Aardvark Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 also, i think i was wrong when i said that the eu guarenteed your right to live and work within germany -- afaict, that's covered by the schengen packt, which the uk is not part of. Th Schengen pact simply covers the right to move betwen countries without a passport, to which Britain, (thank God) is not a signatory. The right to live and work anywhere in the EU is covered by the single market treaty to which Britain is a signatory. Incidentally a multinational democracy is an oxymoron. Democracy means rule of the people (very simplified;) ). A multinational state has many peoples. There is no one 'Demos' to be represented by a democracy. Nationalism is an essential for democracy. No nationalism means no Demos means no democracy, so i stand proud as a 'Staunch Nationalist':-p
gcol Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Most anti-EU people are staunch nationalists even if they refuse to admit it. Both Aardvark and I proudly admit it. So if two of us admit it, and moat dont, that is an awful lot of europhobes under the bed. Be afraid, Brussels, we are on your case!
gcol Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Most anti-EU people are staunch nationalists even if they refuse to admit it. Both Aardvark and I proudly admit it. So if two of us admit it, and most dont, that is an awful lot of europhobes under the bed. Be afraid, Brussels, we are on your case!
Dak Posted October 25, 2006 Author Posted October 25, 2006 Th Schengen pact simply covers the right to move betwen countries without a passport, to which Britain, (thank God) is not a signatory. The right to live and work anywhere in the EU is covered by the single market treaty to which Britain is a signatory. cheers for the info. Incidentally a multinational democracy is an oxymoron. Democracy means rule of the people (very simplified;) ). A multinational state has many peoples. There is no one 'Demos' to be represented by a democracy. i'm pretty sure that the eu's opinion is that the members of the eu can be viewed as one demos; and, tbh, i don't see how it's fundamentally different than the demoi* of london and warwickshire being treated as one demos by the english government, the demoi of northern france and southern france being treated as one demos, the demoi of california and new york etc... as long as the people are having a say in certain, fundamental aspects of the governance, then it is democratic. Nationalism is an essential for democracy. how so? ---------- *demoi being my guess at the plural of demos
Aardvark Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 i'm pretty sure that the eu's opinion is that the members of the eu can be viewed as one demos; My opinion is that there may be a French people and an Italian people and a Polish people and a Swedish people, but not a European people. Europe is inhabited by peoples (plural). It seems clear that the EUs opinion is wrong. and, tbh, i don't see how it's fundamentally different than the demoi* of london and warwickshire being treated as one demos by the english government, the demoi of northern france and southern france being treated as one demos, the demoi of california and new york etc... Come on you know better than that;) There may be differences between the people of Northern France and Southern France and between New Yorkers and Californians, but they do share strong bonds of common culture, much much stronger than that between a Laplander and a Lustitanian. In a crunch a farmer from Cumbria and a stockbroker from London have a lot more in common than either would have with their exact counterparts in France. You can't wish away national bonds, they are amazingly resilient and powerful. Workers of the world haven't united precisely becausee of that. as long as the people are having a say in certain, fundamental aspects of the governance, then it is democratic. That assumes that there is an entity known as 'the people'. Europe is inhabited by many different peoples. Anyway, even if Europe was inhabited by one united people it is still seriously undemocratic. When the Europan Parliament voted to expel the Commisioners for gross incompetence the commisioners resigned and then reappointed themselves. And, according to the EUs OWN rules, if the EU was a country applying for membership to itself, it would be denied for being undemocratic! Oh the delicious irony! Except it isn't delicious, it means that i'm ruled by an unaccountable bureaucracy that makes laws that i have to obey, but have no say on their making. . viz, the outlawing of any mention of imperial measurements such as pounds and ounces. It will be a CRIMINAL offence to sell a slab of butter that has packaging that mentions how much it weighs in ounces. When did the electorate get asked about that? Who do i vote for, or write to to stop that? Who gives a damn about the poor bloody public? Seriously, i've known several European civil servants and politicans, privately, they are quite open. They think the public is too stupid to know what is in its own interests and must be led by a self selecting elite. These people despise the public and equate democracy with 'popularism' (whatever that is). The EU has a profound anti democratic ethos, for example, when the people of France votd against a new constitution for the EU instead of accepting the will of the people the reaction is to reintroduce the constitution on the sly. Have a 'mini' constitution, don't bother getting voter approval this time, and then expand on it at leisure. *demoi being my guess at the plural of demos Nice one. Nationalism is the basis of peoples identity, therefore it is the basis for a 'demos'. We might decry it, but is is a fact, nationalism is how most people define and identify themselves.
Dak Posted October 26, 2006 Author Posted October 26, 2006 My opinion is that there may be a French people and an Italian people and a Polish people and a Swedish people, but not a European people. Europe is inhabited by peoples (plural). It seems clear that the EUs opinion is wrong. they're all still people, with certain common needs. and, if co-operation between the countries benifits each individual country, then it would benifit each individual people. Come on you know better than that;) There may be differences between [...] New Yorkers and Californians[...] and so they have their own govournment [...]but they do share strong bonds of common culture and so they also share a gouvounement. 'lack of culture' is no reason to not co-operate. imo, it's common needs, or mutual benifit, not common culture, that dictates wether it's a good or a bad idea for peoples to unite. america is a good parrelel... at it's inception, there were many different cultures -- british, french, dutch, yiddish, and a few chinese iirc. i'm sure they didn't neccesarily feel as if they were one culture, but they still recognised that they would benifit from uniting. at the end of the day, people from england and romania do share certain things in common, wether they know/like it or not -- desire for protection of fundamental human rights, a decent economy, efficient protection from international crime etc. these common things can be provided by the eu, whilst leaving the local rule to the states. You can't wish away national bonds, they are amazingly resilient and powerful. actually, one of the areas in which i was most dissapointed with the eu was their proposal to divvy up the countries into different adminastrative regions, with total disreguard for the national boundries, placing, for example, southampton in the same adminastrative region as le harve but not as liverpool. it was a blatant attempt to degrade national boundries, and, imo, it was a pretty effective one -- it would have worked, and given the aims of the eu i think it was a good descision. however, the eu denied that this was the intent, but failed to offer any other reason for the divisions, making the whole thing underhanded and sneaky... i was kinda hoping the eu would be transparent That assumes that there is an entity known as 'the people'. Europe is inhabited by many different peoples. Anyway, even if Europe was inhabited by one united people it is still seriously undemocratic. When the Europan Parliament voted to expel the Commisioners for gross incompetence the commisioners resigned and then reappointed themselves. afaikt, it went like this: european parlimient discuss sacking the commision re: fraud handling european parliment descides to forse an independant investigation and code of conduct on the commision instead 1 independant report not exactly flattering. european parliment begins motions to sack the commision commision resigns2 interim commision set up -- it consists, mainly, of the old commision (without the president)3 new (no old members) commision formed4 so, looks like it worked. maybe it could have gone faster, and there were the usual political shenanegans there, but, ultimately, the deomcratic part did it's job -- the leaders were incompetent to a degree that allowed corruption, and the leaders were sacked. compare with the fact that blair has resisted a proper independent inquiry over lying about WMD, and bush about vote-fixing -- both more serious than incompetence and both with enough evidence for an independant inquiry to be justified imo and the eu's democratic aspect actually seems to be working quite well. And, according to the EUs OWN rules, if the EU was a country applying for membership to itself, it would be denied for being undemocratic! Oh the delicious irony! Except it isn't delicious, it means that i'm ruled by an unaccountable bureaucracy that makes laws that i have to obey, but have no say on their making. . viz, the outlawing of any mention of imperial measurements such as pounds and ounces. It will be a CRIMINAL offence to sell a slab of butter that has packaging that mentions how much it weighs in ounces. When did the electorate get asked about that? Who do i vote for, or write to to stop that? Who gives a damn about the poor bloody public? your local MEPs. seriously, it's only going to be as unpopular as when the UK govournment outlawed imperial mesurements the first time. govournments do unpopular things (occasionally justifyably), wether they're local, national, or supranational govournments. if i have to order a half-litre in the pub, tho, then i think they're guilty of heavy-handedness. i'm genuinely grateful that i can operate in base-10, and not pounds/ounces, £/s/d, feet/inches, and (in most situations) litres; but taking away something like the british pint (for foreighners: 'the british pint' reffers only to a pint (~ 1/2 litre) of beer bought in a pub) is crossing over from 'lets clean up the stupid measurements system' into 'lets arbritrarily destroy quirky little personality traits of a country', imo. Seriously, i've known several European civil servants and politicans, privately, they are quite open. They think the public is too stupid to know what is in its own interests and must be led by a self selecting elite. These people despise the public and equate democracy with 'popularism' (whatever that is). The EU has a profound anti democratic ethos, for example, when the people of France votd against a new constitution for the EU instead of accepting the will of the people the reaction is to reintroduce the constitution on the sly. Have a 'mini' constitution, don't bother getting voter approval this time, and then expand on it at leisure. ah cummon, that's democracy. if you cant do something with the blessing of the people, do it without them noticing. see also: new labour; america. the fact that the eu did it, if anything, makes it more democratic anyhoo... the constitution would have created one european state, which, afaik, was what the eu needed the countries permission for -- not the peoples, that was left up to the individual heads of state (eg, france decided on a refferendumn, other countries head-of-state were just going to say 'yes'). without that power, the eu remains as it was re three loose amalgamation of states, but that's no reason to not include any of the other, less controversial, aspects of the constitution. Nationalism is the basis of peoples identity, therefore it is the basis for a 'demos'. We might decry it, but is is a fact, nationalism is how most people define and identify themselves. i'd disagree, but i suspect it would be more of a somatic disagreement.
