Hi Sid, Thanks for your long and thoughtful response. I disagree with (or don't understand) a few points. You say you >think it is necessary for the nature of the national state to be fundamentally >altered to make it responsive to peoples' needs. As I see= it, this is a major >project in its own right. Could you explain how you see this happening? Can it happen through a democratic process itself, that is, without violence and in a manner whic= h respects everyone's right of free expression? Or must these conditions be= waived in the meantime? Is it a process you see happening through the efforts of large masses of people, or through the paternalistic efforts o= f a small group, acting (as they perceive it) on their behalf? But more to th= e point, if it can happen on the national level, can it happen on the EU le= vel as well? You are concerned >that people are [not] in control of their governments=85 [and that] the neoliberal, >globalization, deregulation, privatization, competitive agen= da is designed to = >reduce the already inadequate level of democratic control that does exis= t = >and render potential democratic pressure even less potent as a force cap= able = >of influencing social and economic policy. What is your understanding of how the "inadequate level of democratic control that does exist" came to be? Does it have anything to do with peo= ple demanding democratic representation in governments? And demanding constitutional limits on the powers of those governments? Now I think we come to a major point of misunderstanding, either yours or= mine. I don't understand how you can say the following. It seems obviousl= y contradictory to me. Could you please explain? You say that >in the current context, increasing the power of the European Parliament will >not alter the state of affairs that we both agree is unsatisfactory= -- that power >is currently in the hands of European Commission bureaucrats hell bent on >pursuing a regressive social and economic agenda. Given the= current set up, >increasing the power of the European Parliament will onl= y serve to increase >the power of these bureaucrats. I simply don't understand. The Commission is the EU's executive. If we ha= ve an executive out of touch with the people, and we have the possibility of= increasing the power of the people's representatives (elected directly, n= ot through their national governments), then increasing the power of the democratically-elected legislature vis-a-vis the executive (who else?) directly shifts power from unaccountable bureaucrats to the people's representatives. How would that serve to increase the power of the bureaucrats? This is my whole point: There *are* issues that need to be dealt with on a Europe-wide basis, and they *can* be dealt with more democratically, and it involves increasing the power of the European Parliament vis-a-vis the unelected bureaucrats of the Commission (and the= national governments operating "diplomatically" through the Council of Ministers). You wonder >Why is advocating less power for the Eurocrats unrealistic? But I hope it's clear by now that that's precisely not what I said, and n= ot what I meant. I *do* think it's realistic to reduce the power of the Eurocrats, and one way to do so is by increasing the power of the people'= s directly-elected representatives. (The other way, which I also mentioned,= is by defining and limiting the powers of the EU as a whole, and of its branches, in a clear constitutional document. It is these constitutional limits which, as I said, are sadly lacking at present.) I do think it's unrealistic to think that there will be progress by tryin= g to obstruct the EU in its core (Europe-wide) functions, perhaps by trying= to get nations (such as Sweden) to withdraw from the EU. (And people here se= em to recognize that too: There isn't much of a movement for withdrawal, despite widespread dissatisfaction with the way things are.) Why is it unrealistic? Because it's clear that momentum is going the other way, bot= h because there really *are* Europe-wide issues to be dealt with (peace, th= e environment and control of transnational corporations, to name a few), an= d because so many other nations (to the east and south) are lined up eager = to join. I think it would be better to have a clear constitutional structure, including powerful people's representatives to keep track of the Eurocrat= s, before that expansion takes place. Otherwise, it *will* simply be more po= wer to the Eurocrats. Regards, Rick
