Pro and Anti EU - The Arguments - Page 4 - 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.
#14978990
noemon wrote:The euro currency is not within the scope of this conversation as not all EU members have the euro. We will discuss it, but not just because propagandists wish to muddy the waters when they lose arguments.

Noemon Edit: Rule 16
The common currency is an important part of the discussion on the EU.
2. You started the name calling. We could also consider you a propagandist for the EU.
3. If you think the argument is lost, you are mistaken.

noemon wrote:Neither is the decision of Germany to welcome refugees within the scope of the EU as the EU had nothing to do with it.

Well that is also not correct. Thanks to the Schengen agreement, those millions of migrants will soon be able to travel all over the EU and settle wherever they feel like it.
#14978991
@noemon , your arguments pretending the EU is a confederacy, when it is known it is not, seem to be in opposition to your comments wanting more uniformity. I ask if you do indeed want a federation instead of a confederation? Surely you don’t see the EU being able to remain in limbo between the two?
I think the argument on the EU must be discussed on this reality. You must support eventual federation or the elimination of the Supra national authority that is leading there, such as the ECJ. Arguments based upon the pretense you can remain in between are not realistic imo.
Last edited by One Degree on 11 Jan 2019 13:35, edited 1 time in total.
#14978993
noemon wrote:For the nth time, the EU government is composed of our elected national governments.


I get that, my point is that it's not elected directly by the people. The citizens of Europe are a junior partner at best, the EU is mostly run by unelected appointees of the national governments. And even if the Council and the Commission were directly elected, the system itself is fakakta. All three legislative bodies should have the power to initiate legislation and the citizens of Europe should have initiative, referendum and recall. Until you have at least that the EU can't rightly be called democratic.




But my national government has a veto and direct representation at every EU level,



Doesn't Lisbon only require a qualified majority in most areas?

if I do not like something I can force my government to veto just like we have done several times. The same applies to the other 27.


Even if that were true, it wouldn't be politically feasible on every major issue. In reality you'd end up losing more often than not.

But these deficits can only be looked at the national level, not the EU level. This forum exists to discuss all these things, but a topic cannot discuss everything every time you guys lose the argument.


It's kind of integral to the topic. You can't really discuss the EU deficit without taking the national deficits into account.

The question I have for you is what democratic reforms would you like to see instituted in the EU?
#14978994
noemon wrote:Would you not care if one of your best friends, did not want to be friends anymore? Would that not undermine the pack? Would you not be sad about it? And try to convince him that we are all buddies? Would it not be even worse if that friends left for a lying bitch, such as Murdoch's lying corporate media?


You make it sound so personal. You make it sound like two fuck-buddies having a bad break-up. Is that really a good way to look at nation-states? :lol:

noemon wrote:Of course I do.


You don't see how that could eventually endanger individual member sovereignty?

noemon wrote:This is indeed an excellent argument originally made by One Degree. Well there is no guarantee for anything, but the EU members taking example from the US have already imposed constraints so that this does not happen. These constraints are that they(EU members states) hold the initiative to legislation and not a centralised EU institution, in the US you have ceded that right to Congress. In the EU this cannot change unless all 28 unanimously vote to change it,



I didn't realize that One Degree made that same argument, regardless, my point is that if EU states have concerns that that EU membership would trend towards centralization to the detriment of individual autonomy; their would be historical precendent and justificaiton for such concerns. That's all.

noemon wrote:which when and if it is brought about, then we should all stand against it.


Well, if you have a central-command and a united EU military force at such a time, you may not be able to stand against it.

Which is part of my point.

Indeed, in the case of the USA, the only reason the civil war was able to be waged at all was because the raising of armies was still the primary responsibility of the individual states, and up to that point (which was still practiced somewhat afterwards); the USA dismantled its united military after every war as to prevent a central government from using a standing force to subjugate the individual states. Thus, the states were militarily able to secede (or attempt such). With an enormous standing military under a centralized command, such a evenly-matched civil war between states would be impossible today.

If the EU continues to centralize militarily, any notion of ever leaving this union in the future will be made impossible under threat of force.

