From - Thu Feb 29 20:29:43 1996 Message-ID: <31360CB7.3B14@th.ph.ed.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 20:29:43 +0000 From: Jon Ivar Skullerud Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec,eunet.politics,talk.politics.european-union Subject: Re: Greatest Euromyth + what important to keep on lower levels References: Status: RO This took some time; I can't afford thinking more than about once a week ;-) I started writing on Tuesday, but then my newsreader closed down :-( C Malte Lewan wrote: > > Nice to be reminded of one of the most polite voices in what I > feel a more and more aggressive world of netnews... Wow, thanks... That gives me a chance to return the compliment as well :) > In article <31275220.27D2@th.ph.ed.ac.uk>, Jon Ivar Skullerud > wrote: > >But on the other hand, would it really serve the peace of the > >world and the economy of Europe to make the weapons industry an > >EU priority? I can easily see how the joint power of the > >European arms industry, initially encouraged by the Commission, > >starts dictating the foreign policy of the EU and dominating other > >aspects of EU policy the way the military-industrial complex has > >dominated policy in the Soviet Union and USA, as well as in lesser > >powers like the UK and France. > I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here: that it's more > difficult to control a weapon industry in a larger than a smaller > country? If you're right, there really is a case for decentralizing > weapon industries even within countries. But I'd think there is a > cost in unpredicatability in having many local powers, having the > right to make use of these factories. That's not exactly what I'm trying to say. Obviously, it's not a question primarily of the size of the country, but of the size of the arms industry. However, the two scale roughly proportionally; if anything the arms industry in big countries tends to be disproportionately larger than in small countries. And I believe (though I have no hard facts to back this up) that it is disproportionately more difficult to control a large arms industry than a small one. So the combined power of the arms industries in the EU countries may well have more leverage over the EU Commission and Council than the individual industries have over each country's government. I think the power the major civilian multinationals have through the ERT provides some evidence to back up this assumption. But my main bone of contention is the idea that the EU should make the development of the arms industry one of its priorities. As far as I can see, this can only mean giving more encouragement to this industry -- encouraging cooperation, making the industry more competitive, perhaps even facilitating new investment and developments. This is indeed what has happened in the only case so far where the EU has been involved in this area -- the Eurofighter project (which hasn't been a great success, but that's a slightly different issue). We may even have the worst of both worlds, where the arms industry, strengthened by the cooperation encouraged by the EU, is in a position to demand even more from the national governments which still have responsibility for arms contracts and foreign policy. So to sum up my case, making the arms industry an EU priority is very dangerous unless the whole military and foreign policy is in the hands of the EU -- and even then I suspect it might be a case of the industry controlling the EU and not the other way around. > >True, the arms industry even in small countries has a record of > >secret and underhand deals, including widespread fraud -- just > >think of the Bofors affair with its implications for Indian > >politics (didn't it bring down Rajiv Gandhi?). But this is set > >to increase to even higher levels with a big, coordinated > >European arms industry. > Even proportionally, taking the bigger population into > consideration? A yes would be consistent with above I guess. Yes, I suspect so. > With a few regional powers, it wouldn't be so inevitable that > at least some little irritating state in the world still sold > weapons even to the most oppressive regime. But it's not enough > if only Europe unites of course, and that's the most we'll see > for a long time I'd think. Both NAFTA and ASEAN are miles from > anything like a political union. So I agree with you that this > argument doesn't work. Well, I've never heard much about the Canadian or Mexican arms industry anyway, so NAFTA==USA for all practical purposes. And I think they (along with the Soviet Union/Russia) are perfect examples of my claim that big countries are controlled by their arms industries, rather than controlling them. Furthermore, both countries do sell weapons to some of the most oppressive regimes around. > >> Personally, I think that military autonomy is one of the least > >> attractive forms of policy decentralizations possible. Actually, on second thoughts I would agree with you on this point. I would prefer to see the military forces and policy of every country in the world brought under the auspices of the UN, or at least the regional security organisations like the CSCE, OAS, OAU. But this isn't a question primarily about military ("defence") policy. For most EU countries, this is already under supranational control, through NATO, and those countries with "decentralised" military forces -- Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland -- hardly pose a threat to anybody. It's a question of the policy towards the weapons *industry*. I'm in