[extropy-chat] Re: POL(L): The Constitution of Europe

[Dirk Bruere]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JDP" <jacques at dtext.com>
To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: POL(L): The Constitution of Europe


> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
> >>Suppose a situation similar to WWII, with fascist Germany invading
> >>nearby countries, and causing a potentially global threat, and where the
> >>US got involved. Will a politically loose Europe manage to make the
> >>decision to get involved, or will it stay irresolute and passive while
> >>no clear agreement can be reached by the member States, except on the
> >>most extreme cases?
> >
> >
> > Hopefully, it would stay out of other peoples business.
>
> Do you mean that the involvement of the US in France in WWII is
regrettable?

Why not go to the root of that particular problem, WW1?
Yes - it was 'regrettable' for us (Britain and the US, not to mention
Russia) to get involved.

> I don't buy "staying out of other people's business" as an absolute rule
> in individual matters, and I don't buy it in inter-national matters
> either. Sometimes it is good to get involved, though of course
> potentially messy.

Thin end of an ugly wedge.

> I believe in the possibility of benevolent power ("benevolent" here not
> meaning "exclusively altruistic"), and in fact powerless benevolence is
> generally quite useless.
>
> >>In other words, can Europe really leverage its military (and economic)
> >>power as a bloc while preserving the freedom and independence of its
> >>member States? Can you have the advantages of being a big State when you
> >>are a loose, ad hoc federation?
> >
> >
> > I do not call neo-imperialism and a huge military/industrial complex an
> > 'advantage'.
>
> I was reasoning in terms of adequacy to certain ends. I was trying to
> take your initial answer to "why do we need a formal Europe at all" and
> question the fact that the bloc benefit you mentioned as an answer could
> be had without the political unity.

What level of unity?
That of a superstate that dictates every facet of citizens lives, down to
school timetables, from Brussels?
Or that of a federation of independent states that co-operates on
*inter*national matters?
I prefer the latter ie something akin to the early US model - not the post
civil war state.

> But I understand your answer to be that the bloc benefit is about
> preserving one's independence while staying out of other people
> business, and that you think a European Confederation is a necessary and
> adequate way to this end. Thanks for your answer.

Only one particular model of confederation.
That is what all the argument is about.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org