Let me also remind you; that at one time, the states of the USA each had a veto under the Articles of Confederation and no changes could be made without the approval of ALL the legislatures of each state.

Sound famililar?

Hell, they even called it a "league of friendship" not unlike your own description of the EU.

noemon wrote:But let us not pretend that if the EU break that EU member states will become more sovereign, they won't, they will simply become easy pickings and they will not have any veto to disagree with the big boys.


Under that logic, no revolution or act of secession resulting in a smaller state leaving a bigger one would ever be justified, because the resulting smaller state would be more subject to other powers after leaving the bigger one.

Should Greeks and Serbs never have resisted the Turks because in leaving they would have become more vulnerable to the British, Russians, and Germans?

Of course not!

Sovereignty is not about invulnerability, its about choosing your own fate, even if it means facing bigger and badder enemies all alone.

Do you think there was not a risk to the American colonies in the leaving the British Empire? Especially with other empires like the Spanish and French on all sides?

Anyway.....

America today is retracting its powers of influence, not expanding them, so I think the fears are a bit exaggerated. I mean seriously, do you really think the Americans are planning to conquer Europe like Hitler had attempted?


We can't even keep fucking Afghanistan in check. :lol:
#14978995
Ter wrote:The common currency is an important part of the discussion on the EU.
2. You started the name calling. We could also consider you a propagandist for the EU.
3. If you think the argument is lost, you are mistaken.

Well that is also not correct. Thanks to the Schengen agreement, those millions of migrants will soon be able to travel all over the EU and settle wherever they feel like it.


To consider me a propagandist you will have to demonstrate that I am lying in favour of it, but as it stands I have clearly demonstrated that your hero Mr Connolly is lying and you have not come back with anything about it. It is also quite hilarious that you consider the fact of calling mr Connolly a propagandist as "name-calling". :lol:

Of course it's lost and that is why you have abandoned it and wish to change the subject from the EU government to the euro-currency and immigration instead. If you had not given up you would not be attempting to change the existing conversation to another subject before it's time, as already stated in the OP, both the euro-currency and Immigration will be discussed indeed but we will not be mudding the waters by discussing everything at the same time like toddlers. Once we are done with the ongoing gubernatorial topic we will proceed to the rest.

Doesn't Lisbon only require a qualified majority in most areas?


It does, but not on the matters of governance and membership.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't be politically feasible on every major issue. In reality you'd end up losing more often than not.


But it is true, my Greek government has imposed several vetos as has the British government.

It's kind of integral to the topic. You can't really discuss the EU deficit without taking the national deficits into account.


But these national deficits can only be addressed at the national level not at the EU level. :hmm:

The question I have for you is what democratic reforms would you like to see instituted in the EU?


I cannot think of something that I would change in terms of governance either way. I think we have a very good balance at the moment and we should not go the way of the EU federalists who want to the see the EU parliament empowered and the member states disempowered.

Victoribus Spoila wrote:You make it sound so personal. You make it sound like two fuck-buddies having a bad break-up. Is that really a good way to look at nation-states?


You are being petulant and also ignoring the point of the argument.

You don't see how that could eventually endanger individual member sovereignty?


Not if it follows the same principles as the EU Council, which is the template.

Well, if you have a central-command and a united EU military force at such a time, you may not be able to stand against it.


Our command is decentralised in the form of the EU Council.

Should Greeks and Serbs never have resisted the Turks because in leaving they would have become more vulnerable to the British, Russians, and Germans?

Of course not!


This is such a bad example because Greeks were subjects to the Ottomans, not equal members in a confederation.

One Degree wrote:Surely you don’t see the EU being able to remain in limbo between the two?


Of course it can as it already has for a few decades.
#14978996
noemon wrote:You need to seize the propaganda and repeating yourself like a broken record. Our elected governments that form the EU government are not transnational technocrats but our own elected governments.


I'm not taking a cheap shot, it's a fact that our own national governments are largely run by unelected transnational technocrats. The US government is infested with CFR/Davos technocrats. Technocrats should be consulted but they should never be in charge of anything, the people and their elected representatives should be the only ones with any real power in a democracy. That means that democracy should be expanded to the cabinet level, to the judiciary, to the military, and to all treaties, trade agreements, and intergovernmental organizations. Short of that you don't have a democracy, you have an elitist technocracy with a democratic veneer.


