The European Parliament: now with balls!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I believe he pointed out that the rules were collectively agreed by everyone but it has turned out that they only apply to some and not others. Either everyone is equal before the law or your law is a joke.

Aaaah, so this was his issue!

You made the point get across much better than he, I know understand what he was rambling about. I thought he wanted Finland to have as much weight in the decision-making process as France.

Re: France and Germany escaping the legal punishment they should have suffered from wrt deficits, the veyr reason why the law was unequal is because of the power of Nation-States in the decision-making process.
The Commission (a suprantational institution of "ministers" whose aim is the EU's general interest) decided clear punishment, as it is its mission as Guardian of the treaties.
The Council (an intergovernmental institutions where national governments haggle, and whose mission is to protect one's Member State's interests) shot it down because France and Germany haggled their way through it. That's what you get when you let politicians instead of justices decide that kind of things.
OTOH, France has been condemned to pay fines for plenty of things by the European Court of Justice, and now it pays.

[Pekka]

"I thought he wanted Finland to have as much weight in the decision-making process as France."

The other thing and this too as well. It's time for you to accept us as 100% equal member in all aspects of the game.

"blah blah blah blah"

the fact remains.

Bebro,

No. Not a Freudian slip I know very well what I meant and I mean it and I said ti. The unequality derives from that. That's the only way we can change the equality issue into fair play.

[BeBMan]

I thought Anglo-Saxon usually refers to something related to England, therefore I'm wondering.....

[Pekka]

oh could be my mistake with that saying, but then it's not freudian really. My english is just bad.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
"I thought he wanted Finland to have as much weight in the decision-making process as France."

The other thing and this too as well. It's time for you to accept us as 100% equal member in all aspects of the game.

Pekka, I entirely agree for you to be my political equal. It's the base of democracy. You, Pekka, deserve to be an equal member of the EU as I, Spiffor. And there shouldn't be people that are more equal than others, we agree.

I completely disagree with the idea that countries should have an identical political power. Do you imagine a coalition of Luxemburger, Maltese and Slowenians forcing Finland to drop traditional hunts. Do you imagine a coalition of Portugal and Ireland banning naked saunas for "morality issues"?

Not only that, but the door is open to a horrible unequality between voters. The average Luxemburger would be worth 200 times the average German - it is a de facto creation of a new nobility. Even in comparison to the small country that is Finland: a Luxemburger city of 100,000 would have exactly as much say as the whole of Helsinki.

If you have political equality (!= equality before the law) between populated and unpopulated countries, the populated countries (especially their citizens) will want out. Just like if Ylitornio and Helsinki had exactly the same political power, the people of Helsinki would do something about it. Simply because it is grossly unfair, simply because it creates a new kind of mobility, of people who are among others.

"blah blah blah blah"

the fact remains.

Congratulations. You ask for a solution, I give you a solution, and you are not even able to understand that it is a solution.
I just told you that, by making national governments irrelevant, the law will be applied equally in all countries. The very reason why France and Germany escaped punishment that time, is because the punishment was decided by the Member-States, not by supranational institutions.
In the many occurences where supranational institutions give punishment, but are not checked by the Member-States, the culprit has to pay.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
"However, it is true that one Finnish voter has more political say in Europe than one French voter. There's no way around it. Your vote, Pekka, is worth exactly twice mine."

This thinking is logically false.

I do not understand where it is logically false. Please enlighten me and explain me where the logical flaws in the following statements:

"Finland votes for 12 MEPs. It has 5 million inhabitants"
"The Paris Metropolitian Area votes for 12 MEPs. It has 10 million inhabitants".
"One Finn voter has twice more political say than one Parisian voter."

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Spiffor
"Finland votes for 12 MEPs. It has 5 million inhabitants"
"The Paris Metropolitian Area votes for 12 MEPs. It has 10 million inhabitants".
"One Finn voter has twice more political say than one Parisian voter."

It is indeed logically false. You have to replace "more" with "the", otherwise it means a Finn has three times your political say (twice more = 200% more), which is obviously not the case

[Spiffor]

Picky
OK, the, it was a grammar mistake

Now, I'm still waiting for an explanation of the logical flaw.

[Pekka]

All I'm going to say to you, take a math course or learn some basic logics. We have national boundaries right now. Maybe it doesn't mean anything to you, but that onyl shows the arrogance. We have those borders and for now they are very real. So your 1:1:1 ratio thinking is not simply working in this scenario. Take your imperialism somewhere else.

