(no subject)

[liadnan]

I've started writing posts about three times and deleted them... I'm tired, depressed, and have little to say at present: caught between feeling lonely and feeling antisocial. Whichever way I go this evening I suspect it will end with feeling drunk...

To entertain myself, I've been reading the final draft of the proposed EU Constitution (it's an odd use of entertain, but my own). As some of you know, I am fairly sceptical about the Europe we have, though not about the idea of Europe... but in any event this is illiterate and incomprehensible bollocks. Particularly the preamble, which was discussed on Today this morning. "We the people" it surely ain't. And, as Peter Jones pointed out, the rather pompous quotation from Thucydides is mistranslated, or at best very loosely translated, at least in the English edition.

Then it starts talking about "re-united Europe". When, pray, was "Europe" last united? (No, not the Roman Empire, which didn't extend to most of Germany for a start.)

Ho hum.

Comments

[sharp-blue.livejournal.com]

The Third Reich united a fair chunk of it, as did Napoleon's empire. Not all, by any means though.

[liadnan]

Hah. Yes, I thought of mentioning that, but feared I'd be accused of making a cheap political point I don't really believe. There's the HRE I suppose, at least under Charlemagne, but anyone who thinks that was united wants their head looking at.

[sharp-blue.livejournal.com]

So you don't think they were going for that angle then?

[fairymelusine.livejournal.com]

Okay. An admission. Rail as I do against the law, I've bookmarked that link myself to peruse at my leisure ... I find both Constitutional Law generally and the total weirdness of the dual status of 'United Europe' and those pesky individual member states with centuries of Identity completely fascinating. Wrote my legal thesis on the subject, actually.

Sigh. Okay, so I'm a loser. It's official. I need a hobby.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, I really hate to post incognito, but I can't seem to get an account with this outfit...
While I agree that "re-unite" certainly is a poor choice of words (and who ever could stand Giscard anyway?), I do think that it refers not to any sort of political/imperial unity, but rather to a certain mentality of cultural affinity. In other words, to whatever existed, or at least what I think existed, before someone decided to draw a line down the middle of the continent.

[liadnan]

But I simply don't agree that any such political affinity has ever existed, not including all the territory of the now 25 countries.

[liadnan]

.. incidentally, who are you?

As of the other day you no longer need an invite code to set up an account.

[greyarea.livejournal.com]

I listened to that on Today, and it was most amusing. Hearing both guests railing against it actually managed to make me smile through a rampant hangover.

[liadnan]

Hah. Is always good when they've lined up two people to go head to head and turns out they end up agreeing.

[arafel2.livejournal.com]

At least for me, feeling lonely and/or antisocial doesn't mix very well with getting drunk. Tends to make it worse, actually. Don't know about you.

[fairymelusine.livejournal.com]

Tonight I finally get around to reading this thing.

Lordy.

[liadnan]

Well, the whole thing quietly died on Saturday, at least for the present. And it wasn't even us this time (French and Gerrmans v Poles and Spanish over voting weights).

[fairymelusine.livejournal.com]

Are they giving it another go? (she says, not bothering to find out anything herself ...)

[liadnan]

Not for a while: as in a few years I suspect.

[fairymelusine.livejournal.com]

Sigh. That's a shame. It's such a good idea in theory, even if it's such a mess in reality.

[liadnan]

Well, it merely means we continue under the previous Treaty, Nice-amending-Amsterdam-amending-Maastricht-amending-etc.
Europe in principle is a fine idea. Europe in practice is the Common Agricultural Policy; a tendency to be a Rich Countries Club; a Court of Auditors that refuses to write off the accounts because it says it cannot account for more than half the money; an undemocratic procedure; and a group of nations whose desire to overcome a history of mutual antagonism has so far failed to overcome the problems of the lack of a common language and two wildly divergent notions of what The State and Law are all about.

[fairymelusine.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know. But the treaties don't have that Statement of Principles, or whatever the Bill of Rights portion is called ... and that's some really interesting stuff - to me, anyway.

And it's all that mutual antagonism and lack of a common language and differing legal systems that makes the whole thing so fascinating. I mean, the very notion of Europe 'uniting' is somewhat absurd, given all of those things. However, so far something has been created that is 'working' on one level or another, and that means that more progress is as least feasible, if not absolutely possible. And that's wacky. Moreover, I really wonder at the 'why' behind it all ... is it simply for protection and the creation of a more powerful force in the world as each of these countries are pretty much used to ruling the joint? (check out that preamble, man ... 'creation of civilisation' ... ) I mean, I can't imagine a more powerful motivator for compromise than the fear of becoming a collection of second class countries in a New World Order. Which means they'll have to figure something out ...

Babbling. Sorry.