For Blair, Power trumps Money

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by BeBro
Well, just to make that clear, I personally have no prob with people making criticism towards the EU, in fact I usually share some (not all) of it. There are indeed massive problems in the EU, that is no secret. I also don't see a prob if people don't like the EU at all and don't want to be part of it, that's their business, and I'm not there to tell them what to think.

However, in this thread I had more the feeling that the EU as it is today is just a result of some evil plot, and only true evildoers could see something positive in it.

i think that we (the people) should be having a serious debate on the future of europe. whether you are a true believer or a euro sceptic. we should be talking about our visions for the future of europe, how much integration we want , how quickly we want expansion to take place, how to address the democratic gap and a whole range of other issues. instead there seems to be an effort to shut down debate and decent among the populace and to constantly play down the importance of the whole thing to ordinary folk.

what really irks me is the way that the political classes, both at the national and european levels, seem intent on forcing through measures which are plainly unpopular with the people of europe. when we are asked for our views and give the ‘wrong’ answer, it makes no difference. we are told to vote again until we get it right, or the politicians get together, change a few words in the document and then claim it's something completely different and not worthy of a vote. we are told this is how it's going to be, and if you don't like it...well that's too bad.

if you want to call that an evil plot then fine, but i don't find such language very helpful, because it obscures the serious questions about the democratic credentials and legitimacy of the new europe being created right in front of us.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
One of the problems of the EU is that politicians like Neil Kinnock, who failed dismally as a party leader in the UK by losing an election against a tired and deeply unpopular opponent, could go on to enjoy unelected power as a senior EU bureaucrat.

and also that corrupt and vile oxygen thief, peter mandelson, lest we forget.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by C0ckney


i think that we (the people) should be having a serious debate on the future of europe. whether you are a true believer or a euro sceptic. we should be talking about our visions for the future of europe, how much integration we want , how quickly we want expansion to take place, how to address the democratic gap and a whole range of other issues. instead there seems to be an effort to shut down debate and decent among the populace and to constantly play down the importance of the whole thing to ordinary folk.

what really irks me is the way that the political classes, both at the national and european levels, seem intent on forcing through measures which are plainly unpopular with the people of europe. when we are asked for our views and give the ‘wrong’ answer, it makes no difference. we are told to vote again until we get it right, or the politicians get together, change a few words in the document and then claim it's something completely different and not worthy of a vote. we are told this is how it's going to be, and if you don't like it...well that's too bad.

if you want to call that an evil plot then fine, but i don't find such language very helpful, because it obscures the serious questions about the democratic credentials and legitimacy of the new europe being created right in front of us.

Spot on. An excellent analysis IMO.

[Dr Strangelove]

It's plainly evident that the peoples of Europe face continuous and progressive abuses by the tyrants in charge of the EU. There really is only one course left - revolution. You should all secede from the EU. Mind you all tyrants have their minions; undoubtedly war will ensue. I'd recommend uniting in common cause to beat back the tyrants. You could name your new country The United States of Europe.

There's nothing like a little war to bring people together. That may be your problem, you've had nothing like a war to unite you.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


If the poor analogy in your previous response is anything to go by, then a detailed explaination of the fairly fundamental concepts above would be a waste of time. The clue, though, lies in the permanent and unelected nature of the presidential role that Blair seeks. People who are democratically elected represent those who voted for them and are accountable to the electorate. It might not be perfect, but that's what democracy is.

One of the problems of the EU is that politicians like Neil Kinnock, who failed dismally as a party leader in the UK by losing an election against a tired and deeply unpopular opponent, could go on to enjoy unelected power as a senior EU bureaucrat.

My objections to the EU are about the mechanisms, not the internationalist principles and ideals behind it. If the mechanisms do not work, we are better off maintaining certain levels of sovereignty.

I don't need a explanation of basic concepts (even though you would be very surprised about over how disparate ideas can be concerning democracy), I only wanted to know you view them, and how you think they should be applied to any kind of European community.


Now you've done that indirectly.

What you did say, I am in complete agreement on.

In my personal opinion I think the EU president should be elected by a vote, perhaps via a college of electors to ensure small countries get a say (elections should be held simultaneously or at least in very close succession) I would also give the EU parliament greater authority. Failed politicians becoming EU bureaucrats is a very bad trend, I would make the top positions either selected by the EU parliament or to be held by nationally elected politicians. Anyone on the mid and lower level s should be chosen based on competency, those functions should be depoliticized.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
That wasn't really an Ad Hominem attack - it was more a statement that some countries have had longer democratic histories than others.

Actually it was, since I wasn’t commenting on the state of Slovenian democracy, I was commenting on the state of western democracy. Nothing was said of my points, all that was said, was that I come from a small and unimportant country, with a short modern democratic tradition and that thus my opinion is a priori not as valid as someone from some other country.



PS It was also hinted that Slovenia isn’t or at least hasn’t until recently been stable. I wish that where the case our history can be so boring some times.

[Arrian]

Now you can not deny that the West is clearly exhibiting signs of a declining civilization. The US slightly less than Europe, but you are no more than a century or two better off.

Of course I can deny it, and I do. Where are you getting this stuff?

Hmm. Driving toward less democratic institutions based on overblown fears of societal collapse... maybe the Godwin wasn't really out of place.

