snapdragon wrote:I don't see the point in posting links to maundering opinions that aren't based on anything except the prejudices of whomever the author admires.
Indeed, Kaiser's blog article is further evidence of the hopelessness of the anti-EU crowd that after failing with their accusations that the EU is either the "soviet union" or the "nazi empire" it is now attempting to insult the EU because of its commitment to constitutionalism, private property and competition. which is hilarious because both the author and Kaiser are also liberal in the same sense:
Kaiser's blog article wrote:Streeck calls the EU a ‘liberal empire’ because it is explicitly committed to constitutionalism, private property, and competition.
That Kaiser is also explicitly committed to constitutionalism, private property and competition is of course "irrelevant", anything that puts anti-EU spin is clearly welcome.
I really though enjoyed the author's definition of "voluntary empire" just goes to show what kind of semantic extremes an author might be willing to go just to justify his or her absurdism. The levels of absurdity here are quite unique rendering the very definition of "empire" absurd, as empires are neither legally voluntary for the subjects nor politically and legally equitable and representational.
Kaiser's blog article wrote:If the EU is an empire then it is exceptional in being a legally voluntary empire.
It should be noted that as already stated the EU is not simply a voluntary organisation but an institution that offers its members equal representation in all aspects of its governance, in the EU Council, the Commission, the ECJ, the Council of the EU. And that prior to this arrangement we had actual empires dictating terms to the nation-states who had no mechanism to participate in the decision-making policy of whatever Empire or nation was the Hegemon and in charge.
More was written here:
Why does sovereignty require a "mechanism of participation?"
I don't understand how those ideas are related. Perhaps you could explain?
I guess I need to see why such even matters.
If a state does not have the right to vote, propose, veto and amend something then it has no mechanism to express its sovereignty. It can and will be threatened into submission as history and international relations have proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
So? Why does a nation need to be part of a different union after leaving the European union? This argument seems to be saying that someone shouldn't leave the EU because their are no approximate alternatives out there, have you even considered that might be the point?
For your argument to make any sense you have to ignore reality, put blinders on your head and wish international relations away. A state is part of the globe whether you call it a union, or a coalition or merely an existence of states and these states share borders and cannot physically or practically exist in vacuums. They have to agree between them from simple things like whether their passports are valid or not to how much tax they will impose on each other to a whole list of things. There are only 2 extremes here on how to govern their relationships and everything falls either at or between these 2 extremes. Brute force or consensus. The EU is the one that offers states equal representation not only in its decision making but throughout every single one of its bodies, that aims to achieve equitability and justice among its members when managing their relationships.
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...