This is the moment when you should realise that you are merely a pawn, totally brainwashed by your own media who have convinced you that the EU countries should do away with the EU in the name of democracy when in fact they have convinced you to parrot their corporate propaganda in order to undermine the sovereignty of EU nations. The last remaining democracies in the planet who are not directly run by corporations. The only place that taxes corporations, the only place that forces Israel to behave by for example forcing it to distinguish between Israeli products and products from Occupied Palestine(such as East Jerusalem for example!) seriously vexing Israelis, the only place where unions exist and participate in the political processes....


I'm not brainwashed, I know exactly what the EU is and what it's intended to be by its architects and it ain't a democracy. I'm not saying that everything it does is bad or even that it should be abolished outright. All I'm saying is it needs radical democratic reform, its constituent member states also need radical democratic reform. The whole world needs radical democratic reform.
#14978997
Sivad wrote:I'm not taking a cheap shot, it's a fact that our own national governments are largely run by unelected transnational technocrats. The US government is infested with CFR/Davos technocrats. Technocrats should be consulted but they should never be in charge of anything, the people and their elected representatives should be the only ones with any real power in a democracy. That means that democracy should be expanded to the cabinet level, to the judiciary, to the military, and to all treaties, trade agreements, and intergovernmental organizations. Short of that you don't have a democracy, you have an elitist technocracy with a democratic veneer.

I'm not brainwashed, I know exactly what the EU is and what it's intended to be by its architects and it ain't a democracy. I'm not saying that everything it does is bad or even that it should be abolished outright. All I'm saying is it needs radical democratic reform, its constituent member states also need radical democratic reform. The whole world needs radical democratic reform.


I agree but I am telling you again, if you want reform then you should not be arguing for the abolishment of the only place in the planet capable of reforming both itself and the rest of the planet by example. You no longer have any mechanism for reform in the US, you think China or India, or Russia will lead the democratic revolution you want to see? The only place that has mechanisms for reform in place is the EU and its member states. Once the EU is done away with, then what stop mega-corporations from taking over every single European country and finalising their global dominance?
#14978998
noemon wrote:You are being petulant and also ignoring the point of the argument.



I think you are taking this a bit too seriously, you used a friendship analogy and I was merely stating that I didn't think it was super helpful as it makes the argument too personal. After all, you seem to be saying that by even suggesting to leave the EU your are initiating break-up or betraying a friendship, that seems to makes the politics of this too emotionally invested.


noemon wrote:Not if follows the same principles as the EU Council, which is the template.


Wouldn't that mean that you would have to have unanimous support from each member state before a military action?

I can tell your right now that wouldn't last through the first major conflict, purely on the grounds of inefficiency. Hell, the USA doesn't even bother with Congress for warfare anymore because it was deemed too inefficient, let alone unanimous ratification by the states.....we gave it all up to the discretion of the President as commander and chief.

You really don't think this would happen in the EU? :lol:

noemon wrote:Our command is decentralised in the form of the EU Council.


Ours was once decentralized too.

Which was my point.


noemon wrote:This is such a bad example because Greeks were subjects to the Ottomans, not equal members in a confederation.


You are missing the point, I am speaking only to your point that the desire to be free from any larger group (irrespective of the nature of the relationship) should be checked by the fear of larger powers elsewhere, which would have stifled any secessionary movement that I can think of in human history.

Obviously the Turks had subjugated Christian lands through conquest, but I also mentioned the American colonies, which were not a conquered people.

Thus, the reason for leaving a group may vary as would the relationship, but either way, saying that leaving is not in the interests of sovereignty because the seceding state would be more vulnerable to other big-bad-states is not a good one and that is what your argument was, pretty much verbatim.


Obviously the UK leaving the EU can be about maintaining sovereignty even it makes them more vulnerable to the USA. You made these two notions mutually exclusive, they are not.
#14978999
Victoribus Spolia wrote:This is correct; however, the point of this was regional representation (republicanism); thus, as to prevent majoritarian mob-rule, republican federalism taught that rural population imbalances had to be accounted for in some political body (the senate) in order to prevent the urban from consistently trampling the rights of the rural. Had this not been developed, union would have been impossible as rural states would have refused membership.

