Plucky democracy-loving Brits defend Europe from EU-Aggressor-Fascists

[Dauphin]

Colon, here is another article from today that does that.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1958018.ece

[BeBMan]

CH, I don't understand why you complain that they let people vote again and at the same time call it undemocratic, "excluding" the role of voters and "imposing" on them what they (EU aggressors) want.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by BeBro
CH, I don't understand why you complain that they let people vote again and at the same time call it undemocratic, "excluding" the role of voters and "imposing" on them what they (EU aggressors) want.

Let's not confuse the two things. The Irish referendum ISTR was on enlargement - and that was an example of making them vote again and again until they voted 'correctly' while browbeating the electorate into making the 'informed choice'.

The other matter is the attempt to resurrect the defeated consitution and introduce it it without even a full debate amongst the leaders, let alone amongst the populations of europe, and without any visible enthusiasm for referenda.

As Valéry Giscard d’Estaing himself admitted, the Euro public is being led ‘to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly’. That seems clear enough to me.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Which has what to do with the topic at hand?

I suppose it's a bit of a tangent. I mean that, as it is now, the EU isn't especially powerful. It's somewhat like the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation, only with a single currency. The constitution France and the Netherlands rejected would have turned Europe into much more of a unified entity, right? Or am I thinking of something else?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Let's not confuse the two things. The Irish referendum ISTR was on enlargement - and that was an example of making them vote again and again until they voted 'correctly' while browbeating the electorate into making the 'informed choice'.

Did they had the option to vote "no" or was it a "yes only" referendum? And why would political forces arguing for a "yes" not do what's done in any of these decisions - telling people how "yes" is the best thing ever and that "no" isn't? And btw, the other side would surely do the opposite, that's normal political business IMO.

The other matter is the attempt to resurrect the defeated consitution and introduce it it without even a full debate amongst the leaders, let alone amongst the populations of europe, and without any visible enthusiasm for referenda.

There is just a debate amongst the leaders right now, and it's still going on, no?

[Colon™]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Plucky democracy-loving Brits defend Europe from EU-Aggressor-Fas

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Well, the EU certainly has a track record in persisently trying to over-ride the conclusions of voters when they considered the results unsatisfactory. A referendum in Ireland springs to mind, where they made the Irish vote again, with a barrage of propaganda saying how terrible people were that voted the wrong way.

Of course governments and parliamentary factions will try to re-introduce failed bills, but what's different here, apart from the scale of the issue, is the role of the voters who the elite are trying to exclude.

The commission has contempt for voters, because voters can 'get it wrong'. This is contempt for democracy. Whilst some of the trappings of the old consitution have been removed it keeps, in Merkel's words, ‘much of the substance’ of the constitution. Renaming it a treaty and trying to impose it over the heads of unenthusiastic voters looks pretty shabby to me.

It always has been a treaty. The original goal was to merge the treaties that give shape to the EU, thereby streamlining its workings. It got hijacked by federalists to expand the powers of the EU institutions, adding in symbolisms such as the constitution title. The federalists shot themselves in the foot with this and junking the title is to reflect what it really is.

I'd happy to see a new treaty that gets back to the original goals, maybe changing the workings of the EU and rejigging the balance of power, but not resulting in a net transfer of powers from national to supranational level. Whether this will be the outcome remains to be seen.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by BeBro
Did they had the option to vote "no" or was it a "yes only" referendum? And why would political forces arguing for a "yes" not do what's done in any of these decisions - telling people how "yes" is the best thing ever and that "no" isn't? And btw, the other side would surely do the opposite, that's normal political business IMO.

If I said that the Ballot paper had the options :
Yes - I am a decent, fair-minded, reasonable, progressive, modern and open minded person, and
No - I am a dirty stinking, narrow-minded, selfish, parochial, racist, unreasonable, unfair, reactionary bigot
then I would be exaggerating, but not by much. The EU used its power to shower the country with its pov. It didn't promote the other pov.

