The European Parliament: now with balls!

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Pekka

Where should I start. Oh yeah, some people can break the rules and regulations, while others can't withotu being penalized. Seems unfair to me.

You must be referring to the deficits certain countries have been allowed to have. I never said the Unions is perfect. Yes its a problem, but its more of a cosmetic one. The regulations, the limits, they were too tight. They should have never been approved in the first place. They were not dynamic enough to bend according to the economic realities such as structural problems some countries have and the fact that very many economists believe that in times of slower growth or more difficult economic times it is good for the government to not cut its spending but increase it to make public demand act as catalyst to get the economy growing again. The rules simply did not allow governments to do such maneuvres, and voila, European economic growth is pathetic and unbearably lies on private consumtion.

Its the mass media who simplifies things and gets its facts wrong due to incompetent reporters and editors. Its better not to believe everything they tell you.

I have no problems at cultural influence, ****, we could use it, it's too homogenic at the moment. Political influence? That I don't agree with, UNLESS we get to return the favour with the same ratio. Unless we can realistically be at that decision making table, and have veto as well, then I can't see that as an option.

This is where we disagree. I think we have to come to terms with the political reality here. We are simply too small to have any influence on the world politics acting alone. MASS is power as always. Being part of a bigger whole makes our voice being heard too.

I belive EU should deal with the big issues like Foreign relations, Military, Monetary policy etc. things like that. The more domestic and local decisions should be still be done here. This allowes our national parliamants and governments to concentrate on more pressing local affairs that right now its possible.

Do you honestly think I dont mean the good for us? We must get whats ours, yes, but drop the illusions that we are equal with the big countries. Dont be a megalomaniac.

Nationalism? What nationalism? in that same sentiment we are all world citizens. Yeah, sounds nice, but is non-existing.

??

Yes we do, and you're undermining it right now, as a tool to justify the outside influence to our independent decision making. Others can say what they want, but they shouldn't be able to command in any sense of the word.

We are already being commanded by different instances. Look at North Korea, they are like you, refuse to interact with the outside world. Way to go

"I think your views of EU are twisted enough to hinder anyone from agreeing with you, except some americans."

Well, at least I'm not taking it up the ass.

"You keeps referring to some sort of anal penetration. Perhaps thats how you like it."

I just call it as I see it. Call it lollipops, bu if your butt hurts, it must be a new kind of lollipop.

Dude, seriously. Is there something you would like to tell us? Did they guys in the army make you play "house" with them?

Prevent WW2, is this why we need EU? Not anymore. This danger has outlived itself. If you believe in this threat, and at the same time blame me for believing threat of losing our own power, which is more realistic?
If this WW2 type of scenario exists still, then why are we doing other things than just strictly preventing this one from happening? and EU isn't fair. Why some of the big countries don't have to pay for the full membership? Why we pay full membership? Why are we paying the EXTRA that is left from those discounts some get? Doesn't seem very pragmatic to me. I don't want to pick someone elses bill. They can afford it, so they should pay it and not milk the small ones.

As I said thats one of the things EU is here for. I think your own behaviour only shows this threat hasent outlived itself.

I dont think you or many other people know excatly what we pay and what we get. There are lot of things the statistics dont tell us about.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
This is really what it breaks down to:

By what right does a Frenchman get to tell a Finn what to do?

Then, of course, by what right does a Finn in Helsinki get to tell a Finn in some other city what to do?

You nailed the question very well

Etc., etc. This essentially leads to the conclusion that we must live in an anarchy in which nonetheless individual liberties are not violated, which is a contradiction.

That's one conclusion, but not the conclusion. There are different conclusions, depending on the answer you give to the questions above. Or more precisely, the question is:
"What are the common issues that deserve to be treated collectively, and who should voice opinions in treating these issues?"

For example, in the EU (which is a Common Market), it seems like a no-brainer that our tolls should be unified (and they are), and that our trade policy toward the rest of the world should be unified (and it is). We, French, Finns, Brits, Maltese etc, as we are living in a common market, also live under a common trade policy. And all of our governments are associated in determining that policy, with a power semi-proportional to the population they represent.