Its less democratic only if your regard the best expression of popular government to be direct democracy where individuals, not regions, states, etc, matter.


Sure, smaller European countries would refuse EU membership if the popular vote would decide. The EU was designed to be undemocratic, I do not generally see that as a negative. Federalism has nothing to do with how direct democracy is however. The US Senate is elected directly, yet each state has 2 votes. In Switzerland referendums must win a majority on the national level but also in the majority of cantons in order to pass. Etc.

noemon wrote: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? The EU is the collection of its members states not a separate entity that exists in a vacuum.


Courts make law by interpretation, especially constitutional courts, especially one having such an extensive constitution to work with (treaties). I'm not aware of any country having a court that can only be "overruled" by unanimity of the legislative.

noemon wrote:It's quite funny that your confusion is projected onto myself. The European Council is composed of the elected Prime Ministers of the EU member states. The Council of the European Union is the same thing but composed of the Finance Ministers, Ministers of Defense, Ministers of Agriculture of the Members States. Our national governments are represented at the highest levels of EU governance and hold all the keys of EU government, they appoint the Commission, they initiate legislation, they advise the EU parliament and they appoint the ECJ judges. Our national governments govern the EU.


The European Commission initiates legislation, not the Council.
#14979000
Rugoz wrote:The US Senate is elected directly


This was actually a fairly recent development; historically the senators were chosen by the state legislatures directly, not by popular vote. But that only furthers the point we agree on. Good thoughts.
#14979002
Rugoz wrote: In Switzerland referendums must win a majority on the national level but also in the majority of cantons in order to pass. Etc.


So by Swiss standards the British referendum is totally invalid and not democratic at all since it did not pass with majorities across the British "cantons" of Scotland and N. Ireland.

The European Commission initiates legislation, not the Council.


This is the same thing as saying, the Finance Ministry initiates financial legislation and not the Prime Minister, when in both cases the Financial Ministry(Commission) initiates legislation according to the political directions of the Prime Minister(Council) and is also appointed by the Prime Minister in both cases. The Council(national governments) not only instructs but it also appoints the Commission.
#14979003
noemon wrote:I agree but I am telling you again, if you want reform then you should not be arguing for the abolishment of the only place in the planet capable of reforming both itself and the rest of the planet by example.


I'm not opposed to the EU in principle but I haven't seen any real movement for reform. If there is no traction on the left for drastic reform then the liberals are going to dominate the EU. If the choice is between a liberal technocrat controlled EU or a total tear down then I support the tear down.


The only place that has mechanisms for reform in place is the EU and its member states.


What are those mechanisms? From what I can tell it's just the nonbinding public initiative and that's not much of a popular mechanism.


Once the EU is done away with, then what stop mega-corporations from taking over every single European country and finalising their global dominance?


What stops them from taking over the EU? What makes you think they haven't already taken it over?

#14979004
Sivad wrote:I'm not opposed to the EU in principle but I haven't seen any real movement for reform. If there is no traction on the left for drastic reform then the liberals are going to dominate the EU. If the choice is between between a liberal technocrat controlled EU or a total tear down then I support the tear down.


Do you follow any actual EU news?

What stops them from taking over the EU? What makes you think they haven't already taken it over?


While they are trying very hard through your own self at this very moment for example, and I am sure that they have made inroads, the EU is still very different than the US. The TTP conversation and their leaks were very illuminating as to how the US wanted to turn the EU into a corporatocracy and it failed.

Currently every single EU member has agreed to impose additional digital taxes on the tech-giants, except for Ireland and Sweden. They are currently preventing the EU from imposing taxes on Apple, Google, Amazon, etcetera.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/ ... sales-tax/
#14979006
noemon wrote:So by Swiss standards the British referendum is totally invalid and not democratic at all since it did not pass with majorities across the British "cantons" of Scotland and N. Ireland.