There is just a debate amongst the leaders right now, and it's still going on, no?

The debate is only going on because the British Government is insisting on doing so against the shrill complaints and brow-beating of the commission and the governments that back it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok


I suppose it's a bit of a tangent. I mean that, as it is now, the EU isn't especially powerful. It's somewhat like the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation, only with a single currency. The constitution France and the Netherlands rejected would have turned Europe into much more of a unified entity, right? Or am I thinking of something else?

From what I understand the status quo in the current EU differs from the US 1783-1789 in several ways. On the one hand states didnt have their own foreign policies under the Articles, whereas Euro states do have their own foreign policies. OTOH the social and economic regulatory power in Brussels exceeds anything anyone in Philadelphia in 1785 would have dreamed of, but then again this is a different world, even authoritarian centralized states didnt have that level of control over local economies, for the most part.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Elok


I suppose it's a bit of a tangent. I mean that, as it is now, the EU isn't especially powerful. It's somewhat like the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation, only with a single currency. The constitution France and the Netherlands rejected would have turned Europe into much more of a unified entity, right? Or am I thinking of something else?

It would have made the EU more unified, yes, but it wouldn't turn it into anything remotely like a single country.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


If I said that the Ballot paper had the options :
Yes - I am a decent, fair-minded, reasonable, progressive, modern and open minded person, and
No - I am a dirty stinking, narrow-minded, selfish, parochial, racist, unreasonable, unfair, reactionary bigot
then I would be exaggerating, but not by much. The EU used its power to shower the country with its pov. It didn't promote the other pov.

Why would the pro side promote the views of the contra side? BTW, why aren't you advocating more pro EU stuff?

The debate is only going on because the British Government is insisting on doing so against the shrill complaints and brow-beating of the commission and the governments that back it.

You mean it's because the contra side now voices their concerns, while the pro side didn't? Isn't that exactly what one could expect?

Really Cort, I have no problem with people being critical towards the EU (in fact they often do have a point), but sometimes I think there's also a lot of hysteria in that....

[Sprayber]

I still don't see why any sane group of people would choose to add a whole layer of beaucracy on top of what each country already has. Is this just a scheme to guarentee that politicians of Europe will have a job to look forward to after they leave their individual countries political positions? From my viewpoint, it doesn't seem that the elites are listening to the ordinary people on what they actually want.

At least that is just an opinion from an uninformed American..

[BeBMan]

Well, back in the 19th century, Germany and Italy (or better all those states forming Ger and Ita later) came up with the idea that instead of having lots of small states, they could have a big one instead. And of course that meant another layer of beaucracy.

That was just because they realized the bunch of smaller states wouldn't do much against the already existing bigger nation states (and that's general policy-wise, not only in the military sense).

A transnational org like the EU is just a continuation of that. While it can and will be debated how far that should/can go en detail, I personally don't think the basic idea is something totally absurd.

[Harovan]

A clash of interests, obviously. Some countries want to continue integration and strengthen the EU, eventually resulting in some kind of "United States of Europe" (the name doesn't matter). Others (notably the Brits, but others as well) just want a free trade zone.

I don't see why we can't have both, honestly. Let those who want it, strengthen their relations and build their "US of E". And if others prefer a free trade zone and otherwise preserve their full souvereignty, they can without a problem. There's no reason why there can't be a free trade zone with both the UK and the "US of E" as members as well as other potential countries, perhaps even Turkey.

Two-speed Europe . Takes politicians with balls to finally admit it. No offense to Merkel.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

It would have made the EU more unified, yes, but it wouldn't turn it into anything remotely like a single country.

Then the Euros were right to reject it. No sense in doing things halfway.

[Patroklos]

From my viewpoint, it doesn't seem that the elites are listening to the ordinary people on what they actually want.

Ah, like the good old days of the monarchies. Good times.

When is Oz going to show up and finish this aristicratic take over?