And Now from the Lesser Brussels (Belgium) to the Greater Brussels (Europe)

A quote from Christopher Booker in The Wall Street Journal, 17 September 2007

To appreciate just why it has been so important for EU leaders to get their constitution regardless of their peoples' wishes, one must grasp the fundamental principle on which those behind the "European project" have worked toward their ultimate goal. The process favored by the visionaries who first dreamed of a "United States of Europe" as far back as the 1920s was the very reverse of how the U.S. was launched. When the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, their idea of building a nation was to start with its constitution and let the new union grow from there. The Europeans chose the opposite strategy. They knew it was always going to be a much longer haul to place long-established nation states under the rule of a new form of supranational government.

That is why, as long ago as 1941, one of those visionaries, Italian ex-Communist Altiero Spinelli, proposed in his Ventotene Manifesto that the shapers of the new Europe should stealthily build up the structures of their new government over a long period without consulting the people. Only when the process was all but complete would they summon a "constituent assembly" to draft the constitution, which, Spinelli argued, the people would then acclaim by referendum as their "crowning dream."

A similar strategy was conceived after World War II by the Frenchman Jean Monnet who was to become known as the "Father of Europe." In 1952, when he set up the European Coal and Steel Community, he described it as only the embryo of that "government of Europe" he had been cogitating since the 1920s. What came to be called the "Monnet Method," enshrined by Monnet's friend Paul-Henry Spaak in the Treaty of Rome in 1957, was that process whereby the powers of the new supranational government could be steadily expanded, beginning with mere economic cooperation in a "Common Market" but gradually working up toward full political integration. Each new advance becomes the nucleus for the next step in integration. Over the next 40 years Monnet's strategy was followed, treaty by treaty, as the European Economic Community became, first, the European Community and then, thanks to Spinelli, prime mover behind the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992, the European Union.

cover of A Throne in Brussels A Throne in Brussels
Author: Paul Belien
ASIN: 184540033X

the differences go deeper than the lack of an EU consitution

the American constitution came into being from a swirl of new theories as to how people should constitute and govern themselves, self-conciously different than the European monarchies.   Solidifying these premises into a working constitution was an act of genius, but a genius that had a source; names, text, past discussions and works.

Europe doesn't have a common theory of citizen, except, perhaps, Das Kapital.   The socialists, or others who act like socialist, would hold that the material is supreme, and theories of citizenship are irrelevant.   That will take you so far, that so far seems to be the EU as it is now constitued.

That doesn't mean that the EU will fall apart in the short, or even medium term.   It does mean that in any shock, the fault lines for fracture are all there in place. 

 

Re: Peter V. & Economic union

"Let’s face it. The EU never got any further then the economic unification. "

 

I don't think it even got that far.  France vetoes any attempt at free trade and reduction of its agricultural pay off.  With France in the EU there will never be free trade.

@ peter vanderheyden

"We should refrain from using terms as genocide, fascism and holocaust lightly"

This WE stands for .........? There are people that long ago use these words lightly and no one complained about.

In EU it is already possible to and individual lose his job or go to jail just for his opinions.

new form of supranational government?

"They knew it was always going to be a much longer haul to place long-established nation states under the rule of a new form of supranational government."

 

New?  Hardly.  Just following in the footsteps of Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Charlamagne, Ottoman empire etc.

Comparing Charlemagne to Hitler ... lol

"...long-established nation states under the rule of a new form of supranational government."

New? Hardly. Just following in the footsteps of Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Charlamagne, Ottoman empire etc.

long-established nation states in Carolingian times? Are you serious?
Or is this just a little game: Illustrious Big Names of the week: which one doesn't belong?
Comparing Charlemagne to Hitler is ludicrous, defamatory and actually a bit silly.

fascism

Yes, I agree. It's one of these timid attempts to create an “EU of justice”.
Note however that:
• It’s a framework; leaving every member state lots of freedom for implementing.
• It hasn’t passed yet. (And with the current Polish government, I don’t think it will.)
• It should be approved by the EU parliament (freely chosen en thus democratic I should think.)
• It should be approved by the ministers (of justice?) from the different member states with a qualified majority.
• In fact it’s a law already in place in most member states.

May I say that your use of the word “fascist” is very impropriate here? We should refrain from using terms as genocide, fascism and holocaust lightly, as it undermines the legitimate outrage and sense of horror for the situations they are really referencing at.

Stop the Lying

@Peter:

"FASCIST" - 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Yes, but…  

Yes, but…

 

 

Let’s face it. The EU never got any further then the economic unification. The Social Europe, or the Europe of foreign affairs is non-existent. The cause is simple: There simply is no will amongst the constituent states of the EU to cede the power to Brussels.

 

Europe has been build around a set of economic directives. The directives were each time ratified by the parliaments of the states. No lack of democracy there. These directives had however, a big impact on daily life. The European commission has the obligation to make sure that the directives are followed and implemented by the member states.  Rules like the “Reinheitsgebod” for the German beer, Or the use of pounds and miles in England were (often rightly so) seen as hidden protectionist measures, preventing free trade. By dealing with these issues the citizens of the member states had the feeling Europe was intervening with things that weren’t their business and upon which there was no democratic control. The same goes for environmental rules. In fact it’s firstly because a lack of environmental rules gave a concurrence benefit to the states that allowed heavy pollution, that there was a call for rules from the EU. General directives, again accepted by the parliaments of the individual member states, were accepted. Again, the implementation caused a feeling of an EU inventing a mass of rules, without proper democratic backing.

 

The cause of this feeling of lack of democracy is double: In the first place the directives and their implementation were very effective in tearing down the trade barriers between the EU members. Although the final gains are much bigger then the encountered losses, there are nevertheless always people who do lose, because of free trade. And as losses are always more emphasized then gains…

 

In the second place the local politicians bear a big responsibility. In stead of backing the European rules as a result of the directives they approved of, it is much easier to hide behind the huge back of the EU, and giving them the blame for unpopular, but often much necessary  measures.

 

The malaise caused by this behavior, makes further integration impossible at the moment. There is no doubt however, that further integration will come along someday. There still are a lot of domains that could be much better dealt with on a EU-scale then on an individual state level. This doesn’t mean, however that the EU shouldn’t be vigilant on setting out rules on issues that are much better dealt with on a more regional level.  

 

Whether there should be a constitution, a president, a flag and all other symbols are of minor importance. If this hurts the feelings of the nationalists, then leave it. The real important thing is to take the decisions on the most appropriate level, and to make certain there is always enough democratic backing.