 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:20
|
|
Yes, and considering the power few big ones use own their own agendas, like I said, even if I had 1000 votes it would matter very little. Our agendas are not on the table usually. Sometimes, we don't even get the memo on meeting about say.. the constitution. So we are treated like this, we are unequal in the face of the big ones. So, either we can solve this, or we can't go on about the federation. If the blocs stay, it will only affect us negatively. And they will stay, unless the unequality is solved NOW before going in.
Of course, the true euronite believes believe in happiness and joy, that there won't be any blocs. Just like there's no hunger in NK.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
Spiffor, well then I am mistaken of your tone of the posts. So, you admit the unequality? |
I admit consider it obvious that Member-States are unequal between each other. they are unequal before the law, which is outrageous - the common law must apply to everybody equally.
They have unequal political say, as big countries have more MEPs than smaller ones, and they have more votes at the Council. This political unequality strikes me as something completely normal though, because it's normal that 80 million Germans have more sayt than 400,000 Maltese.
There is another political unequality, which is between citizens of the EU. Each individual citizen has not the same political weight depending if he comes from Malta or from Germany. Each individual Maltese has much more say than each individual German. (It takes 80,000 Maltese to elect one MEP. It takes 800,000 Germans to elect one MEP which will have exactly as much power)
You'll notice the subtle difference between an individual citizen and a Nation-State. A citizen and a Nation-State are not the same thing.
quote:
So this is what we are supposed to fight, and unless you don't want to fight unequality before going into deeper layers of EU, then the priorities are just wrong. |
The real problem here is the legal unequality between States. That some States can break the law while others cannot.
And to solve this problem, the solution is not to whine, saying "it's bad", and basically continue the system that creates these abuses in the first place. As long as Europe will be a haggling board featuring powerful and powerless nations, the powerful will bully/vassalize the powerless - such is the nature of international relationships.
No, the answer is to strip Member-States for the power of abusing collective laws. And the most efficient, elegant, and simple way to do it, is to give that power to a Parliament -whose primary cleavages are ideological ones, rather than nation, self-centered ones.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:20
|
|
"The real problem here is the legal unequality between States. That some States can break the law while others cannot."
YES!.. (and numerous other things, but this being the worst).
"This political unequality strikes me as something completely normal though, because it's normal that 80 million Germans have more sayt than 400,000 Maltese."
Normal, yes, but IMO also unacceptable.
"Each individual Maltese has much more say than each individual German."
In THEORY. But while Maltese agendas are not prioritized at all, their votes aren't so good anymore.
" As long as Europe will be a haggling board featuring powerful and powerless nations, the powerful will bully/vassalize the powerless"
Yes, and when we are moving to bigger and better things, I rather we make the arrangements being equal, not going into it with bad starting point.
"No, the answer is to strip Member-States for the power of abusing collective laws. And the most efficient, elegant, and simple way to do it, is to give that power to a Parliament -whose primary cleavages are ideological ones, rather than nation, self-centered ones."
Forming ever more powerful blocs, and lobbying system and corruption. In real life this happens, in theory when everyone is good folks, it doesn't. But real life.. that will happen. And the ones making the move are the ones who are powerful NOW. This is why we need to solve this before going to any strippings of anything.
If we are going to be the outskirts, then the risk is that the corruption and money run blocs and lobbying system will enable the center of EU get ALL the good while the outskirts gets what's left. Now you say, that this is OK because most people live in the center. I say that is racist, disgusting and appaling and I give no support to such thing. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Last time I checked, neither the Finns nor the French were ruled by monarchs  |
Indeed. But our governments act as if they had the endorsment of 100% of the population.
I'm sorry, but I oppose my government on pretty much everything. Most French citizens now oppose the French government. Yet our president / prime minister / minister /civil servant who does the haggling (depending of the importance of the issue) acts as if 60 million people were his clones. Chirac speaks for me and millions of others when he supports an unacceptable policy by my (and millions of others') standards.
