On Thu, May 8, 1997 at 14:06:08 (-0700) Max B. Sawicky writes:
>> Europe, of course, is also a convenient way of getting these countries
>> off the hook and allowing them to move democracy one step further away from
>> the people, in hopes of getting a government more like ours, in which the
>> people don't have to be consulted with much frequency.
>
>It works the other way too. National decisions are made
>or not made in reference to the requirements or constraints
>imposed by globalization, whereas a larger federation would
>have expanded scope for decision-making by virtue of its
>size and internal coordination.
>
>An example is the EU social charter, which Tony Blair,
>target of incessant thunder-bolts on left-wing internet
>lists, is going to sign onto.
>
>Localism doesn't grant democracy. We had localism
>in the U.S., known as "states' rights". "Close to the
>people" is B.S. Democracy or its lack depends on
>the content of the law, which itself depends on other
>things, not on the mere size of a jurisdiction.
I see the EU as doing what was claimed---getting democracy away from
the hordes and into the hands of the Responsible Men, just as what
happened in the U.S. when the Articles of Confederation were felt too
weak to provide protection from democracy ("domestic rebellion", etc.)
and were dumped in favor of the Constitution. During the reign of the
A of C there was a degree of local control (due, as Max notes, to the
structure of law) which was lost when that structure was
"strengthened" to protect "the opulent few" (Madison) from the "great
beast" (Hamilton). The fake "localism" Max refers to is quite
different than that which existed during the (all too brief) time of
Daniel Shay and his ilk. This division and continuity of interests
remains to this day, and capital has had enough of the temerarious
policies which placed workers and their families on par with mere
human beings.
Bill
