FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

A quotation from the EU-website





Kosovo (or any other of the [former] Yugoslavia states) is neither a member nor a new member states or belongs to the applicant countries of the European Union.

We call such 'debate' here :wink:

I don't really expect there to be a war was just being sarcastic. However, were WW1 and WW2 debates European style.

Yes -- though I do admit we were a bit more aggravated than usual there.

I just HAD to share this one.
************************

An American tourist in London decides to skip his tour group and explore the city on his own.
He wanders around, seeing the sights, and occasionally stopping at a quaint pub to soak up the local culture, chat with the lads, and
have a pint of Guinness.
After awhile, he finds himself in a very high class neighborhood..... big, stately residences... no pubs, no stores, no restaurants, and worst of all....NO PUBLIC RESTROOMS.
He really, really has to go, after all those Guinness's. He finds a narrow side street, with high walls surrounding the adjacent buildings and decides to use the wall to solve his problem.
As he is unzipping, he is tapped on the shoulder by a London Bobbie, who says, "I say, sir, you simply cannot do that here, you know."
"I'm very sorry, officer," replies the American, "but I really, really HAVE TO GO, and I just can't find a public restroom."
"Ah, yes," said the Bobbie..."Just follow me". He leads him to a back "delivery alley", then along a wall to a gate, which he opens.
"In there," points the Bobbie. "Whiz away,... anywhere you want." The fellow enters and finds himself in the most beautiful garden he has ever seen. Manicured grass lawns, statuary, fountains, sculptured hedges, and huge beds of gorgeous flowers, all in perfect bloom.
Since he has the cop's blessing, he zips down and unburdens himself and is greatly relieved. As he goes back thru the gate, he says to the Bobbie "That was really decent of you .... is that "British Hospitality ?"
"No" replied the Bobbie, with a satisfied smile on his face, "that is the French Embassy

here is a TRUE one : good friends of ours went to england for the first time last year. murray is a pretty straight-laced, old-fashioned canadian (he was the superindendent of the staff college for correctional officers - in plain english, he was the principal of the school for penitentiary guards for many years - that might give you some idea of how straight-laced he is ). he always is very precise in the use of the english language. they were visiting some small village outside london and after a pint or two, murray was looking for a place to lighten his load. of course, he could not find any public facilities. the pressure was building up and murray finally asked a local gent where he might find a RESTROOM (typically canadian)! this fellow looked a bit puzzled, but finally described a place that might offer some rest. after walking for a few more minutes they came to a place, where the local told him he could rest a bit ... it was the local library ! murray decided that a somewhat more descriptive language was needed to give him relief ! and the fellow said, yer must be lookin' fer the loo ? murray was finally able to get the relief required and we've had a good laugh at his expense . hbg ... murray added a word to his queen's english !

good for murray!

Here's one more issue for the Euroland countries. Not all countries ability to compete in the world market are equal, so when the Euro increases its value against the US dollar, it creates a handicap for them to export their goods and services in the world markets. The Euro has gained 20 percent against the dollar in the past two years. If they were struggling before, they're going to be between a rock and a hard place now. Good luck!

BTW, I also understand that American tourism in Europe has decreased quite a bit. That has to be painful.

Thanks for the interesting and enlightening anecdotes and insights. I was truly befuddled by the picture I had of the recent overlay of disagreements over (1) voting power in the new EC; (2) the inevitable friction caused by many new members with generally lower levels of economic development; (3) the possibility of a two-tiered EU going forward as indicated by the French; and (4) the new questions surrounding the Stability Pact and the recent French & German violations of its deficit limits.

Of course there will be internal contradictions in anything so far reaching and fundamental as the European Union. Thomas has noted the contradiction with respect to interest rates in the Euro zone. I mean it quite sincerely when I say that the success the EU has achieved so far, in many areas, is well beyond what anyone could have reasonably forecast 50 years ago, and something that should delight all serious observers. I suspect a good deal of that success is a result of the ambiguity of the roles and powers of the various new institutions and their relations with the member governments. This has enabled disagreements and different views among the member countries to be resolved over time in an evolutionary way, and avoided the ruptures that could have sunk a more brittle and clearly delineated structure.

