Nosemonkey's EUtopia

Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union?

Nosemonkey edit: For those who think this sounds a tad familiar, the wording was originally set at the start of December (although the article linked in that post is now behind a subscription wall). It is now, however, as final as these things get. You’ll also notice that it cunningly leaves room for future maneuverings should this particular constitution prove not up to scratch, as it’s only “the treaty” which is to be approved, not necessarily the constitution itself, which in any case is referred to only as “a” constitution… Not quite as dodgy as the 1975 referendum, but no doubt the more hardened Eurosceptics among you can find some ammunition here.

By the way, here’s a summary of what changes the constitution will bring, and a quick look by Martin Stabe at a major problem with the referendum which today’s bill should be addressing.

There’s a top-notch article/review of a few books looking at the relationship between the US and Europe in the latest issue of the New York Review of Books. Interesting stuff. Apologies for the overly excessive quotation (done in case it goes to subscription):

“It is becoming clear that America and Europe are not way stations on a historical production line, such that Europeans must expect to inherit or replicate the American experience after an appropriate time lag. They are actually quite distinct places, very possibly moving in divergent directions. There are even those�including the authors of two of the books under review�for whom it is not Europe but rather the United States that is trapped in the past.”

There are some interesting statistics on offer to boot (and no, before anyone starts leaping to the wrong conclusions again, this isn’t another example of “anti-Americanism”):

“Americans live shorter lives than West Europeans. Their children are more likely to die in infancy: the US ranks twenty-sixth among industrial nations in infant mortality, with a rate double that of Sweden, higher than Slovenia’s, and only just ahead of Lithuania’s�and this despite spending 15 percent of US gross domestic product on “health care” (much of it siphoned off in the administrative costs of for-profit private networks). Sweden, by contrast, devotes just 8 percent of its GDP to health. The picture in education is very similar. In the aggregate the United States spends much more on education than the nations of Western Europe; and it has by far the best research universities in the world. Yet a recent study suggests that for every dollar the US spends on education it gets worse results than any other industrial nation. American children consistently underperform their European peers in both literacy and numeracy.”

The article’s author, NYU Professor of European Studies Tony Judt, also has perceptive things to say about the EU:

“The European Union is what it is: the largely unintended product of decades of negotiations by West European politicians seeking to uphold and advance their national and sectoral interests. That’s part of its problem: it is a compromise on a continental scale, designed by literally hundreds of committees. Actually this makes the EU more interesting and in some ways more impressive than if it merely incarnated some uncontentious utopian blueprint…

“Europe is facing real problems. But they are not the ones that American free-market critics recount with such grim glee. Yes, the European Commission periodically makes an ass of itself, aspiring to regulate the size of condoms and the curvature of cucumbers. The much-vaunted Stability Pact to constrain national expenditure and debt has broken down in acrimony, though with no discernible damage to the euro it was designed to protect. And pensions and other social provisions will be seriously underfunded in decades to come unless Europeans have more children, welcome more immigrants, work a few more years before retiring, take somewhat less generous unemployment compensation, and make it easier for businesses to employ young people. But these are not deep structural failings of the European way of life: they are difficult policy choices with political consequences…

“The European Union is almost too attractive for its own good�in contrast with the United States, which is widely disliked for what it does, the EU appeals just by virtue of what it is. Refugees and illegal immigrants from half of Africa periodically drown in their desperate efforts to cross the Straits of Gibraltar or beach themselves on Italy’s southernmost islands �or else they land safely, only to get shipped back. Turkey had been trying for nearly forty years to gain admission to the European club before its application was (reluctantly) taken up last month. Ukraine’s best hope for a stable democratic future lies inside Europe�or at least with the prospect of one day getting there, which would greatly strengthen the hand of Viktor Yushchenko and his supporters in the aftermath of their recent victory. And the same of course is true for the remnant states of former Yugoslavia. But while Brussels is all too well aware of the risks entailed in ignoring Africa or leaving Ukraine or Bosnia to fes-ter at its gates�much less casting 70 million Turkish Muslims into the fold of radical Islam�Europe’s leaders are deeply troubled at the pros-pect (and the cost) of committing the EU to extending itself to the edges of Asia.”

