From - Fri Feb 28 14:52:40 1997 Path: hakea.adelaide.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!inferno.mpx.com.au!nsw1.news.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!psgrain!solace!news.lth.se!cml From: cml@df.lth.se (C Malte Lewan) Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union Subject: Never-ending EU integration? (was: People on the Euro notes) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:23:12 +0200 Organization: Longa Onivarsiteid =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E5?= Longa Tekniska =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8=27jskoula?= Lines: 86 Message-ID: <199702241323123358726@nek92mle.student.lu.se> References: <32F93622.2650@xs4all.nl> <9702062357467943@election.demon.co.uk> <856331089.4192@dejanews.com> <9702192338488186@election.demon.co.uk> <856625590.20389@dejanews.com> <01bc215e$66f1db20$2492f482@pcn> <856748410.9651@dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: nek92mle.student.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: MacSOUP 2.2 Xref: hakea.adelaide.edu.au talk.politics.european-union:22602 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 4849 Status: RO Puih, don't you guys _ever_ change the subject lines? Now I have to find the interesting articles based on author. ;) jon ivar skullerud wrote: > Speaking for myself, I believe that in general, close cooperation > between European countries on a number of areas is a good thing. > It is clear that the EU has contributed to this, and that this is > part of the fundamental idea of the EU. However, I do not think > that all this needs to take place within one institution. In fact, > I think that given the diversity of Europe, it would be better to > have a number of overlapping institutions, rather than one > monolithic structure that takes care of everything. Sometimes I wonder if this is the biggest difference between us. You're the optimist thinking that overlapping institutions can do much of the same work as the EU does and I'm the pessimist thinking that the centres of the nation states don't have enough interest in creating and supporting them. Maybe it's more of an assessment of reality than in ideas? Of course I'm also looking back in disgust at how the nation state period of this century has prevented (in very different ways) the natural integration between Scania and Sjælland (and northern Germany) and how political initiatives because of structure have been lacking to remove political, economical, social and psychological etc barriers to any degree comparable to within the nation states and how they instead in reality have reinforced them. How much the EU will help this remains to be seen but to me, the EU is hope, if nothing else (well there are some concrete "else"s in transregional funds and more (BTW I hope for the EMU as well, I know you don't)). > But getting back to realities. I hear this mentioned often by some > EU-enthusiasts, that we have to continue the process, otherwise it will > fall apart. I've never seen a satisfactory explanation why this must > be the case. We often hear the EU likened to a bicycle, where if you > stop, you fall off. Well, I'm quite a keen cyclist, and I stop quite > often, without falling off. I stop when there is a red traffic light > or a stop sign (while the EU seems reluctant to stop even at the stop > sign of public opinion), and more importantly, I stop when I have > reached my destination. When I come in to work in the morning, I > don't just continue on, or cycle back and forth in the corridor, telling > myself that "if I stop now, I'll fall off". No, I stop, get off my > bike, and get down to work (or to read my mail and news as the case > may be). This is so wonderful! The quote of the week. I'll put it on the wall or something. :-) This is a good point too: > In article <01bc215e$66f1db20$2492f482@pcn>, > "Mårten Lindström" wrote: > > To me that certainly would LOOK like the beginning of the end of the EU, > > in particular since so much of its current organization is in a very > > obviously half-finished condition. (E.g. the minister council with its > > democracy deficit, and the EP whose role is only beginning to form.) [...] > > In short I fear that the air would go out of the EU, and all the > > attraction and appeal it has (yes it has with many of us) leave it as > > soon as it stops being an integration process. As long as the EU is > > moving, there is plenty of opportunities to improve it (what a member > > country thinks it looses by one change, it can be compensated for by > > another). When the EU stops, the risk is very considerable, as I see it, > > that member states will entrench themselves, defending perceived > > national interests, and conserve all the flaws and faults of the current > > EU until it starts disintegrating. I agree completely, but I get the thought that the fundamental reason for the calls for constant EU integration lies in the fact that the nation states' own constitutions aren't continously debated and so, many politicians think that an EU constitution won't be either once it has set itself (I'm afraid they may be right in the long run.) But in my