NationStates Jolt Archive

If you could live in any of the above 10 European countries, which would you proudly call your own, and why?

I don't see any, but I'd go with Italy. 'Cause I like Italy.

Go Netherlands!

Damn it, not on the list.

France, Germany, Sweden.

Switzerland, Greece, Ukraine, or Scotland if it were independent...

EDIT: Add Austria too.

Simple: Germany because I'm getting a German minor and they have great beer.

British Isles, thank you very much! And Scotland, where I am now. I've never been anywhere that was more welcoming, had so many irons in the fire - strong links to Britain and all it stands for, seperate links to Europe, parochial interests but at the same time an eye on the international scene... wha's like us? Damn few, and they're a' deid!

Not a particularly difficult question.

Although Holland would be nice. And Sweden.

But I can't get around saying Germany, for obvious reasons.

Switzerland.

The Swiss actually appear to understand the meaning of "government for, by, and of the people."

English Isles? :confused:

And simpy because I'm lazy I think I'd stay here. For another week at least.

Liverpool. So good they named it once.

Tough choice, but I think I'd end up with Scotland, partly just 'cause I'm familiar with it, and know people there. Edinburgh area, not Glasgow, and out into the country a ways at that, not in the city.

Runners up:
The rest of hte Brittish Isles,
Germany,
Switzerland,
Italy,
Greece,
and anywhere other than France.

Switzerland.

The Swiss actually appear to understand the meaning of "government for, by, and of the people."

I picked Switzerland too.

Theres something about the country and the people that I think is really awesome.

Definitely France. No thought about it

Netherlands!

.....awww.

I voted Britain. Maybe France.

if i could make a reasonable living


france

or maybe italy.

nah its 'heres tae us, wha's like us? Gai few, and theyre a' deid'


I'd live in Germany or Finland

Gotta love the germans, and the finnish :D

sweden.SWEDEN.SWEDEN.SWEDEN.SWEDEN!SWEDEN!!SWEDEN!!!


oh, and as runner-up maybe that country with the elks. those are awesome, too.

Spain. Or Greece. Greek girls are hot.

Espana, pero yo hablo la idioma y los cuidades estan magnificos.

I picked Switzerland too.

Theres something about the country and the people that I think is really awesome.

This image sold me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland )

Government for, by, and of the people.

Espana, pero yo hablo la idioma y los cuidades estan magnificos.

Ah, tu hablas espanol tambien....de donde eres?

If you could live in any of the above 10 European countries, which would you proudly call your own, and why?
....whichever one I could get out of the quickest. I don't care much for the pseudosocialist muck-holes they tend to run over there. Beautiful landscape though.

nah its 'heres tae us, wha's like us? Gai few, and theyre a' deid'

I didn't include the first bit, though I know of it :) 'Gai' few? My lot've always said damn few... hmm. Regionality, I guess!

This image sold me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg

Government for, by, and of the people.

Gotta love those Swiss...no for real...they are awesome. They are Swiss first...the rest of the world second, uber capitalist, and have a totally sexy country.

"I didn't include the first bit, though I know of it 'Gai' few? My lot've always said damn few... hmm. Regionality, I guess"


or maybe your lot just like cussing lol :p

Britain: Ireland. Redheads. Nuff said. :)

"I didn't include the first bit, though I know of it 'Gai' few? My lot've always said damn few... hmm. Regionality, I guess"


or maybe your lot just like cussing lol :p

lol!

Was in car with my grandma just today, I quote "Why are we goan down yon shite-y wee road?"

You're right!

Gotta love those Swiss...no for real...they are awesome.
And xenophobic racist parties do well there too by scaring everyone.

Gotta go with greece. Besides being my heritage, you just cant beat the history!

And xenophobic racist parties do well there too by scaring everyone.

Name one.

Elgesh']lol!

Was in car with my grandma just today, I quote "Why are we goan down yon shite-y wee road?"

You're right!


ahh my psychic powers are strong today

If I had to live in a European country, I'd pick Switzerland.

yes the swiss - always very punctual, very strong bones as well

And xenophobic racist parties do well there too by scaring everyone.

