Pro and Anti EU - The Arguments - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14978733
JohnRawls wrote:Well bring it to life then. The point is, if you want to be a necromancer for those ideologies then you will need to change them in some meaningful way. If you do not do that then they won't be back from the dead. But as of now,January 10th 2019, they are dead.

Interesting. Can you point out for me the particular aspects of Marx's analysis of capitalism where he went wrong? I'll be sure to take notes. :)
#14978734
Potemkin wrote:Are they? Republicanism was dead in the West for almost two millennia, from the fall of the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC until the Americans and the French resurrected the 'dead' ideology of Republicanism in the 18th century AD.


Except for:

Republic of San Marino (301–present), constitutional since 1600
Upstalsboom League (c. 12th century – 15th century)
Icelandic Commonwealth (930–1262)
Couto Misto (c. 1000 – 1868)
Taifa of Córdoba (1031–1070)
Republic of Florence (1115–1537)
Novgorod Republic (1136–1478)[5]
Commune of Rome (1144–1193)
Republic of Lucca (1160–1805)
Republic of Siena (1167–1557)
Haudenosaunee (c. 13th century – 1794)
Old Swiss Confederacy (1291–1798)
Republic of Poljica (1322–1806)
Republic of Senarica (1343–1797)
Republic of Mulhouse (1347–1798)
Pskov Republic (1348–1510)
Confederacy of Tlaxcala (1348–1520)
Dithmarschen (c. 1400 – 1559)
Republic of Cospaia (1440–1826)
Republic of Gersau (1433–1798)
Ambrosian Republic (1447–1450)
Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795)
Zaporizhian Sich (1552–1775)
Dutch Republic (1581–1795)
Republic of Saint-Malo (1590–1594)
Republic of Venice (697–1797)
Republic of Gaeta (839–1140)
Republic of Amalfi (839–1131)
Republic of Ancona (c. 1000 – 1532)
Republic of Pisa (c. 1000 – 1406, 1494–1509)
Republic of Genoa (c. 1100 – 1797)
Republic of Noli (1192–1797)
Republic of Ragusa (1358–1808)
Republic of Salé (1619–1668)
Catalonia Catalan Republic (1641)
Cossack Hetmanate (1649–1764)
England Commonwealth of England (1649–1660)
Republic of Pirates (1706–1718)
Corsican Republic (1755–1769)[6]
Republic of Paulava (1769–1795)


OK OK I know Tlaxcala wasn't part of the West.
#14978741
Rich wrote:Except for:



OK OK I know Tlaxcala wasn't part of the West.

Lol. Which just proves my point - republicanism never really died out, and communism has not died out either. After all, China is still communist, as is Cuba, Vietnam, and many, many other places. Not bad for a 'dead' ideology. Lol.
#14978743
I can add my ‘dead’ ideology also,
Singapore
Malta
Monaco
San Marino
Vatican City

Add to that the rise of mega cities and political divisions today and it is easy to imagine these cities wanting autonomy one day.
#14978748
@Potemkin
@Rich
@One Degree
I said in the West first of all. What exactly is the West? I guess West is a collection of values first and foremost.(It is not a geographical concept) Rule of law, structure of our institutions, strong belief systems linked to liberty, free markets etc before you guys start asking what the West is to change the subject. Now let me start 1 by 1:

To Potemkin: I have nothing against Marx analysis but i have a lot against implementation of Marx analysis to real life. It has failed. Nobody in the West wants to try it again. If we look at the attempts to implement communism/marxism/socialism to real life it lead to a lot of the same resoults in many countries:
1) Stronger upwards mobility for the very poor.
2) Initial increase of living standards.
3) Stagnation of the economy.
4) Famine in most cases that is caused by the systems attempts to fully eradicate the market and capital. (Linked to collectivization)
5) Eventual realization that communism/socialism does not have a humane face of sorts. They ideas might be humane but the implementations are inhumane.
6) Eventual dissolution of beliefs in the system and ideology by the aparatchiks/bureaucrats/elite and commoners.

This is a rough life cycle of communism in the past when it existed.

To Rich and Potemkin: Republicanism is compatible with liberalism so i do not see why it matters if it died or not. Eventually it was integrated within liberalism. Liberalism took over the world due to victories in WW2 and the Cold war. Rest is just history. Liberalism is a superior system to fascism, communism etc until proven otherwise. Does it mean it has no downsides? It does have downsides. There are many illiberal systems that exist outside of the west but most of them are not really prospering nor posses any significant threat. This list includes Russia by the way. The one exception from the list is China though, we still can't understand how come it is still growing while maintaining its illiberal system. But that is a discussion that deserves its own topic.

