You can look at it that way, and when you do, it sounds unfair that the success or failure of the Lisbon Treaty, which would create a new governing treaty for the European Union, should stand or fall based on what the Irish decide. But so it is with democracy; in a close race, one person's vote can decide the fate of an entire country. Not that it ever does, but it could.
I don't know enough to judge the Lisbon Treaty itself; it may be good or bad in the main, but I can say I am pleased that Ireland is standing by its own constitution, which requires that anything affecting the Irish constitution be decided by the Irish citizens themselves. The Dutch and French people have already been railroaded by their own governments.After voters in the Netherlands and France rejected a previous EU constitution in 2005, no other EU country dared to put such matters to their voters, instead pushing it through their national parliaments. Dutch and French voters have no direct say on the current treaty.
Certainly there are advantages to EU membership, but I'm glad that Switzerland has maintained its independence. I first saw some of the negative consequences of joining the EU on a visit to France, where I learned that the culture of the small, independent French farmer is under attack by the EU. The French government, appreciating the value of local, independent farms for both cultural and national security reasons, has been subsidizing the farmers. I know government subsidies can introduce unfortunate market kinks—and I don't appreciate our own government's subsidies of large agribusiness corporations—but even a "small government" person such as I can see the importance of spending money to protect a valuable, endangered species. But the EU says French farm subsidies are unfair to other member countries, and would rather have France import its food from Eastern Europe.
I know that some are hoping the EU will put a stop to Germany's draconian laws against homeschooling, and no one (except the German families) would like more than I to end that repression, but even I can't help feeling queasy at the thought of an external government dictating their laws.
The new treaty may be a good one for all I know, but I'm glad the Irish government has the courage (and constitutional responsibility) to let their own people vote on matters that will so greatly affect their future.
Not that democracy is everything. People can all too easily be beguiled into voting against their own best interests, to say nothing of the best interests of their neighbors, their country, and the world. That's probably the reason I hate to see the European countries giving up their independence. Many freedoms can be more or less guaranteed by a governing body, or not, but when push comes to shove, true freedom rests on being able to say, "No, thanks" and walk away from a repressive situation, be it a job or a country. That's why it's said that economic freedom is one of the most basic human rights there is, because it enforces the others. A German homeschooling family can currently escape German's persecution by moving to England, as some have done. They shouldn't have to do so, but they can. But what if they couldn't? What if the UK and France and Switzerland and Germany and Hungary and Lithuania were all subject to the same rules? Well, they could come to the United States. Unless we, too, put ourselves under the authority of another governing body that might have different views on the rights of families.
Homeschooling is just an example, which I use because the right to educate one's own children is especially dear to me. But there's a lot more to this issue than that. Alliances among nations are tricky things. Or among states; in the U.S. we have seen state laws gradually subsumed more and more by national regulation, so that fleeing to Pennsylvania from a repressive law in New York is not as easy as it once was. I'm not saying this is always bad, but it can be, and bears watching.
In any case, I'll be eager to see how the Irish people decide.The Irish people have now spoken: No.
I read an article before the vote which pointed out that the government could not afford to lose - and that the people might just vote no to spite their government. I don't know enough about Ireland or the issue to be able to say that is what happened, but what the article also said is that if the referendum failed, it would probably be brought to the people again. One of the big reasons a lot of Swiss don't want to join the EU is that you can't leave once you've joined, from what I understand. In the current situation we're working with bilateral treaties, which of course also requires compromises, but at least we can, if it gets really bad, cut our losses and walk away.
My hunch is that the move toward more global laws and governing bodies comes from a desire for bureaucratic efficiency and for the ability to react to circumstances more quickly. I don't share that desire: quick reactions are usually poor reactions. Think of the economic stimulus package, for instance, or the summer gas tax break that some people have been talking about. Sure I don't want to hurt from a flailing economy and sure I want to pay less for gas this summer, but who's going to pay for it later? Well, ok, I'll be back in Europe when the summer's over, but you get my point. If the real cost of living is masked by government intervention, that has very little to do with efficient administration.
Can a US state leave the union? I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was very difficult. I think the idea is that you can't be a fair-weather confederate in the EU, i.e. stay while you receive handouts and bolt once you've reached a level where you have to pay. But the idea of not being able to have the people change things by vote runs totally counter the Swiss psyche.
Does the US run up its external debts in dollars? If not, then an inflation may not reward it that much. If yes, then we're pretty good at ripping off the world without them noticing...
I'll let the economist in the family answer the debt question, but as to the other -- good point. We did try that once, back in the 1860's, and it didn't work out too well.
But I wouldn't put a U.S. state on the same level as a European country; would you? I mean, these (many of them, at least) are nations that have been separate and sovereign (albeit with some border changes) for longer than the U.S. has existed.
The US does denominate its debt in dollars, selling government bonds to cover the debt. So yes, we have been hoodwinking the world into sending us goods for pieces of paper labeled one dollar (cash notes, which in a very real sense are just another type of bond) and bonds labeled to be worth much more than a single dollar. What will the Chinese do with the huge pile of US debt it has accumulated for the goods it has sent us?
The Chinese could sell it?
Amen and amen! There are so many things right with what you said that I don't know where to begin. :)
Bureaucratic efficiency is not always a good thing, as you said. As one French lady pointed out to me, Mussolini managed to make the Italian trains run on time, no small accomplishment, but at what cost? As I've said before, Barack Obama scares me, but I could happily (or at least less unhappily) vote for him if we had a solid Republican majority in both the Senate and the House. I believe the most stable and trustworthy government is one in which the executive and legislative bodies are of opposite parties. That way, whatever does get implemented is not likely to be a hasty decision, and is likely to reflect the will of more citizens. Otherwise we suffer under the tyranny of the majority.
I agree that the economic stimulus package and a summer gas tax break are stupid ideas. Just another example of borrowing from the future to fund the present, which is sometimes a reasonable idea but most often disastrous. (Ask anyone struggling under a load of credit card debt.) One could argue that the price of gas is kept artificially high by taxes (which is why the government can manipulate the price if they want), but if we really want to encourage people to consume less oil, lowering the price is not the way to go about it.
On the other hand, it helps to remember that the money given out is not government money. It's our money, taken in taxes, and all they're doing is giving some of what they took back to us. But, of course, with a whole lot extracted in the meantime (talk about inefficiencies), spent on bureaucrats and even on postage, lots of postage, to tell us that we're getting a check, then to tell us that it's coming soon, then to send it...how dumb is that?
You know what scares me about all these efforts to manipulate the economy? Governments give lip service to the problems of inflation, but inflation punishes savers and rewards debtors, and guess into which category both our government and the majority of our people fall?
"...you can't leave once you've joined"—yikes! I'd be leery of joining, too. The EU is (or should be?) an economic and political confederation, not a marriage.