"Pekka, I entirely agree for you to be my political equal. It's the base of democracy. You, Pekka, deserve to be an equal member of the EU as I, Spiffor. And there shouldn't be people that are more equal than others, we agree."

Yes so let's make it happen in reality before going any further. As of now, with the boundaries, we are equal inside our on nations if we think about citrizen individual wise, but country wise we are not. Our agendas don't get attention as much as yours do. Thuis it doesn't amtter if I have thousand votes inside my country, as long as your country keeps muscling around. When we cchange that, than we are equal in all senses. When our member states are equal, we are equal. And we can't remove those boundaries before that has been taken care of. Because then the whole premise to federalisation is ... racist. Then we become nothing more than the quiet little outskirts of EU with no importance. Because the majority is in the central EU, and the EU would have to concentrate more on those parts, because there's more money, demand, and arrogant loud people who thin kthey are the superstars of this world. So unless we go in equal, we will be even more unequal in the future.

"Do you imagine a coalition of Luxemburger, Maltese and Slowenians forcing Finland to drop traditional hunts. Do you imagine a coalition of Portugal and Ireland banning naked saunas for "morality issues"?"

none of thse are political issues where political force is supposed to be used. If you think so, then I can't but disagree. EU's place is not in there and if you think it should be the uberGod of all things, ... then we don't share the dream.

"Not only that, but the door is open to a horrible unequality between voters. The average Luxemburger would be worth 200 times the average German - it is a de facto creation of a new nobility. Even in comparison to the small country that is Finland: a Luxemburger city of 100,000 would have exactly as much say as the whole of Helsinki."

No wait, but you have been saying you're underrepresented, now you say it actually isn't good logics? What, do you happen to work for Kerry campagn?

"If you have political equality (!= equality before the law) between populated and unpopulated countries, the populated countries (especially their citizens) will want out."

No ****, and the other way around the 'unpopulated' as you so well put it want out too. Unless their rights are secured. Realistically in practice, not in theory and grand master plans.

" Just like if Ylitornio and Helsinki had exactly the same political power, the people of Helsinki would do something about it. Simply because it is grossly unfair, simply because it creates a new kind of mobility, of people who are among others."

False analogy.


"Congratulations. You ask for a solution, I give you a solution, and you are not even able to understand that it is a solution."

That's because it's not a solution. You keep being arrogant, and the arrogance I want to be gone. You're part of the problem with your encouragement of this kind of behaviour.

"very reason why France and Germany escaped punishment that time, is because the punishment was decided by the Member-States, not by supranational institutions.
In the many occurences where supranational institutions give punishment, but are not checked by the Member-States, the culprit has to pay."

This comment is stack of BS.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Pekka
False analogy.

That's because it's not a solution. You keep being arrogant, and the arrogance I want to be gone. You're part of the problem with your encouragement of this kind of behaviour.

This comment is stack of BS.

These comments remind me of somebody other than Pekka... Do the mods know, that Pekkas account is hijacked?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
All I'm going to say to you, take a math course or learn some basic logics. We have national boundaries right now. Maybe it doesn't mean anything to you, but that onyl shows the arrogance.

No, it shows my internationalism. I would be arrogant if I wanted a French Union. In this case, I want a Super-State in which individual countries (including France) lose relevance. As individual countries lose relevance, so does too the issue of unequality between countries.

We have those borders and for now they are very real. So your 1:1:1 ratio thinking is not simply working in this scenario. Take your imperialism somewhere else.

Actually, I am aware that Europe is not politically homogenous enough, for the time being, to warrant a strict application of "one person, one vote".
As you may have noticed, I do support the European Parliement despite my underrepresentation there. I consider the unequalities of representation as a necessary evil in the European construction, and I accept them willingly.

"Pekka, I entirely agree for you to be my political equal. It's the base of democracy. You, Pekka, deserve to be an equal member of the EU as I, Spiffor. And there shouldn't be people that are more equal than others, we agree."

Yes so let's make it happen in reality before going any further. As of now, with the boundaries, we are equal inside our on nations if we think about citrizen individual wise, but country wise we are not. Our agendas don't get attention as much as yours do.

The very reason of that is because you are precisely thinking in terms of Intergovernmentalism (Member-States having the power to decide) instead of Supranationalism (where directly elected supranational institutions like the EP have the power to decide).

