It was started 11 hours ago and we're on page 2, you're not late
I agree largely with what you're saying, especially the stuff I haven't mentioned yet about the importance of the EU in the future. Countries like France and Britain will become increasingly irrelevant and easy to ignore with giants like India and China (not to mention smaller potential powers and a more assertive Russia) growing, as well as an increasingly insecure US we need to try to calm down. The EU could work well in favour of all of our interests for the future with a kind of confederation system at least. I doubt it'll ever become a full nation state - what would we do with various monarchs?
While I agree with the view that their perceived power will decrease, until they relinquish their UN Security Council places you can't ignore them by any general measure.
Plutocracy on
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
Yep, the lack of accountability is why I'm opposed to the EU in its current state. Give me a way to vote morons out of office when they suggest stupid stuff and I'm all for it.
As it is now, there are a lot of people going "a bunch of unaccountable people in a far away country deciding shit for me" about it.
You realize of course that the second paragraph applies perfectly to what Ireland just did as well, right? So someone in Italy going "a bunch of fundies and truckers in rural Ireland deciding shit for me" isn't too far off the mark.
I personally oppose EU for one single reason, it is way to anti democratic and capitalistic to me. I am a pure socialist and a member of Socialistisk folkeparti (socialist peoples party in danish), about 50% of the party is anti EU, the official party stance changes between for and against every so often.
I have no illusions that we could make EU more socialist since most of europe is liberal or social-liberal, which just isn't enough for me, it is much easier to get Denmark to be socialist (the danish people are inherently very socialist) then to convince practically every other nation in EU to be.
I do love the idea of EU, but given the political orientation of the major players in the project I can't support it, it would create an insurmountable liberal powerblock that it would be stupid to help set in place as a socialist.
I like your sentiment, but I honestly think it's impractical, sadly. The best I think we can hope for is social democracy, and considering the EU is made up of nations, the direction it goes in tends to depend upon the various governments in power. The EU can facilitate better trade and stuff, but I think it should largely take an interest in the wellbeing of the population as a whole. As long as it's not empowering corporations to rape us (which I don't think it's really done, as far as I'm aware), that's good. I mean, we've had civil rights issues referred to the European Court of Human Rights, which isn't a bad thing. I think they gave legal aid during McLibel, for example
While I agree with the view that their perceived power will decrease, until they relinquish their UN Security Council places you can't ignore them by any general measure.
The UN Security Council is only relevant in certain cases. It was entirely irrelevant during Iraq, and it only would have been a rubber stamp to an inevitable war. In terms of economics, it's irrelevant, and it's often irrelevant in diplomacy. Threatening people? Kind of relevant. Starting wars? Kind of relevant.
Your comment seriously confuse me ege, certainly the "yes" side all over Europe is annoyed that the Ireland voted no but you can't seriously argue that it is the same as an unaccountable government ruling over all Europeans. Ireland voting no is the most democratic outcome any country has come out with, I haven't looked at the treaty myself due to it not needing a vote in Denmark, but if the Irish people thought that they couldn't accept it then it should be respected and in no way made to appear like it is somehow an asshole move on their part, it is their right to say no.
If the rest of Europe think that the treaty is worth going forth anyway they can actually do so aswell, it would not be unpresedented, I know for a fact that that Denmark have voted no to treaties that still passed, our government just went in a made seperate agreements with EU so we didn't hold back everyone else but the parts of the treaty that made the Danish people complain was made to not apply to Denmark.
Ofcourse this requires that it is possible to make such allowances but really lets see what happens...
I personally oppose EU for one single reason, it is way to anti democratic and capitalistic to me. I am a pure socialist and a member of Socialistisk folkeparti (socialist peoples party in danish), about 50% of the party is anti EU, the official party stance changes between for and against every so often.
I have no illusions that we could make EU more socialist since most of europe is liberal or social-liberal, which just isn't enough for me, it is much easier to get Denmark to be socialist (the danish people are inherently very socialist) then to convince practically every other nation in EU to be.
I do love the idea of EU, but given the political orientation of the major players in the project I can't support it, it would create an insurmountable liberal powerblock that it would be stupid to help set in place as a socialist.
I like your sentiment, but I honestly think it's impractical, sadly. The best I think we can hope for is social democracy, and considering the EU is made up of nations, the direction it goes in tends to depend upon the various governments in power. The EU can facilitate better trade and stuff, but I think it should largely take an interest in the wellbeing of the population as a whole. As long as it's not empowering corporations to rape us (which I don't think it's really done, as far as I'm aware), that's good. I mean, we've had civil rights issues referred to the European Court of Human Rights, which isn't a bad thing. I think they gave legal aid during McLibel, for example
I agree that EU has done a lot of good, but it just isn't enough justify the power we are granting it in my mind, we could do most if not all of these things without a institution like the EU as it is envisioned by the current pro-EU political players.
Your comment seriously confuse me ege, certainly the "yes" side all over Europe is annoyed that the Ireland voted no but you can't seriously argue that it is the same as an unaccountable government ruling over all Europeans. Ireland voting no is the most democratic outcome any country has come out with, I haven't looked at the treaty myself due to it not needing a vote in Denmark, but if the Irish people thought that they couldn't accept it then it should be respected and in no way made to appear like it is somehow an asshole move on their part, it is their right to say no.
If the rest of Europe think that the treaty is worth going forth anyway they can actually do so aswell, it would not be unpresedented, I know for a fact that that Denmark have voted no to treaties that still passed, our government just went in a made seperate agreements with EU so we didn't hold back everyone else but the parts of the treaty that made the Danish people complain was made to not apply to Denmark.
Ofcourse this requires that it is possible to make such allowances but really lets see what happens...
I personally oppose EU for one single reason, it is way to anti democratic and capitalistic to me. I am a pure socialist and a member of Socialistisk folkeparti (socialist peoples party in danish), about 50% of the party is anti EU, the official party stance changes between for and against every so often.
I have no illusions that we could make EU more socialist since most of europe is liberal or social-liberal, which just isn't enough for me, it is much easier to get Denmark to be socialist (the danish people are inherently very socialist) then to convince practically every other nation in EU to be.
I do love the idea of EU, but given the political orientation of the major players in the project I can't support it, it would create an insurmountable liberal powerblock that it would be stupid to help set in place as a socialist.
I like your sentiment, but I honestly think it's impractical, sadly. The best I think we can hope for is social democracy, and considering the EU is made up of nations, the direction it goes in tends to depend upon the various governments in power. The EU can facilitate better trade and stuff, but I think it should largely take an interest in the wellbeing of the population as a whole. As long as it's not empowering corporations to rape us (which I don't think it's really done, as far as I'm aware), that's good. I mean, we've had civil rights issues referred to the European Court of Human Rights, which isn't a bad thing. I think they gave legal aid during McLibel, for example
I agree that EU has done a lot of good, but it just isn't enough justify the power we are granting it in my mind, we could do most if not all of these things without a institution like the EU as it is envisioned by the current pro-EU political players.
If 1 % of Europe’s population votes no on something that affects everyone that already said yes how is that not the same thing?
And no they can't actually go ahead and do it anyway because you cannot change the core treaties and systems that the EU is built on if you don't have the agreement of every member state.
Most of the time when countries get exceptions it's about things that doesn't affect the decision making structure so I do think that Ireland really did fuck over everyone (or saved Europe depending on which side you’re on).
While I agree with the view that their perceived power will decrease, until they relinquish their UN Security Council places you can't ignore them by any general measure.
The UN Security Council is only relevant in certain cases. It was entirely irrelevant during Iraq, and it only would have been a rubber stamp to an inevitable war. In terms of economics, it's irrelevant, and it's often irrelevant in diplomacy. Threatening people? Kind of relevant. Starting wars? Kind of relevant.
