A rchive Date
[ 28-05-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Britain ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/stanway.html
Europe struggles with the F-word
By PAUL STANWAY -- Edmonton Sun
May 28, 2003
There's a lot of fuss in Britain this week about using the F-word. No, not that F-word. Unfortunately, that's now acceptable everywhere from television to the schoolyard. I'm talking about "federal."
Next month the leaders of the European Union are set to meet in Thessalonika, Greece, to approve Europe's first constitution, and for almost a year and a half a group of 105 elected representatives, retired politicians and bureaucrats have been trying to come up with something everyone can agree on.
Inevitably, a lot of commentators have likened the process to the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787 that gave the Americans the document around which they have built the world's most powerful democracy. That's understandable. Most journalists have trouble thinking beyond the world's most famous constitution. But, really, the process has more in common with events in Charlottetown eight decades later, and the arguments are eerily familiar to Canadians. Right down to the fuss over the F-word.
I wrote about the draft constitution produced in February by a group of founding fathers and mothers led by former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing. It was all about turning Europe into a federal state, with the supreme government sitting in Brussels and all the national governments clearly subservient to it.
But as in the Canadian case, this just wasn't going to fly because, unlike the American states, the countries of Europe are sovereign and self-governing and are not going to give ultimate authority on everything to the European Union - effectively abolishing their independence.
In 1867 the colonies of British North America had been more or less self-governing for a generation (except in matters of foreign policy, which was still run from empire central in London), and they weren't about to ditch that in exchange for a true federal state governed from Ottawa. There had to be a compromise (didn't you wonder where that Canadian tradition came from?) in which the powers of the new "federal" government were clearly defined, as were the powers which were going to remain under the sole jurisdiction of the new provinces of Canada.
We've been arguing about the resulting arrangement ever since, with hardly a pause for breath. If that doesn't put the fear of God into the Europeans, it should. I'm not exactly sure what they are going to call it, but the European equivalent of "federal-provincial relations" is going to be a growth industry in the 21st century. Ask any Canadian, if you have an hour or two to spare.
The goals of the new Europe are very much the same as the goals of the British North American colonies, on a much larger scale. They see economic and political advantages in a closer relationship between the 500 million people in the huge swath of territory stretching from Ireland to the Russian border. The talk is all about greater political co-operation, easier trade and movement of people, and more clout to balance against the overwhelming power of the Americans.
Does that sound familiar? It's pretty much what Canada's founding fathers were after.
But 136 years later we're still trying to get rid of inter-provincial trade barriers and restrictions on the free movement of labour. We're still arguing about political co-operation between the feds and provinces, or the lack of it. And we're still trying to get Washington's attention.
If they can't get it all sorted out in the next couple of weeks, the Europeans are contenting themselves with the notion that the European Court can figure it out later - in much the same way that the U.S. Supreme Court has defended and amended the American Constitution. Good luck with that one.
Canada kept its Constitution in a drawer in London for 115 years because we didn't trust ourselves with it. Our political leaders are still loath to touch it, but since it came home two decades ago the justices of the Supreme Court have shown no such reluctance to fill the void. It's become difficult to tell who makes more law, our elected representatives in Parliament or the Supremes.
In Europe, Britain seems destined to play the Quebec role: endlessly upset, alienated and in search of a veto. Why is it that other Europeans don't understand that Britain is - different? A distinct society.
You've got to feel sorry for them. Those poor Europeans don't know what they're in for.
Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@edm.sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|