What?? I just wrote that US or Swiss federalism is less democratic than what the UK has.

noemon wrote:This is the same thing as saying, the Finance Ministry initiates financial legislation and not the Prime Minister, when in both cases the Financial Ministry(Commission) initiates legislation according to the political directions of the Prime Minister(Council) and is also appointed by the Prime Minister in both cases. The Council(national governments) not only instructs but it also appoints the Commission.


:eh:

It's on their homepage:

The European Commission is the EU's politically independent executive [sic] arm. It is alone responsible for drawing up proposals for new European legislation, and it implements the decisions of the European Parliament and the Council of the EU.


https://europa.eu/european-union/about- ... mission_en

Not saying this is generally true in practice, but Commissioners are not supposed to represent member states.
#14979008
Rugoz wrote:What?? I just wrote that US or Swiss federalism is less democratic than what the UK has.


You wrote that for a referendum to be valid in Switzerland it has to be voted with a general majority but also with a majority in every canton. This is a lot more democratic than the UK who does not care about the democratic wishes of its constituent parts, neither as they are expressed through the referendum nor through their national assemblies. In the UK a simple majority in England controls Scotland, N. Ireland and Wales against their wishes.

It's on their hompage:


And how does that negate what I wrote:

This is the same thing as saying, the Finance Ministry initiates financial legislation and not the Prime Minister, when in both cases the Financial Ministry(Commission) initiates legislation according to the political directions of the Prime Minister(Council) and is also appointed by the Prime Minister in both cases. The Council(national governments) not only instructs but it also appoints the Commission.

If you want to argue that its independence is a bad anti-democratic thing, please explain why.
#14979012
noemon wrote:To consider me a propagandist you will have to demonstrate that I am lying in favour of it, but as it stands I have clearly demonstrated that your hero Mr Connolly is lying and you have not come back with anything about it. It is also quite hilarious that you consider the fact of calling mr Connolly a propagandist as "name-calling". :lol:

Mr Connoly is a much more believable person than you and he has a solid background:
Here is what the Wikipedia says about him:
Connolly worked in the Industrial Trends and Forecasting Unit of the Confederation of British Industry.
Before joining AIG Connolly had spent a number of years working with the European Commission in Brussels, where he was head of the unit responsible for the European Monetary System and monetary policies. While at the Commission Connolly was a Member of the Monetary Policy and Foreign Exchange Policy sub-committees of the Committee of Central bank Governors and was on the OECD Group of High-Level Monetary Experts.
After writing The Rotten Heart of Europe: The Dirty War for Europe's Money, a negative treatment of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, he was terminated in 1995 from his employment at the European Commission. An appeal of his dismissal to the European Court of Justice was unsuccessful.[1]
Prior to establishing CI, Connolly had spent 11 years as the global strategist for Banque AIG and AIG Trading.
As of 2011, Connolly, 61, was working as a financial consultant in New York City.[2]
Connolly currently heads Connolly Insight LP and participates in Hamiltonian Associates

A strong CV and palmares, not someone you can swipe away by calling him a liar and a propagandist.

noemon wrote:Of course it's lost and that is why you have abandoned it and wish to change the subject from the EU government to the euro-currency and immigration instead.

The argument is not lost because you say so, with or without laughing emoticons.
The Euro currency and the scandalous immigration situation are part and parcel of the discussion. They will be an integral part of the fate of the EU in the near future.
#14979013
noemon wrote:You wrote that for a referendum to be valid in Switzerland it has to be voted with a general majority but also with a majority in every canton. This is a lot more democratic than the UK who does not care about the democratic wishes of its constituent parts, neither as they are expressed through the referendum nor through their national assemblies. In the UK a simple majority in England controls Scotland, N. Ireland and Wales against their wishes.


If a minority of people can overrule the majority, that is not democratic. Why should the vote of an individual living in a small region have more weight? You're arguing for minority rights, but that is supposed to limit democracy, not to increase it.

Edit: Nitpick, the majority in a majority of cantons, not the majority in every canton.

noemon wrote:And how does that negate what I wrote:

This is the same thing as saying, the Finance Ministry initiates financial legislation and not the Prime Minister, when in both cases the Financial Ministry(Commission) initiates legislation according to the political directions of the Prime Minister(Council) and is also appointed by the Prime Minister in both cases. The Council(national governments) not only instructs but it also appoints the Commission.