Judt also provides one of the best summaries of the EU constitution I’ve yet seen:

“This document arouses paranoia and anxiety in Washington (and London); but it is actually quite dull and anodyne. Much of it consists of practical prescriptions for decision-making procedures in a cumbersome body of twenty-five-plus separate sovereign states. The constitution also strengthens the role of European courts and extends the EU’s cross-border competence in criminal law and policing (a wholly laudable objective for anyone serious about fighting terrorists). But otherwise it just gives substance and application to the EU’s claim to “coordinate the economic and employment policies of the member states.” It is not a very inspiring document�its leading drafter, Val�ry Giscard d’Estaing, is no Thomas Jefferson�but it will do much practical good… Above all, it will enable Europe to continue playing to its international strengths in spite of American obstruction”.

Big, big hat tip to Perfect.co.uk for the link.

Looks like Microsoft has backed down in is attempts to claim that it doesn’t hold a monopoly on PC software, which goes against various EU regulations. A Microsoft spokesman has apparently agreed that “Rather than seeking to suspend the Commission’s remedies, Microsoft’s focus now is on working constructively with the Commission on their full and prompt implementation”.

In other words, Gates’ massive company is going to have to release details of the Windows code to competitors to enable them to better produce compatible products, as well as release a pared down version. This will be available “in the coming weeks”.

The basic complaint was that the bundling of MediaPlayer with Windows (a key part of Microsoft’s strategy according to this interview with Gates) is buggering up Quicktime and RealPlayer’s attempts to compete. Speaking as someone who has to use a Mac at work, it sounds fair enough, as .wmv files seem incapable of playing on my machine. then again, this could just be because I know nothing about technology…

Either way, monopolies are annoying. Especially when the product is so riddled with problems as much of Microsoft’s stuff is. What happened to Acorn, eh? They were always good… But then again, I do love my xbox. Hmmm…

Meanwhile, to remind everyone what a nice chap he is, Bill gates has announced he is going to donate �400 million for child vaccines in the third world, and has praised Gordon Brown and Tony Blair for their efforts to promote the cause:

“I have spoken with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown about their commitment and I am very excited about the leadership they are bringing.

�The Prime Minister has talked about Africa as one of his big priorities and I think it is pretty novel that a world leader of a developed country is giving so much visibility to these issues.

�The idea that governments could do a pretty dramatic step-up in their health spending is something I am very excited about.”

Bill Gates owns in the region of $29.5 billion of Microsoft shares, so that makes his pledge about 3% of his approximate worth. I could point out that he could probably manage a tad more (I mean, who needs THAT much money?), but that would just be petty…

By the way, today is my birthday and I want praise. Offers of money to the usual address… Or vote for this blog – it’s currently losing out to Ceteris Paribus, Versac and Crooked Timber in the Best Political Weblog category, and to Perfect.co.uk in the Best UK Blog one. Which is probably fair enough – BUT IT’S MY BIRTHDAY, DAMN IT.

Fistful‘s European blog awards has reached voting stage, and Europhobia’s up in two categories – Best Weblog From the United Kingdom and Best Political Weblog. How about bunging some votes in this direction?

As per usual with these things, it’s a fairly tough field – in some categories I genuinely can’t decide to whom to give my vote – and the range ensures that there are plenty of blogs worth checking out. Have a shufty.

Columnist and former Nixon speechwriter William Safire has today announced his retirement from the world of political punditry. One of his last columns has some great advice on How to Read a Column which naturally enough applies just as much to bloggers as to the “proper” press. A few which seem relevant to recent online debates:

Beware the pundit’s device of using a quotation from a liberal opposition figure to make a conservative case, and vice versa. Righties love to quote John F. Kennedy on life’s unfairness; lefties love to quote Ronald Reagan. Don’t fall for gilding by association.

When infuriated by an outrageous column, do not be suckered into responding with an abusive e-mail. Pundits so targeted thumb through these red-faced electronic missives with delight, saying “Hah! Got to ’em.”

Scorn personal exchanges between columnists. Observers presuming to be participants in debate remove the reader from the reality of controversy; theirs is merely a photo of a painting of a statue, or a towel-throwing contest between fight managers. Insist on columns taking on only the truly powerful, and then only kicking ’em when they’re up.

Old Ken over at EU Realist has been delving into the history books, and come up with some quotes from prominent pro-Europeans of times past which seem to confirm all Eurosceptics’ worst fears. It started with this, of which this one stood out:

�Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation” (Jean Monnet communication, 30 April 1952)

Following my suggestion that times have changed and that not all pro-Europeans necessarily have the same aims that Monnet did half a century ago, Ken came back with yet more quotes.