view, discussions around constitutions are too important to ever end ("long rides at the weekend" to use Jon Ivar's metaphor :) ). I once read in a newspaper an argument against a referendum on the Maastricht treaty that John Major presented: "Britain is a representative democracy and therefore we shouldn't have a referendum." Getting into a political society of such a static view of the rules governing a country should be the fear of any thinking politician. Learning from, debating and considering copying parts of other constitutions is already done far too little among the Western democracies. -- Malte Lewan Longa Onivarsiteid, Scania, EO Tengtcen ølle redgijonal! cml@df.lth.se http://www.df.lth.se/~cml Always think regionally! From daemon Thu Mar 13 12:55:54 1997 Received: from grunt.dejanews.com by adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au (5.65/AndrewR-930902) id AA09932; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 12:55:50 +0930 Received: (from dopost@localhost) by grunt.dejanews.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA20684; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 20:23:50 -0600 Path: grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 20:23:48 -0600 From: jon ivar skullerud Subject: Re: Stopping the European integration? Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union Message-Id: <858219359.20376@dejanews.com> Organization: Confused To: jskuller@physics.adelaide.edu.au Followup-To: talk.politics.european-union References: <856331089.4192@dejanews.com> <9702192338488186@election.demon.co.uk> <856625590.20389@dejanews.com> <01bc215e$66f1db20$2492f482@pcn> <856748410.9651@dejanews.com> <01bc22f7$a5905f60$LocalHost@pcn> <857025585.9415@dejanews.com> <01bc27a3$74cbd840$LocalHost@pcn> X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Mar 13 02:16:01 1997 GMT X-Originating-Ip-Addr: 129.127.36.48 (wilson.physics.adelaide.edu.au) X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (X11; I; OSF1 V3.2 alpha) X-Authenticated-Sender: jon ivar skullerud X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 12806 Status: RO [This is a courtesy copy of an article posted to Usenet via Deja News] [Followups set] In article <01bc27a3$74cbd840$LocalHost@pcn>, "Merten Lindstrvm" wrote: > > jon ivar skullerud wrote in article > <857025585.9415@dejanews.com>... > > In article <01bc22f7$a5905f60$LocalHost@pcn>, > > "Merten Lindstrvm" wrote: > >> In the _very introduction_ to the EU treaty, the signatories pledge to be: > >> > >> "Resolved to mark a new stage in the process of European integration > >> undertaken with the establishment of the European Communities" > >> and: > >> "Resolved to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among > >> the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as > >> possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity" > > > > You snipped a lot in between there. Is a common defence policy also > > the "idea of the EU put on paper"? > > Please don't use the same arguing technique as a certain Briton. I pointed out what might be an example of selective quotation. I have absolutely no problems with Jon Livesey or anyone else doing this. On the contrary, it is a good thing to try to keep the discussion honest by pointing out this and other tricks people use. Please feel free to arrest me whenever I appear to be using dishonest tricks. > I didn't > snip anything to hide or deny it. I assure you that I regard all of what > is said in the treaty introduction as being at the heart of the EU, > and describing its integration process. Fine. That was a perfectly straightforward answer to my question, and one which I have no problems accepting. So what was all the fuss about? So, to conclude, a common defence policy is also essential to the idea of the EU, in your opinion. Anyone who is against it is against the whole idea of the EU. > BTW: The Maastricht treaty intro is there to be seen for instance at: > http://www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/maastricht/heads.html You can read the whole treaty at http://europa.eu.int/en/record/mt/top.html The entire Treaty of Rome can be found at http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/texts/rome/contents.html > > I said "potential, if not actual conflict". The aims need not be always > > or necessarily in conflict. But in fact, you are yourself providing one > > of the most striking examples. If you cannot even see a *potential* > > conflict between "an ever closer union" and "decisions taken as closely > > as possible to the citizen" then ... well ... I suggest you try a bit > > harder. > > The single, _one_ aim we are talking about here is "an ever closer union > among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as > possible to the citizen" A semantic redefinition is not going to help you I'm afraid. You can call it one single aim if you like, but that doesn't get around the fact that it contains two elements which may be in conflict. It's like trying to deny there are problems with the idea of a square circle by insisting that "a square circle" is one single object. Except that in this case there is a logical condtradiction, while