Pro and Anti EU - The Arguments - Page 5 - 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.
#14979036
noemon wrote:Once again you are avoiding the actual point of the conversation just because my analogy was not of your gusto.



What point was that exactly?

noemon wrote:Of course it would.


That will not work long term for reasons that are obvious to anyone.

noemon wrote: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.


The Articles of Confederation were replaced by the U.S. Constitution (a MAJOR act of centralization), not by 1 by 1 falling, but majority consent of the states, Hence my point stands.

It can happen and likely will. Which lends credence to those wanting to get out of fear of future consolidation.

noemon wrote: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


Why does sovereignty require a "mechanism of participation?"

I don't understand how those ideas are related. Perhaps you could explain?

noemon wrote:Such a mechanism does not even exist in the abstract or philosophical plane let alone in the practical one.



I guess I need to see why such even matters.


noemon wrote: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.


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? :lol:

In any event, this may not be entirely true long term anyway. if the UK left the EU its entirely possible that an anglo-sphere union could emerge (which I would still oppose) uniting the U.S. with the UK and former commonwealth nations.

However, even if such did not emerge, I still don't see how the UK would somehow be "less-sovereign" over its affairs than had it stayed in the EU.

This has been your claim, but I still don't understand it even after this latest round of qualifications.
#14979038
@noemon

Putting your claims in bold doesn't magically make it part of a treaty.

How relevant the Commission's monopoly on legislative initiative is in practice is another question. Both parliament and council can ask (not command) the Commission to present (not initiate) legislative proposals (indirect initiative) and both have the power to unseat the Commission.
#14979041
Victoribus Spolia wrote:What point was that exactly?


Please. Answer your own question.

That will not work long term for reasons that are obvious to anyone.


It has been working just fine for decades.

The Articles of Confederation were replaced by the U.S. Constitution (a MAJOR act of centralization) unanimously, not by 1 by 1 falling. Hence my point stands.


If all the states unanimously agreed to do that, that is their issue.

It can happen and likely will. Which lends credence to those wanting to get out of fear of future consolidation.


That is a silly and ludicrous argument, you do not leave something out of fear of what will happen in the future, otherwise you would not walk out of your front-door, especially when you are always free to leave if such a thing ever gets discussed and when you are also free to vote it down if it even does get discussed.

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.


Is this a joke? This is a serious question.

If you truly have not comprehended what I have written, then let me put it as simple as I can. 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? :lol:


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.

Rugoz wrote:Both parliament and council can ask (not command) the Commission to present (not initiate) legislative proposals (indirect initiative) and both have the power to unseat the Commission.


Which further adds on the democratic credentials of the EU.
#14979043
Actually the council cannot unseat the Commission, parliament can.

Either way, it should be clear by now that EU institutions are a non-transparent mess that belong into the dustbin of history.

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


Sure it would be, we just wouldn't like it.
#14979045
Rugoz wrote:Either way, it should be clear by now that EU institutions are a non-transparent mess that belong into the dustbin of history.


They are very transparent and far more democratic than anything else that exists on offer as it has been very clearly demonstrated.

Rugoz wrote:Sure it would be, we just wouldn't like it.


You are very confused of what a demos is.
#14979046
noemon wrote: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.


But isn't comitology just a system of corporate lobbying where the corporations basically craft legislation?
#14979047
But the Council of the EU is also one of the most impenetrable and murky institutions of the EU too. The Council of the EU is not currently part of the EU lobby transparency register (it will shortly start negotiations to join, but on very weak terms) and its discussions and deliberations are often shrouded in secrecy.

The Council can also be fertile territory for corporate lobbyists who use their influence to secure favourable outcomes. Whether it is via member state ministers and officials in Berlin, Madrid, Paris, London or elsewhere; via the 28 member states' permanent representations in Brussels; or via the Council of the EU itself, corporate lobbyists focus on this institution to reinforce lobbying focussed at the European Commission and the European Parliament.

And too often, the corporate lobbyists win. Broadly the Council adopts far more business-friendly positions than the Parliament, while member states are often keen to promote the lobby positions of major domestic companies and adopt them as their own.

