NationStates Jolt Archive


Problems in Europe

Ilek-Vaad
15-06-2005, 21:11
From the New York Times:

PARIS, June 14 - As the architect of the European Union constitution, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing seemed at the top of his game, praised as "the Mozart of politics" and poised to go down in history as the founding father of a new Europe.

Only two months ago, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, a former French president, called the constitution "as perfect as, perhaps less elegant than, the Constitution of the United States of America." Ratification by member countries was supposed to have been easy, and Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, now 79, might even have been asked to become the first president of the entire the 25-country bloc.

But now that his countrymen have rejected the constitution, setting off declarations that it is doomed, he assigns blame not to himself or his document, but largely to the man who currently inhabits Élysée Palace: President Jacques Chirac.

"This was not a vote on the constitution," Mr. Giscard d'Estaing said in his first interview since the French rejected it in a referendum last month. "That is the key point that has been missed by the political leaders, because political leaders don't normally like to say that the vote could have been against them."

Speaking in English in the library of his Paris home, he added, "The French message was, 'We want change in our political leadership.' "

After the defeat, Mr. Chirac replaced the prime minister with a longtime protégé, Dominique de Villepin, and appointed a popular political foe, Nicolas Sarkozy, to a crucial cabinet post, changes meant to restore confidence in the government and inspire the French, as he said in a televised address, to "rally together around the national interest."

But Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, who has been harshly critical of Mr. Chirac in the past, accused the French president of not responding early enough to popular dissatisfaction with his government and of confusing voters by insisting that they vote on the constitution in its entirety, including all previously ratified European Union treaties.

Neither Mr. Chirac nor other European leaders have had a strategy for ratifying the constitution, he said. "The present generation of leaders, whatever their strengths, never put Europe at the top of their agenda," Mr. Giscard d'Estaing said.

His own presidential career ended in an overwhelming defeat in the elections in 1981, so he understands well the vulnerability of political leaders.

But asked whether Mr. Chirac should have resigned following the outcome of the vote, he did not comment, adding, "I want to keep my distance from the leader of the French political scene."

A crucial turning point for the fate of the constitution in France came last March, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing said, when he phoned Mr. Chirac to warn him not to send the entire three-part, 448-article document to every French voter. The third and longest part consisted only of complicated treaties that have already been in force for years.

He said Mr. Chirac refused, citing legal reasons. "I said, 'Don't do it, don't do it,' " Mr. Giscard d'Estaing said. "It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text."

There is no indication that the French would have voted any differently had they decided on only the new document. In retrospect, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing said the Parliament should have ratified the constitution, even though he said he previously endorsed Mr. Chirac's decision to put it to a referendum.

Still, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing said that until the end he believed the French people would vote "yes," and pointedly criticized them. "I thought at the end the French people would be rational people," he said.

The blame spreads even further.

He also said that, had the European Union leaders not left open the possibility of full membership for Turkey in their bloc, the constitution probably would have passed in France. Mr. Giscard d'Estaing is a fierce opponent of membership for Turkey, arguing that it is not part of Europe and deserves only a lesser partnership status.

In a Louis Harris poll published two days after the referendum, however, only 22 percent of the "no" voters said that among their reasons was opposition to Turkey's entry into the European Union. The issue of Turkey was more important in the decision of Dutch voters to reject the constitution in their own referendum three days after the French vote.

Despite declarations throughout Europe that the constitution is dead, because all 25 member countries of the European Union must ratify it, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing is convinced that it will succeed eventually.

He said the ratification process should continue across Europe, and envisions a sequence of events in which most members pass what he referred to at one point as "my document." "In the end, it will pass," he added. "There is no better solution."

His rosy analysis, he insists, has nothing to do with his legacy, which certainly has been burnished since his experience as the president of the constitutional convention.

In 2003, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing was inducted as an "Immortal" into the august Académie Française. Earlier this year, he bought a 15th-century chateau in a small French village named Estaing, helping to solidify his family's tenuous claim to nobility.

But he admits disappointment that his constitution has been rejected. "I wasn't hurt; I wasn't humiliated," he said of the French vote. He added, "I was deprived of a cause for happiness."

I find it odd that Mr. d'Estaing balmes Chirac for mailing the full document to the French people because "It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text.".

How wrong is it to a.) write a document that you know is impossible for anyone to understand b.) blame someone else for this impossible to understand document is voted down and c.) propose that people vote on laws that in the words of the author of the document says "It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text." ?

I think that Mr. d'Estaing's own words point out why the European Constitution failed, because it is unintelligible. It is indicative of politicians and policy makers at the top of Europe being out of touch with the people whom they are serving.

I wouldn't vote for something that is impossible to understand, that would be ridiculous. That's my two cents.
Leonstein
16-06-2005, 01:06
a) the US constitution is not perfect. It's that kind of absolutism that gets me irritated...
b) Trouble is, these days you can't make a law that is still understandable. The legal profession has evolved too far for that, especially with so many interest groups involved like with a EU Constitution.
c) Have you ever read the actual text of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act? Or just bits of it? No wonder none of the congressmen and senators actually bothered to read the thing...
The South Islands
16-06-2005, 01:09
a) the US constitution is not perfect. It's that kind of absolutism that gets me irritated...
b) Trouble is, these days you can't make a law that is still understandable. The legal profession has evolved too far for that, especially with so many interest groups involved like with a EU Constitution.
c) Have you ever read the actual text of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act? Or just bits of it? No wonder none of the congressmen and senators actually bothered to read the thing...


Where does it say anything about the US constitution, the PATRIOT Act, or the United States at all?
Blood Moon Goblins
16-06-2005, 01:12
No, there are no problems in Europe. Everything is perfect. Europeans are Happy People.
Except in Spain, but theyre not really European. Because they are not Perfect.
We are Europe, we are perfection, you will be assimilated. Resistance is Futile.
Bunnyducks
16-06-2005, 01:16
From the New York Times:



I find it odd that Mr. d'Estaing balmes Chirac for mailing the full document to the French people because "It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text.".

How wrong is it to a.) write a document that you know is impossible for anyone to understand b.) blame someone else for this impossible to understand document is voted down and c.) propose that people vote on laws that in the words of the author of the document says "It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text." ?

I think that Mr. d'Estaing's own words point out why the European Constitution failed, because it is unintelligible. It is indicative of politicians and policy makers at the top of Europe being out of touch with the people whom they are serving.

I wouldn't vote for something that is impossible to understand, that would be ridiculous. That's my two cents. Would it be a) rediculous to believe you could understand it b) too much to believe you could understand it if it was broke down to you c) just too much
Leonstein
16-06-2005, 01:31
Where does it say anything about the US constitution, the PATRIOT Act, or the United States at all?

"Only two months ago, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, a former French president, called the constitution "as perfect as, perhaps less elegant than, the Constitution of the United States of America." Ratification by member countries was supposed to have been easy, and Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, now 79, might even have been asked to become the first president of the entire the 25-country bloc."
That kind of talk just bothers me.