in the case of the EU there is only a potential conflict. > The second part is obviously a clarification, presumably in an attempt to > pre-empt scaremongering such as yours (though to no avail it seems). I don't see it as a clarification. It is an additional element brought into the aims of the Union at Maastricht, which can, if taken seriously, counter some of the tendencies towards excessive centralisation and top-down management which we have seen in the EC/EU. It is a very welcome addition to the Treaty. However, I have few hopes that it will be taken very seriously, since on the most important field of them all, economic policy, all the moves are toward decisions being taken as far away as possible from the citizen. > I read "an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" as (the > practically never-ending work of) tearing down the _NATIONAL_ barriers > between the peoples. I think of it in a rather more positive way, as *creating* links and affinities between people, and not singling out the nation as some particular hate-object. There are other barriers between people as well, you know. If it is only this, I have no problems with it at all. There are many ways of going about doing this: Interrail, language schools, exchange programs are some examples. Elections to the European Parliament does very little to create such links. The other side of it is that the "ever closer union" seems to imply bringing more and more of our lives into a common sphere. This is quite evidently in potential conflict with the aim of taking decisions as close to the citizen as possible. > (What do _you_ read into "the peoples of Europe"?) I don't really know. Those who wrote the Treaty probably thought of the citizens of the different countries, but I think that's a poor definition of "a people". To me, Swedes, Danes and Norwegians are all the same "people" more or less, while the Sami quite obviously aren't. What is clear, however, is that it refers to links between ordinary people, not clubs of politicians and businessmen. But that is how it often seems to be interpreted (by friend and foe alike). > I don't even see how the aim of closeness between nationalities conflicts > with retained _national level_ decisions - where these still are "as close > as possible to the citizens". But, OK, maybe they do, in which case it very > clearly is the second part, i.e. the self-determination rule that overrides. > No unclaritities. That is how I read it at least. I don't think there is such a clear order of priorities there. I cannot see which words indicate that the second bit overrides the first in case of conflict. The words "as close as *possible*" can be interpreted in several ways, for instance "given the level of integration we have now, this and that decision must be taken at such a level or higher" -- ie, the level of integration is not challenged. > > Moreover, among the things you skipped in the preamble of the MT was > > "respecting their history, their culture and their traditions" > > (referring to the peoples of the member states). > > This aim: > "Desiring to deepen the solidarity between their peoples while respecting > their history, their culture and their traditions" > > is clearly yet another way of describing the European integration, and not > too different from the above, it seems to me. Nothing remarkable or in > conflict with anything else in the preamble as far as I can see. Again there is a potential conflict, in that if we try to bring people into a closer union where more aspects of their lives are common, this may erode their culture and traditions. This is already happening worldwide, and I don't think the EU is the greatest threat to national and regional cultures. Far from it. This aim is actually a very laudable one AFAIC. > > Two further points: > > 1. There can be no doubt that the founders of the EEC etc wanted a closer > > union between the peoples of (Western) Europe then there was at that > > time. Well, there is now a much closer union than there was. Perhaps > > it's still not close enough. Perhaps it is actually too close on some > > areas at least. We should be able to discuss that, without always > > referring to the old formulation as some magic formula. > > We are now talking about the introduction to the _EU Treaty_, which was not > only recently signed by all current 15 members, but formulated and written > in the 1990s by 12 members including Britain and Denmark. Yes, but the formulation "an ever closer union" wasn't coined then. It was taken from the preamble to the original Treaty of Rome. It has been left unchallenged (more or less) and passed through the various preambles since then. My argument is that perhaps we have now, in some areas at least, reached the point the founders (or some of them) had in mind. > > 2. The reference is to an ever closer union of the *peoples*. This is > > not the same as a political or economic union. A union of peoples > > cannot be imposed from above, by fiat. There is even the possibility > > that too hasty political and economic integration may damage the > > prospect of closer ties between the peoples. > > By Fiat?! :) Fiat, noun, from