Aardvark Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 they're all still people, with certain common needs. Common needs doesn't make a people. Mexicans and Tibetans have common needs and are people, but they are not the same 'people'. and, if co-operation between the countries benifits each individual country, then it would benifit each individual people. We aren't looking at co operation between nations, but at the establishment of a supra national state. and so they have their own govournment Exactly my point. and so they also share a gouvounement. Exactly my point. The differences between New Yorkers and Californians is trumped by nationality. That's my point which you appear to be conceding by mistake. 'lack of culture' is no reason to not co-operate. We aren't talking about co-operation, but the establishment of a supra national state. imo, it's common needs, or mutual benifit, not common culture, that dictates wether it's a good or a bad idea for peoples to unite. Economics trumps nationality? A rather naive view which has been knocked down time and time again as all throughout history people have put nationality before economic self interest. america is a good parrelel... at it's inception, there were many different cultures -- british, french, dutch, yiddish, and a few chinese iirc. i'm sure they didn't neccesarily feel as if they were one culture, but they still recognised that they would benifit from uniting. America is an awful parallel. All the settlers went to America with the express intention of becoming Americans and intergrating into America and American culture, and even then it took a bloody civil war to unite the nation. Europe is completely different, the populations of Europe have not moved their with the intention of becoming 'Europeans' or participating in a 'European Dream'. And there is no general recognition of any benefits from 'uniting'. at the end of the day, people from england and romania do share certain things in common, wether they know/like it or not -- desire for protection of fundamental human rights, a decent economy, efficient protection from international crime etc. these common things can be provided by the eu, whilst leaving the local rule to the states. And these common things can be provided by the nations without any need for interference from the EU. In what way does the EU provide 'efficent protection from international crime'? For instance? And the EU doesn't have a habit of leaving 'local' rule to nations, it has a habit of grabbing power and micro managing as much as possible. actually, one of the areas in which i was most dissapointed with the eu was their proposal to divvy up the countries into different adminastrative regions, with total disreguard for the national boundries, placing, for example, southampton in the same adminastrative region as le harve but not as liverpool. I was disappointed too. A stupid and insulting proposal. it was a blatant attempt to degrade national boundries, Agreed. and, imo, it was a pretty effective one -- it would have worked, No. The idea that the people of Southampton are going to feel that thy are the compatriots of the people of Le Havre because of an artifical EU administrative decision is wrong. Peoples identities aren't ended by diktat. and given the aims of the eu i think it was a good descision. To mount a futile attack on peoples identities which is bound to alienate them from the very institution you appear to admire do much? however, the eu denied that this was the intent, but failed to offer any other reason for the divisions, making the whole thing underhanded and sneaky... Underhanded and sneaky pretty well sums up a lot about the EUs operations. i was kinda hoping the eu would be transparent Hope springs eternal:rolleyes: afaikt, it went like this: european parlimient discuss sacking the commision re: fraud handling european parliment descides to forse an independant investigation and code of conduct on the commision instead 1 independant report not exactly flattering. european parliment begins motions to sack the commision commision resigns2 interim commision set up -- it consists, mainly, of the old commision (without the president)3 new (no old members) commision formed4 so, looks like it worked. maybe it could have gone faster, and there were the usual political shenanegans there, but, ultimately, the deomcratic part did it's job -- the leaders were incompetent to a degree that allowed corruption, and the leaders were sacked. Nope, corruption and incompetence, them the sacked commisionners are back in their old jobs, to apparently investigate themselves for several months:eek: , then forming a new commision, with no reference to the European Parliament (democratic:rolleyes: ) which still contained members of the old commission. And those 'sacked' commisioners leave with full pension rights and a remarkably generous pay off. That is not democracy doing its job, more like a Chinse communist party politburo reshuffle. compare with the fact that blair has resisted a proper independent inquiry over lying about WMD, If Blair loses a vote in the UK parliament he is out. That day. Not in six months time. Compare that with the EU 'Parliament' and bush about vote-fixing -- both more serious than incompetence and both with enough evidence for an independant inquiry to be justified imo and the eu's democratic aspect actually seems to be working quite well. Your opinion seems remarkably unencumbered by reference to reality. The commisioners were sacked and promptly reappointed themselves for six months. How is that democratic or accountable? If the US President is empeached he is out, no reappointing himself. your local MEPs. My local MEPs have no say on the matter. How is that democratic? seriously, it's only going to be as unpopular as when the UK govournment outlawed imperial mesurements the first time. govournments do unpopular things (occasionally justifyably), wether they're local, national, or supranational govournments. Well done for spectacularly missing the point. It isn't a question of whether its a good idea to make it a CRIMINAL offence to sell a pound of butter, but the fact that it is a undemocratic diktat from unaaccountable commisioners over whom i have no influence as a citizen and voter. It's the lack of democracy that is problematic here. if i have to order a half-litre in the pub, tho, then i think they're guilty of heavy-handedness. i'm genuinely grateful that i can operate in base-10, and not pounds/ounces, £/s/d, feet/inches, and (in most situations) litres; but taking away something like the british pint (for foreighners: 'the british pint' reffers only to a pint (~ 1/2 litre) of beer bought in a pub) is crossing over from 'lets clean up the stupid measurements system' into 'lets arbritrarily destroy quirky little personality traits of a country', imo. Whether making me a criminal for buying a pint is a good idea or not should be a matter for my democratically elected government, not a Supra National organistation issuing directives without any democratic mandate or accountability. ah cummon, that's democracy. if you cant do something with the blessing of the people, do it without them noticing. No, if you can't do it with the blessing of the people, then don't. see also: new labour; New Labour, elected by the people. That's democracy. america. A democratic nation with regular elections. the fact that the eu did it, if anything, makes it more democratic The fact that an undemocratic and unaccountable organisation does it, makes it 'more' democratic? And perhaps Peace is War and Hate is Love and Hunger is Prosperity. Or perhaps not. anyhoo... the constitution would have created one european state, which, afaik, was what the eu needed the countries permission for -- not the peoples, Yet another undemocratic attempt to bulldoze huge changes onto people without bothering to get their consent. Democratic? Not bothering to get the peoples permission? Your idea of democracy is rather odd:confused: that was left up to the individual heads of state (eg, france decided on a refferendumn, other countries head-of-state were just going to say 'yes'). without that power, the eu remains as it was re three loose amalgamation of states, It is a lot more than a 'loose amalgamation of states' Have you ever heard the principle of 'ever closer union'? but that's no reason to not include any of the other, less controversial, aspects of the constitution. Such as? And why not bother to get the peoples consent? Giving democracy a try, you don't always get the answers you want, but that's what it's about. i'd disagree, but i suspect it would be more of a somatic disagreement. No. The disagreement is absolutely fundamental. The nation state is the essential building block of democracy. Without the nation state you don't get democracy. The antion state is the demos. It is the demos that makes democracy. Very basis principle.