However, simply permitting the opposite - that the Frenchmen get to tell the Finns what to do by virtue of there being more Frenchmen - leads to the unacceptable conclusion of us be required to submit ourselves immediately to world opinion.

This is a flawed reasoning. European institutions should not decide about non-collective issues. For example, European institutions have nothing to do promoting abortions in countries that ban them. For example, the EU has nothing to do with banning Spanish bull-fighting. This is why the EU needs to have its competences made clear.

The middle ground is a limited democratic state over people who have decided that ultimately they have the same interests, that protects individual liberties. Once two or more groups of people have decided that they do ultimately have the same interests, and that they trust the other groups not to exploit them, a union between the groups can form simply a larger democracy.

This is why the EU should not become wholly integrated for now (and maybe never). However, it seems the Belgians / Dutch / Luxemburgers can have this trust, and my gut feeling tells me that the French and Germans do so as well. I think it is possible for those countries to form a Federation.
To impose a Federation onto others, however, would be utterly stupid. Especially the Brits, who consider the EU is very well off as a haggling organization, where every country tries to outsmart the others and get as many advantages as possible.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Pekka
I haven't said we should get out of EU, at least not in this thread. I've said EU is not fair for us now.

I agree, Finland should pay as much for the EU as Germany

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by laurentius
Hey, why dont you shut up.

Because I'm not the hypocrite.

I believe that everyone in the world are responsible to others. This means that we are the ones who dictate the world opinion. Whats the use for National Soveigrenity in this world? Who uses it? Let me tell you who does. Countries like China over Tibet, Russia over Chechenya, Sudan over Darfour, Belorussia and dozen other ex-soviet states to justify their fascist regimes, North Korea etc. the list goes on and on. Besides look at the corporate world, what does it care about national soveigrenity. Not a damn!

If you'd read any of my posts, you would notice that I said democracies (and fundamentally individuals) were sovereign.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
1. There is a European Parliament, and there has been since the beginning of the EEC. The EP is directly elected by the people since 1979. There is no need to use future tense, because the EP has 25 years of experience behind it.

2. In those 25 years, I have never heard of national blocs. There is a nationalist bloc, to be sure, but even it transcends borders. The EP is cut according to ideological differences, not according to national ones.

3. There is no "French ideology" or "Finnish ideology". In western Europe, the political spectra are similar from country to country, and they aren't that much different in Central and Eastern Europe. The local political cultures affect the ideologies a bit (Brits will generally be more prone to free-market policies than Swedes), yet all countries are divided between conservatives and progressists, between Capitalists and Social-democrats, with the more-or-less-important presence of Greens, Communists, Centrist-liberals and fascists.

If Finland elects one fascist at the European Parliament, what do you think it will do? Do you think it will agree with a Finnish Socialist MEP against a German fascist? Or do you think he will side with other European fascists against socialist policies?

What I doubt is that Europe has actual reached the homogenization required to render national interests of less concern to individuals than the interests of the Union. One reason there isn't a problem now is because of the lack of power of the EU.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Etc., etc. This essentially leads to the conclusion that we must live in an anarchy in which nonetheless individual liberties are not violated, which is a contradiction.

That's one conclusion, but not the conclusion. There are different conclusions, depending on the answer you give to the questions above. Or more precisely, the question is:
"What are the common issues that deserve to be treated collectively, and who should voice opinions in treating these issues?"

No, that's the correct conclusion at the end of this process. That's not the correct conclusion of demanding the question "by what right can he exert authority over me". It's called reductio ad absurdum - taken to its logical conclusion, the idea "by what right does he have power over me?" becomes inconsistent and impossible.

However, simply permitting the opposite - that the Frenchmen get to tell the Finns what to do by virtue of there being more Frenchmen - leads to the unacceptable conclusion of us be required to submit ourselves immediately to world opinion.