favour of giving it as little encouragement as at all possible, and I do not believe that is done by lifting the responsibility for it up to supranational level. > >> No, let's give the EU the direction of a classic confederalism/federalism, > >> where what is decided in the nation states and the regions are things > >> that are really _important_ for the running of day-to-day lives of the > >> people. That does not include the big world politics, weapon industries > >> or other national unifying symbols. > >But then, will it help to shift the national unifying symbols up > >to a superstate level, where their power to do harm is even greater? > Well, right now they would be less of in their "natural environment", > not being so easily accessible during short term nationalistic opinion > sentiments. Any corresponding European feelings are not expected soon > I'd think, since few people "think European" today. Today that is the case, but tomorrow it may well not be. I am not among those who believe a European "national" identity is impossible -- indeed, being European is very much a part of my own identity. And I'm not completely against fostering such an identity. But I think the national symbols should be kept out of it, since they are such powerful weapons in the hands of demagogues, stirring up hatred and hooliganism. This becomes even more important in the case of a European identity, which may easily have race and religion as focal points. Mind you, I'm not saying anything as glib as "Big-country nationalism is bad and small-country nationalism is good" -- there are far too many examples of small-country nationalism run amok for that to be in any way credible. Actually, I'm very sceptical of national symbols and the like at *any* scale. But I think the likelihood of running amok is about the same at any scale, while the consequences are much worse at a larger scale. > From smaller regions/countries, it is expected decisions that are more > stupid than for bigger ones. Sometimes, the competence among politicians > simply is not there, and sometimes, a big population is needed to > compensate for all the extremest fractions of the population. Sorry for quoting you out of context here, but I had to cut down the quotations *somewhere*... You may be right; there will be more stupid decisions in small countries and regions. But then, in the big countries there is the possibility of really messing it up with stupidity on a grand scale. Examples abound... Actually, wrt arms industry, the relevant point is that local and regional politicians are more likely to focus narrow-mindedly on the interests of an arms factory that provides employment for a large proportion of the population in the region. You may run the risk that they pour all their resources into propping up this one factory, forgetting the wider interests of the community and the world outside. Still, the limited resources such a region has means that economic realities will hopefully catch up with it sooner or later, at least if it is not allowed to form its own guidelines over who it may sell weapons to. Sorry if I'm getting a bit glib at the end here; I'm tired and hungry and should have been at a meeting an hour ago... The question of extremism will have to wait till some other time. -- ______ ______________________________________ / | | | jon | jon ivar skullerud | \______ | | \ | jonivar@th.ph.ed.ac.uk | ivar | | http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/~jonivar/ | _______/ |______________________________________| From - Fri Nov 1 17:53:44 1996 Message-ID: <3279A580.41C6@physics.adelaide.edu.au> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 17:53:44 +1030 From: jon ivar skullerud Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union Subject: Re: Patriots for Europe!!! References: <32756EC1.7E1D@ifn-magdeburg.de> Status: RO Chris Hatton wrote: > > Jon Ivar Skullerud wrote: > > >I'm sorry, but I have to take you up on this one. > >a) "it's inevitable" is a very poor argument for anything. We should > > decide policy on the basis of what we want to see happen, not on the > > basis of some supposed historical predetermination. > >b) No, it's not inevitable. Unlike marxist-leninists and a certain > > brand of free-marketeers and EU-philes, I don't think history is > > predetermined. I still believe in democracy, and in the power of > > people to change events. > > Its inevitable that at least 5 countries will form a currency union, > within maybe 5-6 years and whether the others join is up to the I don't think even that is inevitable, but the way political leaders are putting a huge amount of prestige into meeting the convergence criteria and tweaking the process so that at least 5 countries will be able to join makes it hightly likely, I admit. > respective goverments and electorates want to join also. Denmark and UK I'm sorry, I can't parse that sentence. Do you mean to say that the electorates want to join (which is dubious in many cases) or that it's up to them if they want to join (though as the case seems to be, many of them won't get a choice)? > probably won't and I agree with you that yes Democracy is important and > that people should have the power to change things. Changing the way > the Council works would be an important step. I agree that there is much that could be done to change the way the Council works to make it more democratic, but since almost all the power elites in Europe seem to agree on this issue, I don't think it would help much in this case. > I, like you, would hope