It didn't say anything about the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, but it's a good example of an important law that no one can actually understand.
OceanDrive
16-06-2005, 01:37
http://www.economist.com/images/GA/2002w17/17lepen.jpg

"GOD BLESS THE NO VOTERS...GOD BLESS THE FRENCH" says this very happy man rigth after the No victory.
Tactical Grace
16-06-2005, 01:45
The European Constitution was never intended as a simple statement of ideals, but as a legal framework for the EU. Comparisons with the US constitution are difficult, because that one deals with what the US is about, whereas the EU version deals with what Europe is and how it is going to work.

That is assuming I understood the condensed highlights correctly.

The idea was that the acceptance of the constitution by the people of Europe would be a formality. That is, no-one was expected to judge it on the content, but by allegiance to Europe.

Clearly, the people of Europe are not ready to have a unified nationalist mentality just yet. :(
Leonstein
16-06-2005, 01:49
Clearly, the people of Europe are not ready to have a unified nationalist mentality just yet. :(
Bah, some people just don't know what's good for them!
Bunnyducks
16-06-2005, 01:54
Well read though, Mr Tactical. I have read the 'constitution' a couple of times too... if there only was your dumbe(ne)d-down version available for everyone. If only it could be condensed down in... wait, it could be....
Ilek-Vaad
16-06-2005, 04:01
The Constitution of the United States, at least, was not thought by it's framers to be "Absolutely impossible for anyone to understand" , that's the only real comparison I have to make.

It just seems odd that a man would write a constitution, expect people to vote to approve it, but also declare that they could never understand it. Seems odd to me.
Andaluciae
16-06-2005, 04:06
I read an article in The Economist that put the blame on Mr. Chirac as well...
Bunnyducks
16-06-2005, 04:17
The Constitution of the United States, at least, was not thought by it's framers to be "Absolutely impossible for anyone to understand" , that's the only real comparison I have to make. Not that I'm speaking for the 'EU-constipation'', but I don't think the people who framed it thought it was impossible to understand.

It just seems odd that a man would write a constitution, expect people to vote to approve it, but also declare that they could never understand it. Seems odd to me. And when did this great referendum to adopt US constitution take place?
Libertistia
16-06-2005, 04:38
The Constitution of the United States, at least, was not thought by it's framers to be "Absolutely impossible for anyone to understand" , that's the only real comparison I have to make.

It just seems odd that a man would write a constitution, expect people to vote to approve it, but also declare that they could never understand it. Seems odd to me.

Perhaps the politicians of Europe don't have very much faith in the People. Yeah, so lets just have the state decide what's right for everyone because the People are too stupid to know whats best for them. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY! WAR IS PEACE! IGNORANCE IS STRENGH! Why? Because the government says so!!! :(
Libertistia
16-06-2005, 04:41
Not that I'm speaking for the 'EU-constipation'', but I don't think the people who framed it thought it was impossible to understand.

And when did this great referendum to adopt US constitution take place?

Almost immediately after the Constitution was written. The people of Delaware were first to vote on it and pass it. Study your History! ;)
Bunnyducks
16-06-2005, 04:45
Almost immediately after the Constitution was written. The people of Delaware were first to vote on it and pass it. Study your History! ;)
Thanks. I don't even pretend I know something about it. And all the people/states in the union voted after that?
Libertistia
16-06-2005, 05:02
Thanks. I don't even pretend I know something about it. And all the people/states in the union voted after that?

Damn straight! I believe Rhode Island was the last one to hold out on ratification.

The mandate is important. The reason why several previous drafts of the US Constitution were not accepted by the founding fathers was because it was not simple enough for the common man to understand. It was the job of the framer/s of the European constitution to do so and the reason why it failed was because they didn't do their job.

You wouldn't sign a contract without making sure you understand exactly what it means, would you?
Bunnyducks
16-06-2005, 05:16
Damn straight! I believe Rhode Island was the last one to hold out on ratification.

The mandate is important. The reason why several previous drafts of the US Constitution were not accepted by the founding fathers was because it was not simple enough for the common man to understand. It was the job of the framer/s of the European constitution to do so and the reason why it failed was because they didn't do their job.

You wouldn't sign a contract without making sure you understand exactly what it means, would you?
No, I suppose I wouldn't.

So, after the 13 colonies signed the constitution, it didn't change at all when the rest, some 37 states joined in? I suppose not, why would it, those states came out from pretty much 'nothing'. Easy to just add them on, I guess.

Bit harder to add new sovereign nations to the EU without taking care of all the provisions they wanted when negotiating the accession, I'd imagine.
Still, I agree the 'EU-constipation' was too thick for a layman.

Thanks for the history lesson. I have read all that years ago, but as is the case with most of the university stuff; in the right, out the left ear.

EDIT: What a stupid post! Another point against posting while under the influence.

If the constitution is simple enough, what does it matter if the joining state/country has 1000 year history or not!

That idiocy deserves to be left there as a warning to all... *to bed he goes*
Ilek-Vaad
16-06-2005, 15:44
Not that I'm speaking for the 'EU-constipation'', but I don't think the people who framed it thought it was impossible to understand.

And when did this great referendum to adopt US constitution take place?


Bunnyducks:

If you read the article I posted Mr. d'Estaing , the man who personally wrote the European Constitution (with input from others), says, and I quote "It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text.". That's not my personal opinion, that is the opinion of the man who wrote it.

The US Constitution was ratified by a two-thirds vote of every state. A much higher standard than the simple majority required in France, or a simple yes vote in parliament in other countries where no referendum was held.

Once again, I am not comparing the US Constitution and the European Constitution. I am simply pointing out that the man who wrote the European Constitution and expected it to be passed and expected people to live by it says about his own creation "It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text.".

That is all.
Tactical Grace
16-06-2005, 16:23
Once again, I am not comparing the US Constitution and the European Constitution. I am simply pointing out that the man who wrote the European Constitution and expected it to be passed and expected people to live by it says about his own creation "It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text."
But it is intended as a description of the function of the European Union. Of course there are few people alive who can understand such a thing. It is also self-evident that no man can ever hope to grasp the details of the body of law that exists in his country, but he is expected to live within those laws, trusting that those charged with enforcing them will do a good job.

Indeed, just like the body of law which exists on these forums. I was a Mod for 14 months, and even I do not know the accepted norms of behaviour in every aspect of this game. I merely worked on those areas where I did have expert knowledge, and consulted colleagues when I ran into things which lay outside of my area of expertise.

Not every citizen in a country must understand their constitution in order to fall under it. It depends what the constitution contains. The US constitution is designed for use by the people, the EU constitution is designed for use by bureaucracies, and it was hoped that the people would approve it on the grounds of their best interests.

This assumption must be revised, yes. But writing a document in this manner is not in my opinion, unethical or immoral. Perhaps this is a culture clash.
Blessed Misfortune
16-06-2005, 16:33
I liked d'Estaing as President, when he threatened to nuke the Soviets.
Disraeliland
16-06-2005, 17:36
Not every citizen in a country must understand their constitution in order to fall under it. It depends what the constitution contains. The US constitution is designed for use by the people, the EU constitution is designed for use by bureaucracies, and it was hoped that the people would approve it on the grounds of their best interests.