To One Degree:
The places that you mentioned are just small states basically. It is convenient for you to call them part of your ideology while ignoring that even those small "city" states are basically part of the liberal order that exists nowadays and without it they would not be prosperous nor independent probably. The only exception is the Vatican but it has nothing to do with your ideology and liberalism. It is an abnormality among states that exists because of the Pope and the church.
#14978753
JohnRawls wrote:i

To One Degree:
The places that you mentioned are just small states basically. It is convenient for you to call them part of your ideology while ignoring that even those small "city" states are basically part of the liberal order that exists nowadays and without it they would not be prosperous nor independent probably. The only exception is the Vatican but it has nothing to do with your ideology and liberalism. It is an abnormality among states that exists because of the Pope and the church.


Small states are all I really advocate. Any other characteristics applied to them comes from others projecting onto my ideology. I have no problem with liberalism except when it is forced on others or distorted into authoritarian world government, then it is no longer liberalism.
This is why I object to the EU. It uses liberalism to pursue centralization goals that are of necessity the oppressors of liberalism. Liberalism is based upon ‘free choice’. The more centralized, the less free choice. This is why you have ‘hate laws’ and limits on free speech. It is the pursuit of a ‘structure’ that can only result in the opposite of what it professes to believe in.
#14978782
One Degree wrote:Small states are all I really advocate. Any other characteristics applied to them comes from others projecting onto my ideology. I have no problem with liberalism except when it is forced on others or distorted into authoritarian world government, then it is no longer liberalism.
This is why I object to the EU. It uses liberalism to pursue centralization goals that are of necessity the oppressors of liberalism. Liberalism is based upon ‘free choice’. The more centralized, the less free choice. This is why you have ‘hate laws’ and limits on free speech. It is the pursuit of a ‘structure’ that can only result in the opposite of what it professes to believe in.


Well, the utopian versions of right liberalism and left liberalism are exactly that.

The right version/US version is basically a benevolent hegemony where all follow that model. But it is basically achieved by semi-coersive means if necessary by the military.

While the left liberalism version/European liberalism is indeed some kind of liberalism world government that is achieved through supra-national institutions that mediate and resolve conflicts and disputes.

So you basically deny the utopian versions(end goal?) of both mainstream liberalism versions.
#14978784
JohnRawls wrote:Well, the utopian versions of right liberalism and left liberalism are exactly that.

The right version/US version is basically a benevolent hegemony where all follow that model. But it is basically achieved by semi-coersive means if necessary by the military.

While the left liberalism version/European liberalism is indeed some kind of liberalism world government that is achieved through supra-national institutions that mediate and resolve conflicts and disputes.

So you basically deny the utopian versions(end goal?) of both mainstream liberalism versions.


Yes and no. The natural result of having a supranational body to resolve disputes is to set standards for similar disputes in the future. You have now created laws above the national. The next logical step is a means of enforcing these laws. You have now started on the path to totally eliminating national autonomy through resolving more and more disputes.
I don’t deny the need for peaceful resolution of disputes, but I have never been able to come up with one that does not evolve into something else.
As close as I can come is limiting them to 20 things all countries must abide by. One must be eliminated before another can be added. Even this of course can be abused by simply changing the number.
This proposal is similar to placing a limit on the number of ‘human rights’. As we can see, they are being expanded to serve a political purpose of forcing everyone to accept a political ideology.
Bottom line, despite the need for peaceful resolution, we need to rely on autonomous areas working out their own disputes.

BTW, this is why my utopian view has all autonomous areas with standardized borders. Ideally separated by geography.
#14978787
Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by abnormal behavior, strange speech, and a decreased ability to understand reality.[2] Other symptoms include false beliefs, unclear or confused thinking, hearing voices that do not exist, reduced social engagement and emotional expression, and lack of motivation.[2][3] People with schizophrenia often have additional mental health problems such as anxiety, depressive, or substance-use disorders.[11] Symptoms typically come on gradually, begin in young adulthood, and in many cases never resolve.[3][5]


Seems to cover an awful lot of people today. :)
#14978806
If you like small states, you should support international organizations. It is puerile to think that your micro state can exist as a noble gas floating into deep space. Human society tends to become more and more complex and integrated; therefore it needs an appropriate infrastructure. What is more questionable is the need of some old great power as intermediate layer; I am absolutely convinced that it makes sense to keep as much as possible powers and decisions close to people, but where it makes sense.

Back to Europe
Yes, there is a democratic deficit and the council is indeed the source of most of the evils.