Dak Posted October 31, 2006 Author Posted October 31, 2006 Common needs doesn't make a people. Mexicans and Tibetans have common needs and are people, but they are not the same 'people'. but they are all people, was my point. and common needs do make common solutions make sence. We aren't looking at co operation between nations, but at the establishment of a supra national state. no, we're not. in some ways the eu is supranational, in other ways it's federal, or inter-govournmental. calling the eu a supragovournment, or something that will be a supranation, is not accurate. Economics trumps nationality? A rather naive view which has been knocked down time and time again as all throughout history people have put nationality before economic self interest. that doesn't mean they're right, and the eu is not just about economics. it's also about preventing war, human rights, common military protection, etc. America is an awful parallel. All the settlers went to America with the express intention of becoming Americans and intergrating into America and American culture no they didn't. they went to america with the intent of forming colonies for their country of origin, then descided they wanted indipendance -- hence the war. Europe is completely different, the populations of Europe have not moved their with the intention of becoming 'Europeans' or participating in a 'European Dream'. And there is no general recognition of any benefits from 'uniting'. some people refuse to acknowledge != no benifits. arguing that there's no benifits is one thing, but please dont try to prove this by pointing out that people dont like the eu And these common things can be provided by the nations without any need for interference from the EU. In what way does the EU provide 'efficent protection from international crime'? For instance? And the EU doesn't have a habit of leaving 'local' rule to nations, it has a habit of grabbing power and micro managing as much as possible. i didn't say that the eu did, just that there's a common need for those things, and that partially unifying could provide that. also, there is an eu version of interpol. No. The idea that the people of Southampton are going to feel that thy are the compatriots of the people of Le Havre because of an artifical EU administrative decision is wrong. Peoples identities aren't ended by diktat. i disagree. i think that, over time, people would come to feel as if they belonged to their adminastrative region. after all, the people of southampton dont still consider themselves a member of the kingdom of wessex, nor do they have any problem considering themselves british (ie, kin with scotish, welsh, and northern irish). borders/nationalities change on paper, and over time people accept those borders/nationalities as their own. To mount a futile attack on peoples identities which is bound to alienate them from the very institution you appear to admire do much? good idea as in would, imo, achieve their aims. and i dont admire the eu, as i have said within this thread Nope, corruption and incompetence, them the sacked commisionners are back in their old jobs, to apparently investigate themselves for several months:eek: , then forming a new commision, with no reference to the European Parliament (democratic:rolleyes: ) which still contained members of the old commission. And those 'sacked' commisioners leave with full pension rights and a remarkably generous pay off. so? the main one who was alledged of corrupiton is to stand trial. the president was sacked. some other members were aswell. and, inportantly, those commisioners who sat on the next commision, both old and new, had to be OK'd by the european parliment; bearing in mind that it had just forsed them to resign, i doubt it was in a week-and-feeble mood, and could easily have stoped the apointment of any commisioners who were suspect. these, i remind you, are democratically elected MEPs. If Blair loses a vote in the UK parliament he is out. That day. Not in six months time. Compare that with the EU 'Parliament' it could and should have been quicker. you're brusing aside my point tho: that it happened. My local MEPs have no say on the matter. How is that democratic? apart from being part of the european parliment, which can veto most stuff. that which they can't can be veto'd by the counsil, which is appointed by our democratically elected heads-of-state. It isn't a question of whether its a good idea to make it a CRIMINAL offence to sell a pound of butter, but the fact that it is a undemocratic diktat from unaaccountable commisioners over whom i have no influence as a citizen and voter. It's the lack of democracy that is problematic here. i think it's you who's missing the point. we weren't invaded by europe. we were entirely free to joint the eu or not. dont like the eu? should have voted for UKIP, or cons. you did? well, sucks, i voted lib-dem, but most people voted for blair, who's pro-eu. wether we like it or not, our country has democratically given up some powers to the eu, on account of the fact that it was something that our democratically elected leader did, speaking on behalf of the majority at their request, reguarldless of the fact that you and i didn't vote for him. the eu is democratic. do we vote for the commision? no (but our democratically elected heads-of-state do, and they have to be ok'd by our democratically elected MEPs). do we vote for the counsil? no (but our democratically elected heads-of-state do). do we vote for the EP? yes. you're winging about it being un-democratic, but the simple fact is that it is democratic. there is democratic accountability. there are elections. it's not identicle to the UK's democracy, but it's still democracy. you can pick holes in the system, and point out places where it needs inprovement, but calling it undemocratic is about the same level as calling most of what the UK ministers do undemocratic -- we dont vote for them, we dont vote on the issues, there's 'only' a democratically elected group of representatives there to keep an eye on them on our behalf. Whether making me a criminal for buying a pint is a good idea or not should be a matter for my democratically elected government, not a Supra National organistation issuing directives without any democratic mandate or accountability. which has (possibly, im not sure) descided to demure to the eu in this case. another way of looking at it, and an entirely democratic way: deal with it. the majority of people chose blair to speak on their behalfs; blair speaks on their behalfs; blair can chose to accept the eu's rulings, and it will be a choice made on behalf of the majority of the UK. democracy. no one has an invading army here forsing us to accept eu rulings. the UK has deocratically chosen to allow the eu to make some desisions for it. how is all of this undemocratic. No, if you can't do it with the blessing of the people, then don't. now it is you who is unencumbered by reality i was talking about how democracys work, not how they should work. The fact that an undemocratic and unaccountable organisation does it, makes it 'more' democratic? i meant, the fact that the eu is sneaky and underhanded makes it more of a genuine, bona-fida democratic organisation. i was being cynical Yet another undemocratic attempt to bulldoze huge changes onto people without bothering to get their consent. Democratic? Not bothering to get the peoples permission? Your idea of democracy is rather odd:confused: not really. unless you live in a direct democracy, you elect people to speak on your behalf, and whatever they say is considered as being said with the backing of the majority. ergo, if blair randomly dictates something, it is on behalf of, and with the backing of, the people, for the duration of his term. there are, of course, exceptions. in some countries i believe the PM would have been required to hold a reffurendum for an issue of this magnitude. in others, not. it depends on how much power the people wish to grant their elected representative. i'll say this very clearly, so that my point cannot be mistaken: you live in a democratic country. vote for someone who will express your wishes. if you dont like the eu, vote for a PM, an MP, and an MEP that doesn't like the eu and will represent your wishes in this matter. if more people vote for someone like blaire, who is pro-eu, then you will just have to accept that you are in the minority, and that the path that the UK is headed down is democratic, and undertaken with the backing of the people, reguardless of your personal (minority) oppinion. if you dont like this pretty central aspect of the uk's democracy, then why insist that the eu's democracy becomes more like the uk's democracy? sorry that im hammering this point home, but the 'it's undemocratic' red-herring was getting old. differently democratic? yes. certain failings re: exact mechanisms of the democratic process? possibly. non-democratic? no It is a lot more than a 'loose amalgamation of states' Have you ever heard the principle of 'ever closer union'? sorry, bad gramma on my part. i was reffering to keeping the 'three pillar' organisation, which the constitution would have done away with. No. The disagreement is absolutely fundamental. The nation state is the essential building block of democracy. Without the nation state you don't get democracy. The antion state is the demos. It is the demos that makes democracy. Very basis principle. that must be why, historically, the more nationalistic a govournment is, the more democratic it is people's oppinions being represented is the building block of democracy. it matters not wether these people feel divided by race, nationality, class, political ideals etc, just that they get their say.
Klaynos Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 If Blair loses a vote in the UK parliament he is out. That day. Not in six months time. Compare that with the EU 'Parliament' You are aware he has lost votes in the lower house?
Aardvark Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 You are aware he has lost votes in the lower house? If he loses a vote on his position as Prime minister he is out. Not if he loses a vote on cat food regulation. Obviously.