Beyond the formal Council procedures, corporate lobbyists can use their influence through member states' governments to influence EU decision-making ie. via member states' membership of Commission expert groups; via 'comitology' committees which oversee the implementation of EU laws; and through informal routes, such as personal contacts between EU and national leaders.
https://corporateeurope.org/power-lobbi ... council-eu
#14979049
noemon wrote:Please. Answer your own question.


:eh:

If I already knew I wouldn't have asked.

noemon wrote:It has been working just fine for decades.


The EU does not have centralized EU armed forces yet in anything akin to the USA or RUSSIA. So I don't know what you are talking about.

noemon wrote:If all the states unanimously agreed to do that, that is their issue.


Obviously, and its a good argument as to why they shouldn't have got in to begin with. Once again, the EU member states can look at the U.S. if they want to see their future as part of union.

noemon wrote:That is a silly and ludicrous argument, you do not leave something out of fear of what will happen in the future, otherwise you would not walk out of your front-door, especially when you are always free to leave if such a thing ever gets discussed and when you are also free to vote it down if it does get discussed.


How is that ludicrous? I don't invest in high risk stocks or gamble in slot machines because of a cost-benefit analysis and calculation of risks to my future well-being.

You are straw-manning my critique here to the point that I don't think that you WANT to have this discussion. Fact is, by being part of the EU, each state risks its future sovereignty based on historic precedent, namely the individual states of the American union.

noemon wrote: 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.


I appreciate your explanation; however, this claim almost requires its own thread because its clearly part of some broader system of political theory that needs analyzed because its quite contrary to common-sense.

Most people would regard a nation as sovereign if its able to have full reign over its own internal affairs and policies, not because it got a vote in some of international club.

Under that argument; prior to the advent of international organizations, there were no sovereign nations. :eh:

So, just in case i'm not understanding. if the United States, right now, was kicked out the UN and every other fraternal organization of an international scope, are you saying it would no longer be sovereign and would now be vulnerable?

:lol:

noemon wrote: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.


You can call it ignoring reality, but that's if you ascribe ZERO nuance to my position or any other EU skeptic.

bilateral agreements can occur without joining in unions or alliances; we've done this for hundreds of years before the EU, UN, or any other such thing ever even existed.

I just find this whole idea of a nation "needing representation" as crazy talk.

Maybe my American context makes this very hard for me to comprehend psychologically, but I really don't care if the USA has representation in a international organization and I don't think most Americans really care that much either. You speak of nations as individuals having some sort of rights to be protected by a larger body. I have never heard people speak this way here in the States, only in terms of honoring or not-honoring agreements.

You are advocating a government for governments; however, as has been pointed out; this is a reductive position, for eventually there will be just one government (The EU Council) and one nation (Europe).

You might want this because Greece would not likely do well without the EU or some other membership to some other international fraternity, as apparently nations need to have their rights protected by some other group or organization; However, I don't understand the hositility to those countries that think they could manage quite well on their own and don't want to risk being consolidated into some new European nation-state down the road.

I get why they would be concerned by this. Like I said before, I couldn't give a shit, but it seems to me that Euroskeptics are just being shit on for expressing some valid historical concerns.

If you don't really care about what I have to say on this, or just think i'm crazy. Thats fine, i'll move along.
#14979058
Sivad wrote:Additionally, the Dieselgate scandal exposed how Commission decision-makers, working with member state governments, placed the car lobby in a powerful position regarding the regulation of toxic emissions, to the detriment of the health of countless European citizens.


You know what's funny an American telling off Europeans on emissions, climate change and environmental health, or calling the Council of Europe "murky" when it is simply composed of our national governments. It is as murky as they are.

Vicoribus Spoila wrote:If I already knew I wouldn't have asked.


It should not be difficult for you to scroll your own previous posts instead of asking me to do it for you. You asked me why do I care that anyone is leaving. I answered you. You did not respond to my answer but merely to the analogy I made to make my answer more illustrative.

The EU does not have centralized EU armed forces yet in anything akin to the USA or RUSSIA. So I don't know what you are talking about.


Of course you do, I am talking about the EU where unanimity has driven us throughout every single step.

I don't invest in high risk stocks or gamble in slot machines because of a cost-benefit analysis and calculation of risks to my future well-being.