That's because the US was pushing for the war, and when a hegemonic superpower wants a war it's kinda hard to say no to them.
Plutocracy on
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
If 1 % of Europe’s population votes no on something that affects everyone that already said yes how is that not the same thing?
And no they can't actually go ahead and do it anyway because you cannot change the core treaties and systems that the EU is built on if you don't have the agreement of every member state.
Most of the time when countries get exceptions it's about things that doesn't affect the decision making structure so I do think that Ireland really did fuck over everyone (or saved Europe depending on which side you’re on).
Well you already know my side on this matter.
I still don't think it is remotely the same though, especially because I think the treaty should have been voted on everywhere, especially if it does change core parts of the EU.
In this case it is really an almost unaccountable government making a treaty that some people thousands of kilometers away then shoot down, seeing as how these people were really the only ones who had the power to make the almost unaccountable government accountable, I think it is fair and it is just as fair and good as if the "yes" side had won, in that case the "no" side would have stood around and complained though.
If 1 % of Europe’s population votes no on something that affects everyone that already said yes how is that not the same thing?
And no they can't actually go ahead and do it anyway because you cannot change the core treaties and systems that the EU is built on if you don't have the agreement of every member state.
Most of the time when countries get exceptions it's about things that doesn't affect the decision making structure so I do think that Ireland really did fuck over everyone (or saved Europe depending on which side you’re on).
Well you already know my side on this matter.
I still don't think it is remotely the same though, especially because I think the treaty should have been voted on everywhere, especially if it does change core parts of the EU.
In this case it is really an almost unaccountable government making a treaty that some people thousands of kilometers away then shoot down, seeing as how these people were really the only ones who had the power to make the almost unaccountable government accountable, I think it is fair and it is just as fair and good as if the "yes" side had won, in that case the "no" side would have stood around and complained though.
That's the entire point isn't it. It's not an "almost unaccountable government" that's making a treaty. It's the different governments of all the countries in the EU sitting down and deciding to do something together. That's the definition of a treaty, countries working together.
The problem I have is not that Ireland said no. I think they are entitled. The problem I have is that Ireland was on board and made the treaty and THEN said "no".
If you don't want to be in the union that's fine, then don't vote on a party that will take you in that direction and which will work with the EU.
But when everyone who voted in Ireland did vote for people who said that this was in their best interest then why the hell do you ruin it in the end? Why not vote for a government that would make changes when the treaty was being drawn out?
And yes, everyone in Ireland who voted in their national election did vote for people who said that this was a good idea because every party supported the treaty.
If you don't trust your politicians then why do you elect them in the first place? If you don't give your politicians the power to work with other countries then why do you tell them to do so?
It's fine to say "no" but in this case Ireland did fuck the rest of Europe in the ass and it's nothing to be proud off.
Your comment seriously confuse me ege, certainly the "yes" side all over Europe is annoyed that the Ireland voted no but you can't seriously argue that it is the same as an unaccountable government ruling over all Europeans. Ireland voting no is the most democratic outcome any country has come out with, I haven't looked at the treaty myself due to it not needing a vote in Denmark, but if the Irish people thought that they couldn't accept it then it should be respected and in no way made to appear like it is somehow an asshole move on their part, it is their right to say no.
If the rest of Europe think that the treaty is worth going forth anyway they can actually do so aswell, it would not be unpresedented, I know for a fact that that Denmark have voted no to treaties that still passed, our government just went in a made seperate agreements with EU so we didn't hold back everyone else but the parts of the treaty that made the Danish people complain was made to not apply to Denmark.
Ofcourse this requires that it is possible to make such allowances but really lets see what happens...
Of course, arguably, Ireland voting "yes" would also have been the most democratic outcome. Voting one way or the other doesn't make it inherently less democratic, the fact it was a referedum at all makes it more democratic than governments deciding. Although the governments making the decisions were all democratically elected. And how can the EU be fundamentally changed unless all parties agree?
Also, while the vote needs to be respected by everyone, it doesn't mean it wasn't voted against due to ignorance on the part of the voters. The "yes" voters were probably equally ignorant, but it still means an important decision was made with ignorance being a factor.
I agree that EU has done a lot of good, but it just isn't enough justify the power we are granting it in my mind, we could do most if not all of these things without a institution like the EU as it is envisioned by the current pro-EU political players.
Personally, I don't think any modern governments do enough good to justify the power we grant them (well, they grant themselves in actuality). I'm not going to argue that all governments should cease to exist, though.
That's because the US was pushing for the war, and when a hegemonic superpower wants a war it's kinda hard to say no to them.
Exactly. My point was, although being on the UN Security Council grants France and the UK some degree of influence in the world than greater they'd otherwise have, it's not tremendously important in a large degree of cases. The Iraq War was a major event in modern history and their presence made no difference to how things turned out (it's a flat-out lie to say there was popular support on the Council and the French veto was why the US and UK didn't pursue another resolution)
Frankly, I'd argue NATO membership or nuclear weapons are more important because both make them immune to attack. They also could probably both undertake and win limited military engagements if they wanted to. And France and the UK were examples - a lot of the smaller countries of the EU are going to become a lot less influential in a number of ways internationally in the coming decades
Do you actually have a counter argument about why 1 vote = 1 man is a good idea and how does it help currently small countries to keep their political autonomy or is it just a pity pseudo retort "patriotism patriotism lol" & a bunch of irrelevant fallacies?
On the second part of your post, your idea about how Europe is, simply does not reflect the truth. There is 0 sense of kinship between many of the countries, their problems are not the same, their priorities are not the same, there beliefs are not the same. The fear that a reform could be imposed externally was a pocket ace for the opposition in the Ireland vote. How again, do you see 1 man 1 vote helping the case?
You also seem to put economical interest as a priority no 1. Sorry, while the EU may eventually be a good thing for all the currently underdeveloped economies, its reach is going further than that and the results for the citizens of those same countries are not that obviously beneficial.
I hate repeating myself.
Are you aware that in my country there are several major parties advocating independence for ther regions?
Are you aware that there is at least one terrorist organization here killing people in pursuit of independence?
How much "sense of kinship" do you think those people have? Some of them would kill me for speaking like this. Literally kill me. I doubt that kind of animosity exists between Belgium and Poland, frankly.
But still we vote and all our votes count the same (well, sort of, they count whatever the D'Hont system says they count).
I don't understand the point you're trying to make with the above. There are people who live in Spain and are part of my country, but would like to gain a certain autonomy as they don't feel Spanish(actually, they are not Spanish). We're unwilling to grant them this as we feel the territory is inherently Spanish and they hate us for it. Why can't the EU work the same way? I'm sorry if I'm actually misrepresenting your words, it would be nice if you could put a short synthesis as to why the above example is in any way relevant to the EU situation in a positive way? It would be good if you don't use an example AGAIN. I can't say you're succeeding in that department so far.
That's called democracy.
What protects the smaller regions from abuse?
Well there's a senate. Senates are meant to do that.
Then, there's a Constitution. It sets the rules of the game so nobody can abuse the minorities. One of the things it sets up is a Senate.
Saying minorities are protected is not AT ALL the same as having them play equal role in decision making. You're not giving small countries rights, they have been pretty much governing themselves for 10 centuries and I don't think that expecting them to just sit down and accept playing a minor role in their own future is realistic.
That's how it works. That's why I said the accountability needs to come first, then the Constitution, then the direct electoral system.
You seem to be arguing for two opposite things at once. You argue for a more democratic, socially responsible EU, and then you argue against people choosing their leaders directly. So, which is it? More democracy or less?