I have, however, for some time felt that, at least with respect to the original cadre of members, the time was ripe to face squarely the basic questions of EU governance - is it to be a confederation of sovereign states or a federal and unified government. The concurrent entry of eleven new members, most with a decidedly different political and economic experience since WWII, inevitably runs the risk of overloading an already challenging evolutionary process. Is it reasonably possible to progress on both fronts simultaneously? I doubt it. The apparently odd behavior of the French and German governments over the Stability pact matter appeared to unnecessarily threaten an already very difficult process at a rather critical moment. Even after hearing the explanations, it is difficult to see that what they are doing is in their self-interest.

The early United States spent about eight years wrangling over a Constitution after the revolution. Those were somewhat simpler times, and all the former colonies shared the same language and more or less common cultures. Moreover they were aided in their progress by the presence of three serious external enemies - England, France, and Spain (though fortunately, at the time they were much preoccupied with each other, and revolution) - each more than willing to seize any loose bits and exploit any divisions. Despite this, questions of Federal Power, State's rights, central banks, monetary policy, and trade caused bitter divisions that persisted until after the Civil War. The problem of formulating a unified banking and monetary policy in a new federal government across an economically diverse set of distinct political entities is difficult under the best of circumstances.

It would be most unfortunate if the European Union were to founder over these issues after so much has been achieved.

Is it me, or are some people here making fun of Europe... :wink:

It's you - mostly.

Walter thanks for your response. I realize the EU is more than an organization like the UN and the fact that nation states are willing to lend their sovereignty to that of an overarching authority that may or may not have a particular nation's interest in mind is truly unique. The effort is noble. But my last post would speak more to this union's legitimacy which would manifest itself in the long term survival of the agreement. I am willing to predict the original Nice Accord will find itself subject to future changes, despite the recent scrapping of efforts designed to produce an EU constitution. If so, such efforts at change would prove my point that the concept that led to the original agreement made by a select group of individuals following specific unchanging ground rules (Universal Truths of the Enlightenment) is flawed.

Perhaps flawed is too harsh a word, but Americans find this "pooling" of sovereignty more akin to its surrender. So this act is the basic difference between the American and European concept of constitutionalism. Understandably, Europeans turn a suspicious eye towards national democratic popularism--a system that produced such initially legitimate rulers as Hitler and Mussolini. It is this mistrust of those governed and that of their governing systems that speaks towards the European trust in authoritative bureaucratic figures.

This leads me to your quote Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:52 pm (My Time) Post: 552008



This is true and I don't feel anything in my post spoke to the contrary. The Kosovo Constitution construction was meant to be an illustrated example in differing European and American concepts towards constitutional constructs. The Council of Europe--the first postwar organization of European states, and the forefather of today's European Union--has a quasi-judicial branch called The Commission on Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). It is this body that was charged with drafting the Kosovo Constitution. This body consisted of distinguished jurists and constitutionalist from all over Europe. Although the committee visited Kosovo for a few days, it possessed no Kosovar members. When the committee's members were asked why this was so the response was that the framing of a constitution was a delicate business. To have involved Kosvars in the process would have "impeded the committee's work and mired it in political infighting". Impede indeed! Sounds like a description of The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia convened in the summer of 1787 which then took over two years to complete and adopt that august document.

But the Iraqis are having none of this at present and are diving deep into the muck of self-government. But I would suggest it is this very "political infighting" by the interested and directly affected parties that gives the resultant constitution its very legitimacy.

The Americans have invited the Iraqis to participate in the American style of government, sounds good enough. But it would seem the U.S. has forgotten what a mess the process is. To complicate the process we see a nation made up of widely disparate groups. I think it can be done but the result might be a loose federation initially, possibly followed by a more integrated Iraq. We will see.

georgeob1;



Is this the beginning of my predicted changes in the original Nice Accord or just a further demonstration of French elitism? Of course, such successful French efforts would point towards the fulfillment of the former part of the question.


