One thing that is not really clear to me at my distant vantage point is, what is the point of Europe? By this, I mean, what are people in and for the European Union trying to achieve? How will they know when they get there? Do they know where they are trying to go? I'm not sure, and maybe Europeans feel the same way too.
So, I got to thinking, what they need is a catchy constitutional preamble (which the people could hum and which would make them actually eager to attend this particular play) that can be sold as what they want Europe to be. If they can sum it up in a nice sound bite, I figure that the pro-constitutional forces can convince more people of their views.
By the way, thanks to Schoolhouse Rock, I'm one of the many people my age that can sing the preamble to the US constitution. (Actually, the Schoolhouse Rock version isn't exactly right, but it's close enough.) What Europe should do is to turn their preamble into a catchy tune that schoolchildren can sing -- if I can sing about establishing justice and ensuring domestic tranquility, so can Europeans in any language.
I assume that the proposed European constitution has a preamble, and thanks to the magic of the internet, it's only a click away. It's, well, a bit long for a preamble. Let's take a look at what it says: (My inline comments are in green.)
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF DENMARK, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA, Blah Blah Blah, let's skip ahead, shall we?,
DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom,democracy, equality and the rule of law,
BELIEVING that Europe, reunited after bitter experiences, intends to continue along the path of civilisation, progress and prosperity, for the good of all its inhabitants, including the weakest and most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and that it wishes to deepen the democratic and transparent nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world,
CONVINCED that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their former divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny,
CONVINCED that, thus ‘United in diversity’, Europe offers them the best chance of pursuing, with due regard for the rights of each individual and in awareness of their responsibilities towards future generations and the Earth, the great venture which makes of it a special area of human
hope,
DETERMINED to continue the work accomplished within the framework of the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the Treaty on European Union, by ensuring the continuity of the Community acquis, (Cool, a French word. Here's the definition.)
GRATEFUL to the members of the European Convention for having prepared the draft of this Constitution on behalf of the citizens and States of Europe,
HAVE DESIGNATED AS THEIR PLENIPOTENTIARIES:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS,
Guy VERHOFSTADT
Prime Minister
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. This goes on forever, listing everyone involved with every single European government.
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND,
The Rt. Hon Tony BLAIR
Prime Minister
The Rt. Hon Jack STRAW
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
WHO, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:
OK, is anyone still with me? I don't want to sound too harsh, but let's face it, that's pathetic! Be aware that I cut out the bulk of it, where all the countries and all the people were listed. I mean, the bits about "DRAWING INSPIRATION", "BELIEVING", "CONVINCED", "CONVICTED", "DETERMINED", and "GRATEFUL" aren't all that good, but by themselves they aren't worth mentioning as examples of badness.
This whole thing is one sentence. That's OK, I suppose, for a preamble. But check out what the main verb phrase is. If you can't find it, it's "HAVE DESIGNATED AS THEIR PLENIPOTENTIARIES". What kind of subject is that? What's a PLENIPOTENTIARY anyway? (Or is the main predicate "have agreed as follows"?)
What they need to do is shorten the middle section, hack out all of the names, and get to the point... a point that a schoolchild can sing.
Taking things a bit further, do you know what the problem is? Who is making the constitution? In some places, it's "We, the people". In Europe, it is only about 25 special people, including "HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF SPAIN" who are creating the document. There's something to that, probably, but I won't pursue it here.
Are all preambles like this? I don't know. Let's take a look at another. For all intents and purposes, South Africa is a random country. Let's take a look at its preamble. Bravo, South Africa. Nicely done.
Europe, get with it.
3 comments:
Well, hmm, where do I begin? I could write for hours on this, as I live in Europe and am touched daily by what you find preposterous (rightly so in certain ways, I might add).
"What is the point of Europe?" you ask. You answered your own question when you wrote, "I'm not sure, and maybe Europeans feel the same way too."
Or perhaps it would be better to say that Europe is (and was) different things to different people. Most agree that after the atrocities of two world wars, European nation leaders had to come together and create some kind of union which would aim to "prevent" such bloodshed in the future. Many promoted the way to peace through trade, and of course there are those who really do believe in the idea of a free and united Europe as a counterweight to the U.S. and partially to Asia.
Most feel comfortable with the idea of a free trade zone; that is, a predominantly economically united Europe, but of course it has gone well beyond that to encompass cultural identity. How much a citizen identifies with "Europe" and how much a citizen identifies with his/her nation, or better said, his/her region, is a matter of opinion and provides lots of fodder for professors here.
The idea of expansion brings up all the questions of what Europe is: Does it include Turkey? What about the Balkan states? Does Ukraine count as Europe? These are all hotly debated in Europe.
Cultural identity aside, a lot of the fight has been about money, funding, transfers, subsidies, ... uh, money .... The discussions revolve around who is paying into the EU pot, and what's going back out and to whom.
If I understand you correctly, you're getting at the sheer complexity of what should be a simple preamble. You've hit the nail on the head. The citizens of the EU view the EU as the bureaucracy of bureaucracies. The EU operates mostly in English, but most of its documents are translated into now 21 official languages. Imagine doing business in 21 languages! Imagine what kind of negotiations go on to achieve concensus on just, say, the length and curvature of bananas allowed to be imported into the EU!
Before the latest referendum on the constitution, each citizen in France was sent (per mail) a copy of the constitution, I understand from reading the German press. Imagine that you go to your mailbox one day and remove a one- or two-inch thick catalog and discover this is your constitution. Would you vote to ratify it? I would be willing to bet that most citizens threw the thing in their recycle bins (or trash bins) straightaway. (The main beneficiary was no doubt the printer which got the contract to print up millions of such constitutions. I would not want to know how many hectares of forest have disappeared on account of it.)
You referenced the 25 special people who put their John Hancocks on the work. That is also how Europe works. It is and never was a "Europe of the people" in the sense that Americans are perhaps used to thinking about their government. Nobody in Germany is that used to being able to directly vote on or directly influence that many things in their environment anyway, such as whether a local school will be built, a new road around the town will be built, or a new industrial park is permitted to be located near the town. (The exception to this is if a citizens' group forms, gets about 25,000 signatures, and then gets a referendum on the ballot.) Nobody votes for judges in Germany; they are appointed. Voting is for a party which then creates a list and sends representatives to the Bundestag, for example. So to a certain degree, people are not used to having a direct say in certain affairs that Americans take for granted they have a say in.
I find it hard myself to understand Europe and Europeans, even though I live here.
Hi Dave,
I got the "snowbird" comment. Of course, since I am so much older than you and you made the comment... Anyway, I love to read your posts, they almost always make me laugh out loud.
Our friends, the Stockdales, currently residing in Poznan, Poland, probably share your view about the EU. I'm thinking that Jack told us that it has had a rather negative effect on the generally poverty-stricken Poles.
Thanks for carrying my weight on the counting last week. I lost sight of time and got there after you had finished. Too much gab! Anyway, I owe you. Thanks again.
L.H.
Interesting that the Poles find it doesn't help them. The Germans think the Poles have clear advantages from being EU members.
Post a Comment