The sole fact that national executive bodies surge at EU level becoming also legislative (and for some extent judiciary) bodies is awful. I don't see anything good coming out of it, neither from the theory nor from the actual practice. This was an idea of a French president form a time in which the Germans though that it was always, anyway better to answer "yes" to French presidents. But we reached the absurd in 2017 when the German minister Christian Smith voted in favor of the extension of usage of glyphosate, against the indication of his own country.

Then there is the absence of real EU parties. National parties are grouped at EU level into "families", but this is a rather obscure and twisted way of doing. If i vote CDU, am i also voting for Orban? Do those party have a manifesto and an agenda? do they even bother to write one? has anyone seen one? All this confusion causes obfuscation and thus damages democracy.

As a third point there is a general lack of information. Often what happens doesn't make it into the news and reading news from different countries, you have the feeling of reading different stories (assuming that the same news is published at the same time in multiple countries). Lack of information is lack of democracy.

Unfortunately those complaining about "democratic deficit" or difficulty in passing reforms, especially those in the interest of citizens, are those guys immediately jumping on the barricades as soon as someone proposes to reform the system
#14978808
Varilion wrote:The sole fact that national executive bodies surge at EU level becoming also legislative (and for some extent judiciary) bodies is awful. I don't see anything good coming out of it, neither from the theory nor from the actual practice.


The thing is if you ask people: who do you prefer runs Europe, our elected governments or some technocrat, 99% will respond our "elected governments", it's slow, tedious and a circus but people prefer drama, engagement and watching their national politicians playing a part instead of watching nothing instead.

In Britain, where EU news only surface because of Brexit with a population that is more ignorant of the EU than non-EU countries, they have the impression that Europe is run by grey-suited technocrats against the wishes of their national parliaments when in fact, it is the exact opposite. And it's not just the Brexiteers, it's also the leftists and the centrists. There is not a single person I have met in the UK that has the slightest clue of what goes down during an EU Summit or even what it is and I'm not talking about the idiots. For many Europeans it is hard to understand because Europeans are generally interested in watching their politicians at the EU, in Britain they are not and the media is uninterested too as it's not money-making to report from Brussels.

#14978816
Varilion wrote:If you like small states, you should support international organizations. It is puerile to think that your micro state can exist as a noble gas floating into deep space. Human society tends to become more and more complex and integrated; therefore it needs an appropriate infrastructure. What is more questionable is the need of some old great power as intermediate layer; I am absolutely convinced that it makes sense to keep as much as possible powers and decisions close to people, but where it makes sense.


I don’t want to sidetrack into an argument on my ideology, but this often repeated argument that autonomy equals isolation is nonsense. People traveled and traded a very long time without any international organizations. Everything can be done voluntarily and has been proven so in the past. International organizations mainly benefit international business that wants standardization in all countries. I prefer they don’t exist.
#14978943
noemon wrote:That is the exact same argument I made in the previous post which you quoted but did not address. I did not move any goalpost, just kindly asked you to reply to the text of mine you had already quoted. Still are you admitting that the EU is more democratic than the UK? Can you please address the argument with a coherent argument? You can use all the different words you like to evade a conclusion you do not wish to admit but in reality that does not really change anything.


I'm comparing institutions at the EU level with institutions at the national level in the UK/US/etc.. That's what this debate is all about. It's not like a federal structure makes a country more democratic anyway. In the US voters living in small states have a larger weight in the Senate than voters from big states. Same for cantons in Switzerland, or member states in the EU. That's not more democratic, but less.

noemon wrote:Once again, I do not know why you dispute the obvious fact(already linked) that the UK parliament had to fight for the right to have a Brexit opinion. Theresa May invoked Royal prerogative to disarm parliament and it took a private individual(Gina Miller) and several months to undo this. It's an undisputed fact of the historical record. It was thoroughly discussed in the forum. I thought it(parliament being able to vote) was plain obvious too, until one day it wasn't. Imagine that!!! Truly astounding.


Can parliament vote on it or not?

noemon wrote:The Council proposes, the Council approves, your words, the EU treaties are what the Council has proposed and approved and the ECJ operates within the mandate the Council has granted it. I am not sure why you are playing with words but sure knock yourself out. By your logic there is no sovereign body anywhere in the planet.


EC stands for European Commission. The EC proposes legislation, both the Council (of ministers) and parliament must approve it. The ECJ can intervene if it violates the treaties. Hence, the council shares power with the EC, parliament and the ECJ. As for treaty changes. They must be approved unanimously by national legislatives.

Besides, you're right. There's hardly a sovereign body anywhere on the planet. Countries usually have "checks and balances", such as a bicameral legislature, an independent executive with veto power or a constitutional court. The UK's parliament is actually an exception. Or the electorate in Switzerland (with the exception of torture, genocide and slavery).