JM

The Council of Europe is an organization of European countries that seeks to protect democracy and human rights and to promote European unity by fostering cooperation on legal, cultural, and social issues. By the beginning of the 21st century, more than 40 countries were members of the Council of Europe. The council is headquartered in Strasbourg, France.
The Council of Europe should not be confused with the European Council, which is a policy-making body of the European Union.


source: Britannica

JM,

I truly don't know or even have a considered opinion on the questions you pose. I find it difficult to understand just what is motivating the French and German governments on these questions. It may well be, as Thomas has suggested, merely the momentum of previously fixed positions, but even there the adverse consequences to all the overlaying issues makes that seem a bit improbable.

Events are indeed moving fast around the EU, and perhaps none of the principal actors fully anticipated all the cross connections or the pace at which things would unfold. I do hope they are able to work it out. I suspect the underlying problems of the economic disparity between 'Old Europe' and the new candidate members, and the low birthrate/ageing population problem all of them face will be the principal issues driving the economic issues ahead.

It is worth remembering that the early United States spent the better part of a century fighting over some of these issues - 'soft' money for the debtor agricultural regions, vs, 'hard' money for the manufacturing and lending North, etc. Some problems must just be endured.

georgeob1

"It is worth remembering that the early United States spent the better part of a century fighting over some of these issues - 'soft' money for the debtor agricultural regions, vs., 'hard' money for the manufacturing and lending North, etc. Some problems must just be endured."

Yes, and this speaks to my point. Who fought over the legality of slavery at the time, soft vs hard money, states rights vs. strong central authority? It was those citizens and their elected representatives directly involved and affected by such decisions. This is unlike the current European process. Just because those citizens of participating EU nations voted to so participate does not mean they support specific measures agreed upon by those set down by the selected few bureaucrats who created the Nice Accord. This allows a weakness in the agreement that at anytime may be addressed by the majority of a nation's citizenry. This in turn could lead to a nation saying, for example, that it agrees to the Accord except for the part that says that a nation has incurred a debt (fine) to the EU because it is too much in debt. Implicit in this is that the nation in question disagrees with the right of the EU to dictate its national economic policy and therefore asserts its right to execute that policy despite the Accord, Thus, such a nation is no longer in agreement with the Accord. The Accord then fails. The power of the government, in a democracy, ultimately lies with the governed who can at any time direct their political leader's paths whether by petitions, correspondence ,or indirectly (and belatedly) through the ballot process. This is the process at work creating confusion as to why these nations of the EU now seem to be ambivalent about the Accord. It sounds good until a nation is forced to do something averse to its own interests but good for all the rest in the EU.

It can be worked out but there will be compromise involved. But this speaks against the European concept of constitutional construction which is inherently averse to compromise, the whole point is to avoid such a process that would "impede" and "promote political infighting".

Walter Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:55 pm (My Time) Post: 552967 -

"The Council of Europe should not be confused with the European Council, which is a policy-making body of the European Union."

Again, the implication seems that I have done so. But there is no justification for such a conclusion. I specifically and correctly named the European organization involved in the creation of the Kosovo Constitution which served as an example demonstrating a conceptual difference in the European and American Constitutional constructs. I also clearly stated that The Council of Europe was a progenitor of today's EU and not that the European Council was the same body renamed.

Respectfully,

JM

Sorry, James, but the Council of Europe isn't a progenitor to the EU (see my above quotes about the histoey of the EU and have a look at the Council of Europe's website About the Council of Europe

Schröder and Chirac meet over EU constitution

German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and French President Jacques Chirac have made it clear that they will not water down their voting demands within an EU constitution. Speaking after their regular round of talks just outside Berlin the two leaders said a constitution was desirable but stressed they would not back down over their demands for new voting rights. An EU summit in Brussels in December failed over the issue after Poland and Spain refused to give up some of their voting rights. Mr Schröder is to meet Irish President Bertie Ahern, who currently holds the EU rotating presidency, later on Monday to explain the Franco-German position.
http://www.dw-world.de © Deutsche Welle

Walter,

Will they also stick to their demands that penalties for their violations of the Stability pact be waived, and that the Stability Pact remains in force without modification?

George

It is said that this is a normal meeting, one the regular ones.
So, there wouldn't be any topics.

Of course it is thought that they talk about the stability act. As well as about how the Franco-German Brigade will be engaged in Afghanistan, economics ....