Re: World Government: please comment on my paragraph for the Köhler volu

In response to Arno Tausch:
>
>I am asking you for a short comment on a little paragraph I wrote in the
>context of a debate for a collective volume, to be edited be Gernot Köhler
>
Since Arno Tausch asks for comments I have to admit I find this a strange
paper - strange sociology, strange history, strange economics, strange law -
and above all wishes substituting for realistic analysis.

E.g.:

>Of course, a European constitution is necessary, as well as a true European
>constitutional and administrative court, that would substitute and enlarge
>the present legal bodies.

I don't gather what that means at all - law is single: there's ONE law - not
constitutional law, administrative law etc. You could have, say, EU national
courts (which would shorten the present procedure of appealing to the
European court) where you could appeal to a European supreme court but you
can't have a `constitutional and administrative court'.

Albeit, if Arno wants EU courts on the country or region-level to substitute
for the jurisdiction of national courts that means 21 countries have to
abolish their legal system (for you can't have TWO sovereignties over a
single territory). Does Arno really think there's the slightest prospect any
parliament of a EU-country - or Europe's population - will concede to that ?

For example, I don't see the slightest prospect Britain is going to abolish
the Common Law, which has been the foundation-stone of the whole country
since the Magna Carta - in favor of a Napoleontic legal model, dictated by a
supreme court in Brussels. And if Britain doesn't want to collaborate who
says Estonia, say, will?

Parliament must be the locus of politics, and not the
>counting of the numbers behind the scenes, and trading - as before -
measure
>x for support of measure y in coalition with z.

Now, Arno, may condemn this as much as he likes, but isn't that what
politics is all about ? Politics IS the art of compromise between varying
coalitions - trading measure x in support of measure y, counting numbers in
the corridors, what have you ... The alternative would be a kind of
authoritarian technocracy (probably every Eurocrat's dream ..) in which
measures are purely rated by their `efficiency' rather than by their
political expediency, for, alas, politicians do have these bothersome voters
(and citizens !) to count with - technocrats do not. I'm pretty sure what I
prefer ...

>Parliament must be strengthened,

Meaning you'll get more trading measure X for measure Y for that's what a
Parliament normally does.

and there should be a second chamber of the European
>parliament as well - one 'House of Representatives' based on roughly equal
>electoral districts, with 1 million inhabitants electing 1 MP (for the
>smaller states with a population of less than 1 million, there must be an
>exception), and one 'upper house', a European Senate, giving each member
>country exactly 2 seats, irrespective of the population size of the
country.

Does Arno see that as a workable solution ? In the real world the senate
would immediately block the decisions of the European Parliament if any
country saw its interests endangered by the Parliament. And with 21 (let
alone 40) countries you're going to have that on any major decision: if the
European Parliament say voted for something favoring beer-drinkers (a
majority of the European population), the wine-drinking countries' block
(majority of countries) in the senate would immediately veto the decision of
the parliament .

Hence, final responsibility has to be laid with one of these bodies, so that
for example the `upper-house' may merely delay the decisions of the
parliament. But if the upper house is not going to have any real legislative
power -  in that case what's the use of it at all ?

>To avoid the kind of distribution coalition building so typical for many
>European political systems, based on proportional representation, there
>should be at least a mixture of proportional and direct representation,
>based on the present German electoral model, if not an outright copy of the
>British electoral system altogether.
>
I don't have a clue what this means: Britain (except for Northern Ireland)
doesn't have proportional representation. Do you mean proportional
representation should be replaced by a district system throughout Europe ?

If so, do you think any of the countries which now have proportional
representation is going to accept such a major constitutional change for
which you generally need a 75% majority in your parliament ? I don't think
you're EVER going to obtain something like that - for it's going to be
REALLY tough to obtain a 75% majority on something already as vague and
(let's face it) as unpopular among voters as the EU - and, again, this must
be done in all countries.