My agenda gets nearly zilch attention, btw. I am a Commie, and as such, the Chirac conservative government completely disregards my agenda when haggling with other European countries. And the Communist fraction at the EP is weak. As a whole, the EU goes completely opposite to what my agenda wants.
I have no problem with the Parliament (which is mostly conservative) going against my agenda. It's demoracy. It's perfectly normal that the will of the majority takes precedence over the will of the minority.
I have a problem with Chirac claiming he speaks for 60 million French people. It is false. He doesn't speak for me. He doesn't speak for the majority of French citizens who gave him a political defeat of historical dimensions this year. Yet he claims it. And by the logic of intergovernmental EU, Chirac's agenda gets much more attention than Martti's.

Thuis it doesn't amtter if I have thousand votes inside my country, as long as your country keeps muscling around. When we cchange that, than we are equal in all senses.

Yay! Precisely! So let's now strip Member-States of the power they abuse, and let's give it back to the people!

Because then the whole premise to federalisation is ... racist. Then we become nothing more than the quiet little outskirts of EU with no importance. Because the majority is in the central EU, and the EU would have to concentrate more on those parts, because there's more money, demand, and arrogant loud people who thin kthey are the superstars of this world.

False. A centralist EU would indeed make you the outskirts. Not a federal one. The core of federalism is that local layers of governments (be they called "States", "Länder", "Provinces" or whatever) have a strong autonomy, and has many issues to deal by themselves.

For example, economic development of each State will remain their responsibility (except for the poorer countries which will get help), within the communitary legal frame.

"Do you imagine a coalition of Luxemburger, Maltese and Slowenians forcing Finland to drop traditional hunts. Do you imagine a coalition of Portugal and Ireland banning naked saunas for "morality issues"?"

none of thse are political issues where political force is supposed to be used. If you think so, then I can't but disagree. EU's place is not in there and if you think it should be the uberGod of all things, ... then we don't share the dream.

I agree those are not EU issues. But some countries (or some people) want to make issues into EU issues. I thought your traditional hunting ways were threatened already (ours sure are). And since the EU pressures Ireland into allowing abortion, why couldn't it pressure Finland from dropping naked saunas?

"Not only that, but the door is open to a horrible unequality between voters. The average Luxemburger would be worth 200 times the average German - it is a de facto creation of a new nobility. Even in comparison to the small country that is Finland: a Luxemburger city of 100,000 would have exactly as much say as the whole of Helsinki."

No wait, but you have been saying you're underrepresented, now you say it actually isn't good logics? What, do you happen to work for Kerry campagn?

I don't see where I contradicted myself. You want a strict equality between Member-States. Which will in turn become a terrible inequality among voters. I think my underrepresentation is a bad thing, even though I admit it is a necessary evil for the time being. I still don't see where the logic is faulty in saying that one Luxemburger voter = 200 German voters according to your model of pure equality between States.

"If you have political equality (!= equality before the law) between populated and unpopulated countries, the populated countries (especially their citizens) will want out."

No ****, and the other way around the 'unpopulated' as you so well put it want out too. Unless their rights are secured. Realistically in practice, not in theory and grand master plans.

Laurentius seems to disagree. And seeing how small countries voted much more favourably to the EU than big ones, last year, I doubt you theory is true.

" Just like if Ylitornio and Helsinki had exactly the same political power, the people of Helsinki would do something about it. Simply because it is grossly unfair, simply because it creates a new kind of mobility, of people who are among others."

False analogy.

Why so?

"Congratulations. You ask for a solution, I give you a solution, and you are not even able to understand that it is a solution."

That's because it's not a solution. You keep being arrogant, and the arrogance I want to be gone. You're part of the problem with your encouragement of this kind of behaviour.

"very reason why France and Germany escaped punishment that time, is because the punishment was decided by the Member-States, not by supranational institutions.
In the many occurences where supranational institutions give punishment, but are not checked by the Member-States, the culprit has to pay."

This comment is stack of BS.

This statement is not BS. There is a European Court of Justice (a supranational institution) that decides most of the punishments given to a European country. The Member-States don't check/contradict the issues that have been decided by the ECJ.
For example, France (yes, you know, the very evil country that always escapes punishment because it is so powerful, and let the others be ****ed) has been punished foir torture in its prisons. France has been punished for corruption and unfair competition. And nobody could shoot down these accusations.

So, instead of ignoring my solution, could you please think about it in order to comment on it?