This assumption must be revised, yes. But writing a document in this manner is not in my opinion, unethical or immoral. Perhaps this is a culture clash.

What the assumption boils down to is a superannuated Frog, and a pack of bureaucrats accountable to no one beliving that they are fit to govern Europe, and anyone who disagrees is insane.

"Revision" is a dainty way to put what needs to be done to this assumption.

Writing a constitution as long and complex as the monstrosity offered to Europeans can only have one purpose, to ensure they don't understand it. The idea that a government makes its proposed constitution unintelligible is unethical and immoral in a supposed democracy.

A lot if the French opposition to the Constitution stemed from their suspicion that it might take the average Frenchman's right to live out of the pocket of a productive man by moving Europe to an Anglo-Saxon economic model, on the other hand, part of the British opposition to it stems from what they see as the imposition of the French socialist model, with the high unemployment, low productivity, and zero-growth it entails.

The European Constitution was never intended as a simple statement of ideals, but as a legal framework for the EU. Comparisons with the US constitution are difficult, because that one deals with what the US is about, whereas the EU version deals with what Europe is and how it is going to work.

You're confusing the Declaration of Independence for the US Constitution.

Here's the Declaration of Independence, spelling out the grievances with George III, and declaring the United States of America.

Declaration of Independence (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html)

Here is the US Constitution

US Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)

and the Amendments to the Constitution

Amendments to the Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html)

The US Constitution certainly does deal with how the United States is to be governed.


The real difference between the two constitutions is possibly the most disgusting feature of the European Constitution, the US Constitution is about restricting the Government in the interests of the people, the European Constitution, like most EU laws, is about restricting the people in the interests of the government.
Tactical Grace
16-06-2005, 19:08
The real difference between the two constitutions is possibly the most disgusting feature of the European Constitution, the US Constitution is about restricting the Government in the interests of the people, the European Constitution, like most EU laws, is about restricting the people in the interests of the government.
Disgusting? Ha. Who is to say one approach is not valid? Europe works. I'm not eating out of the trash just yet. :cool:
Anarchic Conceptions
16-06-2005, 19:57
Both are disgusting imo.

But that is largely due to the eccentricities of my beliefs. :)
I don't hold alligience to any nation state, so why should I to the EU?

And maybe it is just the phraseology of a "unified nationalist mentality," but it fills me with the willies.

[QUOTE=Libertistia]
You wouldn't sign a contract without making sure you understand exactly what it means, would you?

You may say that. But even in my tender years it has been unbelievable the amount of times I have been asked to just "just sign, it's just a formality" in a variety of contracts.


Disgusting? Ha. Who is to say one approach is not valid? Europe works. I'm not eating out of the trash just yet.

Please say your joking TG. The "X works" arguement can be used to justify the most horrible regimes. After all "Mussolini got the trains running on time.*"


* waits for pedant to say "but he didn't" :)
Leonstein
17-06-2005, 00:57
-snip-
Aren't you Australian?
What is it to you what the constitution does and does not do?
Fact is, Europe can't be coordinated under the current rules. It grew too big for that, and the bureaucracy people whine about came to be because of this.
The constitution was a means of restoring a functional government for the EU, nothing more, nothing less. And now the petty problems people had with it have set Europe back 5 years or so. Well done, xenophobes! (I'm cranky today...)

As for the topic:
Britain may pay towards the EU rather than receive from it, but it pays less than a country of its' size should, because it receives this rebate.
I say get rid of that and let the UK contribute.
France receives huge amounts in subsidies for its' farmers. I say, Chirac isn't gonna be reelected anyway, so he should ignore the farmers, give up pretty much all that money and the EU should instead put it in R&D, Universities and ESA. Farming is a hardly a sustainable industry I want to be known for...
Ekland
17-06-2005, 01:09
We are Europe, we are perfection, you will be assimilated. Resistance is Futile.

Futility is resistant. Your ass will be laminated.
Tactical Grace
17-06-2005, 01:46
Futility is resistant. Your ass will be laminated.
Do you play EVE? Pvp in the Northern Regions? There's a guy I've seen in Geminate Region with that in his Bio. Love it. :p
Tactical Grace
17-06-2005, 01:52
Please say your joking TG. The "X works" arguement can be used to justify the most horrible regimes. After all "Mussolini got the trains running on time.*"
I am not joking. I am not endorsing fascism, but you have to admit, it is one way of running a country.

Not that the EU is fascist, but yes, there are plenty of situations in life where you are told to "sign here" on a doorstop of a document. The fact that a man wrote a constitution knowing that only experts in international law and trade would be able to understand the whole thing, it does not offend me. The EU constitution was intended to describe the function of the European bureaucracy, it is ridiculous to pretend an ordinary person could ever read it.

What is silly is not that the European Constitution is unreadable by ordinary people, what is silly is that given that by its very nature it is, it was given to people to approve.

EDIT: Here's another example, the Common Agricultural Policy. Does the fact that few people can ever grasp its intricacies make its existence an affront to democracy?
Leonstein
17-06-2005, 02:17
Bureaucracy? Why is it an European bureaucracy? Doesn't any national government have at least as many bureaucrats employed?
Why do you insist on giving it this negative connotation?
Vaevictis
17-06-2005, 02:22
The US constitution is in no way comparable to the proposed consitution for Europe. The former was a set of rules designed to allow a new nation to function - but please don't forget that in addition to the Constitution the US had centuries of common law and custom and precedent and statute and the whole mess of other things that every country accretes after a while. The government of the country is not entirely that one document, it's mountains of documents.

The EU constitution, on the other hand, was a working document intended to rationalise decades of treaties with the working practices of 25 extant nations, speaking different languages and based on different traditions and forms of law. Hell, there are multiple legal systems operating in the UK alone never mind all the ones sprawled across Europe. This was not a simple framework for a national government, this was a highly technical document aimed at making a very, very loose confederation of sovereign states funtion more effectively.
Disraeliland
17-06-2005, 05:33
Aren't you Australian?
What is it to you what the constitution does and does not do?

Red herring. Where I'm from has nothing to do with what I say.

Fact is, Europe can't be coordinated under the current rules. It grew too big for that, and the bureaucracy people whine about came to be because of this.

Proof?

In any case, you leave out the key question: Is it necessary to create yet another layer of government in an over-governed continent?

The constitution was a means of restoring a functional government for the EU, nothing more, nothing less. And now the petty problems people had with it have set Europe back 5 years or so. Well done, xenophobes! (I'm cranky today...)

How can functional government be restored to an organisation who's auditors can't sign off on its accounts? How can passing a constitution restore financial accountability to the EU?

You don't need a new constitution in order for the EU to unfuck itself to the extent that the auditors will sign off on its accounts.

So, people who won't sign away their right to govern themselves are xenophobes?

As for the topic:
Britain may pay towards the EU rather than receive from it, but it pays less than a country of its' size should, because it receives this rebate.
I say get rid of that and let the UK contribute.