I hear they have an opening just for me...

By the way, I was hoping for you to come and add your piece on my comments about Switzerland, :p

Name one.
The SVP.

Name one.

Dude...your not gonna win this one...trust me. I love Switzerland but they do have some slightly crazy parties.

The SVP.

I'm reading up on it in Wiki, and so far it seems very appealing to me.

It doesnt seem rascist at all...Just very Pro-Swiss and Switzerland first. What I would expect from my political party.

I would go with Norway. I've heard some good things about the country, and I can almost speak the language anyway...

I would go with Norway. I've heard some good things about the country, and I can almost speak the language anyway...

Can you? Where do you live right now?

Spain...

Why? Because thats where all my British friends love to expend vacations...

I guess its all about the weather... the beaches .. and the bikinis :D

Scotland, preferably Edinburgh

...followed by England and/or Wales, Denmark or France, then Ireland or Norway, after which Italy or Germany. Spain would be nice, too. Damn it, too many places to go...

Spain...

Why? Because thats where all my British friends love to expend vacations...

I guess its all about the weather... the beaches .. and the bikinis :D

the 24 stone pasty tourists with their 6 noisy kids....

I'm reading up on it in Wiki, and so far it seems very appealing to me.

It doesnt seem rascist at all...Just very Pro-Swiss and Switzerland first. What I would expect from my political party.
http://www.irr.org.uk/europe/switzerland.htm
The SVP,a which is campaigning to dismantle the Swiss Commission Against Racism, has been accused of deploying anti-Semitic overtones when attacking Jewish organisations seeking compensation from Swiss banks for property and bank accounts seized during the Holocaust.
That is exactly the kind of party that has sprung up all over Europe...whether it be the BNP in Britain, the NPD in Germany or various others.
The problem is just that the Swiss actually vote for them.

Scotland, preferably Edinburgh

...followed by England and/or Wales, Denmark or France, then Ireland or Norway, after which Italy or Germany.

Yeah! Edinburgh rules! It's got _me_ in it, what more does it need!

And im only an hours drive away!

It's a tie between the UK and Germany for me. All my family's from England and Scotland (last one came to the States in 1992), but my kid sister's actually been to Europe, and she says Germany's the nicest part of it...

other: netherlands.

next question

http://www.irr.org.uk/europe/switzerland.htm

That is exactly the kind of party that has sprung up all over Europe...whether it be the BNP in Britain, the NPD in Germany or various others.
The problem is just that the Swiss actually vote for them.

I dont fully understand the situation regarding the Swiss banks, but I do see things like this happening in Germany. Germans paying back Jews for the holocaust....I dont think its fair for Germans to pay back Jews for the holocaust because the germans paying the Jews are not the say people during the Nazi days...Even as a Jew myself, I beleive it is unfair.
It's the same thing in America, blacks trying to get us to pay them for slavery...regardless of the fact that many people moved here after slavery was abolished and many people who lived here during slave times never owned slaves. there were many many slaves per white family. So unless there are some extreamily old americans limping around, no one in the present day owned slaves and should not have to pay blacks for slavery.

By the way, you seem like you know tons about all that is European, could you please fill me in about these notorious Swiss bank acounts, thanks bro.

The SVP.

Do you have any data that shows that support for the SVP is necessarily caused by xenophobia or racism?

I was researching Swiss election results for a comparative politics class recently. The data I collected (found at http://www.parliament.ch) show that the SVP enjoyed very little electoral support in the National Council, as compared to CVP, FDP, or SPS, until around 1991, at which point its support surged upward. The date of 1991 is important because the official founding of the European Union occured in 1992. The SVP opposes such international organizations, and Swiss participation therein. Therefore, it is extremely likely that the upswing in support for the SVP is due in large part to that single issue alone; the Swiss are simply concerned with maintaining their neutrality and so vote accordingly. Note that support for the SVP in the Council of States has also gone up some, but is easily outnumbered by support for the CVP and FDP in that house.

The data would seem to indicate nothing more than that the Swiss oppose the European Union. I fail to see how this necessarily indicates support for xenophobia or racism in the political culture.