No, you misunderstood me. I'm arguing about said leaders making the citizens involved in EU decision making on the local level while at the same time getting read of populations quotas in EU voting making it a supermajority vote instead of double majority if need be. One country = one vote is fine with me. I see zero reason for Luxembourg's vote to be of less importance than Germany's IF the EU makes the step forward to a common foreign & internal policies.
As for your skepticism about the economic virtues of the UE... just name me one country that has taken an economic hit from it. Germany had to put money, and so did France and other large countries, but the whole principle behind the economic treaties in the UE is building up the smaller countries so they end up supporting the whole economic system. It's one of the few things in life that makes corporations and poor countries happy at the same time.
It's helped the Mediterranean countries already. Come back in five years and ask the Eastern countries what they think about it. Sure, some policies have been misguided. They should have never dismantled agriculture in the south to the extent they did, which would have helped with the food crisis and provided a way out from the real state crash. But, overall, we're better off than we'd be without the Union. By far.
Nope, a transparent non-corrupted process of funds allocation would make citizens happy. What we have in Eastern countries is a process lead by personal interest from both parties - EU responsible officials and local authorities. I'm happy that the EU economical push worked out for Spain, it's an insanely irritating failure for citizens here.
I'm far more concerned about the EU attempting to cut or undermine rights, potentially creating conflicts between national Constitutions and EU directives. THAT could take the whole thing apart. We're already questioning the harsher legislation against immigrants in Spain and opposing some of their labor proposals. That one could get ugly.
I agree, EU involvement in local legal systems could be a potential problem for the future, no matter how compatible EU law is intended to be, it will only be facing more difficult days regarding it's actual authority. The Gambling scandal in several EU members is already showing how neither side is actually sure "What happens now?" when there is a conflict of interest & court decisions.
That's the entire point isn't it. It's not an "almost unaccountable government" that's making a treaty. It's the different governments of all the countries in the EU sitting down and deciding to do something together. That's the definition of a treaty, countries working together.
The problem I have is not that Ireland said no. I think they are entitled. The problem I have is that Ireland was on board and made the treaty and THEN said "no".
If you don't want to be in the union that's fine, then don't vote on a party that will take you in that direction and which will work with the EU.
But when everyone who voted in Ireland did vote for people who said that this was in their best interest then why the hell do you ruin it in the end? Why not vote for a government that would make changes when the treaty was being drawn out?
And yes, everyone in Ireland who voted in their national election did vote for people who said that this was a good idea because every party supported the treaty.
If you don't trust your politicians then why do you elect them in the first place? If you don't give your politicians the power to work with other countries then why do you tell them to do so?
It's fine to say "no" but in this case Ireland did fuck the rest of Europe in the ass and it's nothing to be proud off.
Just because you vote in a party dosn't mean you agree with everything they say and do. If every party is pro-EU the "no" people would also seem to have a problem getting their voices heard in the general election and don't tell me that they should just make a party, making one issue parties is a dead end, it might get you some time in the papers but any halfway intelligent person know they won't work in if voted into government or even parliament.
Most countries have safeguards in their constitutions that make the politicians actions accountable, in this case the Irish votes clearly didn't agree with what their politicians did, as long as the Irish aren't trying to overthrow the guys in power I am going to have to assume that they generally agree with their government and they just differ on the EU issue, they are fully allowed to do this.
The treaty isn't fully agreed on before everyone rattify it anyways, sure the ones who made it may all agree, but the rattification process is there to ensure that the individual nations and not just their representatives approve of the treaty and in this case one nation clearly didn't (while six others haven't decided), IT IS THEIR RIGHT, they did NOT screw anyone, the status quo is kept for now.
Yep, the lack of accountability is why I'm opposed to the EU in its current state. Give me a way to vote morons out of office when they suggest stupid stuff and I'm all for it.
As it is now, there are a lot of people going "a bunch of unaccountable people in a far away country deciding shit for me" about it.
You realize of course that the second paragraph applies perfectly to what Ireland just did as well, right? So someone in Italy going "a bunch of fundies and truckers in rural Ireland deciding shit for me" isn't too far off the mark.
Of course, arguably, Ireland voting "yes" would also have been the most democratic outcome. Voting one way or the other doesn't make it inherently less democratic, the fact it was a referedum at all makes it more democratic than governments deciding. Although the governments making the decisions were all democratically elected. And how can the EU be fundamentally changed unless all parties agree?
I 100% agree that a yes would have been equally democratic, I merely meant that Irelands process was the most democratic of all.
I also agree everyone should agree on fundamental changes, I also admitted, I believe in the same post, I hadn't read the treaty because it didn't come up for vote here so ascribe that part to my ignorance on the treaty itself.
It's not an "almost unaccountable government" that's making a treaty. It's the different governments of all the countries in the EU sitting down and deciding to do something together. That's the definition of a treaty, countries working together.
No it isn't. It's a commission. The people on the seats in this commission do not get voted in by the population.
It is argued by some that the method of appointment for the Commission increases the democratic deficit in the European Union. While the Commission is the executive branch, the candidates are chosen primarily by the 27 national governments, meaning it is hard for the Commission to be thrown out directly by the voters. The legitimacy of the Commission is mainly drawn from the vote of approval that is required from the Parliament along with Parliament's power to sack the body, however there has been less than 50% turnout in the Parliament's elections since 1999. While that figure may be higher than that of some national elections, including those of the United States Congress, the fact that there are no elections for the position Commission President, unlike in the United States, makes the post less legitimate in the eyes of the public.
A further problem is the lack of a coherent electorate, even though democratic structures and methods are developing there is not such a mirror in creating a European civil society. The new Treaty of Lisbon could go some way to resolving the deficit in creating greater democratic controls on the Commission, including enshrining the procedure of linking elections to the selection of the Commission president. Under the plans of Vice President Wallström, European political parties would gain greater prominence and could lead to the Commission President being elected via the Parliament's elections.
A lot of problems could be solved if the EU just went out of their way to explain properly what their suggested changes would change in the life of people instead of tossing a 250-page legal document at them and go "read this, then vote yes, peasants!"
And now I shall edumacate myself on the treaty that I never got to vote on.
It's the different governments of all the countries in the EU sitting down and deciding to do something together.
No it isn't. It's a commission. The people on the seats in this commission do not get voted in by the population.
While the Commission is the executive branch, the candidates are chosen primarily by the 27 national governments, meaning it is hard for the Commission to be thrown out directly by the voters.
Maybe I'm confused, but you just disagreed with what Kitten said then cited Wikipedia which supported him.
The Commission is decided upon by national governments, all of which are democratically elected. It's indirect democracy at worst.
well, the people in the comission are sent in by the respective gouverments, which in turn are accountable to their respective people. But I doubt that any national gouverment will be voted out of office because the people don't agree with the person that was sent to the comission. But no one would argue that, say, France isn't a democracy because the ministers aren't elected by the public but appointed by the Head of Gouverment.
we could do most if not all of these things without a institution like the EU as it is envisioned by the current pro-EU political players.
we probably could, but anyone who has studied international law to an extend would probably say that the outcome wouldn't be that different. each member would just have 27 traeaties with everone else, or there is one set of treaties that other join. Which is kinda what the EU is.
Put it this way. The US constitution starts "We the People". The EU const- .. the Treaty of Lisbon starts "His Majesty the King of the Belgians".
It's a list of Heads of State. Who cares? "We the People" referred to a minority of wealthy people who were drawing up and signing the thing, so what? Is there any constitution that has true democratic input and ratification?
I 100% agree that a yes would have been equally democratic, I merely meant that Irelands process was the most democratic of all.
