Us philes € suggests the time of the icy wind against the nationalism! The presidents of Poland and the Czech Republic to defend themselves against more Europe because they understandably their won recently sovereignty do not want to look at risk and the Germans do for years in navel-gazing, the French are fighting against the "sale" of its rooms home and large national corporations, from the British Euro-skepticism, we are accustomed to anyway, and we Swiss are well fed and lean back contentedly in the chair of our bilateral approach. Non-European nationalisms flourish: In the U.S., in Russia, in China, in the Arab world, in South America and so on. New great powers to build and equip up.
Many people fear not - like me - is that the end in disaster. They believe that the conflicts over resources can be solved determined by contract and by peaceful means, perhaps built up that, either on a balance of terror.
Whether the world is networked under the roof of the right, as we hoped idealists that, or whether they once again go the way in which it is dominated by big powers, in either case, my opinion would be decisive, as Europe moves: In the the first case, it could be a model of how national and also create strong nationalist state but a "superstructure" to which the sovereignty of individual states as few limits. In the second case, Europe must finally think of the power and will to power. Since these can not exist only in economic strength, but must also be better or about defying weapons, we must emancipate ourselves from America's shield (which would also not anti-Americanism).
The idea of \u200b\u200b"Europe" is derived from the idea of \u200b\u200bpower and not by the economy. At least since the sixties of the last century, the word "power" in intellectual circles, a strongly negative connotation. But in politics it is now time to power!
The idea of \u200b\u200ba Euro-philes founded in the desire that never go out a war of our continent. The imperial European powers were not to imperial States in their limits, just like the least. The King and empires were transformed after World War II in republics, including those under his back, which forced Stalin to his Russian empire. So thinking (or dreaming) we find that the time had come when this would be sovereign European states join together at last in Kant's sense of a "federal covenant." Since it is proud nations, each with an ancient history, we found the road good Euro-philes, the Schumacher with Adenauer and De Gasperi struck to look first on the economic groupings (unions), but understood only as the beginning, as a beginning to the later transition into a real, written covenant. That Europe needs a constitution (and indeed better than the rejected by the Dutch and French), it was clear to many Euro-philes, because only a constitution can be defined and secured, what skills and thus how much power and in turn how much sovereignty to this "covenant" to be assigned, and how many nations must necessarily remain allocated. If - as is happening now - not first discussed fully clear and according to ideas such as a strictly observed the principle of subsidiarity, or federal principle is strictly observed, written out, it just to what we have today: a competency mess! Brussels is responsible for what and for what the individual republics? The Czech president, Vaclav Klaus would go far to such a constitution, but that men like him it needed to work them out, for each Euro-philes, it is important that as much sovereignty remains at the United Nations. By setting up Europe would have no democratic deficit. It would have a legislature, which also is really a. It would have an executive branch, which is also a real (and not This mishmash of the Commission and Council!) and it would have a judiciary that has a European Constitution and laws created by the European Parliament could be given better scales and rules by which they decide.
The idea of \u200b\u200bEurope is growing but also from history. Although each country has on this small continent an eminently different story, we are all heirs of the Greeks and the Romans and the Germans after the Great Migration. The idea of \u200b\u200ba "Roman Empire" never died out (up to the horrific third!). We all have also been influenced by Islam flourishing in the Middle Ages. We created in each phase the history of our buildings continental: Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, Classical and later Bauhaus and so on. Even if our poets and thinkers, nationalists like to collect revenue, they remain European. The same we find in the fine arts. Of course there have always been centers such as Florence, and later the Netherlands, later, Paris or Berlin, of which spread to new ideas and directions, but it is: They spread out over the entire European cultural space. Also in explaining we have to speak from a European, even if the French do not rely much on the German, and still others prefer the English. Your thoughts create in the same ideas that eventually in all European countries (including the then heavily influenced by Europeans America) began to enforce. Socialism, too, grew out of European thought. Each of our countries has a very special and unique story in itself, but we all have together, a common European history, which we can partly be proud of, and for which we are ashamed, have sometimes.
If the idea of \u200b\u200b"Europe" more rooted in our minds, but especially in the minds of our politicians, we would today perhaps even a step further, and that would be in my eyes wichtig, weil wir dann als Europa mehr darauf dringen könnten, dass die Welt so organisiert wird, dass das Recht über jeder Macht steht. Macht ist an sich nichts schlechtes, aber sie muss geregelt, in ein Gefäss gegossen werden, damit sie nicht über, sondern unter dem Recht steht. (Das wäre die überlängst fällige Korrektur des Westfälischen Friedens, den leider Denker wie Jean Bodin, der den Fürsten über das Recht setzte, prägten und nicht Denker wie Johannes Althusius, der den Fürsten unter das Recht stellte und von den Ständen als abberufbar erklärte.)
Da wir diese Vorbildfunktion verpasst haben und die Welt sich rasant auf neue Machtkonstellationen zubewegt, die nicht in ein Rechtssystem are involved, Europe must also become one of those powers to soon once "powerful" enough to stand up for its interests. And also because it prevents the nationalisms. I am not anti-nationalist. I recognize its important function to us to create an identity. I accept the nation as an important step on the staircase of subsidiarity. But I hate nationalism, if it is childish: on a glorified history of the Moors and stoking fears. Of course, everyone does fear loss of sovereignty, because it could also mean the loss of identity. Fears should be taken seriously and one should address them, just as in creating a Constitution, but you should not stir it until they open in flight and panic, or a Todstellreflex in which we can not use his head. As with Poland, there is also violated, humiliated nationalism, we must take very seriously, but also - as with the fear - we can only create trust if we are in pursuit of a 'Europe' constantly talk to each other. And so I do not mean the governments in the Council of Ministers, but we the people, the peoples of Europe must have a say from the beginning and talk.
0 comments:
Post a Comment