The European Parliament: now with balls!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by 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.

Then what is your problem with these processes being in the hands of a Parliament instead of Governments? If I may remind you, this is the issue this thread is about.

" 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?

Of course it is. But the Brits consider the inefficient system of ours is very good. The Federalists (most of them from "True Euro" countries) consider it very bad.

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?

You are confusing two points of view that are unrelated to each other.

On the one hand, you have the question of Europe as a global power or not. Many people (especially in France) have the little Napoleon attitude of wanting to create a European Power that can stick it to the US. However, the main advocate of Europe-Power (De Gaulle) was also adamantly anti-federalism. He believed the European main countries could agree on diplomacy and defense without the need for a pesky organization that would be out of control of individual governments.

On the other hand, you have the question of Europe as a politically integrated entity, where collective issues are handled by collective (supranational) institutions instead of by national governments. Such institutions will not necessarily push for global imperialism. It depends of what the voters want.

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.

I suppose I am the "Euronite" here. I don't recognize myself in your description at all, but the Paris bit gave me the hint.
If you read my posts, you'll notice that I have neevr said Finland was more powerful in the EU than France. Of course not. 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. I am not France, you are not Finland. I am a French individual, and you are a Finnish individual... who wields as much power as two French individuals.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
WEll if you are unwilling to engage what we can do about the unequality, I'm not iunterested. That's the point that is needed to be solved.

To solve the problem of inequality, the best thing to do is to make national governments irrelevant in the decision-making, and give the European decision-making to a Parliament representative of the Europeans.

In such a situation, every citizen will be equal. Pretty straightforward and simple way to promote equality.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Of course. The question is, should any of them have power over the others at all?

No they shouldn't.

Just like the mayor of Ylitornio (or its citizens) shouldn't have any power over what happens in Helsinki, and vice-versa.

However, for Finnish matters, the voter from Ylitornio should have a say in how Finland is ruled, just like the voter of Helsinki.

And for European matters, the citizen from Ylitornio should have a say in how Europe is ruled, just like a citizen of Paris.

It doesn't strike me as rocket science.

[Kuciwalker]

But why should Europe have a central government at all?

It by definition takes away some powers that were previously held by the Finns and the French etc.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
But why should Europe have a central government at all?

It by definition takes away some powers that were previously held by the Finns and the French etc.

Not quite. It takes some powers that were previously held by the Finn, the French etc. governments.

The lack of central government is the reason why decisions are taken through haggling, instead of ideological decision. And haggling cannot be a democratic form of decision-making.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Personal beliefs are ideology.

At the end of the day he lost his job because he said he believed it was better for women to take care of children then to work. He never stop anybody from working or advocated legislation to force women not to work; he just said he personally believed that was true.

You can disagree with him but to make him lose his job over making a statement of belief is simply immoral and that is what the European left has done.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
So Pekka, how is it like in Finland? Does Ylitornio have the same power as Helsinki?

But I guess that's different, isn't it?

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.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Oerdin


At the end of the day he lost his job because he said he believed it was better for women to take care of children then to work. He never stop anybody from working or advocated legislation to force women not to work; he just said he personally believed that was true.

You can disagree with him but to make him lose his job over making a statement of belief is simply immoral and that is what the European left has done.

(assuming this refers to Buttiglione)

No, he was not hired for the job, which is another situation altogether.
The parliament thought him unfit for the job, as the job requires him to enforce legislation that guards against discrimination on (among others) gender.
They beleived he was not qualified for the job, as they feared conflict of intrests.

[Pekka]

Yes what Oerdin says, yet everyone is unwilling to solve this problem.
People say federation will solve this problem. I see this as the ultimate evil before THIS problem is solved. Why? BEcause we need to be EQUAL when we enter the federation so we can have a safe start. We won't be going into something like that, the same time being unequal. That's even worse. We need to be going into that thing equal, or we will give ourselves up for blank cheque, and few have shown they are willing to break the rules anyway and be as arrogant as to not even apologize for it to the rest of us. I don't want us to be handed over in the cold night into those hands. We need to be equal first, that IS the demand, and then and only then we can continue to more what the structures etc should be. And no we shouldn't go into further until it is solved, because then this issue will never be solved.