Britain's rebate is not a problem, and they are still a net contributor.

Read this: EU Budget: 2003 in numbers (http://eurota.blogspot.com/2005/06/eu-budget-2003-in-numbers.html)

The reason the Frogs want Britain's rebate to go will become clear.

Bureaucracy? Why is it an European bureaucracy? Doesn't any national government have at least as many bureaucrats employed?
Why do you insist on giving it this negative connotation?

The difference is that a national government's bureaucracy has some legitimacy, as they carry out the policies made by the people's democratically elected representatives. You can't say the same for the EU.

What is silly is not that the European Constitution is unreadable by ordinary people, what is silly is that given that by its very nature it is, it was given to people to approve.

The people have an inalienable right to govern themselves. The whole European project has been an exercise in taking away the people's right to govern themselves because the authors of the project think they are entitled to govern Europe themselves.

I don't see how anyone can advocate a system of government based on a small, totally unaccountable clique imposing themselves on the people.
Leonstein
17-06-2005, 12:55
Red herring. Where I'm from has nothing to do with what I say.
Sorry my friend, I'm nor engaging in meaningful debate here and I'm not going with the rules of rhetoric.
You being Australian has, to me at least, great bearing on whether what you say has any importance whatsoever on this topic.


Proof?
I saw it on DW-TV this morning. No proof, just observation.


In any case, you leave out the key question: Is it necessary to create yet another layer of government in an over-governed continent?
Do you have any idea what the EU-constitution was supposed to do? Or what living in the EU is like?
Currently Germany and France can singlehandedly block anything the EU does, or push anything through. The constitution would have changed that, and I for one wholeheartedly agree with that.


Britain's rebate is not a problem, and they are still a net contributor.
As is Germany, and Germany doesn't get a rebate despite its current economic problems. I reckon the British can easily afford giving this one up, and in the spirit of solidarity they should.


...the Frogs want Britain's rebate ...
:rolleyes:
I already said what I want the French to do with their subsidies.


The difference is that a national government's bureaucracy has some legitimacy, as they carry out the policies made by the people's democratically elected representatives. You can't say the same for the EU.
The EU is a legitimate body, by international and by national law. It took us 50 years to get here, you from the other side of the world criticising that achievement for, to me, unknown reasons doesn't leave much of an impression.
And by the way, another goal of the constitution was to make direct elections easier and clearer and increase democracy in the EU.

The people have an inalienable right to govern themselves. The whole European project has been an exercise in taking away the people's right to govern themselves because the authors of the project think they are entitled to govern Europe themselves.

I don't see how anyone can advocate a system of government based on a small, totally unaccountable clique imposing themselves on the people.
You seem to not understand the idea at all. Do you?
Read up on the history of the EU. It is a great achievement, its' existence a milestone in European history. You don't have to be part of it if you don't want to, but we can really live without your bitching.
Taquor
17-06-2005, 13:04
I voted against the EU 'constitution'. It isn't a constitution like the US constitution, so don't even compare.

The reason I voted against is the huge amounts of 'European guidelines'. We don't need 'european guidelines' for everything!

Europe should concern itself with foreign affairs, defense, etc. like the US government doesn't interfere with every federal law. I am proud of my own country, I am a citizen of my country first, and maybe a European citizen much much later...
Psychotic Mongooses
17-06-2005, 13:06
The difference is that a national government's bureaucracy has some legitimacy, as they carry out the policies made by the people's democratically elected representatives. You can't say the same for the EU.



The people have an inalienable right to govern themselves. The whole European project has been an exercise in taking away the people's right to govern themselves because the authors of the project think they are entitled to govern Europe themselves.

I don't see how anyone can advocate a system of government based on a small, totally unaccountable clique imposing themselves on the people.

We DO vote for politicians in Europe you realise? People aren't just picked randomly by various govts, we vote for MEPs in elections. (i voted last year as a matter of fact)
Also, so what if the constitution isn't bog-simple for the dumbest of the dumb to comprehend?

We elect representativies to govern on our behalf so we don't have to! So we don't have to understand things like that, so we can continue on our day to day lives without having to concern our selves with govt in our own country or even on a bigger scale, they're there for that purpose too you know!
Callous maybe; but lets not kid our selves- apathy wins in every election in every state. Politicans should be accountable for sure, but if i want to be involved in European politics or even for my home state- then i'll run for office! Until then the politicans can continue to do what my taxes pay for.
Leonstein
17-06-2005, 13:09
I voted against the EU 'constitution'. It isn't a constitution like the US constitution, so don't even compare.

The reason I voted against is the huge amounts of 'European guidelines'. We don't need 'european guidelines' for everything!

Europe should concern itself with foreign affairs, defense, etc. like the US government doesn't interfere with every federal law. I am proud of my own country, I am a citizen of my country first, and maybe a European citizen much much later...
Excellent, finally someone I can talk to.
Are you French or Dutch? Did they give you a copy of the constitution to vote on?
I realise you can't change your vote now, but would you care to talk about why you voted that way and why that may have been the wrong decision?
Markreich
17-06-2005, 13:11
I voted against the EU 'constitution'. It isn't a constitution like the US constitution, so don't even compare.

The reason I voted against is the huge amounts of 'European guidelines'. We don't need 'european guidelines' for everything!

Europe should concern itself with foreign affairs, defense, etc. like the US government doesn't interfere with every federal law. I am proud of my own country, I am a citizen of my country first, and maybe a European citizen much much later...

That's a point of view I hold! :)

(I'm a Slovak ex-pat, but that's not the point... I'm an American)

It comes down to this: The US Constitution was about bringing together many into one to live together as one nation. The EU Constitution was about bringing together many into one to live together as many nations.

In short, it can't work as long as there is Nationalism.
Leonstein
17-06-2005, 13:16
1) I'm an American
2)It comes down to this: The US Constitution was about bringing together many into one to live together as one nation. The EU Constitution was about bringing together many into one to live together as many nations.
3)In short, it can't work as long as there is Nationalism.
1. Can't help but see ulteriour motives again.
2. That should be the very long-term goal of the EU as well. You just have to get there first. The colonies had to get together initially as well.
3. Agreed, therefore Nationalism is something to be eradicated. We can feel great about being European, but whether you're a French-European or a Polish-European cannot be allowed to make a difference.
Disraeliland
17-06-2005, 13:22
You being Australian has, to me at least, great bearing on whether what you say has any importance whatsoever on this topic.

Perhaps it should be important, thousands of my countrymen have died to make and keep Europe free. I'd rather their deaths weren't in vain.

But, that aside, it is still an irrelevant ad hominem attack, and a pretty weak one, attacking me on the grounds of a post code.

Currently Germany and France can singlehandedly block anything the EU does, or push anything through. The constitution would have changed that, and I for one wholeheartedly agree with that.

Solution? Leave the EU.

As is Germany, and Germany doesn't get a rebate despite its current economic problems. I reckon the British can easily afford giving this one up, and in the spirit of solidarity they should.

