> James Gilmour wrote:
> >
> > > 3. Open Constitution (Europe, 2010)
> > >
> > > Europeans begin openly drafting a constitution. ...
>
> > Participation in this project would be horribly skewed and
> completely
> > unrepresentative of the electorate at large. Reason: if a
> referendum
> > on UK continued membership of the EU were held now, I would not be
> > surprised if more than 50% voted to leave the EU. ... there is
> > considerable unhappiness about "the project" in several other EU
> > countries as well. So I should not expect too much positive
> > participation in this one - maybe some very negative participation,
> > and I should expect the "antis" to be the most vociferous.
> They would
> > certainly not be contributing toward building a consensus!
>
> James's concern is not the levels of participation (as Pete's
> was), but a failure of participants to acheive a consensus
> (or legitimate
> consensus) owing to a premise or *context* dispute. Those
> who dispute the context have no formal channel in which to
> express their dissent. Either they exclude themselves from
> the process, in silence (being unfair to themselves), or
> register a spoiler vote in protest (being unfair to others).
>
> In answering, I hope to show that the process itself contains
> a solution. The process we are speaking of is Miles's B-3,
> which is based on open, grassroots consensus. The solution
> lies in the fact that openness extends beyond participation,
> to include the framing of new contexts. To illustrate, allow
> me to relate two additional scenarios. These might follow
> from the previous three. In scenario 4, a solution is found
> by shifting and narrowing the context; in scenario 5, by widening it.
>
>
> 4. Open Foreign Policy (United Kingdom, 2012)
>
> An economics student in the UK, being opposed to EU
> membership, decides that his opposition is best expressed in
> the context of UK foreign policy. He sketches a foreign
> policy draft that centers on withdrawal from the EU. He
> posts the draft on his Web site, and initiates an open
> election for it.
>
> At the same time, he withdraws his vote from the open
> election for the European Constitution (3). Although he is
> opposed to membership for the UK, he does not wish to spoil
> the election for the other EU members. If they wish to have
> a constitution, then that is their affair.
>
> Other voters begin to follow his example. They withdraw
> their protest from the context of Europe (where it was having
> no effect on UK policy), and register it more effectively by
> voting for a foreign policy that entails EU withdrawal.
> Others voters disagree with this proposed policy shift, and
> vote for alternative drafts that would maintain EU membership.
>
> Aside from withdrawing their pointless protest votes in the
> EU's constitutional election, some dissenters turn around and
> recast their votes in *favour* of various constitutional
> drafts. They choose drafts, in particular, that would grant
> the UK a larger degree of autonomy within the union. In
> doing this, they are hedging their bets against the event of
> continued membership. More important, they are providing
> other EU members with concrete proposals to consider;
> proposals that are taken seriously in light of the new
> foreign policy election in the UK. The effect of the new
> election is therefore to neutralize the context dispute that
> had poisoned the old EU election. It now proceeds on a more
> rational footing.
>
>
> 5. Open Constitution (World, 2012)
>
> Meanwhile, a resident of France (call her Marianne) is also
> thinking about the election for the European Constitution.
> She does not agree with the statement (3) that "Europeans are
> defining for themselves what Europe is, and what it means to
> be European." She doubts that the EU really respresents
> Europeans, at large. In the election, she has voted against
> the constitution.
>
> Marianne is heir to the universalism of the French
> Revolution. She does not feel that the values of Europe can
> be contained in Europe, any more than the ideas of the
> Revolution could be contained in France. Instead of a
> European Constitution, she would rather participate in
> something that seems more hopeful. So she drafts a page of
> HTML, with the title:
>
> Universal Constitution
>
> But what to put underneath? It cannot be left blank. A
> constitution ought, she reflects, to have a preamble about
> shared values. She thinks about this, and writes, "We
> believe in democracy..."
>
> The effort to reach a consensus at that scale would have a
> positive effect on the EU constitutional dispute. It would
> put the EU and its member states in a clearer context. It
> might also have a positive effect on other disputes. It
> might, for example, bring the globalization protestors off
> the streets and into rational, constructive dialogue.
>
> --
> Michael Allan
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1265 - Release Date: 07/02/2008
11:17