Edit: Actually that is bullshit. Parliamentary sovereignty is not uncommon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamen ... #Australia

noemon wrote:Which half part? Can you be specific.


Union citizenship, the competition rules, the monetary policy related stuff. I would also redesign the institutions. All totally unrealistic of course, but I never said I want to join the EU. :excited:
#14978946
The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has legislative initiative in the EU. Only the Commission can make formal proposals for legislation: they cannot originate in the legislative branches. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In the other fields the Council and Parliament are able to request legislation; in most cases the Commission initiates on the basis of these proposals. This monopoly is designed to ensure coordinated and coherent drafting of EU law.[49][50] This monopoly has been challenged by some who claim the Parliament should also have the right, with most national parliaments holding the right in some respects.[51] However, the Council and Parliament may request the Commission to draft legislation, though the Commission does have the power to refuse to do so[52] as it did in 2008 over transnational collective conventions.[53] Under the Lisbon Treaty, EU citizens are also able to request the Commission to legislate in an area via a petition carrying one million signatures, but this is not binding.[54]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... initiative


So only the unelected executive branch can initiate legislation and the elected body is basically just a rubber stamp for the executive? If I have that right then it sounds like a technocrat's wet dream.

Bernard Connolly: the EU is an “explicitly anti-democratic”, crony capitalist state
#14978948
Sivad wrote:So only the unelected executive branch can initiate legislation and the elected body is basically just a rubber stamp for the executive? If I have that right then it sounds like a technocrat's wet dream.

Bernard Connolly: the EU is an “explicitly anti-democratic”, crony capitalist state


Huh, what are you talking about? Yes, the commission has legislative initiative in a sense that commission drafts the laws but they are not the ones that pass them. Those laws need to be approved by the parliament and council not to mention that they can be vetoed of sorts by the ECJ. So when you speak about this then you start sounding also as someone who has no clue why it was done and how it works.

So why is it done like this and how does it work? Well, it is done to harmonize European Law and to prevent it from conflicting with each other/to make it more coherent. On a side note, this provides impartiality of sorts in legislation drafting when i consider the situation. (Impartiality is my opinion)

So how does it work? Well, since they have that legislative initiative then if you want to create a new law/legislation you basically go to the commission to draft it. If the European Parliament wants something -> It goes to the commission -> asks them to draft the bill -> Commission consults with their specialists and the lobbying groups -> Commission drafts something -> Parliament votes on it(In some areas) -> Council votes on it(All areas) -> If needed ECJ checks on it(If there is a dispute) -> draft becomes law.

So you see, your argument kind of falls apart. For starters most executive branches are not elected but are usually chosen from the rank and file of certain parties. In US you only elect the president while the president chooses the candidates for different posts and his aids. In UK the PM and the party chooses the ministers,right?Similar it is in Estonia, where we elect certain parties to the parliament while the parties choose the ministers and pm, we do not vote on the ministers or pm. Such is the logic within the commission. Putting the workers aside, the commission members are chosen by the elected governments in the 28 member states. What is the problem here? Did you not elect your government?

Now the only argument that you have some leg to stand on is that the executive branch possesses legislative initiative. (Ability to draft the text of the law) Usually this power resides with the parliament. Usually the parliament drafts the law and then votes on it. In EU commission drafts the law but the parliament/council votes on it. I honestly do not see a big problem here because it literally doesn't matter who drafts the law because they are ultimately not the ones to decide if it will be voted for or against.

Is this a bit clearer now for you Sivad?
#14978949
Sivad wrote:So only the unelected executive branch can initiate legislation and the elected body is basically just a rubber stamp for the executive? If I have that right then it sounds like a technocrat's wet dream.


Of course you do not have it right and one would expect that you would at least read the OP before you say something, no?

noemon wrote:The EU is governed by the EU Council, the Council is composed of the elected governments of the EU nation states. The Council is the Alpha & Omega of European governance. The Council, just like the government in any other democracy requires a cabinet to see its day to day business and to focus in each and every portfolio, so the Council appoints the Commission to run its business and to report back to the Council, just like any other elected government in a democracy appoints its own ministers who they all report back to the elected Prime Minister of the country, the same way the EU Commissioners report back to the Council(the Prime Ministers of the EU nation states). Quite unlike the US where the President unilaterally appoints unelected CEO's in his cabinet, the EU Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of the EU nation states and are usually distinguished veterans in their countries enjoying the support of huge majorities. While it is not necessary or obligatory, national governments consult the opposition parties before appointing an EU Commissioner due to the fact that being an EU finance minister for example is a prestigious position and countries prefer to send the very best they have to fill the spot so that this person raises the profile and prestige of the country that appointed them as well as a person that commands respect and support across the entire political spectrum. The appointment of an EU Commissioner is one of the very few things that brings an EU country together in unison. It is a brilliant democratic ritual that serves as a welcome break from all the shouting and screaming of national politics.