*agrees with atlantian islands* I hate all these thingies nowadays - people getting millions of pounds cos they lived down the road froma suicide bomber 20 years ago etc etc. I dont see why being in a terrorist attack makes you automatically entitled to compensation, its not the governments fault. Fair enough get money to pay yr medical bills and provide modifications if any are needed to yr house etc but not for anything else.

We're so whiny these days - whatever happened to the Blitz spirit?

Can you? Where do you live right now?

I live in Denmark. Danish and Norwegian is basically the same language, so...

Venice Italy.

So I can say "Ahhh Venice" ;)

I live in Denmark. Danish and Norwegian is basically the same language, so...

I'v always wondered that. Are Danish, Norwegian, Icelandish, and Swedish all like basically the same. I know Finnish is totally different.

The data would seem to indicate nothing more than that the Swiss oppose the European Union. I fail to see how this necessarily indicates support for xenophobia or racism in the political culture.
The two belong together though. There is no practical, rational reasoning for staying out of the EU, other than xenophobia...namely not wanting to have outsiders have any power over the Swiss government.
The way parties argue against the EU is always the same: "The Eastern Europeans come and take your jobs away, and the bureaucrats in Brussels want to help them!"
It takes a certain mindset to actually agree with that sort of reasoning.

As for the Swiss bank accounts, I don't really bother with that sort of thing either. Fact is that a lot of money was made in the holocaust, by companies that are still around today.
It's only fair to pay damages to the victims of the Holocaust. I disagree whoever with paying damages to the relatives of the victims of the Holocaust.
http://www.crt-ii.org/introduction.phtm
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9710/29/swiss.banks.nazi/

I'v always wondered that. Are Danish, Norwegian, Icelandish, and Swedish all like basically the same. I know Finnish is totally different.

In Finland they learn Swedish in their schools, so basically we would all be able to understand each other. I once spoke with a mate, while a friend from Finland was listening, and though we spoke in Danish, she understood the conversation.

Russia!

Partially because of my heritage, partially because of the language, but also because their politics interest me extremely.

Other than that, Switzerland is amazing for its neutrality, France is cool, and pretty much anywhere in Europe is probably better than America.

The two belong together though. There is no practical, rational reasoning for staying out of the EU, other than xenophobia...namely not wanting to have outsiders have any power over the Swiss government.
The way parties argue against the EU is always the same: "The Eastern Europeans come and take your jobs away, and the bureaucrats in Brussels want to help them!"
It takes a certain mindset to actually agree with that sort of reasoning.

As for the Swiss bank accounts, I don't really bother with that sort of thing either. Fact is that a lot of money was made in the holocaust, by companies that are still around today.
It's only fair to pay damages to the victims of the Holocaust. I disagree whoever with paying damages to the relatives of the victims of the Holocaust.
http://www.crt-ii.org/introduction.phtm
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9710/29/swiss.banks.nazi/

There are lots of reasons of not wanting to be in the EU..such as keeping your identity and nuetrality.

English islands. Great geographical advantage for my quest to take over the world. Napoleon couldn't handle it!

Norway or Denmark. I love snow and cold, so the weather is not an issue for me. I would absolutely love their maternity laws, and I feel they would benefit our family greatly. Beyond these reasons, its all basically about how pretty I feel these countries are!

There are lots of reasons of not wanting to be in the EU..such as keeping your identity and nuetrality.
The EU does nothing to anyone's identity. Plus the idea of a national identity is exactly what I mean by xenophobia and underlying racism.

As for neutrality...the EU does not tell anyone what their stance should be regarding foreign policy (remember Iraq?). They sometimes give out statements from all leaders, and any member is free to add or take away what it wants, or simply not sign. It's not like Switzerland would be joining NATO.

If you could live in any of the above 10 European countries, which would you proudly call your own, and why?


Germany
Good Beer


Best damn Deployment i could get in the army, I hope to get stationed there before they shut the bases down.

There are lots of reasons of not wanting to be in the EU..such as keeping your identity and nuetrality.
*Ahem*
One can do both. See: Ireland.