Aardvark Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 but they are all people, was my point. You appear to be confused. Being people does not make them the same people. and common needs do make common solutions make sence. I have a common need for food and water as does a Malaysian. Does that mean that my country and Malaysia should merge? no, we're not. in some ways the eu is supranational, in other ways it's federal, or inter-govournmental. calling the eu a supragovournment, or something that will be a supranation, is not accurate. Calling the EU a supra national project is perfectly accurate. Perhaps you need to check a dictionary? that doesn't mean they're right, and the eu is not just about economics. it's also about preventing war, human rights, common military protection, etc. The EU can claim to be about all those things if it wants. That doesn't make it true or mean that it is the most effective way of promoting those things. On the evidence the EU doesn't do a good job on those matters. no they didn't. they went to america with the intent of forming colonies for their country of origin, then descided they wanted indipendance -- hence the war. I was refering to the Civil war (obviously). Whether you look at Americas colonial or post colonial history, people were choosing to leave their countries to go to a new place, whether called a colony or a repubic. It was a place with a distinctive identity that people wanted to be a part of. Quite the opposite of Europe. some people refuse to acknowledge != no benifits. Didn't write that, didn't imply that. arguing that there's no benifits is one thing, but please dont try to prove this by pointing out that people dont like the eu Didn't do so. Are you misreading my post or being deliberately mendacious? i didn't say that the eu did, Yes you did. just that there's a common need for those things, and that partially unifying could provide that. An argument you have repeatedly made without actually providing any evidence for how the EU will met these needs in any sort of superior fashion. also, there is an eu version of interpol. Yet more wasteful duplication and inefficency. With no apparent effect on international crime, which you stated the EU would provide protection against. i disagree. i think that, over time, people would come to feel as if they belonged to their adminastrative region. You honestly believe that people would change their identities because of an EU administrative decision? after all, the people of southampton dont still consider themselves a member of the kingdom of wessex, A series of brutal military invasions and mass population re settlements of the type now called ethnic cleansing had a lot to do with that, not an arbitary change in administrative boundaries. nor do they have any problem considering themselves british (ie, kin with scotish, welsh, and northern irish). Several centuries of Union, a shared language, shared history and culture, and Britain still has difficulty reconciling its different constituent parts. Perhaps you've noticed this fuss about devolution and the unresolved debates? And you think that dragging people together with none of those close links, with none of the shared history, family ties and culture will work? borders/nationalities change on paper, and over time people accept those borders/nationalities as their own. Yugoslavia. Ireland. USSR. Austo-Hungarian Empire. People don't accept any such thing. good idea as in would, imo, achieve their aims. Any evidence to back your claim up? There is a truck load of historical evidence that peoples identities and allegencies don't get changed by fiat. How are you going to refute that? and i dont admire the eu, as i have said within this thread You've just repeatedly defended it and pointed out that you approve of its aims. so? the main one who was alledged of corrupiton is to stand trial. the president was sacked. some other members were aswell. and, inportantly, those commisioners who sat on the next commision, both old and new, had to be OK'd by the european parliment; The Commision reappointed itself after being sacked. What part of that is hard to understand? bearing in mind that it had just forsed them to resign, i doubt it was in a week-and-feeble mood, and could easily have stoped the apointment of any commisioners who were suspect. And yet it didn't. The facts contradict your own argument. these, i remind you, are democratically elected MEPs. Who have almost no real authority or power, as opposed to the unelected commissoners. it could and should have been quicker. you're brusing aside my point tho: that it happened. A sacked commission reappoints itself. And that is your idea of democracy? apart from being part of the european parliment, which can veto most stuff. Such as? The EU 'Parliament' doesn't even get to scrutinise most EU legislation, let alone veto it. that which they can't can be veto'd by the counsil, which is appointed by our democratically elected heads-of-state. So laws applicable to me in my country are decided by foreign heads of state. The German and the French presidents decide something and i have to obey. Where is the democracy? Oh wait, their isn't. i think it's you who's missing the point. we weren't invaded by europe. we were entirely free to joint the eu or not. Being free to join the EU doesn't mak it democratic. You look like you're missing the point spectacularly. dont like the eu? should have voted for UKIP, or cons. you did? well, sucks, i voted lib-dem, but most people voted for blair, who's pro-eu. wether we like it or not, our country has democratically given up some powers to the eu, on account of the fact that it was something that our democratically elected leader did, speaking on behalf of the majority at their request, reguarldless of the fact that you and i didn't vote for him. How off the point can you get? The fact that Britain, as a democratic country has joined the EU does not make the EU democratic. Your logic makes no sense. the eu is democratic. Really? By the EUs OWN RULES, if the EU were to apply to join itself it would be rejected as being insufficently democratic. Understand that? The EU itself admits that it is not democratic. Shall i repeat that? The EU itself admits that it is not democratic. Understand yet? do we vote for the commision? no (but our democratically elected heads-of-state do, and they have to be ok'd by our democratically elected MEPs). So no voter gets a say, instead its old fashioned patronage. (which doesn't count as democracy) do we vote for the counsil? no (but our democratically elected heads-of-state do). Again, do you know what the word 'patronage' means? Not much to do with democracy i'm afraid. do we vote for the EP? yes. Hooray, a vote on a toothless assembly that doesn't make the decisions. you're winging about it being un-democratic, but the simple fact is that it is democratic. there is democratic accountability. there are elections. it's not identicle to the UK's democracy, but it's still democracy. No. It is not democratic because it is not accountable. The only elections are to a powerless 'Parliament' which doesn't make the decisions, frame the legislation or make the rules. you can pick holes in the system, and point out places where it needs inprovement, but calling it undemocratic is about the same level as calling most of what the UK ministers do undemocratic -- we dont vote for them, we dont vote on the issues, there's 'only' a democratically elected group of representatives there to keep an eye on them on our behalf. All the UK ministers are directly elected by their constituents. If the people get upset then they are out at the next election. Just ask Michael Portillo. That is democracy. When do we get a vote on your 'democratic' Commisionners? Never? Really? How democratic:rolleyes: which has (possibly, im not sure) descided to demure to the eu in this case. And when did did the House of Commons get to vote on that matter? Never? The EU just decided to grant itself those powers. How democratic, in a Chinese sort of way. another way of looking at it, and an entirely democratic way: deal with it. the majority of people chose blair to speak on their behalfs; blair speaks on their behalfs; That doesn't make the EU democratic. The people elected a government (by democracy!) that then seeks to bind the nation to an undemocratic organisation. Living in a democracy i am free to point out the problem with this and the fact that the U is not democratic. blair can chose to accept the eu's rulings, No, he can't. EU law overrules UK law whether Blair likes it or not. and it will be a choice made on behalf of the majority of the UK. Except that choice has been taken away. democracy. no one has an invading army here forsing us to accept eu rulings. the UK has deocratically chosen to allow the eu to make some desisions for it. how is all of this undemocratic. The fact that the UK as a democracy is a member of the EU doesn't make the EU democratic. There is no apparent logic in your argument. now it is you who is unencumbered by reality i was talking about how democracys work, not how they should work. The EU isn't a democracy, so it isn't even a question of an imperfect system in comparision with an ideal. The EU is seeking to make major constitutional changes that directly effect hundreds of millions of people. If it can't get any mandate that it shouldn't. Simple. i meant, the fact that the eu is sneaky and underhanded makes it more of a genuine, bona-fida democratic organisation.. Like Cuba? i was being cynical It's coming across as naivety. not really. unless you live in a direct democracy, you elect people to speak on your behalf, and whatever they say is considered as being said with the backing of the majority. And then you get the opportunity to vote for or against them at regular elections. Unlike the EU. ergo, if blair randomly dictates something, it is on behalf of, and with the backing of, the people, for the duration of his term. And then you get to vote on whether to renew his mandate, unlike the EU. i'll say this very clearly, so that my point cannot be mistaken: It's just a shame that i do understand your point and ralise that it is muddle headed and mistaken you live in a democratic country. vote for someone who will express your wishes. if you dont like the eu, vote for a PM, an MP, and an MEP that doesn't like the eu and will represent your wishes in this matter. if more people vote for someone like blaire, who is pro-eu, then you will just have to accept that you are in the minority, and that the path that the UK is headed down is democratic, and undertaken with the backing of the people, reguardless of your personal (minority) oppinion. Your basic point is that the UK is democratic and has freely choosen to be part of the EU, therefore the EU is democratic. That is wrong. The UK can be democratic and democratically choose to join an undemocratic organisation. if you dont like this pretty central aspect of the uk's democracy, then why insist that the eu's democracy becomes more like the uk's democracy? I haven't insisted on any such thing. I've simply pointed out that the EU is an undemocratic organisation. sorry that im hammering this point home, but the 'it's undemocratic' red-herring was getting old. Old but true. differently democratic? yes. No. Simply not democratic. certain failings re: exact mechanisms of the democratic process? possibly. Failing such as not being a democratic organistation, yes. non-democratic? no Non-democratic? Yes. that must be why, historically, the more nationalistic a govournment is, the more democratic it is A complete red herring on your part. Incidentaly, according to your logic, Hitler and the Nazi regime was democratic. Hitler was elected democratically to set up a totalitarian state. According to what you have argued that makes the 3rd Reich a democratic organisation. people's oppinions being represented is the building block of democracy. it matters not wether these people feel divided by race, nationality, class, political ideals etc, just that they get their say. It matters a great deal whether people feel divided. You don't appear to understand the difference between the concept of 'people' as a general description of multiple humans, and 'a people' as a discrete unit of humans bound by common loyalties. Without 'a people' it is not possible to have a democracy. And there is no such thing as 'a European people'. Without common loyalities there is no European democracy. The EU is a bureaucratic oligarchy. Love it or loath it. It isn't democratic.