I'd hoped to see a sound financial argument favouring the removal of the British rebate, instead, you're parrotting Jackal ChIraq. "In the spirit of solidarity", Britain has been making a net contributing 2.5 greater than France. Without the rebate, Britain's net contribution would be 15 times that of France. The reason for the rebate is the disproportionate British contribution, and the reason it is so disproportionate is subsidising inefficient French farmers. The rebate is not a form of welfare, as you imply.

Linky (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,9061,1503495,00.html)

...the Frogs want Britain's rebate ...

If you're going to snip, do not snip relevant terms. It is the sort of blatantly deceptive behavior that Brussels is renowned for.

The reason the Frogs want Britain's rebate to go will become clear.

The EU is a legitimate body, by international and by national law. It took us 50 years to get here, you from the other side of the world criticising that achievement for, to me, unknown reasons doesn't leave much of an impression.
And by the way, another goal of the constitution was to make direct elections easier and clearer and increase democracy in the EU.

Who elected them?

Who gave the national governments the authority to give powers to Brussels that are reserved for the elected representatives of the people?

How does the Constitution make the EU more democratic. You are long on commercials, short on arguments.

By the way, nice ad hominem. Way not to address my arguments.

Here is an essay on how democratic the EU is.

Myth of the week


The European Union is democratically controlled

Part I – The Council of Ministers

In answer to the charge that "Europe is undemocratic and that power lies with unelected, faceless bureaucrats," the UK Representation of the European Commission is fond of reminding us that


The most powerful decision-making body, the Council of Ministers, is responsible through its members to parliaments and electorates in every EU country.
Furthermore, it states, "Each country decides how to make its ministers accountable." ref UKREC.

Thus, the Commission effectively argues, because Council members are responsible to their electorates, the European Union is democratically controlled. (It goes on then to describe the role of the European Parliament – we will deal with that in Part II of this piece.)

In order to explode this particular myth – that the Council somehow adds democratic legitimacy to the European Union – we simply need to look at what the Council is, and what it does.

Firstly, the Council itself. In fact there are many "Councils" each dealing with specific policy areas – like environment, transport, fisheries, agriculture, etc. Their members are the sectoral ministers from the member states, each council comprising the same number of ministers as there are member states.

So what do they do?

The answer to that is quite simple – they "legislate". That is, they receive proposals from the unelected Commission, asking them to take powers and/or responsibilities from their member state governments (or to impose obligations on their citizens).

They then turn these proposals into laws, giving the Commission the powers it asks for – often acting by qualified majority voting - thereby depriving their own governments (and/or citizens) of power.

That's it.

From then on, the Commission having been given the power, it keeps it, to exercise as it thinks fit. The Council has no further part to play in the process, unless or until the Commission comes back to ask it to amend or extend those powers (or both).

Does the Council maintain an oversight over how those powers are exercised? No.

Has the Council any power to call the Commission to account over the way it uses its powers? No.

Can the Council remove or modify those powers, if it is unsatisfied with the way the Commission is performing? No.

Does the Council even have the power to ask the Commission for information on its performance? Er… No.

So what is the Council?

In effect, it is a transfer station. On the basis of proposals from the Commission, it handles the process of taking powers from member states, packaging them up and shovelling them into the Commission, for them never to be returned.

Does it ask the electorate in advance - through an election manifesto - what powers it should hand over? No.

And is any record kept of which particular ministers vote for what, so that they can be taken to task by their electorates, if they vote the wrong way? No.

That's democratic?

And another:

Myth of the week


The European Union is democratically controlled

Part II – The European Parliament

In Part I, we looked at the UK Representation of the European Commission’s answer to the charge that "Europe is undemocratic and that power lies with unelected, faceless bureaucrats," and dealt with the claim that the Council of Ministers conferred a democratic element to the European Union.

In this second part, we look at the European parliament, the only directly elected institution in the EU, and assess whether it confers any democratic element to the European Union.

All the Commission claims of the parliament is that “direct elections” have “created a body with a clear mandate from the electorate”. “MEPs”, it continues, “are accountable for their work on legislation and in scrutinising the other EU institutions”.

The use of the word “mandate” in this context is interesting. It is generally held to mean the sanction given by electors to members of parliament to deal with a question before the country. In other words, the candidates for the election set out their stalls, the electors look at the rival offerings and choose between them.

In national elections, this choice has some validity because the winning party – or coalitions – go on to form a government, which then (in theory at least) executes the voters’ mandate. But in the European parliament, this cannot happen.

For a start, the election does not produce a government, so the parliament has no power or authority to execute a mandate. It cannot, for instance, decide to repeal any EU laws – it cannot even initiate any laws. Those powers lie elsewhere. Therefore, the candidates – or the parties they represent – cannot produce manifestos in any meaningful sense of the word, as they have no means by which they can deliver on promises made.

Furthermore, in a parliament of 732 members, Britain elects only 78 MEPs, and then from different parties. But even if all were from one party and were clearly set on one course of action, they do not have the numbers to dictate terms. Even as a united bloc, they are swamped by the members from other member states.

Therein lies one of the central defects of the European parliament. The essence of a parliamentary system is that it is the core of a system of representative democracy, where the members go to parliament to represent their electors’ views (and safeguard their interests). But British MEPs cannot represent the interests of their electors – there are not enough of them to do so.

Furthermore – and this strikes at the heart of the concept of a supranational parliament – there is no commonality of interest in the peoples of the member states that would enable discrete blocs to emerge that could be adequately represented by a multi-national coalition of MEPs. In other words, there is no European demos and, without that, there can be no European democracy.

As for being “accountable for their work on legislation and in scrutinising the other EU institutions”, as the UK Representation of the European Commission claims, the suggestion that the EP is “accountable” begs the question of to whom? Without any meaningful manifestos, the electorates have no yardstick (metrestick?) against which to measure the performance of their supposed representatives, so there can be no way of holding representatives to account.

Further, due to the arcane voting system in the parliament, MEP voting performances in the main (plenary) sessions are most often not recorded. By far the bulk of votes are settled by a show of hands, which means there is no record kept of who voted for what. The average voter has no ready means of determining how their MEPs behaved.

But the ultimate indictment of the system is the way that legislation goes rolling on, even when a new parliament is elected. In the UK system, when parliament is prorogued prior to an election, all outstanding legislation – not yet passed – falls. Not so in the EP. Newly elected members can and do find themselves voting on the second or third readings of laws that were introduced to the previous parliament. The names and faces may have changed – the voters may have completely shifted their allegiances – but that makes absolutely no difference to the nature of the progression of legislation through the parliament.

Then there is the scrutiny of “other EU institutions”. In fact, there is no EP scrutiny of the Council, but the only scrutiny worth a light is, in any case, of the Commission. Here, commissioners do put themselves up for questioning by MEPs but, as recalled in an earlier Blog, anyone who has seen this done knows full well what a charade this is.

The strategy is well established and cynically transparent. First you have a sympathetic "chairperson", who is able to make sure the "right" people are picked to ask questions - and also allow for the token antis (just to prove they are "democratic"). Next you pack the committee with patsies who can be relied upon to "soft-ball" the commissioner. Then, you take questions in blocks of five, so the commissioner can "cherry-pick" the bits of the package he/she wants to answer.