The two belong together though. There is no practical, rational reasoning for staying out of the EU, other than xenophobia...namely not wanting to have outsiders have any power over the Swiss government.


What about the fear of the effects of increasingly centralized, distant, and unaccountable government? Switzerland is a highly decentralized and relatively direct federal democracy. The political culture could simply be reacting to percieved threats to the established order. Again, there is nothing inherently xenophobic or racist about such fears. Edit: Even if the SVP does have xenophobic or racist motovations, support for the party on one specific issue does not necessarily indicate support for all of its positions.

You're letting your own political ideological bias cloud your analysis. Again, the data does not seem to support your assertion. If you know of any other data that shows otherwise, please share it. Assertions that are not supported by analysis of the objective data are not acceptable.

The EU does nothing to anyone's identity. Plus the idea of a national identity is exactly what I mean by xenophobia and underlying racism.

As for neutrality...the EU does not tell anyone what their stance should be regarding foreign policy (remember Iraq?). They sometimes give out statements from all leaders, and any member is free to add or take away what it wants, or simply not sign. It's not like Switzerland would be joining NATO.

Theres nothing wrong with the Swiss putting Switzerland first, I belive America should do the same. I do not see how that has any underlying racism in it. As for Xenophobia, I dont think they are afraid of foreigners, they just dont see any need for them.

But by staying out of the EU they feel nuetral from European matters all together, sort of like they have a big moat around them to keep them isolated.

I picked Switzerland too.

Theres something about the country and the people that I think is really awesome.
Why Switzerland? It's an awful place... perhaps I'm a bit jaded by a certain swiss citizen. I wouldn't say he's xenophobic... rather the opposite... polar opposite. Is there a word for loving all other countries except your own? My friend claims that the Swiss are extremely xenophobic (unless you have something to deposit) and insane. One of his family members, who seems to have more money than sense, has built a nuclear bunker beneath his house, complete with at least a years supply of food (we're talking fine wines and caviar here, not tinned foods). He also says the government send him an annual magazine that is fiercely nationalistic simply because he has swiss citizenship and for some strange reason is living abroad. He also says it exemplifies the dire dullness that is Switzerland. He completely agrees with the quote from 'the 3rd Man'.

"In Switzerland they had brotherly love and they had 500 years of democracy and peace. And what did they produce? The cuckoo clock!"

Trust me, unless you're extremely rich or Swiss (preferably both), then you wouldn't enjoy living in Switzerland.

I think I'd prefer to live in Portugal, or maybe Berlin if I couldn't live in London. Portugal seems to have nice weather, nice food and amicable people. Berlin seems to have the latter two (as much as any large city can have them), and a fair amount of interesting 'stuff'.

What about the fear of the effects of increasingly centralized, distant, and unaccountable government?
It's not. You keep hearing these things, and I don't know wherefrom, but even without the constitution, it still is an accountable government, in part by the elected leaders of the respective nations, in part by the EU Parliament elections.

Again, there is nothing inherently xenophobic or racist about such fears.
There is in the way the SVP does its thing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3204412.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3201958.stm
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2156190

But by staying out of the EU they feel nuetral from European matters all together, sort of like they have a big moat around them to keep them isolated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

There are lots of reasons of not wanting to be in the EU..such as keeping your identity and nuetrality.
first person to try and use the 'loss of sovereignity' arguement against the EU gets a slap from me...

Lately, England has started to seem very appealing.

It's not.

Present your data.


There is in the way the SVP does its thing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3204412.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3201958.stm
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2156190


Again, even if the SVP finds motovation in xenophobic or racist ideology, this does not mean that support of the SVP by the Swiss people is motovated by racist ideology. The fact that the SVP enjoyed little support before the EU became an issue indicates that current support for the SVP is a single issue matter. And, again, the SVP continues to enjoy relatively little support in the Council of States.

I'm going to stop repeating myself now. The data simply does not indicate that xenophobia or racism are necessarily present in the Swiss political culture. Until you show objective data indicating otherwise, that will continue to be my position.

It's not. You keep hearing these things, and I don't know wherefrom, but even without the constitution, it still is an accountable government, in part by the elected leaders of the respective nations, in part by the EU Parliament elections.


