserve democracy in Europe, 
nor would it guaranteee democracy.

jon.
From: buehlman@iwf.mabp.ethz.ch (Buehlmann Thomas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: Democratising the EC (was <None>)
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:09:49 GMT
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH

hugh@sci.kun.nl (Hugh Osborne) writes:

>	National govenrments retain veto rights for "vital interests"
>(anyone care to define "vital interests"?)

This is very likely to be a non democratic-mean, if you don't re-
define democracy quite extremely. The veto-right allows any nation
to oppress the will of the majority and finally leads to a dead-
lock policy (cf. UNO).

Thomas
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Date: 11 Oct 1992 01:45:14 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct10.140206.27079@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>, Peter.Gorny@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Peter Gorny) writes:
>
> What Peter Lund defines, is the "mature democracy".

Small correction: that's what he says *now*, after we pointed
out several problems with his original, rather grandiose claims.

> Take any of the democracies of today and you will find that they 
> only fulfill the definition to some degree.

Another small correction: it's not really a definition of democracy.
It's democracy, plus good information, plus an educated electorate,
plus a tradition of tolerance.

You might as well say that this is the definition of countries-
that-don't-go-to-war-at-the-drop-of-a-hat.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: jsteinhu@nyx.cs.du.edu (Josh Steinhurst)
Subject: Help for European history class
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 00:52:46 GMT


	I am trying out useing this newgroup to get answers from europeans
on european issues. esp. the EC. This first questioned put forth by the class
is what would be the advantages of Spain, France, or Italy to join /not join
the EC. Thanks for the help.
js jsteinhu@nyx.cs.du.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: jyp@swarm.wustl.edu (Jerome Plun)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: Washington University in St. Louis, MO
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:26:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.132416.1@sejnet.sunet.se> ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE writes:
[first part of article deleted]
>You are again pretending not to see the point. I was saying that officers in
>the french army were extremely pleased, not at the idea that their toy had
>managed to sink a ship (it wouldn't have made much fuss if the ship had been
>argentinian), but at the idea that it sunk a *british* ship. These people are
>strongly nationalistic. A common army is unlikely to work against anything but
>some big common eastern enemy hated by all parties, which doesn't seem to be a
>concern any longer. Modern wars involving Europe are more of the "protectorate"
>type, usually with economical side effects. Look at the situation in Kuwait -
>this is about as close to a colony as one can get nowadays.
[end of article deleted]
>  Eric

  It is normal for military personel to be nationalistic, in the sense that
there duty is to defend a nation.  What makes you think that the same people,
once made part of a single army designed to defend the "nation" EC (composed
of different cultural groups), won't become nationalistic in favor of the EC.
  I think we should wait to see the outcome of the French-German combined unit.
There is currently a battalion and it is to be expanded to a brigade.  From
personal experience, having two cultural groups really learn about one another
by living and working together is the best way to destroy stereotypes and
presupposed facts.  Having been in the US for the past 3 years and with an
European presence diverse enough on our campus, I have learn a great deal
about my fellow europeans and how much we have in common.  I am technically
French but, based on cultural background, I am European.  Moreover, to get
back to the nationalistic aspect of this discussion, within any nation's army,
soldiers from different regions will tend to be "regionalistic" whenever 
some critisism of their respective region arises, or even "townistic" within
a group of the same region, and so on all the way down to streets.  Europe will
just add a layer on top.

jerome

-- 
Jerome Plun            []  Is it a crime to want something else?
jyp@swarm.wustl.edu    []  Is it a crime to believe in something different?
Washington University  []  
St Louis, MO           []  "Smalltown England", New Model Army, Vengeance
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: djweisbe@unix.amherst.edu (David Weisberger (Davebo))
Subject: Re: East Germany
Organization: large
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:40:14 GMT

John O'Leary (joleary@ESTER1) wrote:
: Can anybody answer a simple question for me -
: Who invited East Germany into the EC?  Other countries have to apply for
: membership, did East Germany apply?
: It's a little late to do anything about it now, but having East Germany
: suddenly joining the EC like that cost all EC taxpayers some money
: (especially the West Germans!)

Technically, according to the Basic Law (ersatz constitution) of the
Federal Republic of Germany, the federal states of East Germany became
new federal states of West Germany.  West Germany did not change at all,
it just grew; East Germany did not join the EC, it was just absorbed by
West Germany.
Nearly all of the money being poured into eastern Germany comes from
German taxpayers - even a Solidarity Tax (which western Germans
supported) was created with the money earmarked for eastern Germany.
certainly the rest of the EC has been affected, financially and
politically, by Germany's turn inward.