You are straw-manning my critique here to the point that I don't think that you WANT to have this discussion. Fact is, by being part of the EU, each state risks its future sovereignty based on historic precedent, namely the individual states of the American union.


The only fact here is that you do not like it when your own strawman is shown as such. You are not in control of the slot-machines or high-risk stocks. Does this really need to be pointed out to you? An EU state is in direct control of whether to abdicate its power to the EU parliament and federalise.

Most people would regard a nation as sovereign if its able to have full reign over its own internal affairs and policies, not because it got a vote in some of international club. Under that argument; prior to the advent of international organizations, there were no sovereign nations. :eh:


It is quite clear that you are projecting here of what you accused me above, you are clearly uninterested of having this conversation and you will straw-man yourself beyond reasonable doubt. If you want to argue that nations under the Persian or British empire were sovereign please be my guest. A nation is sovereign when it can exercise power over its own affairs and policies, indeed. Prior to the advent of international organisations, nations were sovereign in so far as they were able to enforce their sovereignty through their strength. The strong controlled the weak who either paid tribute, or were wiped out of existence alltogether.

So, just in case i'm not understanding. if the United States, right now, was kicked out the UN and every other fraternal organization of an international scope, are you saying it would no longer be sovereign and would now be vulnerable?


If you ignore my words of telling you as to how nations achieve sovereignty either through brute force or consensus which makes our conversation rather tiring and boring to be honest. :coffee: The US through brute force can indeed be sovereign, the UK as it currently stands cannot, neither can Greece or Estonia or Italy or any individual European country actually.

Like I said before, I couldn't give a shit, but it seems to me that Euroskeptics are just being shit on for expressing some valid historical concerns.


You know what's funny, that your entire argument is "we are Americans, we do not care about having an equal vote with you guys because we can enforce our will on you anytime we want, but please do not shit on us for expressing our concerns while trying to convince you guys that having an equal vote among each-other is not democratic or sovereign at all". :lol:

However, I don't understand the hositility to those countries that think they could manage quite well on their own


Addressing the Brexiteer propaganda that the EU is not democratic is not hostility. It is simply addressing the propaganda with facts.
#14979063
noemon wrote:You know what's funny an American telling off Europeans on emissions, climate change and environmental health, or calling the Council of Europe "murky" when it is simply composed of our national governments. It is as murky as they are.


Okay, but it's still a problem, right?
#14979064
Once again, the EU member states can look at the U.S. if they want to see their future as part of union.

The EU would rather be a less authoritarian and centralised Western liberal capitalist version of the USSR, actually. In the USSR each republic had the right to secede and the Union got dissolved when Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus seceded from the Union, which was the same as if Germany, France, and the Benelux left the EU together.
#14979070
Beren wrote:The EU would rather be a less authoritarian and centralised Western liberal capitalist version of the USSR, actually.


The wingnut patriotards like the Birchers that are always claiming the liberals are secretly communists and want a one world government are only really wrong on two counts. The liberals aren't communists, they want a managerial state capitalism that falls midway between current western liberalism and the chicom authoritarianism, and they don't want world government, they want world governance through international interdependence. Government is overt and can be held accountable, governance is conducted behind the scenes and if the shit ever does hit the fan it can all be blamed on the governments.
#14979073
Sivad wrote:The wingnut patriotards like the Birchers that are always claiming the liberals are secretly communists and want a one world government are only really wrong on two counts. The liberals aren't communists, they want a managerial state capitalism that falls midway between current western liberalism and the chicom authoritarianism, and they don't want world government, they want world governance through international interdependence. Government is overt and can be held accountable, governance is conducted behind the scenes and if the shit ever does hit the fan it can all be blamed on the governments.



^ This.


:up: :up:
#14979207
Authoritarian Neoliberalism in the EU

Paul Murphy (born 13 April 1983) is an Irish Solidarity–People Before Profit politician who has been a Teachta Dála (TD) for the Dublin South-West constituency since the 2014 Dublin South-West by-election. He served as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Dublin constituency from 2011 to 2014.


