Comments on: Referendums

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:45:28 +0000

greg wrote:

As for Thorley’s claims that the only good reasons for the Union becoming a proper federation are that the US would be relieved of the burden of defending Europe, and the loss of a European seat on the UN’s Security Council… Are these arguments made from a European position? Or an American one?

My comments were obviously about the advantages to the United States in that it would decrease European voting power in the United Nations and may prove the impetus for relieving the United States of the manageable burden of providing for the military defense of Europe. If you know of any other advantages to the United States in the creation of a European super-State, I am willing to consider them.

If the latter, why the babbling about what Europe should be? Surely that’s for the Europeans to decide.

Granted, however considering that the Europeans, Canadians, Aussies, and others on this forum have never been reluctant to “babble” as to what the United States should do or not do about a particular issue, it seems disingenuous to criticize an American for opining about a European proposal to create what some have admitted is an attempt to build a rival or counter-weighted “super power” to the United States.

And the American defence umbrella is largely a myth anyway.

Not from what I’ve read:

The most obvious benefit to the United States of the proposed EU defense organization is a decrease in the financial burdens that the U.S. now carries for operations in Europe. The United States currently supplies nearly 20% of all peacekeepers in Bosnia and around 15% of the troops in Kosovo. The five year-old Bosnia peacekeeping operation cost the United States an average of $1.8 billion a year between 1995 and 1999. This year, the Pentagon asked for and Congress appropriated another $2 billion for the U.S. contingent in Kosovo. Since both Kosovo and Bosnia are NATO-led operations, the United States, as the leading member of the Alliance, is expected to contribute forces commensurate with its capabilities – an expectation which many in Congress see as an excuse for Europe to do less. Should the EU assume overall responsibility for future peacekeeping in Europe, the United States would not automatically be expected to participate. The United States also has carried the largest burden in NATO of combat operations in Europe. During the 1999 air war against Yugoslavia, 731 of the 1,058 aircraft involved were American. The cost of the air war to the United States was $5.5 billion. If future combat operations of this nature (“secondary contingencies short of general war”) were carried out under the European Union banner, U.S. forces would not be put at risk and the United States would be spared the direct expense of participating. But it is an open question whether the planned EU force will be willing to carry out more than straightforward peacekeeping operations on the continent. The vaguely formulated “peacemaking” task assigned to the force may or may not include operations at the level of combat intensity of the air war against Yugoslavia.

Source: http://www.cdi.org/dm/2000/issue4/debunk.html AFAICT, Europe still relies heavily on NATO for its defense. The inability of European nations to deal with the former Yugoslavia on their own without the United States providing the bulk of the air power, cruise missiles, and a significant cost (although easily manageable to the United States) for ground personnel and funding, demonstrates that they have quite a ways to go to get their military house in order. If a European super-state leads to them assuming a greater share of their defense burden, then it would IMNHO be an advantage to the United States as we would no longer be subsidizing their military at the expense of American blood and treasure.

By: greg

greg — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:42:35 +0000

And let’s not forget that everybody who’s joined up to this point has signed up to an ‘ever-closer union’. It’s nonsense to say the EU should be no more than a free trade area. Says who? After all, even the ever truculent Brits signed up to this thirty or so years ago. As for Thorley’s claims that the only good reasons for the Union becoming a proper federation are that the US would be relieved of the burden of defending Europe, and the loss of a European seat on the UN’s Security Council… Are these arguments made from a European position? Or an American one? If the latter, why the babbling about what Europe should be? Surely that’s for the Europeans to decide. And the American defence umbrella is largely a myth anyway. The last SACEUR has openly stated that Europeans should support America’s missile defence plans, as America would be more likely to defend London or Paris from missile attack if they knew that doing so wouldn’t expose New York to attack… …which shows how much time the American establishment has for NATO’s mutual defence clause.

By: Will

Will — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:47:41 +0000

Scott You’re not wrong about the difficulty of passing referenda (leaving aside if this one will be especially difficult because of its content). The reason why referenda have become so important in UK politics (and elsewhere in Europe)is the acknowledgement that within national political systems there is no constraint on national executives making any agreement they want, since neither national parliaments nor national parties will restrain them. That leaves a referendum as the only constraint going. Yes, lots of referenda may be too difficult. But Tony Blair’s (or the average EU PM’s) say-so alone is too easy. If we had real parliamentary constraints and legislative politics in Europe, as in US states, then constitutional change could be meaningfully contested without referenda.

By: Scott Martens

Scott Martens — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:11:45 +0000

But there is a problem here. There is no agreement of any kind that would both actually be meaningful and could pass a referndum in 25 different countries. I doubt any such agreement could pass in three countries. Nor is there a real answer in saying that the EU shouldn’t be anything more than a free trade area. I can not recall a single free trade agreement in the history of the entire world surviving a referendum. Had it been the subject of a referendum, there is no chance whatsoever that NAFTA would have come into force. It’s difficult enough to get the corrupt politicians who supported it in the first place to stay behind it when they discover that free trade means they have to lower trade barriers, instead of just having other countries lower them. No federal state anywhere subjects amendments to its constitution to unanimous passage among any set of constitutents larger than three. Federalism is not possible under those conditions. It is not compatible with a universal veto by referendum. No multilateral system of governance ever could be.