that we the people do change to the EU to a > consensus union. I'm neither a Marxist Lennist or a libertarian free > marketeer, more of a left learning Liberal/social Marketeer and > extremist views on a Federal Europe are alien to me. However so are the > hatred and Xenphobic views expressed by others herein the newsgroup and There are a couple of people on t.p.e-u that I think fit that description, but it's way off the mark even for most of those you could with some justification call 'phobes'. > on the street which makes me tend to align myself with the pro-European > wing. Nationalism is all to often a dangerous game and it seriously > pisses me off to see such ignorant hatred. I kind of understand why some (many) people may feel that way. But I guess you agree that this is not a good argument for anything. Obnoxious people exist on all sides of most arguments, and I'm sure Attila the Hun liked good food... (or more to the point, both Hitler and Gandhi were vegetarians). > >OK, I must admit it, I also have an argument along those lines. The > >law that "everything put together sooner or later falls apart" applies, > >I believe, also to political structures, and when the EU falls apart it > >will be one mighty crash. I'd rather not be buried in that crash. > > Thats a Physicists saying, got to be. I'm a biologist and we think that > organisms and populations evole, and that something left to stagnat > eventually dies or mutates into something stronger. Probably depends what kind of entities you're considering -- I would have thought it was even more true in biology than in physics -- isn't death the only certainty in life? For the benefit of biologists, I have another "law" which kind of also describes my point of view: Dinosaurs die out. The quote is from Paul Simon BTW, from his 1971 album. > Cultures change, The EU must change and hopefully by democracy if it > does becomes centralised and beurocratic then it will crash I don't want > to be part of the rubble either. However the UK "I feel" is trying to I think we agree here. > play the Nationilsm card and "Stiff upper lip" game in that it thinks it > can survive without Europe, it will sink very fast if it does. I think > you Richard (B) may agree here also. Nobody can survive in complete isolation, and only a dimwit would suggest otherwise. The question would be what kind of relation one should have with neighbours and the rest of the world. The answer to that question may be very different for different countries/regions/communities. > I believe playing the nationalist card is what will cause the EU to > crumble, as in the case of USSR and Yugoslavia because it plays on the > most primative of feelings emotion and sense of belonging. Which I My view on that is almost precisely the opposite. I think nationalism is far from primitive -- it is actually a deliberately cultured opinion, since nations are so big that you cannot possibly identify with them in a "primitive" way. But that's perhaps why patriotism is so dangerous (unlike most others, I think patriotism is the more dangerous variety of nationalism) -- because you don't identify with anything real, you can't afford to think properly about it and you go over the top. I don't think somebody playing the nationalist card will be the cause of EU crumbling, though it may well be the catalyst -- the underlying factors are more likely to be economic (as in Yugoslavia) or mistrust/ disillusionment/dislike of the political leaders (as in Central and Eastern Europe). > a single currency means rejection of devaluation, permanent disciplines > on government borrowing, protection of the real value of people's > pensions (I hope) and savings, lower real costs of capital for > businesses and investors (in theory anyway as the inflation and > devaluation risk in interest rates disappear) and hopefully higher > potential economic growth, and cheaper travel and trade. The last point > may be important to the small business's who don't have reserves of > foreign currency for transactions costs. Some of this is good in itself, but at what cost will it come? Higher unemployment is very likely, at least in the short-to-medium term, and a certain consequence is that regions and countries will have less power to determine their own future. Permanent disciplines on borrowing is both good and bad, since it means that the government cannot borrow even when it needs to. Lower real costs of capital is IMO bad -- capital is far too cheap already compared to labour, which is why we have such a high structural unemployment. Cheaper travel and trade may seem good, but it is bad for the environment. And economic growth, as it is normally defined, correlates very poorly with actual well-being, even economic welfare. Of course growth in production of material goods is an environmental disaster. > I'm told it also means goodbye - at least within Europe - to the > expensive and debilitating currency crises from which "we" have > intermittently suffered over the past generation. The UK has been > particulary hit by this, I think. But the currency crises have been a way for the monetary system to adjust to the divergent real economies. That is AIUI an important reason why the two previous world common currency systems (the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system) broke down. -- ______ _________________________________________________ / | | | jon | jon ivar skullerud | \______ | jskuller@physics.adelaide.edu.au | \ | http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~jskuller/ | ivar | | http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/~jonivar/ | _______/ |_________________________________________________| From - Fri Nov 15 09:10:51 1996 From: tor@tor.vip.best.com (Tor Slettnes) Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union Subject: Re: EUcurrency & const. laws?? Date: 14 Nov 1996 02:44:02 -0800 Message-ID: References: <54kkju$mno@mordred.cc.jyu.fi> <847873373.25698@dejanews.com> Status: RO >>>>> "JS" == jon ivar skullerud writes: pin00033@pophost.ping.be (Stephane Dohet) wrote: >> The EU will eventually be established onthe whole continent [Skipped Switzerland, Malta, Norway] JS> What's your timescale for Yugoslavia joining? How easy will JS> the membership negotiations with Russia be? When will Greece JS> let Turkey (or Macedonia for that matter) join? JS> Since you're so well informed about the future, perhaps you JS> can tell us all also how the new CAP arrangements will be when JS> Poland enters the EU. Then there are the tensions that are starting to build up within the EU. Sweden, Denmark and England are not quite as eager as Belgium or that one German (Kohl) to revolutionize the political structure of Europe before people have a chance to think about it. Belgium, Luxembourg, etc do not have any identity on their own, but are wedded completely into a central European one. As such, there is less traditional nationalism (good or bad) there than in many other countries - but consequently more Euro-nationalism. pin00033@pophost.ping.be (Stephane Dohet) wrote: SD> I don't want to seem nationalistic, but look what we have SD> without the EMU: Americans are ruling everywhere, they are the SD> number one for economics. Can't we be at their place ? Is it SD> nationalism by saying we could be as powerful as our SD> neighboors? A couple of points: * This logic is the same that prompted Germans to expand their sphere. The H. guy admired England for its pride, and wished to include England in his greater plans against e.g. USA and other parts of the world. (I know the principle that mentioning that person stops any constructive debate immediately, but can't avoid calling a spade a spade). * The issue would not really be whether one is as powerful as one's neighbour, rather the populace's perceptions of such. The EU is already the largest trading bloc in the world (or if you prefer to count NAFTA, compare with EEA (EU+EFTA), which would then be the biggest). What type of power are you looking for, exactly, beyond this? When are you going to stop? (What means do you deem acceptable to achieve this?) * Let me guess that what you are privately wishing for is the type of (a)cultural hegemony that the USA has today. It would come with many of the same problems that the USA has, too. Lack of regional diversity and identity, rootlessness, consequent personal problems (drug use, crime, etc). The larger the block, the more detached and poor will its culture seem to most people. Europeans would basically become as culturally stagnant as those you seek to conquer. (The good news is that you would be ignorant thereof, like they are. You would think you are the greatest). * Larger blocks have more influence, but also larger disconsent and thus less democracy internally. Let's suppose this is in the 24th centry, when the EU has a common representation in the UN (which now has sovereign control over the world). There is an international dispute over whether the UN should reconize Taiwan as an independent country, thereby allowing it entry into the organization. USA says yes, China says no, most African and Latin American countries say yes. The EU (now including Russia) says no, thanks to the Russian vote. End of story; proposal rejected. With individual representation in the EU, most countries might have said yes, turning the total vote in favor of the proposal. * Size does not matter. Hints: Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Lichtenstein. Someone> Euronationalism is more dangerous for the world. SD> What is VERY dangerous is nationalism in Europe! That is each SD> country says: "we can live on our own, we don't need these SD> neighbooring bastards, with them we would loose and our SD> sovereignty and our money" JS> Is that so dangerous? If every country just lived on its own JS> and didn't care too much about others the only damage they JS> would do is to themselves. But if they start ganging up on a JS> quest for more power, on the other hand... Exactly. It would not be dangerous if you leave people be, a concept that Stephane seems to have trouble with. Unification further means eradication of cultural multiplicity. That topic has of course been discussed numerous times. ("We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.") Either way - these are extremes. Cooperation, mutual agreements, and even unions between entities is just jolly fine -- _as long as there is a consensus_ for this within these entities. If moving too quickly or in a direction the populace feels uncomfortable with -- _that_ is how wars are made. SD> Excuse me, but by their choice to live outside Europe, and so SD> building new nations, Australians, South Americans... have SD> decided to not share anymore a common culture with Europeans. ^^^^^^^ - Daddy, daddy, I wanna be born in Sweden! - G'day, son, you're already born, right here Down Under. - But Daddy, I wanna share a common culture with Europeans! - Oh, ok, lad. If that's what you want, let's move there, then. Yeah. I see that happening now. How come the largest proponents for intra-European integration is