The Left Case Against The EU | Aaron Bastani Meets Costas Lapavitsas

Costas Lapavitsas' new book 'The Left Case Against the EU' rails against the EU as a neoliberal citadel, fundamentally unstable and impervious to reform.
#14979214
Sivad wrote:Authoritarian Neoliberalism in the EU


I truly wonder Sivad, why do you or he or Mr Lapavitsas blame the EU for European voters voting in overwhelmingly neoliberal governments who are currently controlling the majority of European governments as well as the majority of the European Parliament? Did the EU force anyone to vote that way? If say in 20 years we vote in marxists and they change the landscape to marxism will the neoliberals come here crying foul against the EU or against the voters? Is there anyone in the US that seeks to see the US completely dismantled because you have been voting neoliberals for the past 100 years or so? :hmm:

I am not a neoliberal myself but this is a very sad case of sour-grapes, when you lose the elections, you should try to understand what you did wrong and how you can approach voters, instead of rallying against other people, third parties or bodies. Also it is very bad politics pretending that if we do away with the EU, we shall do away with neoliberalism because that's just erroneous wishful thinking with no basis in reality when in fact it will only accelerate it as neoliberal governments will no longer be constrained by the EU's humanitarian and labour credentials.
#14979219
Nobody disputes that the EU has been a powerful force of economic liberalization in Europe. It's not done by implementing liberal policies at the EU level, but by declaring national regulations illegal since they violate the 4 freedoms.

Could this be changed by changing the treaties? Sure, but it would require the agreement of all 28 member states, so there's a huge bias for the status quo.
#14979220
Rugoz wrote:Nobody disputes that the EU has been a powerful force of economic liberalization in Europe. It's not done by implementing liberal policies at the EU level, but by declaring national regulations illegal since they violate the 4 freedoms.


The 4 freedoms(free movement of goods, services, capital and labour) are not neoliberal in any meaningful sense of the term. Didn't the USSR also have the 4 pillars? Are you calling it (neo)liberal?

I wonder why do you want to change this just in the EU and not also inside Switzerland(so that the cantons can impose restrictions on each other) or in the US(the states to each other) or in the UK? If that is your ideology why is the EU your target and not everyone else?
#14979247
noemon wrote:The 4 freedoms(free movement of goods, services, capital and labour) are not neoliberal in any meaningful sense of the term.


If an EU member implements any kind of regulation that can be seen as a market barrier, the EU will tear it down. "Anti-competitive practices" like state subsidies are banned as well. If that isn't economically liberal, I don't know what the fuck is. Your head is stuck so high in the EU's arse you fail to acknowledge the most trivial things.

noemon wrote:I wonder why do you want to change this just in the EU and not also inside Switzerland(so that the cantons can impose restrictions on each other) or in the US(the states to each other) or in the UK? If that is your ideology why is the EU your target and not everyone else?


What a dumb comparison. Switzerland and the US are nation states. The EU does take regulatory power away from its member states but cannot sufficiently replace them at the EU level.
#14979250
Rugoz wrote:If an EU member implements any kind of regulation that can be seen as a market barrier, the EU will tear it down. "Anti-competitive practices" like state subsidies are banned as well. If that isn't economically liberal, I don't know what the fuck is. Your head is stuck so high in the EU's arse you fail to acknowledge the most trivial things.


I did not claim that it is not economically liberal, I am just pointing your blatant hypocrisy in totemizing everything that may be considered negative by anyone at anytime onto the EU, even things that you personally agree with, even things that we have voted in place democratically, even if the EU votes tomorrow to turn socialist and let everyone use subsidies till they have emptied their own coffers trying to save bankrupt companies, you will then turn around and blame her for that. And that's just ridiculous. Your sense of entitlement to shit on the EU with impunity is just mind-boggling.

What a dumb comparison. Switzerland and the US are nation states.


That is highly debatable especially in Switzerland(composed of Italians, French & Germans) and the UK(Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English) or even relevant. Why shouldn't the Italians be able to use subsidies in their own Swiss cantons to compete with the French cantons? Why shouldn't the Scottish be able to use subsidies against English made whiskey? If you are ideologically against economic liberalisation and the free-market(which you aren't) then your criticism should first and foremost be directed against your own country before it's turned on others.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 14

Your little pot shot aside....... That's your opi[…]

Well, it's common for Muslims to marry their cousi[…]

gut hooked You are a fisherman ….. is that a […]

Election 2020

Bernie, Biden or Booker will win the candidacy. I[…]