Latin, let it be done (3rd p sing, present subjunctive) >From Webster's (1913): 1. An authoritative command or order to do something; an effectual decree. His fiat laid the corner stone. (Willis) > No, you are absolutely right. The primary aim, as I see it, is indeed a > union of peoples. Not a political and not an economic union per se. > The aim is to tear down the national barriers between peoples. > This is what integration means to me. As I said above, I'm more into building up than tearing down. But apart from that, we seem to agree on this point. > However, apparently unlike you, I see both the economic and the political > parts as natural and even necessary consequences. I'm not against some common political institutions per se, but they should come as a result of common interests and affinities between the peoples rather than the other way around. As to the common market and economic union, I think that is a very bad idea in any case, however close the peoples are. But that's a different discussion. > And although the union of peoples may not be possible to _impose_ from > above, I do think _initiatives_ from above, and the providing of a > framework for the integration, are absolutely necessary. > > The EMU, for instance, would obviously never have been possible if it was > only I and a number of enthusiasts, even if vast, across Europe who had > been planning it. :) True. It is much more likely to happen because the directors and chairmen of Europe's biggest companies, working together in the European Round Table of industrialists, have planned it. Some animals are more equal than others. > >> And, yes, here we do also find (and note how you misquoted this!): > >> Article F, item 1: > >> > >> "The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States, > >> whose systems of government are founded on the principles of democracy." > >> > >> (See the difference?) > > > > I translated from the Danish version, which I have here next to me: > > "Unionen respekterer medlemsstaternes nationale identitet og deres > > styreformer, der bygger paa demokratiske principper." > > Apologies then. But I am fairly sure that the English wording I have given > is the one that was actually negotiated. So I am honestly surprised that > the Danish translation isn't in accordance with this. All versions, in all the official EU languages, are equally valid. I think you'd have Marc Bonnaud on you neck pretty soon if you tried to insist on some supremacy for the English version. The French version is in accord with the English one BTW. But since the Danish version is equally valid, and clearly states that the Union respects the member states' systems of government, it is clear that the EU has no right or power to press for electoral reform, devolution, more use of referenda, less use of referenda, etc ;), in any member state. (The Norwegian translation of the Treaty agrees with the Danish -- except for the interesting use of "folkestyre" instead of "demokrati"[ske principer], but since it has no official status, this isn't very relevant.) > But from a _national_ (British, Danish or Swedish) perspective - where I > entered this discussion - I find it simply dishonest to totally disregard > from the fundamental idea of the EU, the integration among the peoples of > Europe, as formulated in the treaty and as it always has been seen (and > still is) by a majority of the signatories, and pretend that the > governments of Britain, Denmark or Sweden could behave (without bad > consequences) as if the EU was just a trade organization (or whatever). Well, there are still some disagreements over what is "the fundamental idea" of the EU, as I've tried to outline here and elsewhere, since different people had different motives for setting it up and entering into it. And several of these motives and ideas figure prominently various places in the treaties. I have never denied that "an ever closer union" is among them. Of course, I have never denied that I would want to fundamentally change the EU either. jon ivar -- Paranoia is when you know all the facts (Shooglenifty, 1997) -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet From daemon Thu Feb 27 22:32:02 1997 Received: from grunt.dejanews.com by adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au (5.65/AndrewR-930902) id AA15322; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 22:31:59 +1030 Received: (from dopost@localhost) by grunt.dejanews.