Here’s my vague response, posted as a comment on Ken’s site. We started off misunderstanding each other’s intentions – I thought Ken was claiming that the EU is driving towards a federal superstate, he thought I was denying that the EU is pushing for further integration and powers. It’s all off the top of my head, not backed up with any links, references or anything else, and was written while slightly sozzled after a liquid lunch, so it may not make any sense. It may, however, prompt some interesting debate. Or be mind-numbingly tedious, I don’t know…

Anyway, here it is – the point I initially refer to is that federalism is no longer the principle aim of the EU project:

The point still stands, however, no matter how many quotes you find (and there are a lot more than just that little lot – especially from the ’40s and ’50s when full-on federalism actually seemed like a desirable long-term goal). Quotes are not the same as facts.

There is certainly a minority of politicians – even leading ones – who are so idealistic as to actually want to create a United States of Europe (Ted Heath being one), but they are becoming rarer and rarer as time goes by and realpolitik takes over. It’s simply unrealistic and undesirable for all but the most idealistic of politicians.

Probably ought to clarify – further integration, yes, obviously, is an aim – including some semblance of political integration. But nowhere near as much as often seems to be claimed.

I don’t have any political philosophy reference works to hand to find the generally accepted definition of a political federation – but I’m fairly sure that by the broadest definition the EU already is one. What I am denying is the (peculiarly British) interpretation of the idea of a federal Europe being one in which nation states no longer hold any power or influence.

Ken’s response:

Federalism is not really the point, the point is that the EU is on the road to become the full government of Britain and the other states. To deny that, which you are attempting to do, flows against all of the history of the EU itself, every single treaty drives this project forward every single treaty removes power from the states and gives it to the EU. What you are doing is to deny the Monnet Method, which was designed to achieve unity in Europe by slow inconsistent unconnected moves toward integration that can be explained as something other.

Not sure what you mean by �full government�. If you mean having control over the majority of policy areas, we are blatantly still a long way off. As for �on the road� � well, in the sense that there is still a drive towards further integration, the EU is indeed on the road somewhere, and this involves gaining more influence over certain policy areas, certainly. But not you, nor I, nor they know where this road will end up � unless you have a crystal ball, that is?

I am by no means suggesting that a move to further integration is not happening now, as it obviously is � the EU project is still in its early stages (and no one knows what the final stage will be because, as is obvious from this little discussion, no one can agree yet).

I�m just trying to point out the obvious – namely that what was true in the 1950s is not the case now. What I am suggesting � as I am fairly certain that it is true � is that the drive to further integration which is happening today is happening for very different motives than was the case 40-50 years ago � even than 20 years ago. Lest we forget, in the mid to late 1940s one of the prime advocates of a European union, complete with a common army and all the rest, was Winston Churchill; he later changed his mind.

The �Monnet method� may well still be in existence, but if so the timescale has been extended to the point of being inconsequential � as I said before, there isn�t a hope in hell of this happening in either of our lifetimes, or indeed for centuries. Yet he intended for everything to be sorted by the end of the twentieth century. This proved utterly unrealistic, so plans have changed.

Monnet was also, lest we forget, working in a bipolar, Cold War world, and many then believed that building Europe into a geographically large and coherent superstate to compete alongside the USA and USSR was the best way to get by. Times and opinions change.

A fully politically integrated United States of Europe seemed like a good idea then for the mutual protection of the entire continent (nuclear bombs have a tendency not to stop spreading their radiation at national borders). Now it is less necessary for defensive purposes (although cross-border policing thanks to drug, people-trafficking and terrorist networks strikes me as a good idea with which the EU can greatly assist), and hence far, far less desirable to national political elites who want to maintain their hold on power.

The EU is not the product of one man�s vision, but a multitude of constantly-shifting opinions. It seems that, by your logic, Monnet said x, so everything the EU has been doing since has been to promote x. I might point out that in the early 1980s Tony Blair was opposed to both the EU and the United States� overseas influence. Has his sucking up to Bush and promotion of the EU constitution all been part of a masterplan to undermine both? Of course not � because times and opinions change.

If anyone else saw the permatanned buffoon on Channel Four News just now, you’ll know exactly what I mean. I hope they get video of that up – or at the very least a transcript (I’ll keep a lookout). It was a perfect Kilroy moment – self-righteous, arrogant, aggressive, and packed with a range of vague assertions (and outright lies) backed up with nothingness. The long and the short of it? As expected, he’s finally quit UKIP.

