Re: CHAT: national identity

In message <373E2E27.17510B2A@...>, Tom Wier
<artabanos@...> writes

>The comparison I've often heard is that the EU is becoming something
>like what the US was before the Constitution, i.e., a confederation of
>mutually cooperating independent nations bound under "a firm league
>of friendship".   What kinds of powers does the EU central government
>have?  The US central government under the Articles of Confederation, e.g.,
>didn't even have the power to tax, having to rely on donations by the
>member States to run its business; all laws had to pass by 2/3 vote, and
>ammendments to the Articles required unanimity.  Which makes it clear
>why the Constitution was later required so soon (and perhaps might
>foresee problems with a European confederation? Different context, though).
I wish I could give a coherent answer, but I can't.  The relationship
between the states and the EU is governed by a whole mess of jobbing
treaties, agreements and conventions.  Also the EU is not the only
continent-wide organisation; there is also the Council of Europe, the
European Convention on Human Rights and the Western European Union
(which deals mostly with defence issues), for example.  It's far from
clear that the EU bodies constitute a government in any ordinary sense.
Power really lies with the Council of Ministers, who are representatives
of the governments of the states.  Most of their decisions are taken by
"qualified majority voting" (don't ask) but some must be unanimous.  The
EU does not have tax-raising powers directly, but there are set levies
on the states, which they can raise how they like.  But most continent-
wide legislation deals with things which in the US would definitely be
regarded as state issues, whereas the things which in the US are federal
issues (foreign policy, defence, big things like that) are reserved
strictly for the states.

It's a kind of upside-down confederation in a way.  In US terms it would
be as if US Senators were representatives of the State governments, the
state finance secretaries for finacial matters, the agricultural
secretaries for agricultural matters, and so on.  The House of
Representatives, although elected, would be purely advisory.  The
Senate's decision-making powers would be restricted to things like how
much subsidy farmers got, the shape of cornflake boxes, the minimum size
of saleable potatoes, and regulations for inter-state trade; for
important things, the Senate would have to be unanimous for a decision
to be taken.  The States would each have their own armed forces and
embassies in foreign countries; some of them would be republics and some
monarchies, and some would be federations in their own right.  Each
State would have its own language or languages.  The federal cabinet
would be appointed by the State governments, with the big States having
two cabinet members and the others one.  The President would be
appointed by haggling between the State governments.  The President and
the cabinet would only have powers to carry out the decisions of the
Senate, and nothing else.  The single real power the House would have
would be to dismiss the President and the cabinet wholesale.

>That's an interesting problem.  It makes me wonder, for what seems like
>the millionth time, why so many European nations continue to have
>unitary states, when there is a quite obvious desire on the part of
>minority regions in many countries (England, France, Italy, and especially
>Spain) to have some sort of extended local control over their own affairs.
>The US solved this problem by *assuming* power lies with the states,
>and the Federal government solves only those things that the states
>individually can't handle (like the military, foreign policy, etc.).
I think part of the thing is that in the US you started with a clean
sheet in many ways.  Your honourable Founders were a small group of
people who were able to do more-or-less what they liked, within reason.
Our states, on the other hand, have hundreds of years of different
histories behind them, with their own leading groups, interests and
ancient animosities, and speaking many different langauges.  It simply
isn't feasible to toss the map onto the fire and start from scratch,
much as many people would like to.  You can see from Yugoslavia what
happens when people try it.  And after all, even in the US you didn't
get by without a major civil war to decide the constitutional framework.
We'd rather not do that.

The basis of the EU was an honourable determination of the French and
Germans not to let their traditional hostility tear the continent to
bits again, but the founders were canny enough to realise that it would
have to be done bit-by-bit, and that's what's happening.  Really we
can't tell what the end of it will be: this site is under construction.
It's all very, very difficult.  The next set of states to be admitted to
the EU will probably include Slovenia (which was part of Yugoslavia),
the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland (which spent 1948-1989 as
communist states) and Estonia (which used to be part of the USSR).  Big
problems.

>(Sorry if I tend to drone on about America... I'm a history buff, and it's
>showing through... ;-)  )
No problem - but this is off-topic to say the least so I think I'll shut
up now.

--John

--
John Fisher   john@drummond.demon.co.uk   johnf@epcc.ed.ac.uk
Elet Anta website: http://www.drummond.demon.co.uk/anta/
Drummond ro cleshfan merec; fanye litoc, inye litoc