There is in the way the SVP does its thing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3204412.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3201958.stm
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2156190


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

I see nothing wrong with these links you have presented me, althought, I am curious...whats with the Juche? I know you were somehow trying to tie it into my talks of Swiss isolation, but I think I missed the connection.

I chose Switzerland. They have great snowboarding and skiing, and I love the snow. Second I would pick Monaco or Malta. They may be crowded, but great weather and beautiful beaches. They're too small though. Third I would pick Iceland or Sweden. Sweden for the forests, lakes, and beautiful people. And Iceland after seeing a picture of "The Blue Lagoon" (http://www.geographia.com/iceland/bluelagoon.htm)

Apparently only 7 of the people who voted have ever been to switzerland :D

Present your data.
http://europa.eu.int/abc/panorama/howorganised/index_en.htm#parliament and scroll down from there.

Again, even if the SVP finds motovation in xenophobic or racist ideology, this does not mean that support of the SVP by the Swiss people is motovated by racist ideology.
But it means that racist ideology is tolerated by the Swiss people. An acceptable side-effect?

I'm going to stop repeating myself now. The data simply does not indicate that xenophobia or racism are necessarily present in the Swiss political culture.
Did I say so? I said that the Swiss voted for a party that you now also accept to be xenophobic and racist. Which obviously means that there is a pretty big percentage which accepts, or even supports that sort of thing.

And besides, have you had a look how immigration works in Switzerland?
http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/social_trends/20030123_trends_s24/

Apparently only 7 of the people who voted have ever been to switzerland :D

Or they just really like clocks, skis and chocolate.

I see nothing wrong with these links you have presented me, althought, I am curious...whats with the Juche? I know you were somehow trying to tie it into my talks of Swiss isolation, but I think I missed the connection.
Well, Juche Socialism is exactly the ideology you seem to support. Build a moat around yourself and screw the rest of the world.
Works really well in the DPRK...

Well, Juche Socialism is exactly the ideology you seem to support. Build a moat around yourself and screw the rest of the world.
Works really well in the DPRK...

Yeah only Switzerland, unlike the DPRK isnt actually "screwing" the world.

Yeah only Switzerland, unlike the DPRK isnt actually "screwing" the world.

and besides...I rather like their immigration.

I picked Ireland because it'd be back to my family's roots. I could go with the art of us from Britain but they kicked us out a long time ago.

I'd choose Switzerland if i didn't go with the family roots. The Swiss people are awesome!

But I do live in an European country. (It's listed with "others".)

Japan.

Are Danish, Norwegian, Icelandish, and Swedish all like basically the same. I know Finnish is totally different.
They (except Finnish) have the same roots. The difference in pronouncation between them is kind of like that between different, quite strong dialects. (to me, Norwegian being the most similar to Swedish, and Danish being more similar to Norwegian than Swedish) Then, quite a few words are spelled differently, and a few words here and there are completely different or have different meaning.

who has the best music scene?

sweden, germany, or finland.... and those are my answers

I would love to live in Scotland. It seems like such a cool place.

However, I'm a little uneasy about the fact my parents named me after the place and I'm a girl.

France, or possibly Ireland.

Preferably the Netherlands...then Italy or Sweden.

If Mariehamn could live in a European country...wait...what message is being sent to Mariehamn? Mariehamn is already located in Europe?! Mariehamn cannot believe it!

I live in Sweden(born here), but I'd love to move to Italy, prefferably Tuscany. I go there almost every year on vacation, so I know the place pretty well. There's something about their laid-back, casual attitude which appeals to me.

Score one for Poland! :p

Back to where my blood is... Spain second, and the Netherlands third...

Netherlands - nice and liberal, and about the only ones in the damn EU who can be figged learning English - the easiest language in the world to learn!

As I´m quite lazy and tired of moving...germany, thank you. Though I like the scandinavian countries which would be second choice...or maybe scotland. Switzerland is great for vacation, but to live in only great for the swiss...btw much to much mountains for my taste. There´s a famous qoute "NO Sex please, we´re swiss!", although that does count for many countries :D

Liechtenstein.

first person to try and use the 'loss of sovereignity' arguement against the EU gets a slap from me...