"Just like the mayor of Ylitornio (or its citizens) shouldn't have any power over what happens in Helsinki, and vice-versa.

However, for Finnish matters, the voter from Ylitornio should have a say in how Finland is ruled, just like the voter of Helsinki."

****, I didn't know we were a federation already. Oh no wait.. we're not! We still have national borders. Stop with your croissant eating bigotry, it's insulting and disrespectful. It's not equal if the blue prints and made by few.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Either everyone is equal before the law or your law is a joke.

Funny hear that from an American.

The fact of the matter is that Pekka is not being specific or I'm missing something he is saying. I dont know whether he is critizising the different terms every nation negotiated when they joined the Union or just the fiscal "irrespocibilities" by France and Germany. As I explained earlier this is due to the fact that the whole agreement was overly optimistic. It didnt leave the governments any playground.

Come to think of it, maybe this was because the ECB wanted more power to itself and as we are taught when monetary policy works, financial doesnt and vice versa. Perhaps it was ECBs conspiracy to hijack economic decicion making completely to itself! I dont know. Anyway such policy is doomed to failure in most EU countries with only few exclusions like Finland existing.

The laws vary from country to country, but the common laws apply to everyone and I dont think there have been any cases where they havent.

[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.

"You are confusing two points of view that are unrelated to each other."

On the very factual point of view, yes they are unrelated, but in practice they usually connect. If the **** stinks, someone must of taken a crap.

" Such institutions will not necessarily push for global imperialism. It depends of what the voters want."

Yes, but if the starting point is twisted, it is BS. Some of these big euro countries are also big in corrupt behaviour. Why should I trade places with being in the least corrupt place to something that is big in it? I mean you really have to have FAITH if you think we are being treated fairly in the future. The federation can not work if it's based on unequality in the first place. We need to be there influencing the federation as much as every other MEMBER. Not slave or master, but a member. Why are you making such a spectacle of yourselves? I don't see Tony Blair making a spectacle of himself in here, why you have to? YOu want to be the CORE of it, and if we base federation on thinking like that......... it's good to be you, sucks to be me. You're just too close and biased to see otherwise. Heck, you still believe in the underrepresentation of yours.

[Pekka]

" As I explained earlier this is due to the fact that the whole agreement was overly optimistic."

Irrelevant. Would we have gotten around it? No. So this is irrelevant. You refuse to see my point and justify it with something like 'it wasn't so realistic'.

[laurentius]

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.

Hows that?

[BeBMan]

Yes, but if the starting point is twisted, it is BS. Some of these big euro countries are also big in corrupt behaviour. Why should I trade places with being in the least corrupt place to something that is big in it? I mean you really have to have FAITH if you think we are being treated fairly in the future. The federation can not work if it's based on unequality in the first place. We need to be there influencing the federation as much as every other MEMBER. Not slave or master, but a member. Why are you making such a spectacle of yourselves? I don't see Tony Blair making a spectacle of himself in here, why you have to? YOu want to be the CORE of it, and if we base federation on thinking like that......... it's good to be you, sucks to be me. You're just too close and biased to see otherwise. Heck, you still believe in the underrepresentation of yours.

If everything should be equal then my previous point of equal money from all members still stands. I don't see you complaining about inequality because bigger countries pay more into the EU.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Pekka
" As I explained earlier this is due to the fact that the whole agreement was overly optimistic."

Irrelevant. Would we have gotten around it? No. So this is irrelevant. You refuse to see my point and justify it with something like 'it wasn't so realistic'.

Its certainly not irrelevant. Its the whole point. The agreements are not worth a sh!t if you can live by them. I believe we would have gotten sympathy should we have failed too. Its you who refuse to be realistic here and insist that its better to die for the rules sake than break the rules to get medicin. Thats naive. Used to betypical finnish thinking. I thought we were over it.