hotcommodity Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 First I must admit I don't know a great deal about the EU, but from what I gather, people tend to be opposed to it due to the bad reputation of globalization. In my opinion, those people have a good point which is quite simple: The more power that is consolidated, the easier it is to construct somewhat of a dictatorial rule, or at the very least, imposing policy unfavorable to a particular country. The EU, having established its own military, is like having a separate nation lording over another, only this non-existant nation will have a considerable sphere of influence within each country. The idea of an ignorant majority overpowering an intellectual and sincere minority, I believe, is the fear of those who are opposed to the EU.
Aardvark Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 The idea of an ignorant majority overpowering an intellectual and sincere minority, I believe, is the fear of those who are opposed to the EU. It's simple really. Imagine if NAFTA was given the right to make laws that overrode the US supreme court and overode the US constitution and overode the Senate and Congress and the President. Imagine if the leaders of NAFTA were not elected but chosen by a vote between the Mexican President, Canadian Prime Minister and the US President. How would you feel if the Mexican and Canadian leaders decided that they didn't like the US having its own currency and so 'voted' to abolish it and replace it with a 'Nafta Peso'? Seriously, how would you feel about that?
hotcommodity Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 It's simple really. Imagine if NAFTA was given the right to make laws that overrode the US supreme court and overode the US constitution and overode the Senate and Congress and the President. Imagine if the leaders of NAFTA were not elected but chosen by a vote between the Mexican President, Canadian Prime Minister and the US President. How would you feel if the Mexican and Canadian leaders decided that they didn't like the US having its own currency and so 'voted' to abolish it and replace it with a 'Nafta Peso'? Seriously, how would you feel about that? Haha, nafta peso, that's classic. Of course I would dislike living in a society where the citizens have little or no say, but that's basically the society we're living under today. There may be many benifits to these free-trade agreements, but I believe the risk outweights the benifit as modern corporations haven't shown they can hold a great amount of responsibility and power without abusing it.
Aardvark Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 Haha, nafta peso, that's classic. It's funny:-p . And then it happens:eek: Well, probably not in the USA, but it is happening in Europe.
hotcommodity Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 Well, if all of the IMF/World Bank bailouts ever catch up to us, it most certainly would destroy the dollar. If the free-traders got their way, I'm certain we would all be stuck with a global currency.
Dak Posted November 1, 2006 Author Posted November 1, 2006 It's simple really. Imagine if NAFTA was given the right to make laws that overrode the US supreme court and overode the US constitution and overode the Senate and Congress and the President. Imagine if the leaders of NAFTA were not elected but chosen by a vote between the Mexican President, Canadian Prime Minister and the US President. How would you feel if the Mexican and Canadian leaders decided that they didn't like the US having its own currency and so 'voted' to abolish it and replace it with a 'Nafta Peso'? Seriously, how would you feel about that? the answre is: indifferent. reason? it wouldn't happen. take the euro for example. britain didn't like it. britain doesnt use it. no problem. or had you not noticed that we still use sterling, whilst germany, france etc have switched to the euro? im sure they didn't vote to exclude us just to be mean.
Dak Posted November 2, 2006 Author Posted November 2, 2006 I have a common need for food and water as does a Malaysian. Does that mean that my country and Malaysia should merge? sure. i occasionally need to defecate, as do dogs. let kanines and humans unite you know full well that's not the type of common need to which i was reffering, rather to those that would benifit from co-operation in addressing, which i have allready given examples of. Calling the EU a supra national project is perfectly accurate. Perhaps you need to check a dictionary? Political structure: a hybrid intergovernmental and supranational organization from https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ee.html The European Union is more than just a confederation of countries, but it is not a federal State. It is, in fact, something entirely new and historically unique. from http://europa.eu/abc/12lessons/index4_en.htm 'supranation' is not representative of the structure of the eu. i happen to note that it's a lot more scary-sounding than an 'intergovournment' to someone who fears their country loosing their power, tho. The EU can claim to be about all those things if it wants. That doesn't make it true or mean that it is the most effective way of promoting those things. On the evidence the EU doesn't do a good job on those matters. oh? care to back that up? ---- Originally Posted by Dak: at the end of the day, people from england and romania do share certain things in common, wether they know/like it or not -- desire for protection of fundamental human rights, a decent economy, efficient protection from international crime etc. these common things can be provided by the eu, whilst leaving the local rule to the states. aardvarkAnd these common things can be provided by the nations without any need for interference from the EU. In what way does the EU provide 'efficent protection from international crime'? For instance? And the EU doesn't have a habit of leaving 'local' rule to nations, it has a habit of grabbing power and micro managing as much as possible. daki didn't say that the eu did, just that there's a common need for those things, and that partially unifying could provide that. also, there is an eu version of interpol. aardvarkYes you did. No, i didn't. i said a common need was there. i said the eu could provide them. wether or not they currently are is another matter -- i was just reffering to the benifits of the european states partially unifying. flowing on nicely: An argument you have repeatedly made without actually providing any evidence for how the EU will met these needs in any sort of superior fashion. not the eu, but co-operation between states. can be normal cooperation, or unification, or somewhere inbetween. eu is something that is striving to fill this position -- as i said, wether or not it does is a seperate issue. i was defending the principle of a european govournmental organisation, not neccesarily the current one (the eu). unless you expect me to explain why organisations that transend state boundries are sometimes more effective that the individual states? Yet more wasteful duplication and inefficency. With no apparent effect on international crime, which you stated the EU would provide protection against. see above, re: the principle, not the current execution. You honestly believe that people would change their identities because of an EU administrative decision? over generations, yes. Yugoslavia. Ireland. USSR. Austo-Hungarian Empire. not allways then. the ussr fell with communism. austro-hungary was split up after WWI, and stayed split up, which if anything supports my claim that you can artificially tinker with country-borders. Any evidence to back your claim up? There is a truck load of historical evidence that peoples identities and allegencies don't get changed by fiat. How are you going to refute that? i guess it would be most accurate to say it's inpossible to tell. there are many examples of artificial unions working and failing throughout history. You've just repeatedly defended it and pointed out that you approve of its aims. i admire the aims of the eu, vis international cooperation on international issues, and the creation of a larger state in addition to the country-states, in areas where that makes sence, and for the mutual benifit of the country states. in other words, i admire what the eu is supposed to be. im not entirely descided, but im leaning towards thinking the above would be a very good idea, not just an admirable one. i dont admire the way that the eu is attempting to achieve these aims. they have made the some fundamental mistakes imo, and are proving to be opaque and underhanded. hence, i dont admire the eu. The Commision reappointed itself after being sacked. What part of that is hard to understand? the commision did not reapoint itself, it was orderd to stay in office untill a transition had been made by the counsil, ie the representatives of the countries chosen by the heads of state: Having noted the decision of the Commission to tender its resignation and without ignoring the criticisms levelled by Parliament or the situation described in the report by the Committee of Independent Experts, the Council would like to thank the European Commission and its staff for their committed work in the interests of the European Union. The Council considers that a new Commission should be appointed as rapidly as possible in compliance with the procedures specified in the Amsterdam Treaty. However, it expects the Commission to remain in office until then as provided for in the Treaty and resolutely to represent the interests of the