Because the way to deal with people who disagree is always to use force :rolleyes:

The EU is a threat to national soverignty for the simple reason that it seeks to gain powers that are reserved to national governments, sub-national governments, or to the people themselves.

There is no practical, rational reasoning for staying out of the EU other than xenophobia

Rubbish. (You usually argue at a higher level than this, mate). The EU's economic model of high regulation, and high taxes is reason enough.

This model reached absurd levels when Austrian farmer, Johann Thiery, was threatened with imprisonment for selling marmalade! How did the "democratic" EU, which poses no threat to the liberties of the peoples of Europe? It was apricot marmalade, and apricots are not a citrus fruit. According to EU rules, marmalade must be made from citrus fruit. A Commission spokesman (the Commission being the real power in the EU) said "The law is the law."

The next day, Pedro Solbes, the EU's economics commissioner, was reported as defending the right of France and Germany to run up huge budget deficits, in flagrant breach of the Growth and Stability Pact. "Given the circumstances we face," he said, "it would be unwise to follow the letter of the law."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F10%2F26%2Fnbook26.xml#4

Democracy and accountability? Bollocks!

namely not wanting to have outsiders have any power over the Swiss government.

That is not xenophobia, that is wanting to preserve a democracy.

Why should non-Swiss have power over a government elected by Swiss, composed of Swiss to serve the Swiss? There is no reason. Power is a zero-sum game, either the Swiss have a particular power, or Brussels has it.

Political centralisation is not a good thing, and you've made no conclusive arguments for it. All you've done is pre-emptively villified anyone who disagrees with you.

As for neutrality...the EU does not tell anyone what their stance should be regarding foreign policy (remember Iraq?).

Yet there's a drive for a "Common Foreign Policy"



As for the EU being democratic, from EU Referendum:

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?

Source: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2004/06/myth-of-week.html

And on the European Parliament:

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.

The EU has the trappings of a democracy, but is in fact an undemocratic entity, controlled by faceless bureaucrats.

No doubt, I and the author of the passage I quoted will be accused of having no love for the European Union (Leonstein, you once accused me of that, precisely why I have never been able to understand).

Why should the Swiss (or anyone for that matter) give up powers reserved to elected governments (either national, or sub-national) and the people to such a body.

I'v always wondered that. Are Danish, Norwegian, Icelandish, and Swedish all like basically the same. I know Finnish is totally different.
Almost the same, yes. But Icelandish and Finnish is impossible to understand unless you speak the language.

Oh and I would want to live in Denmark since I already live here. :D

It's not in the list, but Iwould stay in Ireland. I came here 3 years ago and I love it.

I think I'd prefer to live in Portugal, or maybe Berlin if I couldn't live in London. Portugal seems to have nice weather, nice food and amicable people. Berlin seems to have the latter two (as much as any large city can have them), and a fair amount of interesting 'stuff'.

Portugal's pretty nice. Having lived there for a bit, I found it pretty great. The Standard of living and the GDP etc are pretty low for a western european nation, but the culture and people still seem to live healthier and happier lives than many Northern europeans. And if you want to live somewhere that is actually Portuguese, avoid much of the Algarve. The parade of welthy Brits and Germans flashing cash around is slightly nauseating ... unless you stay in Praia da Rocha, which is nauseating in itself and has become known among the wealthier British tourists as "The Gaza Strip."

WHOO!!! GO IRELAND.....not on the list. Oh well....France has a certain je ne sais quoi, mais, j'aime bien Angleterre.

Almost the same, yes. But Icelandish and Finnish is impossible to understand unless you speak the language.
Ja, men jag kan forstår ett ord där och där ibland när jag lyssnar på de islandska språket. Ock finska är inte så svårt, men om man sägar de hela tiden, "Å, finska är så svårt! Jag hatar finska!" Jo, sen det är svårt. Jag todde att jag ska prata finska när jag komm hit till finland, men nä, jag är här på Åland! :p

Danska är ett litet konstigt språk, tycker jag, men jag här hort inte så mycket om det.