Besides, haggling is a fundamentally antidemocratic way to govern. In order to reach an objective, one has to make plenty of sacrifices to the Partner countries, no matter the ideologies. For example, in France, we tend to love our public services ; yet we accepted to privatize them (the decision was taken by Chirac the Conservative and Jospin the Socialist) because we sacrificed this bargaining chip.
Did we accept privatization in order to put Trichet at the head of the ECB? Did we accept privatization in order to put Giscard at the helm of the Constitutional Convention? Did we accept privatization in order to keep the CAP? I don't know.
What I know, however, is that our elected Prime Minister took a decision that goes completely at the opposite of what he stands for, and of what he was elected for. That's because of the "bargaining chip" mentality that is inherent to the form of government we have in the EU
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yes, but you are aware that a referendum probably would NOT result in a federal government of the sort you envision, correct? |
Yes, I know that very well. I know Europe is not homogenous enough to become one country. Heck, we barely have a half of our population that feels European at all (only a fringe feels more European than national)
quote:
Anyway, the point is that your governments have certain powers, which means that in the end the Finnish people or the French people get to decide on how to exercise those powers. |
Not in diplomacy, especially European displomacy. European diplomacy works quite similarly to what the Realist approach of International Relations says: States strive for their self interests, regardless of the ideology of the ruler.
Some countries that are especially Euro-enthusiastic (like Belgium) may be above it, but all other countries haggle for their self interests, no matter what their governments's beliefs are. Hence a Socialist accepting to privatize our public services.
quote:
If some of those are given up to the EU, they now can have other people decide for them. The reason is simple: Europe is not one country or nation, and until then it is not fitting for it to have one national or even federal government, because that would violate the sovereignty of the people. Until the people of Europe are one nation more than they are separate nations, a federal EU even approaching the power of the US is inappropriate and coercive. |
1. I don't want a federal EU on the whole of the current EU territory. Several countries are fine with the EU being a trade confederation (Britain), and most recent additions aren't integrated in the EU enough already to join a Federation.
I'm all for a two-tier Europe, in which a part of the EU stays where it is, while the other part is still a member of the EU as we know it, while going onwards with political integration.
2. I don't think even the "politically integrated" Europe should trust as much power to the supranational layer as the US does. However, I think that an actual supranational power, instead of an intergovernmental one, is the only way to have an efficient and a democratic decision-making, in the issues that are already depending on the EU.
The very reason the EU is that bureaucratic is because we associate plenty of institutions in the decision-making, and most decisions must be met by consensus. Besides, by trusting much decisional power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats (whether they be at the Commission or the Council), we make the decision-making processes extremely undemocratic, because the Parliament is the least important part of the "institutional triangle".
To me, the solution is simple and elegant: have the directly-elected MEPs decide policy and nominate the Commission. And since the whole of the EU is not ready for this, begin with the most eager countries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I thought the very role of your Senators was to protect the interests of their State (also read: obtain as much pork) as possible. That they are supposed to care for their State's interests, while the House cares for the general interest? |
in origin they had multiple roles - to defend particularly the interests of small states, but also, because they are fewer in number, elected for longer terms, and orginally indirectly elected, to act as a constraint on the more democratic house, to act as a quasi aristocratic body, slowing down democratic impulses to radical action. It was certainly NOT envision that the House would represent a general interest, but that it would represent the interests of the more democratic classes, and of localities, (as well as the larger, more heavily represented states). Its not clear that the founding fathers really believed ANY body could represent a general interest - certainly the authors of The Federalist Papers didnt. Humanity is too corrupt for that. Rather the general interest is defended in the clash of competing interests, each of which stops the extremes of the others. Of course this is based on ideology that sees the general interest more threatened by government action, especially central govt action, than by inaction. I suggest you read Federalist Paper Number 10, by James Madison, if youre interested in these issues. Its certainly one of the classics of American political thought.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-10-2004 19:48
|