also those most opposed to international cooperation? -tor From Hatton@ifn-magdeburg.de Sat Nov 9 03:17:36 1996 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 17:46:05 +0100 Message-Id: <199611081646.RAA14775@petrus.CS.Uni-Magdeburg.DE> To: jskuller@physics.adelaide.edu.au From: hatton Subject: Re: Patriots for Europe!!! Status: RO Hi Jon, just thought I've contridicted myself a bit. so my new replies. >Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 21:40:16 >To: jon ivar skullerud >From: hatton >Subject: Re: Patriots for Europe!!! . > >>> I believe playing the nationalist card is what will cause the EU to >>> crumble, as in the case of USSR and Yugoslavia because it plays on the >>> most primative of feelings emotion and sense of belonging. Which I >> >>My view on that is almost precisely the opposite. I think nationalism >>is far from primitive -- it is actually a deliberately cultured opinion, >>since nations are so big that you cannot possibly identify with them in >>a "primitive" way. But that's perhaps why patriotism is so dangerous >>(unlike most others, I think patriotism is the more dangerous variety >>of nationalism) -- because you don't identify with anything real, you >>can't afford to think properly about it and you go over the top. > >tempted to agree here, this should read, patriotism is more dangerous that nationilsm, however one can easy lead some from Nationilsm to blind patriotism. Especially those not fully aware of what the other view point says. eg UK press is very nationlistic and the tabloids verge on blind patriotism at times (not always). It sad but I suppose also good in a perverse way in that the papers can remain independant of polictians and influence opinion. Rupert Murdochs brand of right wing populism used to be alien to these lands, alas people now believe what they read in his papers. Oh here I go on my intellectual hobby horse. With the exception of maybe Italy and Greece and Finland, the EU doesn't really have much in fiercly blind patriotic tabloids. I must apologise for my speling this is during an experiment. I've had to rewrite because I think I am condricting my self a little in last message. > >>I don't think somebody playing the nationalist card will be the cause >>of EU crumbling, though it may well be the catalyst -- the underlying >>factors are more likely to be economic (as in Yugoslavia) or mistrust/ >>disillusionment/dislike of the political leaders (as in Central and >>Eastern Europe). > >I agree here, except that I actually thought old Yugo. had a relatively good economy, just the distribution was wrong ie Serbia got most of the wealth. It was force that kept the country together, ecomonically yes Slovenia brought away, but Croatia was nationalism/patriotism surely. The fights that broke out between Red star Belgade and Zagreb Dynamo (I think)both with players and fans for me was the start of the war. Because when the riot police moved in it was against the Zagreb fans later causing rioting and burning of Serbian homes. However if not all is well or a country feels it getting a bad deal (whether it is or not is a nother matter) certain polictians will play on the se fears for own polictical ends. > >>> a single currency means rejection of devaluation, permanent disciplines >>> on government borrowing, protection of the real value of people's >>> pensions (I hope) and savings, lower real costs of capital for >>> businesses and investors (in theory anyway as the inflation and >>> devaluation risk in interest rates disappear) and hopefully higher >>> potential economic growth, and cheaper travel and trade. The last point >>> may be important to the small business's who don't have reserves of >>> foreign currency for transactions costs. >> >>Some of this is good in itself, but at what cost will it come? >>Higher unemployment is very likely, at least in the short-to-medium term, >>and a certain consequence is that regions and countries will have less >>power to determine their own future. > >Kinda re thought this through..., Chris, > Christopher Hatton Institute for Neurobiology Dept. of Neurophysiology PSF 1860 D-39008 Magdeburg Germany email: hatton@ifn-magdeburg.de Tel. (49) 0391-6263-432/402 Fax. (49) 0391-6263-438 From daemon Sun Mar 9 18:11:24 1997 Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 01:41:06 -0600 From: jon ivar skullerud Subject: Re: Never-ending EU integration? Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union Message-Id: <857893078.9778@dejanews.com> References: <32F93622.2650@xs4all.nl> <199702282113471957131@nek92mle.student.lu.se> Status: RO [This is a courtesy copy of an article posted to Usenet via Deja News] In article <199702282113471957131@nek92mle.student.lu.se>, cml@df.lth.se (C Malte Lewan) wrote: > > jon ivar skullerud wrote: > [Concerning constant constitutional debate] > > So let me play devil's advocate for a moment: You can always use the > > argument "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". I think this is a quite > > valid counter to any kind of calls for "change for change's sake". > > It _is_ a valid counter. I think the answer is that it's impossible to > estimate whether a constitution is broken or not. [snip] > It's the _debate_ I want to see more of, not > a simplification in the ways to change it (in fact, the contrary, as you > probably know). I guess I agree with you, but then I belong to the chattering classes myself :-0 As I said, that's fine at least as long as a preoccupation with these issues does not distract from other issues which are