European Union to the outside world http://europa.eu/bulletin/en/9903/p110013.htm in addition, you are ignoring my point: something dodgy went on. an independant investigation was forced by the democratic branch of the eu. as a result, the commision was replaced. contrast to the two examples that i gave, which were, imo, definately independant inquirey worth, and yet didn't get them. And yet it didn't. The facts contradict your own argument. actually, i was talking about the next commision, as opposed to the interim commision. to clarify further: santer commission <-- forced to resign marin commision <-- interim commission prodi commision <-- next commision Who have almost no real authority or power, as opposed to the unelected commissoners. they've forced the resignation of the commision, veto'd budgets, and, i say again, have power of veto in most cases. the commision usually require permission to act from the EP. if you wish to restate that the EP has no real power yet again, please provide evidence to back up your claim. A sacked commission reappoints itself. And that is your idea of democracy? the commission has no power to apoint any commision, a resigned commision has no power to do anything. the consept of a resigned commision reappointing itself is rediculous. the counsil commisioned the commision to 'hold the fort' untill a new commision could be raised. Such as? The EU 'Parliament' doesn't even get to scrutinise most EU legislation, let alone veto it. can amend ~3/4 of legislature, can veto allmost all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Powers_and_functions So laws applicable to me in my country are decided by foreign heads of state. The German and the French presidents decide something and i have to obey. Where is the democracy? Oh wait, their isn't. sigh... the democracy is that we democratically agreed to this. only very few eu issues get descided upon by the commision and the counsil, as opposed to the commision and the EP from wp: * Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters * Revision of the Treaties * Discrimination on grounds of sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or political conviction, disability, age or sexual orientation * EU citizenship * Agriculture * Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies associated with the free movement of persons * Transport (where it is likely to have a significant impact on certain regions) * Competition rules * Tax arrangements * Economic policy * "Enhanced co-operation" - i.e. the arrangement allowing a group of member states to work together in a particular field even if the others do not wish to join in yet. hardly that broad, when you think about it. wheres the democracy? well... Being free to join the EU doesn't mak it democratic. You look like you're missing the point spectacularly[...] How off the point can you get? The fact that Britain, as a democratic country has joined the EU does not make the EU democratic. Your logic makes no sense. if thats the case, then the geneva convention is undemocratic, because the person who we vote for now is bound by it without the right of us to vote to ignore it. is this 'undemocratic'?. democratic countries can, and have, and do, give up some of their rights. as long as the representative of the country was democratically elected, then the rights were given up democratically. countries have the right to enter into binding agreements with other countries, that they later are obliged to honour, and this is not said to be 'undemocratic'. i dont see how else to say this. the eu is built on, held together by, and given validity, by a handful of treaties, which we signed. or, to be specific, which our democratically elected democratic head-of-our-democratic-state has signed on our behalfs. which we now are obliged to honour. no one forced to enter into this agreement. we are not subjected nations, we are democratic nations that have freely entered into an agreement. so, it's not undemocratic in the way that it was formed, and the obligation of member states to adhere to certain descisions by certain eu organisations is not undemocratic. as for democratic process: Really? By the EUs OWN RULES, if the EU were to apply to join itself it would be rejected as being insufficently democratic. Understand that? The EU itself admits that it is not democratic. Shall i repeat that? The EU itself admits that it is not democratic. Understand yet? 1/ the phrase 'shall i repeat that' is, traditionally, followed by a repetition, not a contortion 2/ would you mind citing your sources 3/ the eu is not a country. therefore, it has no obligation to adhere to it's own rules reguarding countries. So no voter gets a say, instead its old fashioned patronage. (which doesn't count as democracy) then britain, with it's house of lords, in not a democracy? the commision do not have anywhere near unrestrained power. you completely ignored the bit about requiring permission from the EP in most cases. the EP are chosen by voters to represent voters. de-mo-cra-cy. Again, do you know what the word 'patronage' means? Not much to do with democracy i'm afraid. the counsil limits itself, afaict, to purely inter-govournmental areas. the govournments of various nations agreeing to cooperate on certain issues. our country sends a representative. we do not vote for this representative any more than we vote for any other ambasador. our democratically elected head of state appoints him on our behalf, and tells him what to argue for. doing stuff on our behalf, including stuff like this, is our PM's job, and entirely democratic. Hooray, a vote on a toothless assembly that doesn't make the decisions. can. amend. almost. all. . legislature... can. veto. most. legislature... has. real. power. how many times do you need it repeated that they have, and have used, power before you'll stop claiming that it's a pretend-parliment, just so that you can continue complaining about the pretend undemocraticness of the eu? No. It is not democratic because it is not accountable. The only elections are to a powerless 'Parliament' which doesn't make the decisions, frame the legislation or make the rules. which bit? the parliment, which is directly accountable in the same way that MPs are? the counsil, which are just ambasadors and so are traditionally not held accountable (if they screw up on behalf of a PM, the PM is held accountable). the commision, which: is chosen by our representative has to be authorised by the EP has to have most its actions authorised by the EP can, and has, been forsed to resign by the EP has one ex-member currently on trial for corruption it is not required, for a democracy, that our reps make the desisions, merely that they represent our views, and have power to enforse our wishes. what, really, is the difference between a parliment that makes the rules, or a parliment that has to approve the rules? other, possibly, than speed. there IS a democratic body, it DOES have power, the needs and wishes of the people ARE looked out for in the parliment. it's a democracy. again, it's different from ours, but this matters not. ours, with our house of lords, is different from america's, but that hardly disqualifies the UKs govournment as a democracy. All the UK ministers are directly elected by their constituents. never into office. they are appointed by our PM, and only our PM. they need not even be voted for, actually. alastair campbell was a member of the cabinate without, iirc, ever even standing for election. If the people get upset then they are out at the next election. *cough* commision resigned *cough* again, i'm with you in that it wasn't perfect. imo, there should be a mechanism for immediate suspension of all non-emergency eu stuff, an interim commision immediately formed (maybe the heads-of-state could take turns making a back-up commision, to have limited powers of responding to emergencies, to stand in if the commision resign or are sacked), and the replacement should be done quicker before going back to buisness. but that's like saying it should be easyer to get the PM/president to undergo an indipendant investigation when theres sufficient proof of corruption. that it doesn't work entirely well is one thing... that it's not there -- which is what you are claiming -- is another. When do we get a vote on your 'democratic' Commisionners? Never? Really? How democratic:rolleyes: once. we get to vote on wether to accept them or not. this vote is done by our MEPs, who we vote for. when you get right down to it, we dont usually vote for the PM, as such. it's whoever has the backing of the most MPs. hence, the most popular party or coallition-party can choose a PM. PMs can resighn and be replaced without a general election (bum, bum, BUM). throughout this thread, you seem to be acting under the impression that the UK votes people in to every position of power, including the highest, and complaining that the eu doesnt. stop holding the eu to higher standards than you hold your own country to. we do NOT live in a democracy where we elect all the people who are in power, nor the one who is in the highest position of power (reguardless of wether you read that 'pm' or 'queen'), and nor do we live in a continent where we vote in everyone who is in a position of power, nor the ones at the top; however, in both cases, voting is done, representatives are elected, and they then fill in positions of power on our behalf, even the top ones (PM, commision etc). the eu is as democratic as the uk. if you dont like that, then you dont like representatonal democracy where the representatives