If you want to argue that its independence is a bad anti-democratic thing, please explain why.


Now you're just confused. The European Commission being independent means the Council has no role in proposing legislation. I'm not saying the Commission is fully independent, after all Commissioners are appointed by member states (though the Commission must also be approved by parliament), but it is supposed to act independently of national governments.

See here:

C. Accountability

1. Personal accountability (Article 245 TFEU)

Members of the Commission are required:

To be completely independent in the performance of their duties, in the general interest of the Union; in particular, they may neither seek nor take instructions from any government or other external body;
Not to engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not.
Commissioners may be compulsorily retired by the Court of Justice, at the request of the Council or of the Commission itself, if they breach any of the above obligations or have been guilty of serious misconduct (Article 247 TFEU).


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheet ... commission
#14979017
Ter wrote:Mr Connoly is a much more believable person than you and he has a solid background:
Here is what the Wikipedia says about him:

A strong CV and palmares, not someone you can swipe away by calling him a liar and a propagandist.

The argument is not lost because you say so, with or without laughing emoticons.


Let us be quite clear Ter, mr Connolly is arguing that the ECJ supersedes national law but what he fails to mention to his audience is that the ECJ only applies the law that national governments have instituted at EU level. He also fails to mention the following:

wikipedia on ECJ wrote: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.


And he also fails to tell his audience, that without a Court clarifying law, then what is point of passing legislation in the first place?

And that makes him a propagandist regardless of his cv. These are all quite clear arguments that have already been posted.

Ter wrote:The Euro currency and the scandalous immigration situation are part and parcel of the discussion. They will be an integral part of the fate of the EU in the near future.


And they will be discussed as it has already been stated both in the OP and in the preceding post, but we will not be discussing everything at the same time, once we are finished with the current topic, we will then discuss and the euro and immigration in this same thread.

Rugoz wrote:If a minority of people can overrule the majority, that is not democratic. Why should the vote of an individual living in a small region have more weight? You're arguing for minority rights, but that is supposed to limit democracy, not to increase it.


Okay, so you are arguing that a German majority should be ruling the EU, a Chinese majority should be ruling the planet, a California majority the US, and so and forth just like England runs the UK and that supposedly that is more democratic...please be my guest in trying to pass that kind of crap as "more democratic" when it is the exact opposite.

Rugoz wrote:Now you're just confused. The European Commission being independent means the Council has no role in proposing legislation. I'm not saying the Commission is fully independent, after all Commissioners are appointed by member states (though the Commission must also be approved by parliament), but it is supposed to act independently of national governments.


The legislation it proposes comes by implementing the decisions taken by the Council(as very clearly stated in those excerpts you brought forward) who is the one tasked with directing not only the Commission but the entire EU.

Council wrote:The European Council defines the EU's overall political direction and priorities. It is not one of the EU's legislating institutions, so does not negotiate or adopt EU laws. Instead it sets the EU's policy agenda, traditionally by adopting 'conclusions' during European Council meetings which identify issues of concern and actions to take.


The same way a Prime Minister in a country is not tasked with proposing or writing the laws himself and that is why he has ministers appointed by him who abide by his political directions and are entrusted by him to follow his instructions into drafting legislation for the consideration of Parliament. The Council(elected PM's of Member States) not only directs the Commission into drafting new legislation but it can also put the brakes on it, anytime it pleases, just like a Prime Minister in any democratic country can put the brakes on the ministers of his cabinet. Just like Ireland and Sweden are putting the brakes on the new EU Digital Tax as we speak.


Victoribus Spolia wrote:I think you are taking this a bit too seriously, you used a friendship analogy and I was merely stating that I didn't think it was super helpful as it makes the argument too personal. After all, you seem to be saying that by even suggesting to leave the EU your are initiating break-up or betraying a friendship, that seems to makes the politics of this too emotionally invested.


Once again you are avoiding the actual point of the conversation just because my analogy was not of your gusto.