You also impose a time limit on the whole session, and let the commissioner waffle on as long as he/she likes, until time runs out without any of the awkward questions from the token antis being answered. And, of course, supplementaries are either not allowed or severely curtailed. As a result of this, the questioning sheds light only on this issues which the commission wants to reveal, and no serious examination every takes place. Sessions end up as an opportunity for commissioners to propagandise or, as the case may be, evade accountability, while giving the appearance to the outsider of being open to scrutiny.

Some apologists for the EU, however, take a different tack when discussing the democratic legitimacy. They point to national parliaments, like Westminster, where most law is passed in the form of regulation, passed automatically through parliament without even a vote; where the government majority can ensure the passage of Bills without being troubled by the opposition.

But there is a difference. Individual MPs do represent their constituents and, if the nation really gets worked up about something, the House collectively can force a change. Even the mighty Thatcher government was forced to look again at the poll tax. Even at a minor level, with technical regulations that are causing problems, chances can be secured by the intervention of an MP, concerned at the loss of votes, or seeing the opportunity to attract some favourable publicity.

That difference tells the whole story. No matter what individual MEPs might think about an existing piece of EU law – and even if all 732 members wanted it changed (which is highly unlikely) – it cannot force a change. The unelected commission has the absolute right of initiative, and can ignore parliament completely.

This makes the parliament a toothless entity but – more to the point – its existence does not confer democracy on an essentially anti-democratic organisation.

Please point out to me which clauses in the Constitution make fundamental changes to this.

Read up on the history of the EU. It is a great achievement, its' existence a milestone in European history.

You sound like a commercial. Next thing you'll be telling me that not having the EU makes another Holocaust inevitable, or that it has kept peace in Europe for 60 years.
Nevareion
17-06-2005, 13:28
I voted against the EU 'constitution'. It isn't a constitution like the US constitution, so don't even compare.

The reason I voted against is the huge amounts of 'European guidelines'. We don't need 'european guidelines' for everything!

Europe should concern itself with foreign affairs, defense, etc. like the US government doesn't interfere with every federal law. I am proud of my own country, I am a citizen of my country first, and maybe a European citizen much much later...
Ironically a significant part of the proposed constitution was about setting up a common foreign and defence policy. The guidelines are not produced by the treaties but by the Commission.
Disraeliland
17-06-2005, 13:29
We DO vote for politicians in Europe you realise? People aren't just picked randomly by various govts, we vote for MEPs in elections. (i voted last year as a matter of fact)
Also, so what if the constitution isn't bog-simple for the dumbest of the dumb to comprehend?

We elect representativies to govern on our behalf so we don't have to! So we don't have to understand things like that, so we can continue on our day to day lives without having to concern our selves with govt in our own country or even on a bigger scale, they're there for that purpose too you know!
Callous maybe; but lets not kid our selves- apathy wins in every election in every state. Politicans should be accountable for sure, but if i want to be involved in European politics or even for my home state- then i'll run for office! Until then the politicans can continue to do what my taxes pay for.

Rubbish. The MEP's can't initiate, block, or repeal legislation. They can only rubber stamp what the Commission gives them.

Here's a link on the European Parliament: Link (http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2004/08/myth-of-week.html)

The European Parliament is not a government. It cannot exercise any of the responsiblities or powers of a government. It is a toothless parliament and adds no democracy to a fundamentally anti-democratic institution.

3. Agreed, therefore Nationalism is something to be eradicated. We can feel great about being European, but whether you're a French-European or a Polish-European cannot be allowed to make a difference.

In other words, the EU cannot work without social engineering. I think that settles the argument permanently. No political movement based upon the necessity of social engineering has ever survived, nor can it claim legitimacy in any form.

Government should adapt itself to the people, not make the people adapt themselves to the government.
Psychotic Mongooses
17-06-2005, 13:29
Odd that someone from a colony on the other side of the world is giving advice to independent, sovereign and free states about whether they should or should not be a member of the EU. :rolleyes:

And please don't bring up the World Wars again, your countrymen didn't die for my freedom ok? i'll not be held to historical guilt for the actions of someones grandfather or greatgrandfather. thank you.
Tactical Grace
17-06-2005, 13:32
In other words, the EU cannot work without social engineering. I think that settles the argument permanently. No political movement based upon the necessity of social engineering has ever survived, nor can it claim legitimacy in any form.

Government should adapt itself to the people, not make the people adapt themselves to the government.
OK, in that case, how did we end up with Germany? And the UK? And the US? And anyone who thinks Russia is homogenous, had better think again.

Most of the world powers were built on social engineering. Government adapts the people as much as it responds to them. It is plainly obvious to see. And there is nothing illegitimate about any of it.
Maniacal Me
17-06-2005, 13:33
We DO vote for politicians in Europe you realise? People aren't just picked randomly by various govts, we vote for MEPs in elections. (i voted last year as a matter of fact)
Also, so what if the constitution isn't bog-simple for the dumbest of the dumb to comprehend?
Read about the software patents debate. Link. (http://swpat.ffii.org/) Our directly elected representatives (the parliament) said no, and the commission (And council) just ran roughshod over them to try and force it through.
The individual parliaments of several nations said no, and their councilors went ahead anyway.


We elect representativies to govern on our behalf so we don't have to! So we don't have to understand things like that, so we can continue on our day to day lives without having to concern our selves with govt in our own country or even on a bigger scale, they're there for that purpose too you know!
Callous maybe; but lets not kid our selves- apathy wins in every election in every state. Politicans should be accountable for sure, but if i want to be involved in European politics or even for my home state- then i'll run for office! Until then the politicans can continue to do what my taxes pay for.
Yes, the politicians will think for you, the judiciary will decide for you and the police will act for you.
What a delightful vision of society you have.
Psychotic Mongooses
17-06-2005, 13:34
Rubbish. The MEP's can't initiate, block, or repeal legislation. They can only rubber stamp what the Commission gives them.

The European Parliament is not a government. It cannot exercise any of the responsiblities or powers of a government. It is a toothless parliament and adds no democracy to a fundamentally anti-democratic institution.


In your previous posts you give the impression of the EU as a bureaucratic morass, a bottomless pit of self serving corrupt officials who only care about gaining more and more power for the centre (ie themselves). The existence of the MEPs DOES give the common citizen a sense of influence (however little) so don't disparage that please. One could say the same re the US electoral system and the effect a singlt Oregan voter has. ;)
Disraeliland
17-06-2005, 13:36
Odd that someone from a colony on the other side of the world is giving advice to independent, sovereign and free states about whether they should or should not be a member of the EU.

And please don't bring up the World Wars again, your countrymen didn't die for my freedom ok? i'll not be held to historical guilt for the actions of someones grandfather or greatgrandfather. thank you.

Odd that you can go through all that verbiage, and make none of it relevant, and address precisely none of my points.