This is a flawed reasoning. European institutions should not decide about non-collective issues. For example, European institutions have nothing to do promoting abortions in countries that ban them. For example, the EU has nothing to do with banning Spanish bull-fighting. This is why the EU needs to have its competences made clear.

You're jumping ahead of me again I'm just disproving the two absolute ideas.

The middle ground is a limited democratic state over people who have decided that ultimately they have the same interests, that protects individual liberties. Once two or more groups of people have decided that they do ultimately have the same interests, and that they trust the other groups not to exploit them, a union between the groups can form simply a larger democracy.

This is why the EU should not become wholly integrated for now (and maybe never). However, it seems the Belgians / Dutch / Luxemburgers can have this trust, and my gut feeling tells me that the French and Germans do so as well. I think it is possible for those countries to form a Federation.
To impose a Federation onto others, however, would be utterly stupid. Especially the Brits, who consider the EU is very well off as a haggling organization, where every country tries to outsmart the others and get as many advantages as possible.

Also consider that a very real problem will come up when you decide on a national language, etc. - countries could be even more protective of their culture than their interests. Far more.

[Dinner]

I truly see the European left as being the party which censors people in the modern era instead of the right. I guy says he believes the purpose to getting married is so women can have children and be taken care of by her husband and the Eurocoms think he's a bigot? Austria elects a guy with a big mouth who likes to say stupid things during speeches but who doesn't actually enact any extremist legislation and the lefties call for sanctions against Austria? There are more examples.

It's to bad the left in Europe feels it can't live with anyone who happens to have different ideas.

[Kuciwalker]

There's zero problem with discrimination based on ideology in political office, Oerdin.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
There's zero problem with discrimination based on ideology in political office, Oerdin.

Then why did this Italian lose his job again? He didn't advicate a policy as far as I've heard but he did speak about his own personal beliefs.

[Kuciwalker]

Personal beliefs are ideology.

[laurentius]

This was a great day for Democracy and Freedom

[Pekka]

"You must be referring to the deficits certain countries have been allowed to have. I never said the Unions is perfect. Yes its a problem, but its more of a cosmetic one."

And I feel it's a humongous propblem. This was not a 'mistake' or 'fluke'. This is what happened, when oen of the big ones ran into trouble, and they muscled themselves out of it. It shows that we are unequal. We cant do the same even if we tried to. This is just an indicator when it comes down to it, what the attitude will be and who will take control.

"They were not dynamic enough to bend according to the economic realities such as structural problems some countries have and the fact that very many economists believe that in times of slower growth or more difficult economic times it is good for the government to not cut its spending but increase it to make public demand act as catalyst to get the economy growing again. The rules simply did not allow governments to do such maneuvres, and voila, European economic growth is pathetic and unbearably lies on private consumtion."

But it's not a real problem until one of the big ones hit it. When small ones do, it's pay up, simple as that. That is different rules for different countries, the issue doesn't even matter, if can be other issue just as well, but the point is, they muscled themselves out of it, while we can't. They can pick their shots and spots, even if the rules are against them and get away with it.

"Its the mass media who simplifies things and gets its facts wrong due to incompetent reporters and editors. Its better not to believe everything they tell you."

So the media simplified etc... so did they break the rules or not? THat's the only thing that matters. It's the principle. We couldn't of done it, they could because they said so. Period.

"This is where we disagree. I think we have to come to terms with the political reality here. We are simply too small to have any influence on the world politics acting alone. MASS is power as always. Being part of a bigger whole makes our voice being heard too."

Yes, but if our voice is not heard in the big mass, then it doesn't really give us anything now does it? To hear us because they have to is different than to respect our opinion and position and take it into account. I don't believe the latter is happening.

"I belive EU should deal with the big issues like Foreign relations, Military, Monetary policy etc. things like that."