I also agree everyone should agree on fundamental changes, I also admitted, I believe in the same post, I hadn't read the treaty because it didn't come up for vote here so ascribe that part to my ignorance on the treaty itself.
Everyone's ignorant about the Treaty and the Constitution to some extent, whether they voted on it or not. And you're right Ireland's vote was the most democratic, but the others were done by democractically elected officials, at least.
The Commission is decided upon by national governments, all of which are democratically elected. It's indirect democracy at worst.
You don't have to be elected to be a commissioner though; unlike normal national government ministers (who have to win their usual seat).
Well, it depends on the system. And there are all sorts of people in governments who aren't elected. Civil servants, for example. In the UK, a propagandist was chairing meetings of intelligence officials. In France, an unelected civil servant served as PM (de Villepin, right?). In the US, Secretaries of State aren't elected. Actually, I don't think the UK Parliament has any requirement for Ministers to also be MPs.
Also, even if somebody is voted in as an MP, it doesn't mean they've been voted in to hold a certain portfolio in government. It's minimally more democratic than having an unelected person hold that position. It'd be a legitimate argument if party leaders announced the line-up for who'd be doing what in their governments, but generally they don't. We can guess, sure, but it's not democratic. Brown wasn't voted in as PM is another example
we probably could, but anyone who has studied international law to an extend would probably say that the outcome wouldn't be that different. each member would just have 27 traeaties with everone else, or there is one set of treaties that other join. Which is kinda what the EU is.
That is very far from what the EU is becoming, a set of international treaties is not in anyway a supernational government, the reason people are voting down the treaties is a general view that we are being dragged into a supernational government that will drain the sovereign power of each nation and its voters, the power flowing into the hands of an elite class of politicians sitting in brussels and controlling the fate of people they have no idea what needs. It dosn't matter of the governments or corporations gets more money if the people aren't getting anything out of it, or if what they are getting is irrelevant to them.
Even if I weren't against EU on the basis of my political views I would be against it on the basis of the lack of democratic proces in the way people get positions in the EU.
And yes I do realise that supposidly this treaty is supposed to do something about that, but I don't know anything about that and seeing as how I am arguing the point of the average naysayer that really dosn't matter because neither do they. Also from what I gather it is far, far from enough to restore even a tiny bit of faith in the EU.
we probably could, but anyone who has studied international law to an extend would probably say that the outcome wouldn't be that different. each member would just have 27 traeaties with everone else, or there is one set of treaties that other join. Which is kinda what the EU is.
That is very far from what the EU is becoming, a set of international treaties is not in anyway a supernational government, the reason people are voting down the treaties is a general view that we are being dragged into a supernational government that will drain the sovereign power of each nation and its voters, the power flowing into the hands of an elite class of politicians sitting in brussels and controlling the fate of people they have no idea what needs. It dosn't matter of the governments or corporations gets more money if the people aren't getting anything out of it, or if what they are getting is irrelevant to them.
Even if I weren't against EU on the basis of my political views I would be against it on the basis of the lack of democratic proces in the way people get positions in the EU.
And yes I do realise that supposidly this treaty is supposed to do something about that, but I don't know anything about that and seeing as how I am arguing the point of the average naysayer that really dosn't matter because neither do they. Also from what I gather it is far, far from enough to restore even a tiny bit of faith in the EU.
And the problem with this view is that the EU is not a supragovermental organisation, it's a co-operation between governments. Remember that every time you think EU is fucking you over it's actually your own government that you elected that is fucking you over.
Let's take a look at the different ruling bodies of the EU:
European commission: 27 dudes chosen by the governments of their respective countries to act as an executive branch. Primary allegiance to the EU as a whole but the amount of power they can wield is controlled by the council of the European union.
This consists of the 27 heads of goverment in the treaty organisation. And then you have the council of the European union which consists of the 27 ministers who best fit whatever issue they want to discuss.
Finally you have the Parliament which supposedly has some limited power but in reality doesn't seem to do that much.
One final pet peeve of mine is the European court, which ironically even most EU opponents seem to like, which is most definitely a politically motivated court. If you want to point a finger at a non elected organisation that really pushes EU expansion and control over national interests this is where it should be at because if they can do it with a ruling then that's usually what happens.
Anyway, clearly most of the power still lies with the national governments.
The hated commission can only do what the countries themselves allow it to do but it's a useful tool for showing things down people’s throats. Which is quite frankly the entire goal since EU is ultimately a tool for binding countries together against nationalistic wishes in order to avoid war.
So, the "ruling elite" sitting down in Brussels are three kinds of people.
a) the elected parliamentarians who represent the people and doesn't have any real power.
b) your elected politicians
c) the guys your elected politicians tell what to do.
So if you do want to change something I'd suggest you vote through things that cut down on red tape and increase visibility on what's actually happening, remove as much legal mumbo jumbo as possible and strengthen the parliament that you can actually elect.
Something like say, the Lisbon treaty?
But more importantly stop bitching at the EU like it's some nameless evil entity and hold your own politicians accountable.
And... you're seriously suggesting people might start revolting because they get the Lisbon Treaty forced on them? It's not like they'll be getting forced into concentration camps.
And you're seriously suggesting a detached, ivory tower model of goverment that can't be arsed to even pretend to be democratic is a perfectly healthy way to govern this continent in decades to come?
Not to state the obvious, but who gives a shit about Ireland?
Ireland is a great country.
In any case, you are probably right. Even though we voted no, its going to be like the Nice treaty again, politicians will come to us basically saying "wrong choice, try again."
I know all about that, read what I write, I am writing that it is what people see it BECOMING not necessarily what it is.
I and others fear it becoming a supergovernment that rules Europe, and don't try and tell me that it isn't what they are trying to do, everytime they make a treaty they are trying to grab more power for EU. At the moment EU is bogged down in nations wanting different things, everything needing to go through all 3 parts of the EU and maybe even ratified afterwards by the 27 nations.
I don't know how to explain it since you haven't gotten it yet, but it is more EUs potential in its current track that is frightning more then what it is now, atm it cannot control very much inside the 27 sovereign nations but every treaty allow EU to do that much more. Already we have seen a lot of force changes to our laws here in Denmark like allowing poorer quality food on the market then we allowed earlier due to EU and the marketing laws. We are also in trouble with the EU over a few other things which the danish people and the government would have prefered to control ourselves.
This is acceptable for the moment as we gain other things that outweigh it but each time EU gains more power there are that many more things that we have to change to facilitate what we consider inferior methods, ideas, laws and the like.
All in all I think Denmark should stay in the EU but fight every single expansion it tries to make, it is allowed to streamline itself as it is horribly bloated right now but it should have no more control over anything.
Also even if it is comprised of the governments of all 27 nations it is still a supernational government, it can do things that affect all the nations and the individual nations can either suck it up or fuck off, like mandate that a nations immigrant laws are wrong or that the food regulations are to strict, both of which has happened here in Denmark plus many more cases...
EDIT: Really as I said, I don't hate the EU, in fact I love the idea but the execution is horribly wrong and in my mind perhaps EU covers to huge a culture difference, southern europe could not be more different from scandinavia as an example.
Also would you not call it a supernational government when it has the power to make laws that the nations under it then has a timeperiod to merge into their laws, the EU has this power on certain areas. That to me is the very definition of a supernational government.
I am holding my politicians as accountable as I can but they are not the only ones shaping the EU, as previously stated I am a member of a political party and the party line tilts between for and against after who has control, I fight as much as I can to keep it on a no basis, I CANNOT do more then this, so really don't tell me I can't complain about it just because you don't approve of my take on it.