Australia is not a colony. It is 6 former Crown Colonies federated into a Commonwealth, which has been entirely independent of Britain for decades. The British House of Commons has no say whatsoever in Australian policy, save for the ability to make diplomatic representations, an ability that all nations having diplomatic relations with Australia possess.

I'll bring up whatever I fucking well please. You're welcome to ignore it, or try to refute it.

You are not a soverign independent state, you are a person on the internet. One who ought address what I say in a debate, rather than blithering on about where I'm from.
Psychotic Mongooses
17-06-2005, 13:38
Yes, the politicians will think for you, the judiciary will decide for you and the police will act for you.
What a delightful vision of society you have.

To be honest, its not great i freely admit. But you can't deny that at the end of the day, all people REALLY want is to be left alone to live their lives free from interference and get on with living itself. Putting bread on the table is more important to joe slob than the software debate or ecomonic stability etc etc. Politicans govern, its what we tell them to do. If your not happy with what they do, then you change them. Nothing to it. We don't live in a fascist society (yet)

'Its better to have a King far away, then next door to you'- Genoese proverb
Psychotic Mongooses
17-06-2005, 13:44
Odd that you can go through all that verbiage, and make none of it relevant, and address precisely none of my points.

Australia is not a colony. It is 6 former Crown Colonies federated into a Commonwealth, which has been entirely independent of Britain for decades. The British House of Commons has no say whatsoever in Australian policy, save for the ability to make diplomatic representations, an ability that all nations having diplomatic relations with Australia possess.

I'll bring up whatever I fucking well please. You're welcome to ignore it, or try to refute it.

You are not a soverign independent state, you are a person on the internet. One who ought address what I say in a debate, rather than blithering on about where I'm from.

I'm sorry, it was a snide hit at Australia, nothing more. :D

My point was that bringing up the world wars has no place in this topic (it'll start a whole new debate you'll agree)- i'm not going to refute it because like i said its a diff discussion for a diff time.

As for the actual discussion, i live in Europe, in the EU and am perfectly happy the way things are shaping up with it. (Your opinions on the EU are shared by many, but at the end of the day- as you don't live in Europe it really doesn't apply to you)

Again, forgiveness about earlier comments, was trying to catch up on your rather long posts :p
Leonstein
17-06-2005, 13:54
-snip-
:D
Maybe I shouldn't have brought up you're from Australia.
In the four years I lived here now, I have observed that Australians have this strange subconscious inferiority complex. They are always scared of what people from Europe think about them, somewhere deep inside. And they compensate by becoming loudmouthed.
And watch out if you call Australia British...they really do hate that!

Now to your post: You know nothing about the matter. You have no personal affection for the EU, because it is not where you come from. The information you have is selective and negatively biased, written and compiled by the many people who seek to damage the EU, for many reasons.
I admit it isn't perfect. One more reason to support reforms. If you want to know what I'm talking about, read the constitution. I'm sure you'll find it on the web somewhere. I'm not going to bother refuting you, instead I shall ignore you. Europe has many issues to settle, and the voice of a fanatical rightwinger from Oz is not anywhere near the top of the list.
And I remember the last time I engaged in a discussion with you I said starting farms costs money, and you answered something like "Rubbish. I haven't seen any proof."
If anyone wants to see the whole thing, you could find it on the "African Tyrant Runs to Form" thread, if it still exists.
So just leave me alone, find someone else to bother.
Aussie Aussie Aussie! Oy! Oy! Oy!
Disraeliland
17-06-2005, 13:55
OK, in that case, how did we end up with Germany? And the UK? And the US? And anyone who thinks Russia is homogenous, had better think again.

Most of the world powers were built on social engineering. Government adapts the people as much as it responds to them. It is plainly obvious to see. And there is nothing illegitimate about any of it.

The absorption of Wales into England in 1536-43 was forced.

Some have argued that the union of England and Scotland was done through bribery, in any case, England and Scotland had shared the same monarch for over a centuty preceeding the Act of Union.

The Union of Great Britain and Ireland was done without giving the Catholics the right to vote on it.

So, because English Kings did something wrong, European bureaucrats are justified in doing similar wrongs.

Russia is hardly a case of a free, and working union of peoples.

The Germans share a language, but their union was hardly democratic.

The argument that the mistakes and/or crimes of the past justify the same in the future is damnably weak.

The existence of the MEPs DOES give the common citizen a sense of influence

A "sense" of influence, but no actual influence. Perhaps drugging, and hypnotising Europeans through the TV would be cheaper than maintaining a useless Parliament.

Subliminal advertisements, anyone?
Maniacal Me
17-06-2005, 13:56
To be honest, its not great i freely admit. But you can't deny that at the end of the day, all people REALLY want is to be left alone to live their lives free from interference and get on with living itself.
This has left me confused.
Which part of you having no say and thus no control over the society you live in is you being left alone to live your life as you see fit?
Putting bread on the table is more important to joe slob than the software debate or ecomonic stability etc etc. Politicans govern, its what we tell them to do. If your not happy with what they do, then you change them. Nothing to it. We don't live in a fascist society (yet)

'Its better to have a King far away, then next door to you'- Genoese proverb
Putting bread on the table is economic stability and as has already been pointed out we don't decide who runs Europe!
Nevareion
17-06-2005, 14:01
all people REALLY want is to be left alone to live their lives free from interference and get on with living itself.

Commenting on this I would point out he has a case as the low levels of voter turnout in many western democracies and the general political apathy, particularly amongst the young, tends to support this point of view. A significant percentage of people in many western democracies really don't care and just want to get on with their own life.
Disraeliland
17-06-2005, 14:01
I'm sorry, it was a snide hit at Australia, nothing more. :D

My point was that bringing up the world wars has no place in this topic (it'll start a whole new debate you'll agree)- i'm not going to refute it because like i said its a diff discussion for a diff time.

As for the actual discussion, i live in Europe, in the EU and am perfectly happy the way things are shaping up with it. (Your opinions on the EU are shared by many, but at the end of the day- as you don't live in Europe it really doesn't apply to you)

Again, forgiveness about earlier comments, was trying to catch up on your rather long posts :p

Forgiven. I probably should have added that Australia's federation was by the consent of the people, and resulted in a 65 page Constitution (the pdf runs for 65 pages), which hasn't been altered much in over 100 years.

snipped irrelevant ad hominem horseshit

4 years, and you know bugger all about us.

I think you need help with anger management.
Psychotic Mongooses
17-06-2005, 14:05
This has left me confused.
Which part of you having no say and thus no control over the society you live in is you being left alone to live your life as you see fit?

Putting bread on the table is economic stability and as has already been pointed out we don't decide who runs Europe!

My own personal life (Liberal in the John Stuart Mill sense of the word) is my own. Free from govt interference and state involvment- thats all the majority of modern citizens wish for- its crap! but its true none the less.

'Putting bread on the table' was a figue of speech dammit! I was pointing out that the CAP has little baring on a min wage earning single mother trying to get a school uniform for her 8 yr old. You see what i mean about there being priorities for the ordinary person?