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) id GAA14709; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 06:01:40 -0600 Path: grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 06:01:38 -0600 From: jon ivar skullerud Subject: Stopping the European integration (Re: People on the Euro notes) Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union,uk.politics.misc Message-Id: <857044208.14478@dejanews.com> Organization: Confused To: jskuller@physics.adelaide.edu.au Followup-To: talk.politics.european-union References: <856331089.4192@dejanews.com> <9702192338488186@election.demon.co.uk> <856625590.20389@dejanews.com> <01bc215e$66f1db20$2492f482@pcn> <856748410.9651@dejanews.com> <3312ae9b.2698745@news.ping.be> X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Feb 27 11:50:08 1997 GMT X-Originating-Ip-Addr: 129.127.36.48 (wilson.physics.adelaide.edu.au) X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (X11; I; OSF1 V3.2 alpha) X-Authenticated-Sender: jon ivar skullerud X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 10276 Status: RO [This is a courtesy copy of an article posted to Usenet via Deja News] [Followups set] In article <3312ae9b.2698745@news.ping.be>, pin00033@ping.be wrote: > > On Sun, 23 Feb 1997 19:51:07 -0600, jon ivar skullerud > wrote: > >I think even the UK, and certainly Denmark, are also coming up with > >constructive ideas. Denmark's proposal of getting the national > >parliaments more involved in the decision-making process is one of > > That's it ! Why not abolishing the European Parliament as well ? > Your Danish proposal is not constructive, but destructive (but I know > Denmark has made other but good proposals). > If we let the national parliaments interfere in the EU legilsation, > what will be the role of the EP ? I propose the increase of EP powers. May I first remind you of Declaration no.13 in the Maastricht Treaty: "The Conference considers that it is important to encourage greater involvement of national Parliaments in the activities of the European Union. To this end, the exchange of information between the national Parliaments and the European Parliament should be stepped up. In this context, the governments of the Member States will ensure, inter alia, that national Parliaments receive Commission proposals for legislation in good time for information or possible examination." In the Danish model, the national parliaments will be able to hold the national governments, and thereby the Council, on a short leash. This does not infringe at all on the workings of the EP. The only thing it does is to vastly improve the democratic legitimacy of the law-making process of the EU. Involving the national parliaments does in no way preclude increasing the powers of the EP, if that is considered desirable. This is in fact the Danish position. But since the national parliaments have a much stronger mandate from their voters and are much more accountable than the EP will ever be, involving them will do much more for democracy in the EU than increasing the powers of the EP. > This proposal is like of the proposals from governmental > representatives from UK and France in front of the IGC, to invent a > new chamber in the European Parliament of representatives from the > national parliaments. Both the UK and France have proposals which are similar to the one of Denmark. I haven't seen any proposal from the UK for a new chamber of the EP. France has an additional proposal to set up such a chamber which should exclusively deal with matters of subsidiarity. This may or may not be a good idea, but it is quite different to the Danish proposal. > This would nationalise the institutions of the European Union, a > process which inevitable will lead to its dissolution. It would, as I said above, give the institutions some real legitimacy, and also give the concept of subsidiarity some real meaning. But let me ask you: Since you are so opposed to any involvement by the national democratic institutions, are you also opposed to the Committee of the Regions playing any role at all? As to your prediction that the EU would inevitably fall apart if this happened; well, USA, Australia and Germany have not fallen apart yet. Still, their federal parliaments all have upper chambers which represent the states. Germany's Bundesrat is even elected by the state legislatures IIUIC. > >the most constructive I have seen, much more so that (IMHO) bone-headed > >suggestions from Belgium to just press ahead with a common police and > >justice policy. > > Of course, the national-control Danish proposal is even better than > what a Europhile and federalist country could deliver, isn't it Mr Jon > Ivar ? > You are doing like Jon L ? To reinvent the meaning of words ? > You've just reinvent the meaning of 'constructive' and 'bonehead'. Please explain where I have. And note that I inserted the letters "IMHO" -- "in my humble opinion" in front of the word "bone-headed", to make it abundantly clear that this is just my personal feeling on the matter. Others are quite free to take a different view. > >I think we should be open and consider any proposal made in good faith > >with a genuine intention of improving the EU as constructive, whether > >we happen to like it or not. Then it is clear that all countries, > >including the sceptically-minded ones, have constructive proposals. > > A constuctive proposal is made to increase the integration of the EU, > not to serve national interets. And *you* accuse *me* of reinventing the meaning of words? Seriously, Stephane. Have a look at what you've just written. I mean, seriously. > But the EU is only at its enfancy, as it is always said. The real goal > is federate the whole European continent, to favourize the same > integration in the other continents and to create a federated and > freer and more democratic world. That is your goal. It is not to goal of everyone else. It is