I don't know. In my eyes there's something seriously fucked up about 1% of the population having the ability to halt all progress on a treaty and outweigh the other 99%.
Let's face one fact: these allegations of the EU being "undemocratic" and whatnot is not something that has occurred only to the Irish. There are people in France and Italy and Belgium and England etc. that think the same thing. The thing however is that those people were not the majority; in every country except Ireland the vote was a yes. In every country except Ireland, the general consensus was that some progress is better than no progress, even if that progress is made under less-than-ideal amounts of democracy.
So what makes Ireland so special? I mean, it's not as if the Irish have higher standards for democracy or anything; the portions that voted no consists mostly of fundies and truck drivers and union members and what have you. What is going on here then?
And... you're seriously suggesting people might start revolting because they get the Lisbon Treaty forced on them? It's not like they'll be getting forced into concentration camps.
And you're seriously suggesting a detached, ivory tower model of goverment that can't be arsed to even pretend to be democratic is a perfectly healthy way to govern this continent in decades to come?
See? I can make strawmen too.
I wasn't arguing, it just looked like you were suggesting a revolution might happen if governments get their act together, and I was asking if you were serious
I don't know. In my eyes there's something seriously fucked up about 1% of the population having the ability to halt all progress on a treaty and outweigh the other 99%.
Let's face one fact: these allegations of the EU being "undemocratic" and whatnot is not something that has occurred only to the Irish. There are people in France and Italy and Belgium and England etc. that think the same thing. The thing however is that those people were not the majority; in every country except Ireland the vote was a yes. In every country except Ireland, the general consensus was that some progress is better than no progress, even if that progress is made under less-than-ideal amounts of democracy.
So what makes Ireland so special? I mean, it's not as if the Irish have higher standards for democracy or anything; the portions that voted no consists mostly of fundies and truck drivers and union members and what have you. What is going on here then?
Uh, no other country got to vote. The politicians just said yes.
The only country with a public vote said no, when ~80% of the politicians in Ireland were saying yes.
The real question is how do we get there? What does it take? How can we bring people to a place where they stop thinking in petty national terms about stuff and just work for the greater good? How do we erradicate nationalism in a continent where the UK isn't willing to open their borders fully and French farmers dump Spà nish fruit trucks en route? How do we do any of this with the right on the government, pushing for a 65 hour a week work schedule and looking a Turkey sideways because they're not a Catholic country?
You go four or five generations without a major war in Europe, and you gloss over the parts of your history where every country on that continent stabbed every other country in the back for a millennium and change.
I don't know. In my eyes there's something seriously fucked up about 1% of the population having the ability to halt all progress on a treaty and outweigh the other 99%.
Let's face one fact: these allegations of the EU being "undemocratic" and whatnot is not something that has occurred only to the Irish. There are people in France and Italy and Belgium and England etc. that think the same thing. The thing however is that those people were not the majority; in every country except Ireland the vote was a yes. In every country except Ireland, the general consensus was that some progress is better than no progress, even if that progress is made under less-than-ideal amounts of democracy.
So what makes Ireland so special? I mean, it's not as if the Irish have higher standards for democracy or anything; the portions that voted no consists mostly of fundies and truck drivers and union members and what have you. What is going on here then?
Uh, no other country got to vote. The politicians just said yes.
The only country with a public vote said no, when ~80% of the politicians in Ireland were saying yes.
loldemocracy?
What would be the result in the other countries if they actually voted? Are there surveys or something?
I wouldn't be surprised if it failed in more than one country, which is one of the reasons nobody else actually held a referendum on it.
The fact Ireland did actually ask the people what they wanted makes me like the country a whole lot more though.
Perhaps the reason nobody held a referendum is because nobody really wants a mob rule.
I probably should have said that it is perhaps one of the reasons nobody else held a public vote.
The news report on it did show several people who said they only voted no because they didn't understand it, although 4 people saying that doesn't really mean anything.
I wouldn't be surprised if it failed in more than one country, which is one of the reasons nobody else actually held a referendum on it.
The fact Ireland did actually ask the people what they wanted makes me like the country a whole lot more though.
Perhaps the reason nobody held a referendum is because nobody really wants a mob rule.
I probably should have said that it is perhaps one of the reasons nobody else held a public vote.
The news report on it did show several people who said they only voted no because they didn't understand it, although 4 people saying that doesn't really mean anything.
That's really a side issue.
The real issue is that it is horribly stupid for a country deciding on matters such as this via popular vote. I mean what the hell.
Ireland had the referendum because accepting the Treaty would have meant changing that particular country's constitution, and that means under Irish law a referendum has to be held. Other countries can accept it without a referendum. When the Lisbon Treaty was a constitution other countries had to hold referendums, which is when France (among others) got their 'No' vote.
So, we had a constitution, which was rejected. Then we had the Lisbon Treaty, which was basically the constitution with a few bits taken out specifically submitted that way to avoid referendums that would almost certainly reject it. It has now been rejected also. And yet the EU seems dead set on pushing it through. This annoys people.
And it's not just that I'm Spanish, either. Here's a common area in which Spaniards are idiots: We got into the union in 89, struggling to overcome the leftover structural deficit from the dictatorship (ended in 78) and facing worldwide economical crisis. We received billions of german and french money to build a modern infrastructure system, full with high speed trains, new airports, roads and highways.
Is there anywhere one could look up to see how much funding different countries are getting?
Not easily, and mere numbers don't really spell out the whole truth... Access to the EU market is likely to be worth more than the funding itsself. But rest assured that some players (germany, france) are putting in a lot more than they get out.
Then again, they only have to look back 50_some years to see what the alternative costs. Keep in mind the economic Coal and Steel union was just a means to an end: an undivided, peaceful europe.
I know all about that, read what I write, I am writing that it is what people see it BECOMING not necessarily what it is.
I and others fear it becoming a supergovernment that rules Europe, and don't try and tell me that it isn't what they are trying to do, everytime they make a treaty they are trying to grab more power for EU. At the moment EU is bogged down in nations wanting different things, everything needing to go through all 3 parts of the EU and maybe even ratified afterwards by the 27 nations.
I don't know how to explain it since you haven't gotten it yet, but it is more EUs potential in its current track that is frightning more then what it is now, atm it cannot control very much inside the 27 sovereign nations but every treaty allow EU to do that much more. Already we have seen a lot of force changes to our laws here in Denmark like allowing poorer quality food on the market then we allowed earlier due to EU and the marketing laws. We are also in trouble with the EU over a few other things which the danish people and the government would have prefered to control ourselves.
This is acceptable for the moment as we gain other things that outweigh it but each time EU gains more power there are that many more things that we have to change to facilitate what we consider inferior methods, ideas, laws and the like.
All in all I think Denmark should stay in the EU but fight every single expansion it tries to make, it is allowed to streamline itself as it is horribly bloated right now but it should have no more control over anything.
Also even if it is comprised of the governments of all 27 nations it is still a supernational government, it can do things that affect all the nations and the individual nations can either suck it up or fuck off, like mandate that a nations immigrant laws are wrong or that the food regulations are to strict, both of which has happened here in Denmark plus many more cases...
EDIT: Really as I said, I don't hate the EU, in fact I love the idea but the execution is horribly wrong and in my mind perhaps EU covers to huge a culture difference, southern europe could not be more different from scandinavia as an example.
Also would you not call it a supernational government when it has the power to make laws that the nations under it then has a timeperiod to merge into their laws, the EU has this power on certain areas. That to me is the very definition of a supernational government.
I am holding my politicians as accountable as I can but they are not the only ones shaping the EU, as previously stated I am a member of a political party and the party line tilts between for and against after who has control, I fight as much as I can to keep it on a no basis, I CANNOT do more then this, so really don't tell me I can't complain about it just because you don't approve of my take on it.