: John O'Leary,  ESA / ESTEC / WMS  (ERS-1 Project)


-Davebo

djweisberger@amherst.edu / djweisbe@unix.amherst.edu
From: zaphod@diku.dk (Ole D. M. Lennert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:09:16 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

mikael@udac.uu.se (Mikael Lundgren) writes:

>In article <1992Oct7.154027.1@sejnet.sunet.se> eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas) writes:
>>From: eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas)
>>Subject: <None>
>>Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:40:27 GMT
>>In article <qopdhao@zola.esd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>> Really?   Several European countries have had referendums on the 
>>> subjects.
>>
>>Wow, a grand TWO out of 12! Now THAT is what I call wide scale democracy. The

>Actually it's three, i guess you forgot about Ireland (they voted yes by the
>way, it was not a such a close vote so it did not attract much attention).

>>Germans want a referendum, Kohl said no. The Danes have been asked to make a

>I seem to remember something about the german constitution blocking the 
>possibility of a referendum in Germany. Maybe someone could shed some light 
>on this ??

>>new referendum. "The Treaty cannot be renegotiated, but it can be rediscussed".
>>In other words, while the Holy Treaty cannot be changed, in can be presented to
>>the population in another light, in the hope that, this time, they will vote as
>>they are told. We really shouldn't complain: the danish government could very
>[.. deleted text ..]

>We live in an everchanging world, if not renegotiated maybe it can be 
>amended....

>Maybe there should be a discussion about what the Maastricht treaty should 
>have been like in order to be more satisfactory. A constructive discussion 
>on that issue should be very interesting.

The danish government is publishing its "hvidbog" (whitebook?) about
the danish "problem" relating to the Maastricht treaty next monday. In
that whitebook (I don't know what it is called in english; I hope it
is correct. It is a "book" containing facts and discussion about its
subject) the danish government discusses the treaty and how it should
be like to be satisfactory to the danish people (and yes, among the
politicians of the parliament there is a great majority FOR the
treaty). So we`ll see what it will all end with......

>Ciao   /Mikael

Ole Lennert
(zaphod@diku.dk)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: mikael@udac.uu.se (Mikael Lundgren)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala University, Sweden
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:21:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.154027.1@sejnet.sunet.se> eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas) writes:
>From: eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas)
>Subject: <None>
>Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:40:27 GMT
>In article <qopdhao@zola.esd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>> Really?   Several European countries have had referendums on the 
>> subjects.
>
>Wow, a grand TWO out of 12! Now THAT is what I call wide scale democracy. The

Actually it's three, i guess you forgot about Ireland (they voted yes by the
way, it was not a such a close vote so it did not attract much attention).

>Germans want a referendum, Kohl said no. The Danes have been asked to make a

I seem to remember something about the german constitution blocking the 
possibility of a referendum in Germany. Maybe someone could shed some light 
on this ??

>new referendum. "The Treaty cannot be renegotiated, but it can be rediscussed".
>In other words, while the Holy Treaty cannot be changed, in can be presented to
>the population in another light, in the hope that, this time, they will vote as
>they are told. We really shouldn't complain: the danish government could very
[.. deleted text ..]

We live in an everchanging world, if not renegotiated maybe it can be 
amended....

Maybe there should be a discussion about what the Maastricht treaty should 
have been like in order to be more satisfactory. A constructive discussion 
on that issue should be very interesting.

Ciao   /Mikael
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund)
Subject: European Democracy (was: Why did Denmark ...)
Reply-To: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:53:25 GMT

In article 8608@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE, Peter.Gorny@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Peter Gorny) writes:
>etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund) writes:
>
>>The only way to increase "democratic control" today is by letting issues, 
>>having to do with implementing the single market, become supranational 
>>[European] issues. If Europe doesn't have the power to control the single 
>>market, no one will have that control. Absolutly not any of the 12 nations 
>>in the EC. A single market can only be controlled by a European political 
>>system.
>
>Agreed - but Maastricht does not strengthen the European Parliament.
>(BTW: something many Danish voters are also opposed to that!)

Yes, I agree also that the parliament should have been strengthened in the 
Maastricht treaty. I sorry it wasn't, but I guess you can't get everything 
at once. Maastricht is only the first of many steps on the road to a real 
union.

It is not good enough, just letting the governments speak for each country.
The other half of the population in that country, is then not spoken for in
the EC power structure. If the parliament had more power, the opposition in
all countries would also have a voice in Europe. Every citizen would feel 
that he/she is represented.