By: Luc

Luc — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:22:32 +0000

The EU has never been only about a common market, or industrial policy. The quote “the first concrete foundation of a European federation” from Robert Schuman, is part of the history of the EU. To scrap this ideal because of a referendum about something else, is not going to happen. A bit of googling gave me a bit more info. From the proposed constitution: Article IV-7 point 3. If, two years after the signature of the Treaty establishing the Constitution, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council. With the following comment from “The Constitution – reader friendly edition by Jens-Peter Bonde” Political decision among Prime Ministers if up to 20 % of the Member States fail to ratify within 2 years. http://www.euabc.com/upload/pdf/draft/rf_constitution_en.pdf

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:38:17 +0000

Lots of long term ambitions end up not working out. And if in this case it doesn’t work out because many of the people in Europe don’t like the direction in which they are being channeled by their leaders, I don’t see the harm.

Me neither, I supported the notion of a Common Market to allow a freer flow of goods and services across borders (and also to put pressure on curtailing the European Nanny States particularly in industrial policy) but I see only two advantages to trying to create an actual “United States of Europe” or whatever. First, if the USE member-nations have to begin to assume full responsibility for their own national defense rather than being subsidized by American blood and treasure, it would relieve the United States of an expensive (albeit relatively easy to manage) burden. Second, if they form one government, then they would presumably have to decrease their number of votes in the United Nations and the Security Council to one. Other than that, it seems like a bad idea.

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:48:04 +0000

In re the third point: Except that the present arrangements aren’t working very well for 15 and will barely work at all for 25. Standing still is not a viable option. It’s also unlikely that the UK would be the one and only ‘no’ vote. The British debate, as far as I can tell, is a bit self-centered—as, in fairness, are almost all of the national debates I have any acquaintance with. What will the EU do with four or five ‘no’ votes from significant countries? We may get to find out. Referendum season will be big fun…

By: MJ

MJ — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:19:11 +0000

It is impossible for the EU to revert to a simple free-trade area. Maybe, at a stretch, to a simple customs union. And the harm would be great. Very great indeed.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 08:31:24 +0000

“It is unthinkable that an ambition of over 50 years old, to create a federal Europe, is scaled back to a “free trade area” because of a referendum about a proposed constitution.” Typical. Lots of long term ambitions end up not working out. And if in this case it doesn’t work out because many of the people in Europe don’t like the direction in which they are being channeled by their leaders, I don’t see the harm.

By: Henry

Henry — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 04:54:16 +0000

In all fairness, Dan, I should admit that it’s a source of some contention among political scientists too (I’ve heard bar-room claims for both sides of the argument)

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 04:44:29 +0000

I’m very happy about this. At one time, I argued strenuously in favour of plurals like “referendums”, and worried about counterarguments based on etymology. In this post, I’m pleased to say, I wrote “referendums” at least half a dozen times without even recalling that there was another option.

By: Luc

Luc — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 02:34:43 +0000

Otherwise, it would be necessary to scale back the ambitions of the European Project to something more like a Free Trade Area and less like a United States of Europe. It is unthinkable that an ambition of over 50 years old, to create a federal Europe, is scaled back to a “free trade area” because of a referendum about a proposed constitution. From http://europa.eu.int/abc/symbols/9-may/euday_en.htm : … Probably very few people in Europe know that on 9 May 1950 the first move was made towards the creation of what is now known as the European Union. In Paris that day, against the background of the threat of a Third World War engulfing the whole of Europe, the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman read to the international press a declaration calling France, Germany and other European countries to pool together their coal and steel production as “the first concrete foundation of a European federation”. A more likely scenario would be that if a number of countries reject the constitution, it will be renegotiated, and interim solutions will be decided upon in the council of the EU. I doubt that a two-speed solution can be found for the issues dealt with in the proposed constitution. For the pro/against positions in the UK see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1200402,00.html

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 02:16:11 +0000

Oh, sure—bring up the OED, why don’t you. Talk about argument from authority! Aaaarrrgggh…. Sorry. I’m okay now.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:36:57 +0000

I assume you mean that you can never be sure of the result before it happens? Here we can’t be sure of the results of our elections even after they happen….

By: Henry

Henry — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:59:14 +0000

From the Oxford English Dictionary bq. In terms of its Latin origin, referendums is logically preferable as a modern plural form meaning ballots on one issue (as a Latin gerund referendum has no plural); the Latin plural gerundive referenda, meaning ‘things to be referred’, necessarily connotes a plurality of issues. Those who prefer the form referenda are presumably using words like agenda and memoranda as models. Usage varies at the present time (1981), but The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (1981) recommends referendums, and this form seems likely to prevail.