Erm... it already IS a government over all countries on Europe. I thought we were over that after decades having the EU decide things and imposing them on all the countries that agreed to be under its influence.
We're not even questioning that it's a supernational government at this point. It's created to be one, and it's been working like one for years. We're discussion (not in the forums, but in the actual EU) how we're going to manage that supernational government. We all agree that we want one, we just can't agree on how we set it up so that it works and doesn't commit abuse on the people.
And, Glal, I'm pretty sure the data is out there, because it does surface on the press every now and then, but I don't have a link at this point.
It's on the Spanish press lately, because we recently broke even on the indicators about who gets money and who gives it, which means we sould do the switch. When commenting on that there were plenty of media-digested, clean cut graphs on how much money was going to each country, per year, but you're gonna have to look them up yourself.
Well if you read the later parts of the post I do point out that EU is a supernational government aswell, I just didn't feel like going back and rewriting the beginning.
EU is a supernational government there is really no discussion there, I like the idea as I said but the execution and the ramifications for my country is not something I approve of, which is why I am against it. I would not mind an EU like entity for scandinavia as an example due to the fact that we scandinavians agree on most issues (in fact we have been one country for hundreds of years at times), I dislike the EU because I see it as a place were no matter how its done the UK, France, Germany, Spain and so forth are going to be controlling it and they have radically different ideas as to how things should be then we do (and then each other aswell).
I realise that small countries currently has disproportionate power compared to their populations but if EU has to be in any way succesful I believe that must end and if that ends we lose all chance of keeping Denmark the way the danish want it to be instead of how some central or southern europeans want it.
Also again, the Irish shooting down the Lisbon Treaty is in no way unfair or assholish, it is their god damn right to do so and it is to me outrageous that the rest of the european countries aren't doing it by popular vote aswell, shaping the EU should be up to the people, not up to those in power, even if they are put there by the people.
Most european nations have at some point been reformed by the people after they got unhappy with how those in power had done it. In my eyes an EU formed after the mind of the elites and not of the general people is doomed to fail, if we cannot as a Europe spanning democrazy agree on how it should be made we should not make it at all in my mind.
I realise that small countries currently has disproportionate power compared to their populations but if EU has to be in any way succesful I believe that must end and if that ends we lose all chance of keeping Denmark the way the danish want it to be instead of how some central or southern europeans want it.
Can you please define "success" and point out how does equality between members states without population criteria keeps the EU from being successful? It has been said numerous times on this thread that the EU can not be successful because many people from different countries look at it as "them" with an absurd sense of detachment helped a lot by the nation's political elite who simply "informs" the population on directives & decisions coming from Europe in a post facto way. Giving smaller countries even less power than they hold now would really not help with building the necessary trust.
On the contrary, giving countries equal responsibilities forgetting about size and involving the population more often in decisions would be an excellent way to popularize the Union and would lead people to feel more involved.
Also again, the Irish shooting down the Lisbon Treaty is in no way unfair or assholish, it is their god damn right to do so and it is to me outrageous that the rest of the european countries aren't doing it by popular vote aswell, shaping the EU should be up to the people, not up to those in power, even if they are put there by the people.
Most european nations have at some point been reformed by the people after they got unhappy with how those in power had done it. In my eyes an EU formed after the mind of the elites and not of the general people is doomed to fail, if we cannot as a Europe spanning democrazy agree on how it should be made we should not make it at all in my mind.
I pretty much fully agree with that argument, so I'm even more baffled how could you make the above comment?
Edit: I asked about 10 different people if they knew about the "EU problems after Ireland's referendum." today. Blank stares. Those are all people who vote in national elections.
Posts
While I agree with the view that their perceived power will decrease, until they relinquish their UN Security Council places you can't ignore them by any general measure.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
You realize of course that the second paragraph applies perfectly to what Ireland just did as well, right? So someone in Italy going "a bunch of fundies and truckers in rural Ireland deciding shit for me" isn't too far off the mark.
I like your sentiment, but I honestly think it's impractical, sadly. The best I think we can hope for is social democracy, and considering the EU is made up of nations, the direction it goes in tends to depend upon the various governments in power. The EU can facilitate better trade and stuff, but I think it should largely take an interest in the wellbeing of the population as a whole. As long as it's not empowering corporations to rape us (which I don't think it's really done, as far as I'm aware), that's good. I mean, we've had civil rights issues referred to the European Court of Human Rights, which isn't a bad thing. I think they gave legal aid during McLibel, for example
The UN Security Council is only relevant in certain cases. It was entirely irrelevant during Iraq, and it only would have been a rubber stamp to an inevitable war. In terms of economics, it's irrelevant, and it's often irrelevant in diplomacy. Threatening people? Kind of relevant. Starting wars? Kind of relevant.
If the rest of Europe think that the treaty is worth going forth anyway they can actually do so aswell, it would not be unpresedented, I know for a fact that that Denmark have voted no to treaties that still passed, our government just went in a made seperate agreements with EU so we didn't hold back everyone else but the parts of the treaty that made the Danish people complain was made to not apply to Denmark.
Ofcourse this requires that it is possible to make such allowances but really lets see what happens...
EDIT:
I agree that EU has done a lot of good, but it just isn't enough justify the power we are granting it in my mind, we could do most if not all of these things without a institution like the EU as it is envisioned by the current pro-EU political players.
If 1 % of Europe’s population votes no on something that affects everyone that already said yes how is that not the same thing?
And no they can't actually go ahead and do it anyway because you cannot change the core treaties and systems that the EU is built on if you don't have the agreement of every member state.
Most of the time when countries get exceptions it's about things that doesn't affect the decision making structure so I do think that Ireland really did fuck over everyone (or saved Europe depending on which side you’re on).
That's because the US was pushing for the war, and when a hegemonic superpower wants a war it's kinda hard to say no to them.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
Well you already know my side on this matter.
I still don't think it is remotely the same though, especially because I think the treaty should have been voted on everywhere, especially if it does change core parts of the EU.
In this case it is really an almost unaccountable government making a treaty that some people thousands of kilometers away then shoot down, seeing as how these people were really the only ones who had the power to make the almost unaccountable government accountable, I think it is fair and it is just as fair and good as if the "yes" side had won, in that case the "no" side would have stood around and complained though.
That's the entire point isn't it. It's not an "almost unaccountable government" that's making a treaty. It's the different governments of all the countries in the EU sitting down and deciding to do something together. That's the definition of a treaty, countries working together.
The problem I have is not that Ireland said no. I think they are entitled. The problem I have is that Ireland was on board and made the treaty and THEN said "no".
If you don't want to be in the union that's fine, then don't vote on a party that will take you in that direction and which will work with the EU.
But when everyone who voted in Ireland did vote for people who said that this was in their best interest then why the hell do you ruin it in the end? Why not vote for a government that would make changes when the treaty was being drawn out?
And yes, everyone in Ireland who voted in their national election did vote for people who said that this was a good idea because every party supported the treaty.
If you don't trust your politicians then why do you elect them in the first place? If you don't give your politicians the power to work with other countries then why do you tell them to do so?
It's fine to say "no" but in this case Ireland did fuck the rest of Europe in the ass and it's nothing to be proud off.
Of course, arguably, Ireland voting "yes" would also have been the most democratic outcome. Voting one way or the other doesn't make it inherently less democratic, the fact it was a referedum at all makes it more democratic than governments deciding. Although the governments making the decisions were all democratically elected. And how can the EU be fundamentally changed unless all parties agree?