Wouldn't that mean that you would have to have unanimous support from each member state before a military action?


Of course it would.

You really don't think this would happen in the EU? :lol:


Of course it would as it has happened over and over again over everything being discussed at EU level. It's a slow process getting everyone to agree but we abide by it and we are better off for it.

Ours was once decentralized too.


But for us to centralise we all have to agree, we cannot hand over power individually over the course of years, 1 by 1 falling.

You are missing the point, I am speaking only to your point that the desire to be free from any larger group (irrespective of the nature of the relationship) should be checked by the fear of larger powers elsewhere, [i]which would have stifled any secessionary movement that I can think of in human history.


But this is not my point, my actual point is that the EU nation-states will not be more sovereign outside the EU because there is no mechanism that can offer them any more direct participation than currently on offer. Such a mechanism does not even exist in the abstract or philosophical plane let alone in the practical one.

Thus, the reason for leaving a group may vary as would the relationship, but either way, saying that leaving is not in the interests of sovereignty because the seceding state would be more vulnerable to other big-bad-states is not a good one and that is what your argument was, pretty much verbatim.


You are confused, it is not because they are "big-bad-states" or whatever you want to call it but because they do not offer the other states an equal vote and direct participation in all the decision-making.
#14979028
noemon wrote:Okay, so you are arguing that a German majority should be ruling the EU, a Chinese majority should be ruling the planet, a California majority the US, and so and forth just like England runs the UK and that supposedly that is more democratic...please be my guest in trying to pass that kind of crap as "more democratic" when it is the exact opposite.


Apart from the fact that Germans don't have majority in the EU, the Chinese don't have a majority in the world and Californians don't have a majority in the US, yes that would obviously be democratic. I don't want a world government though.

noemon wrote:The legislation it proposes comes by implementing the decisions taken by the Council(as very clearly stated in those excerpts you brought forward) who is the one tasked with directing not only the Commission but the entire EU.


Yes, it implements the decisions of Parliament and Council. Every executive implements the decisions (aka laws) of the legislative, obviously. Doesn't change the fact that is has a monopoly on proposing laws.

noemon wrote:The same way a Prime Minister in a country is not tasked with proposing or writing the laws himself and that is why he has ministers appointed by him who abide by his political directions and are entrusted by him to follow his instructions into drafting legislation for the consideration of Parliament. The Council(elected PM's of Member States) not only directs the Commission into drafting new legislation but it can also put the brakes on it, anytime it pleases, just like a Prime Minister in any democratic country can put the brakes on the ministers of his cabinet. Just like Ireland and Sweden are putting the brakes on the new EU Digital Tax as we speak.


If you think the Commission is the Council's cabinet you have understood exactly nothing. Read again.
#14979030
If you think the Commission is the Council's cabinet you have understood exactly nothing. Read again.


If you think otherwise, you have understood not only nothing of what has been stated in your own excerpts but you are ignoring the entire history of EU politics.

Apart from the fact that Germans don't have majority in the EU, the Chinese don't have a majority in the world and Californians don't have a majority in the US, yes that would obviously be democratic.


:lol: :lol: :lol: For the Germans, Chinese and Californians it most certaily would be, for the rest of us though it wouldn't.

Yes, it implements the decisions of Parliament and Council. Every executive implements the decisions (aka laws) of the legislative, obviously.


You are confused, it does not only implement the laws of the Council, The Council is not a law-maker it implements its decisions by drafting laws according to its political directions. It is the Council's Cabinet.

It is quite funny that you deny obvious reality to maintain your non-sense stick, when history has been very clear on the matter of the power of the Council and the EU Summit and how nothing can happen in the EU unless the EU Council orders a Summit.

Doesn't change the fact that is has a monopoly on proposing laws.


As it should, because otherwise we would be run by corporations proposing, drafting, and finalising their own laws through the EU parliament just like they do in the US Congress.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 14

@Drlee Figure out how to use notifications, pl[…]

Firehosing

I'm not the one starting threads with opinions off[…]

Trump and the Rule of Law

Impeachment does not require a law to be broken. […]

The Paradox of Poverty

Inequality should be taken seriously. A poor p[…]