more important to most people. > > Oh sure. I don't think there's any disagreement between us on this point. > > (Unless you start talking about the Xresund bridge...) > > The bridge is good. :-) In fact, essential, like for example the > highway between Stockholm and Uppsala is. Crotte, have I started talking > about the Xresund bridge now? Don't get me going! Transport policy is another of my hobbyhorses. If it makes you feel better, I can start attacking the motorway (I assume that's what you meant) between Stockholm and Uppsala as well, though the two are not quite comparable... [on my cynicism towards the EU's possible progressive role] > But the EU is happening. It's happening in practise and I always settle > for what I can get. There is a challenge (at least might develop into a > full-blown challenge) to the nation state Of course you have to take into account what is in fact happening, and the EU is part of that. I am not denying that the challenge the EU is posing to the nation state can have and has some positive effects. In the days when I was pro-EC, this was indeed my main (probably my only) argument. I have later come to the conclusion that, on balance, the EU replaces something bad (the nation state) with more of the same. > The old order has had its chances and I don't trust it anymore. Hey, that was supposed to be *my* line! > What can you offer me? Well, first of all, you can't offer me > anything since the ideas you may have are not happening as a strong > political movement. The EU negative side in Sweden couldn't even offer > me the ideas, even less a political force that even in part carried some > sort of change sweeping through Europe. I'm not sure what you expected to hear. Are you saying that *nobody* had any visions for what kind of Europe they wanted? That sounds strange,and doesn't quite fit in with my experiences. As for political forces, I know my ideas have always been unfashionable. I don't feel any urge to go with political fashion. > More importantly, I haven't yet understand your vision. First of all, I don't know if I want to call it a vision. Grand visions is one of the things I want to avoid, since they have such a tendency to turn nasty. I want each community, region, state, etc, to be able to determine its own political and economic system -- as wide a diversity of political and economic systems as is possible and desirable. I don't believe there is one size that fits all, but that is what I fear the EU is trying to achieve. > Somebody has to make the laws of a specific territory. Why? > But it can be shared between > different levels of government. Sometimes then, there is a row about who > is entitled to make the law and a constitutional court in a federal > state decides. Do you suggest having horizontally different political > institutions with different responsabilities in law making who then > compete in this task? I'm not sure if they will compete, but yes, I think you've got the gist of it. It's not such a novel thing either, since this is basically how international law is made. You do need a mechanism for conflict resolution where the responsibilities of two institutions may overlap, but that is different from having a single (federal) government. Basically, this is an elaboration of the principle that decisions are made by those affected by the decision, and also takes into account that people may have several allegiances which do not necessarily coincide with any predefined territorial borders. > If I did buy it, I'd probably end by saying: "Yes, that might be better, > but that option is not yet on offer as a political reality. It's in the > air in today's political climate. Would I put my trust in abandoning the > solutions I have a chance of getting?". No "vision" or whatever you call it will ever be on offer as a political reality. So you have to assess whether the concrete changes that are on offer go in the right or wrong direction, on balance, and whether they make your long-term aims more or less achievable. > You may now attack my ideas of the ideal federalism as something you > think I won't attain in the current EU either. What is most important to > me is to play along with a change that I estimate as positive. I can't > hope for improvements if I _start_ by saying "no" when something is > happening. But that doesn't mean you have to say "yes" to everything, whether you think it's good or not? Of course not, and I don't think that was what you meant either, was it? You think that the EU has potential to be a step on the way to the kind of federalism you want. So your attitude to concrete proposals is determined on whether or not they will lead in that direction. (I believe you are making a *huge* mistake in endorsing EMU, since it seems to me like a step in the wrong direction from your point of view. But I won't press you on that right now.) My attitude to proposals for change is determined on whether or not they are compatible with the kind of world I want. I have said before that I am in favour of the idea of variable geometry. I see this as a development towards the kind of Europe (and world) I would like to see -- it chimes in quite well with my idea of overlapping, non-exclusive institutions. If the EU moves in that direction, I would reconsider my opposition -- but then again, in such a Europe the question would not be whether you're "in" or "out", but *what* you are in and out of. Sorry if this seems very confused. I have problems with thinking today... 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