Also, while the vote needs to be respected by everyone, it doesn't mean it wasn't voted against due to ignorance on the part of the voters. The "yes" voters were probably equally ignorant, but it still means an important decision was made with ignorance being a factor.
Personally, I don't think any modern governments do enough good to justify the power we grant them (well, they grant themselves in actuality). I'm not going to argue that all governments should cease to exist, though.
Exactly. My point was, although being on the UN Security Council grants France and the UK some degree of influence in the world than greater they'd otherwise have, it's not tremendously important in a large degree of cases. The Iraq War was a major event in modern history and their presence made no difference to how things turned out (it's a flat-out lie to say there was popular support on the Council and the French veto was why the US and UK didn't pursue another resolution)
Frankly, I'd argue NATO membership or nuclear weapons are more important because both make them immune to attack. They also could probably both undertake and win limited military engagements if they wanted to. And France and the UK were examples - a lot of the smaller countries of the EU are going to become a lot less influential in a number of ways internationally in the coming decades
I don't understand the point you're trying to make with the above. There are people who live in Spain and are part of my country, but would like to gain a certain autonomy as they don't feel Spanish(actually, they are not Spanish). We're unwilling to grant them this as we feel the territory is inherently Spanish and they hate us for it. Why can't the EU work the same way? I'm sorry if I'm actually misrepresenting your words, it would be nice if you could put a short synthesis as to why the above example is in any way relevant to the EU situation in a positive way? It would be good if you don't use an example AGAIN. I can't say you're succeeding in that department so far.
Saying minorities are protected is not AT ALL the same as having them play equal role in decision making. You're not giving small countries rights, they have been pretty much governing themselves for 10 centuries and I don't think that expecting them to just sit down and accept playing a minor role in their own future is realistic.
No, you misunderstood me. I'm arguing about said leaders making the citizens involved in EU decision making on the local level while at the same time getting read of populations quotas in EU voting making it a supermajority vote instead of double majority if need be. One country = one vote is fine with me. I see zero reason for Luxembourg's vote to be of less importance than Germany's IF the EU makes the step forward to a common foreign & internal policies.
Nope, a transparent non-corrupted process of funds allocation would make citizens happy. What we have in Eastern countries is a process lead by personal interest from both parties - EU responsible officials and local authorities. I'm happy that the EU economical push worked out for Spain, it's an insanely irritating failure for citizens here.
I agree, EU involvement in local legal systems could be a potential problem for the future, no matter how compatible EU law is intended to be, it will only be facing more difficult days regarding it's actual authority. The Gambling scandal in several EU members is already showing how neither side is actually sure "What happens now?" when there is a conflict of interest & court decisions.
Just because you vote in a party dosn't mean you agree with everything they say and do. If every party is pro-EU the "no" people would also seem to have a problem getting their voices heard in the general election and don't tell me that they should just make a party, making one issue parties is a dead end, it might get you some time in the papers but any halfway intelligent person know they won't work in if voted into government or even parliament.
Most countries have safeguards in their constitutions that make the politicians actions accountable, in this case the Irish votes clearly didn't agree with what their politicians did, as long as the Irish aren't trying to overthrow the guys in power I am going to have to assume that they generally agree with their government and they just differ on the EU issue, they are fully allowed to do this.
The treaty isn't fully agreed on before everyone rattify it anyways, sure the ones who made it may all agree, but the rattification process is there to ensure that the individual nations and not just their representatives approve of the treaty and in this case one nation clearly didn't (while six others haven't decided), IT IS THEIR RIGHT, they did NOT screw anyone, the status quo is kept for now.
That would have been what I implied, yes.
I 100% agree that a yes would have been equally democratic, I merely meant that Irelands process was the most democratic of all.
I also agree everyone should agree on fundamental changes, I also admitted, I believe in the same post, I hadn't read the treaty because it didn't come up for vote here so ascribe that part to my ignorance on the treaty itself.
No it isn't. It's a commission. The people on the seats in this commission do not get voted in by the population.
Eh, I'll just quote wikipedia:
A lot of problems could be solved if the EU just went out of their way to explain properly what their suggested changes would change in the life of people instead of tossing a 250-page legal document at them and go "read this, then vote yes, peasants!"
And now I shall edumacate myself on the treaty that I never got to vote on.
Maybe I'm confused, but you just disagreed with what Kitten said then cited Wikipedia which supported him.
The Commission is decided upon by national governments, all of which are democratically elected. It's indirect democracy at worst.
You don't have to be elected to be a commissioner though; unlike normal national government ministers (who have to win their usual seat).
we probably could, but anyone who has studied international law to an extend would probably say that the outcome wouldn't be that different. each member would just have 27 traeaties with everone else, or there is one set of treaties that other join. Which is kinda what the EU is.
It's a list of Heads of State. Who cares? "We the People" referred to a minority of wealthy people who were drawing up and signing the thing, so what? Is there any constitution that has true democratic input and ratification?
Everyone's ignorant about the Treaty and the Constitution to some extent, whether they voted on it or not. And you're right Ireland's vote was the most democratic, but the others were done by democractically elected officials, at least.
Well, it depends on the system. And there are all sorts of people in governments who aren't elected. Civil servants, for example. In the UK, a propagandist was chairing meetings of intelligence officials. In France, an unelected civil servant served as PM (de Villepin, right?). In the US, Secretaries of State aren't elected. Actually, I don't think the UK Parliament has any requirement for Ministers to also be MPs.
Also, even if somebody is voted in as an MP, it doesn't mean they've been voted in to hold a certain portfolio in government. It's minimally more democratic than having an unelected person hold that position. It'd be a legitimate argument if party leaders announced the line-up for who'd be doing what in their governments, but generally they don't. We can guess, sure, but it's not democratic. Brown wasn't voted in as PM is another example
That is very far from what the EU is becoming, a set of international treaties is not in anyway a supernational government, the reason people are voting down the treaties is a general view that we are being dragged into a supernational government that will drain the sovereign power of each nation and its voters, the power flowing into the hands of an elite class of politicians sitting in brussels and controlling the fate of people they have no idea what needs. It dosn't matter of the governments or corporations gets more money if the people aren't getting anything out of it, or if what they are getting is irrelevant to them.
Even if I weren't against EU on the basis of my political views I would be against it on the basis of the lack of democratic proces in the way people get positions in the EU.
And yes I do realise that supposidly this treaty is supposed to do something about that, but I don't know anything about that and seeing as how I am arguing the point of the average naysayer that really dosn't matter because neither do they. Also from what I gather it is far, far from enough to restore even a tiny bit of faith in the EU.
And the problem with this view is that the EU is not a supragovermental organisation, it's a co-operation between governments. Remember that every time you think EU is fucking you over it's actually your own government that you elected that is fucking you over.
Let's take a look at the different ruling bodies of the EU:
European commission: 27 dudes chosen by the governments of their respective countries to act as an executive branch. Primary allegiance to the EU as a whole but the amount of power they can wield is controlled by the council of the European union.
This consists of the 27 heads of goverment in the treaty organisation. And then you have the council of the European union which consists of the 27 ministers who best fit whatever issue they want to discuss.
Finally you have the Parliament which supposedly has some limited power but in reality doesn't seem to do that much.
One final pet peeve of mine is the European court, which ironically even most EU opponents seem to like, which is most definitely a politically motivated court. If you want to point a finger at a non elected organisation that really pushes EU expansion and control over national interests this is where it should be at because if they can do it with a ruling then that's usually what happens.
Anyway, clearly most of the power still lies with the national governments.
The hated commission can only do what the countries themselves allow it to do but it's a useful tool for showing things down people’s throats. Which is quite frankly the entire goal since EU is ultimately a tool for binding countries together against nationalistic wishes in order to avoid war.