UKIP have come up with some amusing responses, slagging off Kilroy’s supposed new party, allegedly to be called Veritas (Latin for “truth”): “‘He’s going to call it “Vanitas” we hear,’ UKIP spokesman Mark Croucher said sarcastically. ‘We’ve got its manifesto. It has nothing new to offer voters other than the opportunity to swoon at Kilroy-Silk’s feet.'”

Here’s Kilroy’s take:

“I have to say that [UKIP] is regarded by those outside it as a joke. I am ashamed to be a member. I cannot ask people to vote for it because it has no policies, no spokespersons, no energy, no vision, no idea of how Britain should be governed.

“Instead I shall advise people not to vote for the party. To do otherwise will be to be dishonest, to pretend that the party has a purpose – when in fact it is a charade, an empty vessel.

“But while Ukip has turned its back on the British people, I shall not. I will be standing, at the next general election. I shall be leading a vigorous campaign for the causes I believe in.

“And, unlike the old parties, we shall be honest, open and straight”.

So, only a few months after being elected as an MEP (and promising to “wreck” the EU), Kilroy’s going to run away from his Brussels seat – abandoning the constituents who voted for him in their droves – in the vain pursuit of a return to Westminster. Hardly shows much loyalty to his constituents, does it?

He hasn’t got a hope in hell – superb! Roll on the General Election and Kilroy’s humiliating defeat!

It’s truly fantastic to have people like Kilroy running around the shop – they’re always good for a laugh. The only trouble is, after having a good chuckle you start to realise that some people actually think he’s a sensible and respectable chap who’s fully worthy of their votes…

Could Kilroy be the final proof that democracy isn’t all it’s cracked up to be?

Friday morning update: Lenin has some great turns of phrase to sum this up, and Tim Worstall spots some interesting internet-related tidbits, following the Honourable Fiend‘s note that websites for “Veritas” seem already to be taken. Meanwhile, Nick Barlow is conducting a survey to find out what people reckon Kilroy’s chances are. Not great, by the looks of things… But as has been pointed out in the comments, we don’t want to jinx it now, do we?

(By the by, can someone with better knowledge of the new electoral laws tell me whether he has to quit as an MEP before running, or only if he wins? Either way, he’s surely going to have to fundraise and campaign – he can hardly do that while fulfilling his Brussels duties, can he?)

It’s about bloody time they pulled their fingers out. As yet I haven’t been able to track down any more information about this new drive than what is contained within that short Press Association piece, but either way, it’s got to be better than the stagnant mess of the last few years.

Still (and no offence to fellow bloggers who may have been involved…) they should have got some better PR managers in – hardly anything on most of the major news websites two hours after the launch? No prominent pre-publicity? No website? (At least, it looks that way – the old Yes campaign one has been dead for ages.) If this makes the evening news (bar probably a brief mention on Channel Four) I’ll be amazed.

So, are they going to make a proper effort this time? The “Vote No” lot are organised (even if they have the occasional spat) and extremely vocal, and have been for ages. They’ve also got the advantage of preaching to a largely ignorant population who believe all the euromyths with the support of the majority of the media. It’s going to be a difficult fight.

As has been pointed out, this campaign should have launched ages ago: “if the Yes camp is to exploit the fluidity of opinion, it needs to seize the initiative. Crucial for a Yes result will be a well planned, powerfully sustained campaign. To a considerable extent, the No camp can afford to rest on their laurels. The pro-constitutionalists must start making up ground early.”

They’ve ballsed up the starting early part, but I suppose there’s still a year to go – and at least they’re finally making an effort. Nonetheless, us pro-EU lot have been waiting a long time for some kind of decent organisation, and been let down and frustrated by the lack of effort for years. I wish them luck, obviously, but they need to get their act together properly this time.

Hearts and minds, people – hearts and minds. We can’t just rely on the politicians getting everything through – that’s just going to piss the general public off. Without popular support it’s pointless – it’ll just become the undemocratic monster the Eurosceptics already claim it is…

Go on, try it on for size… Sounds great, doesn’t it? the sort of thing that’d make you truly proud to share the same nationality as such a towering figure of gravitas, common sense and political acumen.

Lose the Delusion has found the solution to all our ills.

Heh – top-notch stuff from EU-Serf, following news that the CIA reckons the EU’s economy can’t last more than another 15 years.

Yeah, because the US economy’s doing brilliantly, isn’t it?