The bureaucratic governing doesn't concern her- she'd prefer the MP to sort that out and let her concentrate on living!

Again, its pants, but thats the way it is. Realistically.
Disraeliland
17-06-2005, 14:06
Commenting on this I would point out he has a case as the low levels of voter turnout in many western democracies and the general political apathy, particularly amongst the young, tends to support this point of view. A significant percentage of people in many western democracies really don't care and just want to get on with their own life.

Quite right.

The problem with voter apathy combining with a desire for small government is that the while the socialists "get out the vote", those who want the government off their backs don't bother.

There also isn't much for us in terms of voting options. Outdoor Recreational Parties are about the only thing (parties like the Shooters Party, and the Fishermen's Party). In Australia, we also have the Lower Excise Fuel and Beer Party.
Disraeliland
17-06-2005, 14:08
its pants

Is that a figure of speech. Pretty wierd one.
Tactical Grace
17-06-2005, 14:08
The argument that the mistakes and/or crimes of the past justify the same in the future is damnably weak.
Oh, I don't know, we see our own governments advocating that...

You missed out my example, the US. How did that come about? :confused: There was no social engineering involved?
Bunnyducks
17-06-2005, 14:09
The European Parliament is not a government. It cannot exercise any of the responsiblities or powers of a government. It is a toothless parliament and adds no democracy to a fundamentally anti-democratic institution.

You're right, it's not a government. It's a parliament. I'm led to believe the three fundamental powers of a parliament are: legislative power, budgetary power and supervisory power.

You are right about the fact that the European parliament has tough time getting any of its propositions getting approved. This has more to with the overall workload, not the 'anti-democratic' nature of the EU. (Oddly enough, that's the case in my country too, parliament's propositions for legislation are seldomly even taken on the agenda). Nevertheless, it has veto-power (which it never uses).

The EU parliament DOES have final say over the level and composition of EU spending. Spending other than Common Acricultural Policy funds of course. And that is problematic, cos CAP is almost 50% of the whole budget. Room to improve there.

Parliament uses it supervisory power by accepting or refusing the candidates for commissioners. Not too long ago, it refused to appoint Barroso's commission. Parliament has also the power to dissolve the Commission. Toothless? In this field it is pretty much a rubber stamp though, I have to admit.
Nevareion
17-06-2005, 14:10
Quite right.

The problem with voter apathy combining with a desire for small government is that the while the socialists "get out the vote", those who want the government off their backs don't bother.

There also isn't much for us in terms of voting options. Outdoor Recreational Parties are about the only thing (parties like the Shooters Party, and the Fishermen's Party). In Australia, we also have the Lower Excise Fuel and Beer Party.
It is not a phenomena linked to any particular political side in my opinion. It is a general problem with institutionalised politics and quick fix societies. Many people, a good 30% in many western democracies don't see the point in voting at all.
Disraeliland
17-06-2005, 14:21
You're right, it's not a government. It's a parliament. I'm led to believe the three fundamental powers of a parliament are: legislative power, budgetary power and supervisory power

You've missed the point.

In Australia, the Parliament exercises full control over the government (except where the Governor-General, or Her Majesty intervenes)

You are right about the fact that the European parliament has tough time getting any of its propositions getting approved. This has more to with the overall workload, not the 'anti-democratic' nature of the EU. Oddly enough, that's the case in my country too, parliamen't propositions for legislation are seldomly even taken on the agenda. Nevertheless, it has veto-power (which it never uses).

Are you referring to what's called in Australia a "Private Member's Bill"? (N.B. This is a bill originating from either the Government backbench, or the Opposition)

The Australian Parliament can initiate legislation, in fact, only the Australian Parliament can do so. The leaders of the Australian Public Service (which would be the equivilent to the Commission) cannot, where as the Commission can.

The EU parliament DOES have final say over the level and composition of EU spending. Spending other than Common Acricultural Policy funds of course. And that is problematic, cos CAP is almost 50% of the whole budget. Room to improve there.

CAP is arguably the most contentious part of the EU budget, yet kept out of the reach of the voters.

The example that Maniacal Me brings up is a case in point, Parliament says "no", Commission says "wrong answer".

You missed out my example, the US. How did that come about? There was no social engineering involved?

I posted the Declaration of Independence earlier. That should answer your question.
Markreich
17-06-2005, 15:00
1. Can't help but see ulteriour motives again.
2. That should be the very long-term goal of the EU as well. You just have to get there first. The colonies had to get together initially as well.
3. Agreed, therefore Nationalism is something to be eradicated. We can feel great about being European, but whether you're a French-European or a Polish-European cannot be allowed to make a difference.

1. What ulterior motive?? I'm still Slovak!
2. Yes, but the US colonies had several advantages:
* It was before the age of Nationalism by almost 100 years.
* Populations were lower then. The odds of (say) Connecticut making it's own way in the world of King George III were about zero.
* The colonies were mostly homogenous: most were English & Scottish immigrants, with a smattering of Dutch, French, and Swedes.
Europe in 2005, by comparison, has nations trying to break AWAY from their states (Basques, Bretons, et al), the population is nearly twice that of the US (harder to change than colonial US/forge a new identity), and range in diversity from Portugal to Poland and Norway to Greece...

3. Allowed? I'm not sure I want to live in your Europe. :(
Bunnyducks
17-06-2005, 22:03
You've missed the point.

In Australia, the Parliament exercises full control over the government (except where the Governor-General, or Her Majesty intervenes) + ..the Australian parliament...
I believe you've missed the point. I know fuck all about Australian politics/parliament/legislature. You were talking about the European Parliament here (well, I hope you were, in a thread like this). Comparing the two is as ridiculous as comparing the "EU constitution" to the Constitution of the US of A.

I just listed the powers of the European parliament, and in there you can see the Commission is politically answerable to Parliament (sorta, but de jure). I really don't know what else you want. The reason they are hesitant to use this power should be obvious. As somebody said here :"The US [Constitution] was about bringing together many into one to live together as one nation. The EU [Constitution] was about bringing together many into one to live together as many nations". It isn't easy to appoint a new commission if the parliament dissolves a commission out of a whim.
Disraeliland
18-06-2005, 04:39
If the Constitution were to pass, the European Parliament would become the legislature of a Federal state, just as the Australian Parliament has been since 1901. They certainly are comprable. As are the Constitutions of the US and Europe. I don't see why they aren't, nor has anyone shown me.

The comparisons of the two Parliaments do not favour the European Parliament because the elected representatives of the European people cannot effectively represent the people. They provide a facade of representation, but real power rests with the Commission.

The Australian Parliament provides effective representation for the Australian people. They cannot be overruled by the Public Service. They can initiate, pass, block, and repeal Federal laws. Our Parliament also provides effective representation for states (which the European Parliament does not) by having a senate, with 12 senators for each of the states (with 2 each for the Northern Territory, and the Australian Capital Territory).

You've dismissed the example brought up by Maniacal Me, where the Commission overruled the Parliament. If the Parliament really had the powers you ascribe to it, why did it not dismiss the Commission that overruled them?