>By allowing for full-fledged democracy on the European level

Sounds magnificent of course - but what does `full-fledged' democracy mean ?
Does it mean that national parliaments are not going to have any say over
the EU anymore. For `full-fledged' democracy must mean that national
parliaments don't have veto-rights over EU decisions. Otherwise you can not
have a democracy on a European level but you get a situation (as John Major
put it) "where all EU-countries are equal but some are more equal than
others."

In that case does Arno really think ANY national parliament is going to vote
itself out of existence ? (And, remember, this must SIMULTANEOUSLY happen in
21 states in addition) - for if, say, the Hague votes itself out of
existence but acts of the European parliament still have to be approved by
Parliament in Westminster you don't have European democracy. Instead, you
have an additional constitutional layer in some countries and not in others,
where Westminster can decide not to carry out a democratic decision taken by
the majority in Europe (which, sadly, may not be a British majority).

combined with
>a socio-liberal social policy, based on a market economy, an active human
>capital formation, gender empowerment, an economic policy, that largely
ends state subventions for energy misuse and private transport, and an open
>system of migration policy, generally modeled around the existing patterns
>of migration policy in countries like Australia, Canada, and the United
>States of America

Australia has a VERY restrictive immigration-policy, which totally differs
from that of Canada.

>so, there would be enough room for a real economic and social
>recovery on the level of the European states.

This, again, is totally unrealistic. Given the present correlation of forces
in Western
Europe, NO parliament in Europe is EVER going to permit free migration to
Western Europe. If it did it would simply give too much trouble either with
the unions (`our jobs threatened by dirty foreigners') or with the extreme
right. The only result of permitting free migration would be that `Vlaams
blok' the `Lega Lombarda' or the `Front National' would become ruling
parties. We already saw the misery with the OVP, now imagine the same
happening in France  - the driving force in the EU!

It goes without saying, that
>the insane agricultural policy of the European Union and all forms of other
>protectionism must be ended,

It does not go without saying at all. Given its inefficiency, the large
amounts of labor on the land and their major influence on national
politics, if, say, Poland became a member-state, there must either be a
system of
agrarian subsidies or Polish farmers would go bankrupt in the millions. NO
Polish government would ever accept something that. Hence, it will press the
EU into subsidizing the Polish farmers.

Now - if you have a system of subsidies for Polish farmers already, French
farmers
will argue they still need subsidies too. And you'll get the normal scenes -
tractors blocking the European roads, farmers throwing `fertilizers' on the
steps of the European Parliament etc. - and the EU is going to bend for that
pressure sooner or later. Witness the recent action of the truck-drivers,
now - imagine that on a twenty time's bigger scale - do you really think the
EU could resist something like that for months?

Likewise - given their enormous influence on the EU - there's simply no
realistic way you can abolish cloaked subsidies to the medicine-industry
lobby.

I could go on with coal - which again would become an enormous problem if
Poland became an EU-member, not even to speak about Rumania - do you really
think Rumania would concede closing down its mines, when the miners already
nearly toppled the government once before ?

Such problems are bound to occur with most - if not all - of eastern
European industries. But if the EU is to heavily subsidize the industry in
Eastern Europe (to forestall catastrophic unemployment) don't you think
western European industry is going to demand `tit for tat' ?

In short - given the present correlation of forces in the EU there's NO way
you can abolish subsidies. That may be sad for the rest of the world but a
German worker in Bavaria is more likely to favor support for a workers in
Thueringen, than for any worker in Nicaragua (let alone the US or South
Korea).

in favor of a large-scale policy of 'negative
>income taxation' and a basic social minimum, that at the same times
>abolishes most other forms of state intervention in the economy.

Utterly infeasible - some countries in Europe (Britain, the Netherlands)
have means to enforce tax-laws - other countries have not (and don't want to
have it either). If you're going to introduce negative income taxation on a
European level, then the result will be that the `upper' and `lower'
brackets of incomes in, say, Italy (not even to speak about Eastern Europe)
are simply not going to pay taxes.