choose their own leadership and staff, and would prefer everyone in a position of power above a certain level to be voted for.. fair one, but bear in mind that your gripe is with the eu not being a certain type of democracy, not being undemocratic, and that the UK suffers the same flaw. And when did did the House of Commons get to vote on that matter? Never? The EU just decided to grant itself those powers. How democratic, in a Chinese sort of way. no. it can't do that. you act as if it just came along and said 'we're in charge now', and that was it. the eu is using powers we gave it. yes democratic -- see bit above about democratic states democratically relinquishing power. No, he can't. EU law overrules UK law whether Blair likes it or not. only in areas where he has chosen to accept that eu law overrules uk law. we haven't been forced into this. this is all by and with our agreement. Except that choice has been taken away. freely given away your logic would seem to suggest that new york is part of the united faschist dictatorial empire of america The fact that the UK as a democracy is a member of the EU doesn't make the EU democratic. There is no apparent logic in your argument. the logic is that our entry was democratic. The EU isn't a democracy, so it isn't even a question of an imperfect system in comparision with an ideal. The EU is seeking to make major constitutional changes that directly effect hundreds of millions of people. If it can't get any mandate that it shouldn't. Simple. reminder: this branch of the conversation originated from a sarcastic and cynical comment i made, not an argument i put forth. i agree it shouldn't. i think it will, because im a cynical bastard and thats how i percieve the world as working. hence 'its opaque and underhanded' being on my list of reasons that i dont like the eu. It's coming across as naivety. naiive would be thinking that democracies work perfectly, and function in an entirely transparent, honest and trustworth manner. what i said was clearly the polar opposite of this. And then you get the opportunity to vote for or against them at regular elections. Unlike the EU. [...] And then you get to vote on whether to renew his mandate, unlike the EU.[...] It's just a shame that i do understand your point and ralise that it is muddle headed and mistaken no you dont, and have mistaken it again. i'll sum it up at the end for you. Your basic point is that the UK is democratic and has freely choosen to be part of the EU' date=' therefore the EU is democratic. That is wrong. The UK can be democratic and [b']democratically choose to join an undemocratic organisation.[/b] as you say, it's entry is democratic. Incidentaly, according to your logic, Hitler and the Nazi regime was democratic. Hitler was elected democratically to set up a totalitarian state. According to what you have argued that makes the 3rd Reich a democratic organisation. yes, because he was elected, had the support of most people, and the enabling act, with the permission of the people via their representatives, made him into a dictator for his term. no, because he removed people right to speak against him in any way, shape, or form, or to have a say in the running of their country in any way, shape, or form. also, democratically speaking, killing those who are likely to vote against you is considered cheating. in short: hitler democratically achieved an undemocratic rulership. in contrast, the eu democratically achieved a democratic rulership, such as it has. It matters a great deal whether people feel divided. You don't appear to understand the difference between the concept of 'people' as a general description of multiple humans, and 'a people' as a discrete unit of humans bound by common loyalties. Without 'a people' it is not possible to have a democracy. And there is no such thing as 'a European people'. Without common loyalities there is no European democracy. The EU is a bureaucratic oligarchy. Love it or loath it. It isn't democratic. ok, if we accept that then we must accept that it is inpossible to rig up a voting system that crosses boundries, even tho the eu has one. it must be impossible for people of different countries to all vote on the same issue, or to all be represented in one organisation that dus stuff. none of this is neccesarily true. democracies deal with people with different wants, from different situations etc. throwing in 'different countries' doesnt make it any harder than, say, the fact that the uk contains many immagrants, too many nazis, pasifists, militarists, people who want to pay less tax, people who want better (more expensive) services, christians, jews, muslims, atheists, a few jedi according to the sensus, people of all ages and classes, etc etc etc. democracies deal with this. they deal with a vast array of conflicting view points and pick the majority one, or, occasionaly, the sane one. that the people consider themselves all part of the same big, happy family is not required, as im sure the nazis, immagrants, extremely poor, those with radical political views, or anyone else that feels unakin with the other members of their demos will attest to. democratic eu? to summarise: there are two ways in which the eu could be undemocratic: 1/ its formation 2/ its execution. 1/ it was formed by the free surrender of certain powers by the democratically elected representatives of the member states. ergo, as you said, the uk's assecion to, and the formation of, the eu was democratic. 2/ we have representatives there. we vote for them. they represent us. they have real power, as i have pointed out and you have failed to offer any evidence to the contrary beyond unsupported statements. they can, and do, block certain legislature. we are democratically represented, by people who can sack the rulers. therefore, the running of the eu is democratic. the exeption being the counsil, which, like i said, is ambasador based and justified by treaties that we've signed. i assume you dont consider this bit undemocratic?
Aardvark Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 the answre is: indifferent. I'm fairly sure most Americans would take a rather different point of view. reason? it wouldn't happen. take the euro for example. britain didn't like it. britain doesnt use it. no problem. No problem! I seem to remember ERM, economic crisis and huge amounts of EU funded propaganda aimd at persuading the British that not abolishing the Pound would relegate the UK to poverty. Just a shame that the British people are too stubborn and contrary for even the Eurocrates to force that particular dogs breakfast on them. or had you not noticed that we still use sterling, Funnily enough i did notice. whilst germany, france etc have switched to the euro? Without anyone bothering to ask the people. Against some serious public opposition in many of the countries. That must be the democracy you think the EU displays so well:-p im sure they didn't vote to exclude us just to be mean. Pity about the Germans or the Dutch or the Spanish or the Swedes or the Finns not getting a vote on it at all. Perhaps some of them don't feel as indifferent as you profess to be? Still, never mind, as you stated, if you can't get a mandate from the voters, just do it anyway. Good old EU democracy:D Impose rules, expand control, ignore the electorate. After all, it's all in a good cause!
Dak Posted November 2, 2006 Author Posted November 2, 2006 No problem! I seem to remember ERM, economic crisis and huge amounts of EU funded propaganda aimd at persuading the British that not abolishing the Pound would relegate the UK to poverty. but still, we chose not to adopt it, which is a far cry from the 'being forced' that you inplied. Without anyone bothering to ask the people. Against some serious public opposition in many of the countries. it is, to pick one example, germany's right to change, or not, it's own currency. it is up to germany wether or not to. germany chose to. there was an outcry, as there often is with descisions of this magnitude. there was also a public outcry in the german spelling reform (nothing to do with the eu). its a representative democracy, not a direct one. it was up to the representatives to choose. a direct vote was not required. all of this, btw, is the germans doing -- they self-determined to have a representative, as opposed to direct, democracy, and they voted in their representatives, who chose the euro. on the other hand, england chose not to. the eu has yet to force us. hence why your analogy was totally invalid. Perhaps some of them don't feel as indifferent as you profess to be? Still, never mind, as you stated, if you can't get a mandate from the voters, just do it anyway. i neither stated that i am indifferent to the euro, nor that govournments should act against the wishes of their people. nor, for that matter, have the eu 'just done this' without the permission of the countries involved. see: the uk. Good old EU democracy:D Impose rules, expand control, ignore the electorate. After all, it's all in a good cause! this was, iirc, the doing of the counsil, which is inter-govournmental and hence doesnt even have an electorate. the individual countries chose to act or not. individual countries working together, but still individual countries. there was absolutely no dragging countries, kicking-and-screaming, into the euro. those that went went entirely willingly. those that were unwilling retain their own currency. furthermore, it was up to the individual countries as to wether to have a refferendum on this matter or not. iirc, at least one country did.