most certainly not the goal of the European Union as such. So it can hardly be used as a universally acceptable argument for the necessity of further EU integration. It is, however, an argument I can understand, which makes sense, and which I can sympathise with, although I still disagree with both the aim (I think) and the conclusion. > >Speaking for myself, I believe that in general, close cooperation > >between European countries on a number of areas is a good thing. > >It is clear that the EU has contributed to this, and that this is > >part of the fundamental idea of the EU. However, I do not think > >that all this needs to take place within one institution. In fact, > >I think that given the diversity of Europe, it would be better to > >have a number of overlapping institutions, rather than one > >monolithic structure that takes care of everything. > It won't care about everything, only foreign and common affairs. Read > the European Constitution for more info. The "common affairs" includes quite a lot doesn't it? Still, that wasn't the main point of my argument here. Is the "European Constitution" an authoritative document? > And the EU has already a lot of institutions, it is not monolithic > (not more than a present nation-state). Gee, that's really comforting. Not. What I dislike so intensely about the present nation-state is precisely that it is so monolithic, and does not allow for alternative or overlapping power structures. I want to see that monopoly of power broken up, not submerged into a new bigger monolithic structure. > Of course we can imagine regional organizations inside the EU (like > the Alps-Adria community). Hey! You have just provided an example of one kind of structure I want to see more of: One that crosses both national borders, bypassing the governments of Germany and Italy (IIUIC) and the EU border. Of course, the EU has no more business in interfering with the workings of it than the German and Italian governments have. And there is absolutely no necessity for any such body to be wholly contained in the EU. > But saying that nation-states should stay > independent is a 19th century's mind. Was that supposed to be an argument? > >However, I oppose the idea of a single market, which is clearly also > >part of the fundamental idea of the EU. In this respect, the Liveseys > >and Buttreys are considerably more EU-phile than I am. > >But I am happy to label myself anti-EU. Even so, I appreciate the > >value of the EU, and even of its fundamental ideas. > > Yes, the value of free-trade and nothing more. You're not paying much attention are you? I have made my opinion on free trade abundantly clear at a number of occasions on this newsgroup. Just search Dejanews if you are still uncertain about it. Or just check the paragraph I wrote above, where I express my opposition to the single market. Is this compatible with valuing "free trade and nothing more"? Is it compatible with placing great value on free trade at all? > >I agree there is a lot to be improved in the EU's decision-making > >process. Any sane person would agree with that. But that is not > >to say that all change has to go in one direction. > > But when you hear that the EU decision making is alreday to powerfull > !!!! Yes, and? Did you want to say something? > One direction : European federation. Error: Line 1. Syntax error. ***Exit 1 > >And I do hope you appreciate the risk that if the EU just continues > >bone-headedly with political integration, using some vacuous slogans > >about bicycles or there being no alternative, silencing sceptical > >questions, and ignoring public fears about loss of identity and > >influence over their own situation, there will be a backlash some > >day, and the only ones to profit from that will be the Haiders and > >the Le Pens. > > > Really ? Le Pen is already attacking the EU (not as JimmyGolsmith do, > but not so far) : he is the ultra nationalist and only believe in the > nation-states. Yes indeed. Therefore he is very well placed to profit from public dissatisfaction with the EU and with those politicians who have pressed ahead with integration without listening to the concerns of the ordinary man and woman. Especially if those same politicians have already succeeded in branding everyone who questions their grand project as xenophobe and in the same boat as Le Pen. > I think that if we stop the European integration, the demons of > nationalism and fascism will rise again ! If I were you now I would say that this is just another europhile lie. But I realise that you actually believe this, therefore it is not, in fact, a lie. However, it is hardly more than a slogan, based apparently on some magic idea that the EU is a miracle cure against nasty ideologies, or alternatively on an extremely pessimistic idea of human nature as irrevocably drawn towards fascism. I have tried to present an argument for how a top-driven EU integration process *may* (not necessarily will) give rise to more fascism. Please answer that argument. Then, if you can present an argument for why lack of integration will lead to fascism, I will answer that. jon ivar -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet