David Picón Álvarez wrote:
On the other hand, I've never much liked the EU as a project, and I always opposed my own country's membership. A recent trip to visit the Parliament in Brussels did little to convince me of its fundamental democratic credentials (although I recognize some people there are doing good work, like apparently the Spanish parlamentarian David Hammerstein).
The fact is the European Union isn't waiting for you to support it in order to exist. The EU is a reality on the ground, and we have to live with it. We can take political action to try to get rid of it, or change it into something we prefer, from the understanding that, if we ignore it, it doesn't go away.
That is of course true; a third alternative would be to agitate for our own country to leave the EU, which is common in some country, which would make EU legislation irrelevant in that country - still, I think the petiition has merit: if the EU Parliament was to shift to free software and open standards and do it for political reasons, this would be a significant victory.
Without wanting to go into OT, if someone is sufficiently childish to think that their "recognition" of an actually existing institution such as Europarl matters, or that by withdrawing it they can somehow better take charge of their future, they deserve as much political influence and power as they get, zero.
Without going too far into OT, this misses the mark of how modern institutions work and uphold their power. Institutions in countries like the European ones thrive on recognition - if they didn't have it, they would lose their power and become irrelevant. If (to take a contemporary example) the Basque parliament were to declare independence tomorrow, this would mainly be an assertion of not recognizing the Spanish government's sovereignty over the area. The American declaration of independence, likewise: An assertion of lack of recognition followed by a struggle which ended with British loss of control over the area.
And, in practically all revolutions and similar upheavals, things have started with people not "recognizing" the authorities' right to control them in certain ways. Power *begins* with recognition: If nobody recognized the government, it would be unable to govern; it can only uphold its power by force as long as the vast majority *does* recognize it as the reality on the ground - if a vast majority didn't and consequenctly didn't obey the laws, no police force in the world could save it.
So recognition *is* a very important political currency (thus also the hairsplitting on both sides over "recognition" in the Israel/Palestine conflict).
br (and I better get back on topic), Carsten
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 06:39:08PM +0200, Carsten Agger wrote:
Without going too far into OT, this misses the mark of how modern institutions work and uphold their power. Institutions in countries like the European ones thrive on recognition - if they didn't have it, they would lose their power and become irrelevant. If (to take a contemporary example) the Basque parliament were to declare independence tomorrow, this would mainly be an assertion of not recognizing the Spanish government's sovereignty over the area. The American declaration of independence, likewise: An assertion of lack of recognition followed by a struggle which ended with British loss of control over the area.
Well, the Catalan parliament and the people of Catalonia in referendum voted on an statute and then the Spanish parliament rewrote it upside down, not long ago. Possibly the reason is that the statute and many of the people recognized the power of the Spanish parliament. So yes, recognition is important.
In any case. The EP may want more recognition, but many many forces inside the UE institutions and outside want it to be ignored by the EU population, mainly in order to be able to influence legislation against us. So I don't think ignoring it is useful. You can ask it to do what you think it's right and be against the UE at the same time. You could ask it to endorse free software and oppose biofuels, for instance so you can ask it to endorse open standards and dismember the UE at the same time. As long as they have power over you you have a right to tell them what to do. Another matter is whether you feel like doing it, but signing a petition is an effort small enough to endure, even if you would not be pleased to go to greater lengths in some institutions. And I don't find any contradiction in doing so. I've been talking in institutions I don't want to have power over my country just because they have that power, and I had something to say about some subject. There are a lot of subjects to influence on. The legitimacy of the institution is just one.
On the other hand it is questionable whether ignoring a democratic institution is ethical. I may not want my country to be in Spain, but as long as enough people in Catalonia want it, there's little I can do other than try to convince them. Another question would be if the majority of your country doesn't want to be in the EU and it is. Not accepting laws that you don't agree with is undemocratic. On some issues you just find some ethical imperatives above democracy. For instance in some countries the majority of the population decides you must be trained to kill people and blindly follow orders. And you may decide that your responsability over your actions and your duty not to kill anyone is above your duty to obey the laws than the majority imposes on you. You accept democracy but within limits. So maybe for you ignoring a democratic institution is required to fulfill some higher duty, or maybe not. We can't decide for you.
And you may simply decide the EU is not democratic so that does not even apply. I won't argue you this, but I second Sebastian. The EP is the most democratic EU institution. It has too little power and it might be more democratic, but the main deficits are outside it.
And, in practically all revolutions and similar upheavals, things have started with people not "recognizing" the authorities' right to control them in certain ways. Power *begins* with recognition: If nobody recognized the government, it would be unable to govern; it can only uphold its power by force as long as the vast majority *does* recognize it as the reality on the ground - if a vast majority didn't and consequenctly didn't obey the laws, no police force in the world could save it.
Possibly, but you can only decide on your acts, not on the acts of the majority. The petition does not say it wants the EU to stay as it is. So sign that petition and then start your revolution. There's no contradiction.
Btw. some MEPs are eurosceptic, maybe you can ask them or their party about what they're doing there. But I find it coherent (And some where helpful against swpats, btw).
In summary: yes, you are responsible of your acts, and recognizing the power of the authorities is one of your acts. It is not irrelevant just because everyone else does the opposite, because you are only responsible of what you do, not of what others do, and the authority does not exists if people oppose it. But expressing an opinion on a subject does not imply an opinion in another subject. In particular I don't see how that petition implies recognizing legitimacy of the EU. You don't ask EP to be open because you think it should have power over you, you ask it because it has power.