Aardvark Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 the eu is as democratic as the uk. if you dont like that, then you dont like representatonal democracy where the representatives choose their own leadership and staff, and would prefer everyone in a position of power above a certain level to be voted for.. fair one, but bear in mind that your gripe is with the eu not being a certain type of democracy, not being undemocratic, and that the UK suffers the same flaw. No. I don't think that the UK is a direct democracy. Never stated it. But the UK does have directly accountable politicians. Unlike the EU. That is why the UK is a democracy. The EU isn't. Looked up the word 'patronage' yet? only in areas where he has chosen to accept that eu law overrules uk law. No. EU law automatically overides UK law. Mr Blair doesn't have any choice over that. we haven't been forced into this. this is all by and with our agreement. Which still doesn't make the EU at all democratic. your logic would seem to suggest that new york is part of the united faschist dictatorial empire of america No. Strange distortion your attempting there:-p the logic is that our entry was democratic. Which is irrelevant. You really seem to think that just because the entry was a decision taken by a democratic government makes the EU democratic. It doesn't. yes, because he was elected, had the support of most people, and the enabling act, with the permission of the people via their representatives, made him into a dictator for his term. Which links to your oft repeated the logic is that our entry was democratic. no, because he removed people right to speak against him in any way, shape, or form, or to have a say in the running of their country in any way, shape, or form. Funny, that reminds me of the way a certain organisation based in Brussels behaves. in short: hitler democratically achieved an undemocratic rulership. Gosh. Just like the EU! in contrast, the eu democratically achieved a democratic rulership, such as it has. A democratic rulership which gets by without bothering with the inconvience of democracy. How efficent! democracies deal with people with different wants, from different situations etc. throwing in 'different countries' doesnt make it any harder than, say, the fact that the uk contains many immagrants, too many nazis, pasifists, militarists, people who want to pay less tax, people who want better (more expensive) services, christians, jews, muslims, atheists, a few jedi according to the sensus, people of all ages and classes, etc etc etc. Wrong. The differences between people within a country are trumped by a shared national loyalty. Without that shared bond there is nothing on which to base the democracy. democracies deal with this. they deal with a vast array of conflicting view points and pick the majority one, or, occasionaly, the sane one. that the people consider themselves all part of the same big, happy family is not required, as im sure the nazis, immagrants, extremely poor, those with radical political views, or anyone else that feels unakin with the other members of their demos will attest to. Democracies deal with that by using the common bonds of nationality. Something the EU can not do. I've not bothered responding to large chunks of what you stated, largely because most of it was redundant and partly because it is too late. I may add more comments later. Simply put, The EU is a oligarchical, supra national bureaucracy. It extends control and issues laws and directives with no direct reference to the voters. The EU 'Parliament' is toothless, barely even looking at most legislation, let alone actually vetoing anything. There is no European Demos and so there can be no European democracy ( can you name any European political parties with cross border appeal?, the only exception, Sinn Fein, is the exception that proves the rule). In summary. The EU is an artifical, undemocratic organisation. Arguing otherwise reminds me of those people who used to argue that the 'Peoples Democratic Republics' of the Eastern Bloc were really democratic.
Dak Posted November 2, 2006 Author Posted November 2, 2006 I don't think that the UK is a direct democracy. Never stated it. never said you did. we still dont directly elect our own PM, nor most our staff. same as the eu. Looked up the word 'patronage' yet? house of lords EU law automatically overides UK law. Mr Blair doesn't have any choice over that. again, only in area's where he has chosen to relinquish power. chosen being the operative, self-determination-related word Which is irrelevant. You really seem to think that just because the entry was a decision taken by a democratic government makes the EU democratic. as i summarised, it is one of the two aspects of the eu that makes it democratic. The differences between people within a country are trumped by a shared national loyalty. Without that shared bond there is nothing on which to base the democracy. your oppinion. i think what's going through most peoples minds when they vote is 'whats good for me', rather than 'whats good for everyone else'. people aren't that alltruistic. I've not bothered responding to large chunks of what you stated, largely because most of it was redundant and partly because it is too late. I may add more comments later. fair enough. our posts have been getting long, and i was going to do what you did in this post if your post was as long as mine. however, you seem to have completely ignored counter-arguments and rehashed old, refuted arguments Simply put, The EU is a oligarchical, supra national bureaucracy. It extends control and issues laws and directives with no direct reference to the voters. The EU 'Parliament' is toothless, barely even looking at most legislation, let alone actually vetoing anything. i feel i've raised some good arguments against all the above allready. With citations and everything to consolidate my views on the eu's democracy, these summarise pretty-much all my arguments on the subject: democratic eu? to summarise: there are two ways in which the eu could be undemocratic: 1/ its formation 2/ its execution. 1/ it was formed by the free surrender of certain powers by the democratically elected representatives of the member states. ergo, as you said, the uk's assecion to, and the formation of, the eu was democratic. 2/ we have representatives there. we vote for them. they represent us. they have real power, as i have pointed out and you have failed to offer any evidence to the contrary beyond unsupported statements. they can, and do, block certain legislature. we are democratically represented, by people who can sack the rulers. therefore, the running of the eu is democratic. the exeption being the counsil, which, like i said, is ambasador based and justified by treaties that we've signed. i assume you dont consider this bit undemocratic? in case you do: it is, to pick one example, germany's right to change, or not, it's own currency. it is up to germany wether or not to. germany chose to. there was an outcry, as there often is with descisions of this magnitude. there was also a public outcry in the german spelling reform (nothing to do with the eu). its a representative democracy, not a direct one. it was up to the representatives to choose. a direct vote was not required. all of this, btw, is the germans doing -- they self-determined to have a representative, as opposed to direct, democracy, and they voted in their representatives, who chose the euro. on the other hand, england chose not to. the eu has yet to force us these represent my views on the eu democracy, and i think it's sufficient, and there is genuine democracy within the eu. if you disagree, please point out where the democracy is lacking. if it contradicts the above, please explain why i am wrong. if it is the phrase 'the EP has no power', please cite it. sorry if that sounds rude, but as far as i'm conserned, arguments are about who's right. not about me being right -- if i'm wrong, i'd rather know. but one sentance statements which seem in complete disagreement with the evidence that i've seen wont convince me. so... if you want to convince me, you'll actually have to explain why the EP is powerless, dispite its veto/amenment powers, and the fact that it has used them on more than one occasion. you'll have to explain to me why the eu is undemocratic, dispite the fact that most of it is standard intergovournmental-treaty-based stuff, the power that has been relinquished has been relinquished willingly, and theres a democratic branch. ps: you do know that there are MEPs who are in favour of the dissolution of the eu, right? http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/topics.php?filter=2&sec=article&art_id=56 ^ second hit for googling 'uk mep dissolution eu'. there seem to be more. the eu is possibly the only democratic organisation that has, what with well-established indipendant country-states existing underneath it, a viable channel through which it can peasfully dissolve if enough people will it. pps sorry for my dyslexia, it seems to have gotten worse lately
Pangloss Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 Just wanna say that Dak and Aardvark have managed some of the longest posts in this thread that I've ever seen in my time at SFN. ;-]
CPL.Luke Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 ^agreed since there have been a couple of analogies to America in this thread, its worth pointing out that originally the Federal government in the US was very weak, and over the course of 230 years it grew to the point where it makes most of the relevant decisions to peoples lives today. But it took a long time for this to happen and there was a lot of opposition. For instance in 1783 the independance war ended. in 786 the articles of confederation were signed, which grouped the colonies into a loosely bounded set of independant states that agreed to fight together in a war, and also some trade agreements but that was it. after several yers of this the US was on the verge of collapse, with Connecticut and Massachussettes on the brink of war with eachother. So the articles of confederation were scrapped and the US constitution was formed. At the time this was very unpopular, as it made each individual state subject to a federalgovernment (which was very cleverly set up, even though it doesn't seem to be fairing well in the age of 24 hour news) out of curiosity can a member state leave the EU if it felt that the EU's restrictions were not in its national interest?
Dak Posted November 5, 2006 Author Posted November 5, 2006 heh, sorry about the post-length im not 100% sure about the exact technicalities of the eu, but as i understand it, its both a collection of techniquely-indipendant treaties, some mass-treaties, and an organisation to effect said treaties, and possibly 'etc'. im guessing that some of the individual treaties, if signed, are binding; however, for the most, a country can just leave the eu. as i said, the eu has only the powers that we voluntarily give it: a country is bound by and 'in' the eu as long as its own laws say that it's bound by, and 'in', the eu. a country can, of course, repeal its own laws whenever it wants. as i understand it, the constitution would have clarified this, and made it clear that leaving the eu wasn't 'dishonourable', but also make it a bit more difficult and, presumably, made it so that a country suddenly leaving had to leave no loose-ends for the rest of the eu, so to speak. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2950276.stm#leaving < very brief summary. also, the fact that there are MEPs that are pressing for the dissolution of the eu suggests that there's a mechanism by which the entire eu can dismiss itself.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now