[Pekka]

Sir Ralph, false analogy is not a bad reply. Stack of BS kind of is, but when you're going circles around the issue, then I can't be arsed to debate the same thing over and over again, when my claim is really very simple.

"No, it shows my internationalism."

Yes, well, that's why we need to be 100% equal before abolishing those borders. You don't seem to agree with it.

"As you may have noticed, I do support the European Parliement despite my underrepresentation there. I consider the unequalities of representation as a necessary evil in the European construction, and I accept them willingly."

And this martyrdom of yours is appaling. You're not underrepresented. You accept it, thus you don't still believe it is logically false thinking. And thus, you justify the other crap because 'you're getting hits too'. What we are looking here is the country level of bullying. You see, it doesn't matter if I have all the pwoer in here, and you have none in your country, if your country keeps on bullying my country. Don't ask 'oh and when did that happen!1', this is to show you my point. So, as long as there is more French agendas in play than Finn agendas, we're not equal. Simple as that. If I have 305348075 votes it don't matter if my issues are not dealt the same as yours. get it? I didn't think so.


"The very reason of that is because you are precisely thinking in terms of Intergovernmentalism (Member-States having the power to decide) instead of Supranationalism"

Exactly, because the reality of the situation is that we now are member-states, countries!

"And the Communist fraction at the EP is weak. As a whole, the EU goes completely opposite to what my agenda wants."

So? So is Finnish agenda against what I want.

"It's demoracy. It's perfectly normal that the will of the majority takes precedence over the will of the minority."

Ok. Let's take Africa into EU, and let them be the BIG ones and we all be small ones. Do you now agree with it? Do you want to be in that democracy, and the minority? No you don't want that. Hypocrisy it is.

"I have a problem with Chirac claiming he speaks for 60 million French people. It is false. He doesn't speak for me. He doesn't speak for the majority of French citizens who gave him a political defeat of historical dimensions this year. Yet he claims it. And by the logic of intergovernmental EU, Chirac's agenda gets much more attention than Martti's."

Well this one I agree with you very much. And I'm sure you're the victim also and not the evil person . I mean this Chirac, when he opens his mouth, it means that he speaks for the whole Europe it seems like. So yeah, I mean, I agree. So far he is the face of the EU to the rest of the world even though he isn't inside EU.

"Yay! Precisely! So let's now strip Member-States of the power they abuse, and let's give it back to the people!"

Not until we have solved the uinequality. After that is solved, that can be discussed. We must go IN to this thing with clean hands and not dirty, otherwise it's nothing but a blank cheque.

"False. A centralist EU would indeed make you the outskirts. Not a federal one. The core of federalism is that local layers of governments (be they called "States", "Länder", "Provinces" or whatever) have a strong autonomy, and has many issues to deal by themselves."

Yes, in theory.

" And since the EU pressures Ireland into allowing abortion, why couldn't it pressure Finland from dropping naked saunas?"

because we don't want to. Simple as that. Why can't EU pressure all Swedes to kill themselves?

"You want a strict equality between Member-States. Which will in turn become a terrible inequality among voters."

Either we are equal or not. Now, today, the borders exist.


"Laurentius seems to disagree. And seeing how small countries voted much more favourably to the EU than big ones, last year, I doubt you theory is true."

I'm not saying we want out now. You're taking my argument wrong at all levels. Don't mix up things.

"Why so?"

Read it again and think about it. It's trivial.

"For example, France (yes, you know, the very evil country that always escapes punishment because it is so powerful, and let the others be ****ed) has been punished foir torture in its prisons. France has been punished for corruption and unfair competition. And nobody could shoot down these accusations."

Good. Still doesn't change the original fact.

[alva]

Sir Ralph, false analogy is not a bad reply. Stack of BS kind of is, but when you're going circles around the issue, then I can't be arsed to debate the same thing over and over again, when my claim is really very simple.

I think what Sir Ralph is trying to say, starts with an 'F' and ends with a 'Z' with only letter in the middle. I gonna leave it u to you to guess which one.

[laurentius]

this keeps getting better and better.

I'm happy to join in a few hours

[Combat Ingrid]

Just for fun, I checked up the US government website to see how power is distributed among their states. I used California and Wyoming for the comparison as they have the largest and the smallest state populations, respectively.

It turns out that both states (as all other of their states) have two senators in the senate.
In the house of representatives, on the other hand, Wyoming has only one very lonely representative while California has 53! Now that's really horrible imperialistic and arrogant oppression of the small states!