Response to Sam Jackson:
The Union trace it's roots to 1951 making the development reach just over sixty years, making it a long and slowly tested cooperation. I appreciate that this is not what you refer to, but I want to include that when considering - in my view - the astounding reach of humility and strength for these former enemies to begin cooperation so shortly after - and because of - the war in this way. The now twenty year old actual European Union has been speedy as per economic integration and enlargement. It is of course the breakup of the Soviet union that facilitated this change of pace.
I don't agree that there is a blaze attitude or lack of democratic will in the EU, but I think I understand where you are coming from and I can think of a number of things you might present as examples of just that, but I think one must appreciate that to build a democratic cooperation of international democracy like we are doing, we can only do that step by step, and for great lengths the member states will only carefully share parts of what has previously been the sole privilege of the national state. This means that the EU can only develop and be as democratic as the member states are prepared to let it be, and as a consequence, for the EU institutions to become more democratic, the more membership governments have to give up control like vetoes or ceding powers to the commonly elected European parliament.
Building an regional cooperation with international democracy to include a common civilization like this has never been done before, and we don't know how it is supposed to look like. We have to find common solutions for common needs in an increasingly multipolar world that - outside of Europe - is not sleeping or static.
I think that if we try to copy old solutions to new political situations we have not gained that much. One can argue differences between a federation and a confederation, but I don't actively support a European federation. I don't believe we need that, and I actually think it could be detrimental to the European idea. Even so, in the end, I can live with any solution that caters to democratic values and the safety and stability of this European family.
I am a big supporter of a confederation and I think that we can speak with one voice in where it's needed, in unison in some and separately in other areas. I think there are too many naysayers in European politics for democracy to be abandoned. There is no lack of criticism in the EU; a key commodity in democracy.
But as democracy means eternal compromise and no inventions are really new but new combinations of old ones, I think we can expect a steady mix of disappointments and surprises.
To me, a Union without the British countries is unthinkable - pretty or not. However, I think we must accept that we can't expect that all countries must move in unison, but to let some countries deepen their cooperation in different areas where others might follow. I understand that this means a risk of developing and creating differences that could come into conflict with the interests of the whole which would be contradictory of the project to begin with, as well as a risk of creating distance to some countries "left behind" who have increasing difficulties or willingness to "catch up". For that I think we must be wary.
I don't think that England will leave the EU, but I do understand that there are opinions of not having had the chance to vote for membership in a referendum, like most countries did. I think it would be fair for the british to have a referendum, and I think that there will always be voices for that until it happens.
Then again there are many things that our governments have decided and decide with the powers of and in a representative democratic context during our lives. No people vote to take part in NATO, the UN, providing aid to developing countries or engage in military conflict. Maybe we should to a greater extent, but we don't expect to, and our elected representatives are supposed to take most of these decisions for us. We also have to live with historic events, our parents decisions and global aspects out of our reach.
Maybe you can find some comfort in that the British - as one of the big six - have a greater say in the EU than most of the members.
I appreciate your well informed response Michael - And i do understand completely what you mean in regards to it's beginnings after the second World War - And it is a big step to go from such a state of war towards a close-knit integrated community. Of course i would not be eager to put Europe back into it's war-torn state, but i am concerned about the effect that such a big change to the nature of sovereignty and democracy in such a short a short time is having and going to have on European countries.
I do agree with you that the democratic nature of the EU is limited by the state of democracy in member countries, and I appreciate that most transitions aren't smooth at the very least, but then I would argue that in that case the EU should be aiming also to set a new standard for democracy, although I do understand - ironic as it sounds, that a purer form of democracy would make it more difficult for the EU to progress, as with such an large investment in this project, they can't just drop all their tools and give up when someone says 'No'.
I would argue that the main problem, at least from my perspective, is the distance from the upper echelons of the EU to us at the bottom. Our own parliaments can be distant enough most of the time, and dishonest enough - but when it comes to the European Parliament, Commission and Council there are vast distances - And if the governments of individual member states so often do not represent the national interest despite being in power, then it seems highly improbable that such distant, almost god-like figures in these institutions can be doing what is in a European interest. It often seems that they have their ideas, and they aren't going to let some pesky plebeians get in their way :].
I understand what you are saying about the position of the UK in the EU, that's partly why i think a referendum would be important for the whole of the EU, and not just ourselves. If we just got that out of the way then a 'Stay in' vote would likely lead to more integration faster and would be beneficial to the EU, and a 'No' vote would at least resolve things and allow them to progress in whatever form.
Another factor that I think will be a big issue, especially if the EU goes 'all the way' so to speak, is the idea of national identities. Even with all the ideas of European-ness being pushed for at the moment, i don't expect that people of such varied national identities are all going to just drop those for a new identity. I also think that inevitably given human nature as much as they push for this idea to become real, they will push others away from it just as readily. At least from what i've seen, if someone has preconceived ideas about something, the more you push them the more they will back away.
I don't agree with the idea that what is applied to the NATO and the UN can be applied to our governments however, it is only a small step between 'our elected representatives are supposed to take most of these decisions for us' and 'our elected representatives take our decisions for us', currently i find it difficult to segregate the two. It seems that largely politicians apply to the populace using their concerns as a platform on which to gain power, and then proceed with whatever
they want, it's a strange system really and perhaps the democratic ideal is in fact something that is proposed to exist, but hasn't been yet found itself, as it is only able to form on systems on a sliding scale ranging from anarchy to totalitarianism.
My point is that i don't expect the EU system to result in anything better than what we already had individually, only the stakes are much, much higher. It will either make or break Europe, that is true. And i know that if so many people, even in the UK, can't trust their employees to do their job properly, then i don't fancy entrusting more power to people politically further away. It's a sad irony i think that the most honest politicians have the least power.
I'm sorry this lost cohesion a bit towards the end, but yes to summarize - It seems like a project of the European politicians and not one of Europeans. I support cooperation and good relations within Europe, we need it after the bad start to the last century in particular, and i think we could achieve a great deal with cooperation in certain areas. But i don't think that is the same as political dominance. In short, i feel we should work together, i see no reason for hostilities, but that doesn't mean i want to be in a political union held together by people i wouldn't trust with themselves, let alone hundreds of millions of people. I think one problem is that pro-EU people often have trouble understanding why on earth anti-EU people would ever think what they do, and that anti-EU people think the same of pro-EU people.
Thanks for your reply - It's much better to read than 'I'm pro-EU because i am' or 'I am anti-EU because i am', although i sometimes feel like that myself haha.
Oh and just while it's fresh in my head again - I think a blaize attitude to democracy and lack of democratic will permeates throughout political classes in most places, but the EU is just as bad. Politicians are getting complacent again, and need to be kept on their feet for everyone's sake.
But yeah, i'm getting tired now so i'll stop there.
Kind Regards,
Sam Jackson