So, the "ruling elite" sitting down in Brussels are three kinds of people.
a) the elected parliamentarians who represent the people and doesn't have any real power.
b) your elected politicians
c) the guys your elected politicians tell what to do.
So if you do want to change something I'd suggest you vote through things that cut down on red tape and increase visibility on what's actually happening, remove as much legal mumbo jumbo as possible and strengthen the parliament that you can actually elect.
Something like say, the Lisbon treaty?
But more importantly stop bitching at the EU like it's some nameless evil entity and hold your own politicians accountable.
And you're seriously suggesting a detached, ivory tower model of goverment that can't be arsed to even pretend to be democratic is a perfectly healthy way to govern this continent in decades to come?
See? I can make strawmen too.
Ireland is a great country.
In any case, you are probably right. Even though we voted no, its going to be like the Nice treaty again, politicians will come to us basically saying "wrong choice, try again."
I know all about that, read what I write, I am writing that it is what people see it BECOMING not necessarily what it is.
I and others fear it becoming a supergovernment that rules Europe, and don't try and tell me that it isn't what they are trying to do, everytime they make a treaty they are trying to grab more power for EU. At the moment EU is bogged down in nations wanting different things, everything needing to go through all 3 parts of the EU and maybe even ratified afterwards by the 27 nations.
I don't know how to explain it since you haven't gotten it yet, but it is more EUs potential in its current track that is frightning more then what it is now, atm it cannot control very much inside the 27 sovereign nations but every treaty allow EU to do that much more. Already we have seen a lot of force changes to our laws here in Denmark like allowing poorer quality food on the market then we allowed earlier due to EU and the marketing laws. We are also in trouble with the EU over a few other things which the danish people and the government would have prefered to control ourselves.
This is acceptable for the moment as we gain other things that outweigh it but each time EU gains more power there are that many more things that we have to change to facilitate what we consider inferior methods, ideas, laws and the like.
All in all I think Denmark should stay in the EU but fight every single expansion it tries to make, it is allowed to streamline itself as it is horribly bloated right now but it should have no more control over anything.
Also even if it is comprised of the governments of all 27 nations it is still a supernational government, it can do things that affect all the nations and the individual nations can either suck it up or fuck off, like mandate that a nations immigrant laws are wrong or that the food regulations are to strict, both of which has happened here in Denmark plus many more cases...
EDIT: Really as I said, I don't hate the EU, in fact I love the idea but the execution is horribly wrong and in my mind perhaps EU covers to huge a culture difference, southern europe could not be more different from scandinavia as an example.
Also would you not call it a supernational government when it has the power to make laws that the nations under it then has a timeperiod to merge into their laws, the EU has this power on certain areas. That to me is the very definition of a supernational government.
I am holding my politicians as accountable as I can but they are not the only ones shaping the EU, as previously stated I am a member of a political party and the party line tilts between for and against after who has control, I fight as much as I can to keep it on a no basis, I CANNOT do more then this, so really don't tell me I can't complain about it just because you don't approve of my take on it.
Let's face one fact: these allegations of the EU being "undemocratic" and whatnot is not something that has occurred only to the Irish. There are people in France and Italy and Belgium and England etc. that think the same thing. The thing however is that those people were not the majority; in every country except Ireland the vote was a yes. In every country except Ireland, the general consensus was that some progress is better than no progress, even if that progress is made under less-than-ideal amounts of democracy.
So what makes Ireland so special? I mean, it's not as if the Irish have higher standards for democracy or anything; the portions that voted no consists mostly of fundies and truck drivers and union members and what have you. What is going on here then?
I wasn't arguing, it just looked like you were suggesting a revolution might happen if governments get their act together, and I was asking if you were serious
So, you *weren't* suggesting that?
Uh, no other country got to vote. The politicians just said yes.
The only country with a public vote said no, when ~80% of the politicians in Ireland were saying yes.
loldemocracy?
What would be the result in the other countries if they actually voted? Are there surveys or something?
The fact Ireland did actually ask the people what they wanted makes me like the country a whole lot more though.
Perhaps the reason nobody held a referendum is because nobody really wants a mob rule.
Hence the whole "representative" thing in democracy, you see.
I probably should have said that it is perhaps one of the reasons nobody else held a public vote.
The news report on it did show several people who said they only voted no because they didn't understand it, although 4 people saying that doesn't really mean anything.
That's really a side issue.
The real issue is that it is horribly stupid for a country deciding on matters such as this via popular vote. I mean what the hell.
So, we had a constitution, which was rejected. Then we had the Lisbon Treaty, which was basically the constitution with a few bits taken out specifically submitted that way to avoid referendums that would almost certainly reject it. It has now been rejected also. And yet the EU seems dead set on pushing it through. This annoys people.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Then again, they only have to look back 50_some years to see what the alternative costs. Keep in mind the economic Coal and Steel union was just a means to an end: an undivided, peaceful europe.
Erm... it already IS a government over all countries on Europe. I thought we were over that after decades having the EU decide things and imposing them on all the countries that agreed to be under its influence.
We're not even questioning that it's a supernational government at this point. It's created to be one, and it's been working like one for years. We're discussion (not in the forums, but in the actual EU) how we're going to manage that supernational government. We all agree that we want one, we just can't agree on how we set it up so that it works and doesn't commit abuse on the people.
And, Glal, I'm pretty sure the data is out there, because it does surface on the press every now and then, but I don't have a link at this point.
It's on the Spanish press lately, because we recently broke even on the indicators about who gets money and who gives it, which means we sould do the switch. When commenting on that there were plenty of media-digested, clean cut graphs on how much money was going to each country, per year, but you're gonna have to look them up yourself.
EU is a supernational government there is really no discussion there, I like the idea as I said but the execution and the ramifications for my country is not something I approve of, which is why I am against it. I would not mind an EU like entity for scandinavia as an example due to the fact that we scandinavians agree on most issues (in fact we have been one country for hundreds of years at times), I dislike the EU because I see it as a place were no matter how its done the UK, France, Germany, Spain and so forth are going to be controlling it and they have radically different ideas as to how things should be then we do (and then each other aswell).
I realise that small countries currently has disproportionate power compared to their populations but if EU has to be in any way succesful I believe that must end and if that ends we lose all chance of keeping Denmark the way the danish want it to be instead of how some central or southern europeans want it.
Also again, the Irish shooting down the Lisbon Treaty is in no way unfair or assholish, it is their god damn right to do so and it is to me outrageous that the rest of the european countries aren't doing it by popular vote aswell, shaping the EU should be up to the people, not up to those in power, even if they are put there by the people.
Most european nations have at some point been reformed by the people after they got unhappy with how those in power had done it. In my eyes an EU formed after the mind of the elites and not of the general people is doomed to fail, if we cannot as a Europe spanning democrazy agree on how it should be made we should not make it at all in my mind.
Can you please define "success" and point out how does equality between members states without population criteria keeps the EU from being successful? It has been said numerous times on this thread that the EU can not be successful because many people from different countries look at it as "them" with an absurd sense of detachment helped a lot by the nation's political elite who simply "informs" the population on directives & decisions coming from Europe in a post facto way. Giving smaller countries even less power than they hold now would really not help with building the necessary trust.
On the contrary, giving countries equal responsibilities forgetting about size and involving the population more often in decisions would be an excellent way to popularize the Union and would lead people to feel more involved.
I pretty much fully agree with that argument, so I'm even more baffled how could you make the above comment?
Edit: I asked about 10 different people if they knew about the "EU problems after Ireland's referendum." today. Blank stares. Those are all people who vote in national elections.