Every EU country effectively has a portfolio for a 5-year term which then rotates between the EU member states and the country appoints its own Commissioner in a quite direct manner(the person still needs to be approved by the EU Council and the EU Parliament) but at least I am not aware of any person being disapproved ever. The portfolio of the EU finance minister currently belongs to France for example and France has appointed Pierre Moscovici, Greece has the Immigration portfolio, Cyprus has the Humanitarian portfolio, Estonia has the Digital Market portfolio, Portugal has the R & D Ministry, Spain the Climate Change portfolio, Malta has the Maritime portfolio, Italy has the EU Foreign Ministry which she took over from Britain and so on and forth.


Are American Secretaries of State or Defense elected? Of course not, they are all appointed by the President, the EU's Cabinet Members are also appointed by the elected Prime Ministers of the EU countries. Now if we take away the initiate of law from the Council and Commission and hand it over to the EU Parliament, then the Parliament will bypass our elected governments and take over EU governance. It will make our national states irrelevant and turn the EU into a corporatocracy much like the US. Why would you or anyone really support such a thing and even worse in the alleged name of "democracy"?
#14978951
JohnRawls wrote:So how does it work? Well, since they have that legislative initiative then if you want to create a new law/legislation you basically go to the commission to draft it. If the European Parliament wants something -> It goes to the commission -> asks them to draft the bill -> Commission consults with their specialists and the lobbying groups -> Commission drafts something -> Parliament votes on it(In some areas) -> Council votes on it(All areas) -> If needed ECJ checks on it(If there is a dispute) -> draft becomes law.


But the Council isn't elected either, correct? It's just a confab of technocrats from member state governments, right?

If I have that right then holy shit, you people have erected an unaccountable technocratic monstrosity to rule your lives. Good luck with that. :lol:


“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values."
― Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era

noemon wrote:Of course you do not have it right and one would expect that you would at least read the OP before you say something, no?


I did read the OP, what do I have wrong exactly?
#14978953
Sivad wrote:But the Council isn't elected either, correct? It's just a confab of technocrats from member state governments, right?


Not correct, the Council is composed of the elected Prime Ministers of the EU member states. Is there an issue with your reading comprehension Sivad? I am not sure why you would consider our elected national governments as "technocrats" but whatever...
#14978954
JohnRawls wrote:Now the only argument that you have some leg to stand on is that the executive branch possesses legislative initiative.

You left out the arguments about the ECJ. What Mr Connoly said about the ECJ was very damning and convincing.
It is ridiculous that the ECJ supercedes national institutions.
#14978955
Ter wrote:You left out the arguments about the ECJ. What Mr Connoly said about the ECJ was very damning and convincing.
It is ridiculous that the ECJ supercedes national institutions.


You also either did not read the OP or chose to ignore it:

The ECJ is the highest court of the European Union in matters of Union law, but not national law. It is not possible to appeal the decisions of national courts to the ECJ, but rather national courts refer questions of EU law to the ECJ.[5] However, it is ultimately for the national court to apply the resulting interpretation to the facts of any given case. Although, only courts of final appeal are bound to refer a question of EU law when one is addressed. The treaties give the ECJ the power for consistent application of EU law across the EU as a whole.


As well as the fact that the ECJ much like the EU council is composed of 28 members, 1 person from every country which theoretically enables each member to check on the other.

Lastly the main thing that prevents this from happening in the EU is the powerlessness of the EU Parliament that I explained just above which quite unlike the US Congress the EU parliament can only amend and (dis)approve legislation, it cannot initiate it, only national governments can initiate legislation in the EU. This is the kind of power that US states have ceded to the US Congress and the exact reason why EU states do not cede it away to the EU parliament.

Mr Conolly is a propagandist that ignores the fact that the ECJ applies the law that our national governments have legislated at EU level. It is the instrument of our national governments not their dictator. Someone should be able to understand that every single democracy has a Supreme Court that applies the law of the land that the elected governments of the land have legislated, otherwise what would be the point of legislating law if it cannot be consistently applied?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
Now reading

Speaking of "gulagism" :D , has anyone r[…]

The Trump Shut Down

Agreed. But your unemployment rates are historica[…]

Israelis nervous about BDS

War on BDS: How AIPAC-Israel Agenda became USG P[…]

Toxic Masculinity

@Beren, Pants-of-dog was in the conversation; you[…]