Peter Lund, 	mail: Peter.Lund@eua.ericsson.se
Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden

Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: joleary@ESTER1 (John O'Leary)
Subject: East Germany
Reply-To: JOLEARY@ESTWM0.DNET.ESTEC.ESA.NL
Organization: European Space Agency (ESTEC)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:13:17 GMT

Can anybody answer a simple question for me -
Who invited East Germany into the EC?  Other countries have to apply for
membership, did East Germany apply?
It's a little late to do anything about it now, but having East Germany
suddenly joining the EC like that cost all EC taxpayers some money
(especially the West Germans!)
If this question was covered in this group before, I apologise.
--
John O'Leary,  ESA / ESTEC / WMS  (ERS-1 Project)
Internet:  JOLEARY@ESTWM0.DNET.ESTEC.ESA.NL
Bitnet:  JOLEARY@ESTEC   DECnet:  ESTWM0::JOLEARY
Xref: sparky alt.politics.ec:91 alt.politics.europe.misc:42 soc.culture.french:7550
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Date: 13 Oct 1992 21:30:14 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct13.161152.29176@eua.ericsson.se>, etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund) writes:
|> In article 1b80vaINNr1e@fido.asd.sgi.com, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct10.140206.27079@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>, Peter.Gorny@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Peter Gorny) writes:
|> >>
|> >> What Peter Lund defines, is the "mature democracy".
|> >
|> >Small correction: that's what he says *now*, after we pointed
|> >out several problems with his original, rather grandiose claims.
|> 
|> I was only naive to think that people reading my articles would be 
|> smart enough to understand what I meant. However, I soon figured 
|> out that I had to spell it out for some of them.

It's a written medium, not extra-sensory perception.


|> >
|> >Another small correction: it's not really a definition of democracy.
|> >It's democracy, plus good information, plus an educated electorate,
|> >plus a tradition of tolerance.
|> >
|> >You might as well say that this is the definition of countries-
|> >that-don't-go-to-war-at-the-drop-of-a-hat.
|> 
|> Exactly, you seem to have understood what I said!

So, what you were saying is "countries-that-don't-go-to-war-at-the-
drop-of-a-hat" don't go to war at the drop of a hat?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: <None>
Keywords: Maastricht, constitution, US, parliament
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:14:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.221456.17486@nntp.uoregon.edu>, bhelm@sisters (B. Robert Helm) writes:
>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.

I say take the U.S. Constitution, perhaps add some items to the Bill
of Rights like privacy.  It would be a better system by an enormous
amount than either Maastricht or the current U.S. system.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund)
Subject: Re: European Democracy (was: Why did Denmark
Reply-To: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:11:02 GMT

In article 1@sejnet.sunet.se, eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.185712.15921@eua.ericsson.se>, etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund) writes:
>> My interpretation is that most decisions in foreign, military 
>> (defending the EC) and economic (seeing to that the single market 
>> really works) areas are best taken at the European level. Decisions 
>> on other things like social welfare, culture, education and economic 
>> areas ought to be taken at the national level.  
>> 
>> The national economic decisions are those, which doesn't influence 
>> the relative competetivness between EC nations. If a decision may 
>> influence the relative competetivness, it must be taken commonly at 
>> the European level. 
>
>Let me make sure I understand:
>
>1. Foreign, military and common-market economic decisions affect the relative
>   competitiveness between EC nations and thus should be taken at the european
>   level.
>
>2. Decisions about social welfare, culture, education and economic areas ought
>   to be taken at the national level, as they do not affect the relative
>   competitiveness between EC nations.

No, "relative competitivness" was only used as an separator for deciding which 
types of economic decisions that shold be taken on the national level rather 
than the European level.

The foreign and military decision should for other reasons be mainly taken at 
the European level. The single market unite Europe economically. Europe is al-
ready very much politically united. Most people in the EC have about the same 
political values. (With this I mean values for democracy and market enomony. 
Politically: social democrats, liberals, consevatives and christian democrats.) 

With all of this political unity it would be quite ridiculous trying to form 
different foreign policies or military doctrines. It's silly trying to imagin 
one national army in the EC fighting another. The already existing unity is  
reason enough to take foreign policy and military decision at the European level.

>Brussels seems unwilling to let the Swedes eat
>surstr|mming or the national traditional sausages, drink gl|gg (a traditional
>Christmas beverage which has the misfortune of not falling into any of the EC
>beverage categories, and Brussels obviously can't make a new one just for some
>stupid idiots in a despicable 8M inhabitants nation) or use snus (wet tobacco,
>which I personally find particularly disgusting, but if all things I found
>disgusting had to become illegal there wouldn't be much traditional food to be
>bought in Germany, for instance).

I agree that there probably is too much bureaucracy in the EC, something you and 
I have to stop when we two become European citizens. What do you say? ;-)

-------
Peter Lund, 	mail: Peter.Lund@eua.ericsson.se
Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden

Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec