[Skybird]

I think one needs to see the difference between political system's paper form and the sad reality. Both in Europe and America I see that in the modern present the intended values of constitutions are being dangerously outweighed by the results of processes that maybe are inevitably linked to these systems and are expression of the inner dynamic of ever changing realities. In both spheres, internationalisation of the economies (that by that avoid being controlled and being hold accountable from national and governmental institutions), as well as a far-reaching entanglement of capital and politics have seriously distorted the ideas of the various interpretations of what democracy is about, at the same time defending and hiding behind references to what in dead words is written in constitutions, but already is hollowed out and only an instrument of cloaking plutocratic interests. Various places of the world still vary in the degrees of freedoms the individual has, in that the West still scores a bit better than for example China (state tyranny) or Africa (limitations of freedom due to corruption and material poverty). Nevertheless I must see there is not a single country in the West anymore that I would see as a democracy. Political parties since long have taken over, placing their power interests above the interests of the communities they were meant to serve. Even unions suffer from this cancer-like disease. In a democracy, to function properly, the people need to act reasonable, and politics need to remain independent from economy interest and business lobbies. Both conditions are not fulfilled. So, to slightly vary a famous quote by - I think - Churchill, and to add to his original quote, "the best reason that speaks against democracy are the political parties themselves".

On the topic, I heared on radio this morning that Blair and the twins still remain adamant. I hope it stays like that, so that the treaty is killed. Only two things I see in urgent need: a reform of the voting mode, and replacing the three major responsible representatives for EU foreign political contacts with just one official's post (as it was said on TV yesterday, Kissinger, when being in office, always asked himself whose telephone number to pick when needing to telephone the EU). The rest of the treaty can - and should - be thrown into the dustbin. Unfortunately, the reform of the voting mode that I want is what the Polish are blocking, so maybe we even do not get this. If this is the price for preventing the treaty as a whole, I accept to pay it. Better no treaty than a bad one. Because without doubt there will be a third attempt anytime soon, but after two failures there is hope that this time they will not try to save the unchanged core of the old constitution draft, but will really exclusively focus on what can be realistically achieved, and is pragmatic. This dreamdancing about federalist structures needs to come to a stop. I stick to deGaulle here, and would be satisfied with a "Europe of cooperating fatherlands". Since Brussels power for the main rests on a bureaucracy (that is small in size, nevertheless seeks more and more power for itself), and already today any demands by Brussels all too often get fulfilled by parliaments without checking for compatibility with national constitutions and parliamentary policies (which makes national elections somewhat useless, doesn't it, and that way effectively kills democracy), and since Brussels better part of power has no democratic legitimation expressed by the will and deed of the European peoples, I do not wish Brussels being given even more powers, and already a card blanche to overrule national parliaments by decrees being produced by a bureaucracy that - like every bureaucracy - tends to grow in size, and tends to produce decrees on and on for the simple reason to keep itself alive and giving the impression that life without it is no longer possible.