Europe does not have a common foreign policy and I rather keep it that way. I agree that we can have a common defense, it only makes sense. But say foreign policy, that means others will join France and Germany to support THEIR foreign policy. I'd rather have our own policy. You say then we don't have any power. Well, I'd rather have that little power and own opinion than 'more power' and support someone elses policies. because in that case we have even LESS power. I don't see why WE should compromise on foreign policy. It's not a thing to be compromised about.

"Do you honestly think I dont mean the good for us? We must get whats ours, yes, but drop the illusions that we are equal with the big countries. Dont be a megalomaniac."

Exactly. So you want to drive us into a situation where we are not equal. I don't want that. I want us to have the same options as everyone else. I don't believe you want bad for us, but that doesn't mean it will lead to good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

"We are already being commanded by different instances. Look at North Korea, they are like you, refuse to interact with the outside world."

NICE ONE! NOW I get it.. Thanks for making me see the light! Let's give all power to someone else, and let's submit to that power. Why don't we just ask Sweden to takes us back, or Russia while we're at it?

"As I said thats one of the things EU is here for. I think your own behaviour only shows this threat hasent outlived itself."

My behaviour? Calling out BS, like that some countries get discounts from memberships because THEY SAY SO, and we don't, and that the same rules don't apply to all of us, this is a threat to European security? Wow, that's not 'shut up and let someone else take care of our business' that's 'yes they are corrupt, and shut up, you warmongerer, don't point it out'. Crazy.. You're pretty authoritarian when it comes to free speech. Maybe you want to install conditions that NK has? No wait, that was me, riggghtt...

"I dont think you or many other people know excatly what we pay and what we get. There are lot of things the statistics dont tell us about."

I know we pay too much if others pay less. I might not be the smartest man around but I know that one. But of course we also benefit from being in EU, if we wouldn't, I'd say we must get out NOW NOW NOW!

[laurentius]

Did you write that for 3 hours!?

[Pekka]

" We, French, Finns, Brits, Maltese etc, as we are living in a common market, also live under a common trade policy. And all of our governments are associated in determining that policy, with a power semi-proportional to the population they represent."

I have no problem with this. I think this is good.

" Especially the Brits, who consider the EU is very well off as a haggling organization, where every country tries to outsmart the others and get as many advantages as possible."

And IN REALITY it isn't? Then what is it in reality? An intellectual pinky lifting playground for TRUE EUROS to fantasize about new superpower EU, that WILL challenge US and some day outpower it and take control?

This is the true nature of EURONITES, the worse group of TRUE EUROS. They all hate the US, and they don't see their own actions to have nothing wrong in them, when they would be exactly the same or even worse. When US does it, huge outcry, when we do it, thumbs up and 'you don't understand.. '.. even worse spin doctoring than in the US presidential elections, they should have these guys doing the spinning for them. They keep using the same arguments even after you showed them they are flawed, and seriously argue that for example Paris should have the same representations as Finland as a country, and not only same but bigger. The hypocrism

It's a joke that's what it is. And when you don't agree with it, you point out some flaws, they all get upset about it, cry and blame you of being a nazi, they are nto able to refute the most important points like unequality etc, yet they keep on rolling for the utopia and NOT remove the unequality, and when someone points that out, they're nazis, stupid, anti-europe etc.. yeah,, just remember I'm the dissident here, and hwo EU really works is how EU treats me, not you, but me. US is starting to sound like a paradise at the moment on this issue as well. The future EU has no place for pointing out corruption and unequality. It's equal because THEY SAY IT IS. And if you still disagree, you're a ****ing bastard who wants to ruin it for all. I ask you who am I ruining it? For the ones that are corrupt? So who gives a rats ass? Must be corrupt themselves. HAIL ALL BELIEVERS, bunch of hypocrites who still at this stage of this thread do not acknowledge the unequality, and Spiffor is even trying to say that it's in fact the France for example that is unequal (smaller) than us.. can you serioulsy debate with EURONITES after this? They say well you said something about butty boys you can't be debator either, well my point is serious with the unequality, and you fail to show any kind of basic logic, only proving my point.

[Pekka]

laurentius, no, I was sleeping.