-Arrian

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by C0ckney


i think that we (the people) should be having a serious debate on the future of europe. whether you are a true believer or a euro sceptic. we should be talking about our visions for the future of europe, how much integration we want , how quickly we want expansion to take place, how to address the democratic gap and a whole range of other issues. instead there seems to be an effort to shut down debate and decent among the populace and to constantly play down the importance of the whole thing to ordinary folk.

what really irks me is the way that the political classes, both at the national and european levels, seem intent on forcing through measures which are plainly unpopular with the people of europe. when we are asked for our views and give the ‘wrong’ answer, it makes no difference. we are told to vote again until we get it right, or the politicians get together, change a few words in the document and then claim it's something completely different and not worthy of a vote. we are told this is how it's going to be, and if you don't like it...well that's too bad.

if you want to call that an evil plot then fine, but i don't find such language very helpful, because it obscures the serious questions about the democratic credentials and legitimacy of the new europe being created right in front of us.

Valid points, but the politics on the level of the Union is created by nationally elected officials. If you won’t change vote for different national parties that propose the changes you want. Off course the problem is that a political change in one country isn’t enough. Now true France, Germany and the UK have a decisive influence in the Union, but they “need” their political clout to ensure economic policies that suit them (which they do very well mind you).



Maybe you should then vote for parties that want to empower the EU parliament, and then vote the guys you want in those elections.

In the mean time EU citizens should make as much nosie as possible with petittions, via teh courts and even lobby organizations.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Arrian


Of course I can deny it, and I do. Where are you getting this stuff?

Hmm. Driving toward less democratic institutions based on overblown fears of societal collapse... maybe the Godwin wasn't really out of place.

-Arrian

Ahh I smell a good debate (or a good opportunity to troll ) And no a Godwin wasn't out of place since the Nazi party and the Fascist movements where an attempt to reverse what was perceived as the decline in German (western) civilization. Now I see the EU as a similar if much more humane attempt, to do this. Instead of pursuing hegemony by as singel western country (all such attempts ahve failed) it is trying to create an internationalist spirit that could perhaps transcend nation-state mentality and ensure western unity.

I’m going to start with the basics:

-The US federal government and the government of European countries and the EU itself are corrupt and inefficient on an epic scale. Much of the time working against the interests of their citizens because of incompetence or because of the pressures of strong financial lobbies.

-Large Deficits

-Slowed development (lack of technological innovations, high-tech jobs are outsourced, slow economic growth, poor structure), while otehr civlizations enjoy faster development than ever before.

-abysmally low birth rates (the US has good ones, but not among angloamericans or euroamericans)

-mass immigration of groups too large and too different to assimilate (once again the US is better off, they may have to recognizes Spanish as a federal language, but their immigrants are already come from a pseudo western background)

-constantly decreasing relative military might, reduced or nonexistent tolerance for casualties

-apathy concerning politics (untrue in the US, but the US system is less dependant on public opinion and is more influenced by lobby’s)

-reduced cultural influence (former colonies and developing countries are slowly abandoning western patterns of development and thought)

-for the first time in two centuries alternative civilizational systems seem possible (communism was an essentially western socio-economic model, even if it was not adopted there). Chinese capitalism and fundamentalist Theocracy ala Iran. The Russian system is a western form of government since in essence its just an updated repressive 19th century European state.

-I could go on but am low on time. Many of the above claims are misleading, incomplete or subjective.

-NATO is destined to become a non-entity within 30 years (unless Russia becomes more scary, but they cant keep it up for more than a few decades because they have even worse demographic problems than EU countries.)

What I am about to say is not:
*European power is much much weaker than it was in the early 20th century, its empires are no more
*American power peaked in the years immediately following WW2 it has been is slow decline ever since. It only seemed to increase (and in relative terms it did) in the 80’s and 90’s because of the Russian collapse (ant they themselves are a pseudo western society).

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
It's plainly evident that the peoples of Europe face continuous and progressive abuses by the tyrants in charge of the EU. There really is only one course left - revolution. You should all secede from the EU. Mind you all tyrants have their minions; undoubtedly war will ensue. I'd recommend uniting in common cause to beat back the tyrants. You could name your new country The United States of Europe.

There's nothing like a little war to bring people together. That may be your problem, you've had nothing like a war to unite you.

This is true. I mean without Napoleno nationalism might have never taken off in Europe. But other times this wasn't the case. Anyway if the only way to have such an effect would be if a" Europena confederation" emerged and fight it out with the union, the reamining Euroepan structure would be stronger, but Europpe would be as a whole much weaker (the last two"civil wars" in Europe cost us primacy after all)

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
PS It was also hinted that Slovenia isn’t or at least hasn’t until recently been stable. I wish that where the case our history can be so boring some times.

If I were you I'd count your blessings that your secession from a former federal structure only cost the lives of about five (non-Slovenian) border guards. Given the alternatives, I'd take boring every time.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by C0ckney


i think that we (the people) should be having a serious debate on the future of europe. whether you are a true believer or a euro sceptic. we should be talking about our visions for the future of europe, how much integration we want , how quickly we want expansion to take place, how to address the democratic gap and a whole range of other issues. instead there seems to be an effort to shut down debate and decent among the populace and to constantly play down the importance of the whole thing to ordinary folk.

I agree.

if you want to call that an evil plot then fine, but i don't find such language very helpful, because it obscures the serious questions about the democratic credentials and legitimacy of the new europe being created right in front of us.

That was actually my point, that "such language" is not helpful, and I certainly was not the one in this thread who advocated the use of silly comparisons like 4th Reich. I don't see how this leads to a serious debate, rather the opposite.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Internationalist spirit .... transcend nation-state mentality .... ensure unity.

Yeah, Brotherhood and Unity!



Oh wait....

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by BeBro
That was actually my point, that "such language" is not helpful, and I certainly was not the one in this thread who advocated the use of silly comparisons like 4th Reich. I don't see how this leads to a serious debate, rather the opposite.

I hold my hand up, but (a) I was being flippant and (b) it clearly didn't get in the way of a serious debate.

[BeBMan]

Yeah, this thread was doomed from the start