Now - how on earth are you going to enforce that the Italian state force its
subjects to pay taxes: by, say, submitting Italy to martial law for that
would be the only way (and if so who's going to do that) ?

And - if you're not prepared to do that - what you will see is that capital
is going to flee from places which can enforce tax-laws to places which
can't. That's good news for, say, Palermo, Naples or Cyprus but I'm not very
confident the good citizens of Stockholm or Amsterdam are going to be very
glad with that.

It goes without saying, that knowledge
>production and knowledge consumption should be fully opened to
>privatization, with the abolition of the state monopoly on Universities as
>the most urgent reform measure for the coming decade, and a full system of
>Universities on the market in place, as in the United States of America.

It does not go without saying at all. Apart from any moral objections - and
any academician should oppose that universities are being run for the
benefit of big business rather than for learning - this is again totally
infeasible as there are some countries where there is a - well, modest
compared to Japan or the US- tradition of industries funded by industry -
Britain and to some extent Italy - but in others there is no such
tradition. - So
industry might contribute in some countries, but in other countries which do
not have such a tradition (e.g. in the Netherlands) industry is NOT going to
contribute. (Example: Shell is subsidizing Cambridge-University but no Dutch
university gets a dime from Shell). There are no real reasons why they
should do so if the EU proclaims they ought to.

And, even IF industry is to contribute (a very big IF) and universities
would successfully compete in a market-place for students and contracts (a
very big IF too: for they won't - since European universities are totally
different from US-universities) this is only going to benefit a very small
number of universities. This will most likely leave entire regions - if not
countries - without higher education whatsoever. E.g. if I were a smart
industrialist I would certainly not fund Greek or Portuguese universities.
And if Portuguese or Greek universities were to compete for the same funds
as say British elite-universities I'm pretty sure who would get them. What
would you do then: should every Greek or Portuguese high-school graduate go
to England, say, if he/she wants to follow higher education?

The
>central European state would receive a limited amount of the financial
>resources, raised, with 7.5% of European government revenue concentrated in
>the center. This is very much above the present resources, but very much
>below the centralism of states like Belgium, that control over 50% of the
>national economy. The 7.5% proportion should be fixed on a permanent basis.

Utterly impossible again - if any country is going to run into major
difficulties - it
will request larger resources from the center. And - with a 7.5% income -
the center will simply not have the leverage to resist such claims. Hence a
7.5% proportion fixed on a permanent basis is a recipe for disaster since
the center IS going to transgress this limit, which will lead to virtually
permanent quarrels on who is going to get which part of the additional
funds. And, anyhow, such a limit would foreclose the EU taking any
counter-cyclical measures during an economic depression - as I'm sure Arno
would desire.

>Since federalism is one of the most important preconditions of a successful
>long-term development strategy, the new European constitution would have to
>be approved by a European-wide referendum and the national parliaments.

So - what if of 21 countries, say, three will NOT accept the constitution in
such a referendum ? And I, for one, can with 100% certainty predict Britain
and Denmark are going to reject it - and will remain rejecting it. - So what
do you do then ? Throw them out of the EU (for what's the use of having
member-states which don't participate) ? Impose sanctions (which as Austria
just showed won't work) or what  else?.As to having a Europe-wide
referendum, Arno, do you REALLY think the Westminster Parliament is EVER
going to accept that ?
>
>The establishment of a European democratic federal state would be the first
>and most important step in the direction of a socio-liberal world
democracy,

That's one step too far - it is very doubtful whether Europe is a model for
the rest of the World. The point of much of the Third World is that there
are no strong consolidated states. For example - for economic reasons a West
African Federation along EU-lines would make very good sense. However,
realistically seen - if the inhabitants of, say, northern Nigeria already do
not see Abuja as `their' government do you really think they would recognize
an even vaguer `West African' state ? If you would start shifting power to a
`West African' state that would, hence, very likely lead to unrest in
Nigeria. You can only have a federation of states if you've consolidated
states and if you have `loyal subjects'. For this reason (and others) I
think it's very doubtful the EU is a good model for the rest of the World.

The World House of Representatives could be modeled
>around the same pattern as the European House of Representatives, with 10
>million inhabitants electing 1 representative; and in the smaller states, 1
>representative from each country.

As Arno probably well recognizes this is NEVER, EVER going to work, as the
US house of representatives will NEVER concede to a system where, say, Samoa
or the Seychelles count for more in world-affairs than, say, Alaska or
Nebraska. There's no way you can sell that to US-voters. And you can't have
a World-government if the US (or for that matter India and China for they
are also going to object that, say, Goa is not represented but that, say,
Vanuatu is) do not want to participate

Needless to say, that the same arguments
>that we used for the European case, should become valid on a world level.
>The world state should finance itself at the beginning by a symbolic flat
>0.5% direct tax on all incomes, irrespective of their size. The highest tax
>level, that the world legislature could impose, would be 3% of incomes.
>
So, does that mean that, say, the average inhabitant of Bangladesh or
Lesotho is going to pay the same proportional amount of tax as an inhabitant
of Sweden or the Netherlands ? The average inhabitant of Bangladesh can't
afford even a 0.5% tax. Do you therefore really think such Third World
countries
like Bangladesh or Lesotho are not going to demand relief of the tax ?

And do you really think that if the US was to contribute say 10.000 times
more than Vanuatu - it's not going to demand a 10.000 times bigger say in
World affairs too? Again - apart from any capitalist and politician's
scheming - remember the average small country - town voter in, say, Arizona
or Mississippi has to approve of all this - do you really think he/she is
EVER going to concede to that ?

Furthermore - do you envisage any sanctions if countries refuse to pay ? If
so (as you must because countries ARE going to refuse) who's going to impose
it on them ? Suppose -e.g.  as is very likely - the US pursues in its policy
of not contributing to World-organizations which do not support its
present political line - what are you going to do then ? Should the `World'
(who's
that ?) then impose a naval blockade on the US ?

>This paper starts from the assumption that there are two basic scenarios
for
>the future of an enlarged European Union in the Tsunami world system. One
is
>an enlarged EU that would be a global challenger, a scenario which would
>amount to the repetition of the cycles of global challenges, this time on
>the part of the European Union.

No - there is a far more realistic scenario and that is the EU will pretty
much continue to be what it is on the moment: that is very weak federation
of sovereign nation-states, collaborating on free trade but on little else
besides. Maybe - Europe will then slide into the `semi-periphery' but then
again maybe not. Why should being a great power be desirable or necessary
for economic progress ? Switzerland is certainly not a great power - is it
any poorer for that ?

> Social science has the imperative to face up to existing dangers.
>
Social science - as `science' - also has an imperative to stick to facts and
start analyses with what IS rather than what they would LIKE to happen -And
I very much fear that in Arno's case what he would like to see obscures any
real analysis of whether it's feasible or not. Take:

A Europe of nations will always, in one way or the
>other, lead to a blockade of the European institutions - the small nations
>versus the big ones, the South against the North; the Euro ins against the
>Euro outs, the wine drinkers against the beer consumers, the friends of
>pasta and salami against the adherents of sausage and so on.

Arno may not like this - but - sadly or not - that's the reality - Europe IS
a Europe of nations and will remain a Europe of nations, unless unity is
imposed by military force - and let's be frank about it: that would mean
the German Army. And I'm pretty sure that's an alternative Arno would like
even less.

>It sort of continues a debate that Anton Pelinka and I had recently in the
>Café Landtmann in Vienna on global governance, a theme which is also dealt
>with in the magnificent Kimmo Kiljunen article for the volume.
>
Let's hope he also said this can't be realized.

I don't know what Pelinka proposed but if I were to go for a Utopia, which
I'm sure I won't see realized in my lifetime, I would be for a peaceful,
non-sexist, non-violent, environment-friendly socialist world-commonwealth
(and more than the World: for I'm all for the human colonization of the
Galaxy
besides)

Best wishes
R.J. Barendse