Summary: Don't whine and give a little effort and Finnish isn't so hard, but Mariehamn hasn't gone way deep into the language, so possibly Mariehamn's opinions don't matter. Got nothing to say really about Islandic.

Apolgies about butchering Swedish. :)

Christiania, too bad it doesn't exist anymore:(

What is this English Isles Crap???

Ireland

I live in France, and I like it fine here. :)

I'm of British heritage, but I'd be a little hesitant about settling in Britain. The standards of living aren't as high as in France. Other than that, if I had to move, it'd probably be to Sweden or the Netherlands (once I'd learned the language), or, after that, Finland, Norway, Denmark or Iceland. Heard good things about them all. Except the cold. ;)

It's not in the list, but Iwould stay in Ireland. I came here 3 years ago and I love it.

I believe it is filed under "English Isles" ;)

I believe it is filed under "English Isles" ;)

Can't be... I'm talking about the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland.

Can't be... I'm talking about the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland.
That doesn't matter.......

sweden.SWEDEN.SWEDEN.SWEDEN...


oh, and as runner-up maybe that country with the elks. those are awesome, too.

And they're all named "Älgen Elmer" ("Elmer the Elk") and are never hunted or eaten for their delicious flesh.

Personally, I don't have countries that I prefer - I have cities. Paris is one, Geneva another. Then there's always Christiania, but it's special. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_of_Christiania)

Can't be... I'm talking about the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland.

I know you know what you're talking about. The poll maker on the other hand...

:)

Croatia....they have the finest sea i have ever seen in europe....the people are very friendly and slibowitz is my favorite drink ...

That doesn't matter.......

Oh, like New Zealand actually being part of Australia, right? :rolleyes:

The EU's economic model of high regulation, and high taxes is reason enough.
Well, Switzerland can do that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Switzerland) all by itself. And it's not at all certain how the future of the EU will turn out just yet...it all depends a lot on what Merkel does in the next two or so years, and whether Tony can put a good proposal on the table.
http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/jswpetx.html But I'd agree that a 30% top rate (plus capital gains, plus social security) is probably one of the lower ones in the area.
My point is that not every country, inside or outside the EU necessarily disagrees with the EU's economic model.

This model reached absurd levels when Austrian farmer, Johann Thiery, was threatened with imprisonment for selling marmalade!
...
Democracy and accountability? Bollocks!
What can I say, I'm not a fan of that sort of thing either. That being said, the EU is not alone with that sort of thing:
The "Beer Purity Law" was enacted in 1516 (!) in Germany to protect the consumer...and guess what: It's still in force (or a version of it anyways). :D
http://brewery.org/library/ReinHeit.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinheitsgebot

Political centralisation is not a good thing, and you've made no conclusive arguments for it. All you've done is pre-emptively villified anyone who disagrees with you.
That's because, other than on this forum, I have simply never met anyone who actually disagrees with the EU for any rational reason.
I've lived in Germany for 16 years, and in the later times I've heard from quite a few people who disagree with the way the EU does its thing: And it's pretty much always got to do with people from the East "taking away jobs".
The vast majority of everyday people couldn't be bothered with politics, not in Australia, not in Germany and not in Switzerland. But they can be bothered with the usual scare campaigns.
There may well be real reasons for not wanting to join the EU...but you people are the first to actually use them.

Yet there's a drive for a "Common Foreign Policy"
Agreement is always nice, and compromises can hopefully be found, yes. Nonetheless, there is no legal requirement for everyone to pull at the same string.

As for the EU being democratic, from EU Referendum...
A fairly good read...but I can't help but think that this person may just be a little biased in his approach and portrayal of the processes.
You know that I would have welcomed the EU constitution to be accepted, because it would have changed the number of seats countries hold (and what can you expect...Britain is only one country of many), and freed the whole process up a bit.
Unfortunately, the same sort of xenophobia that both the SVP and various other parties push has also brought this one down (plus a good bit of rejection of the Anglo-Saxon economic model), and we're struck with what we've got.
I'm not saying by the way that Switzerland should join...their people were very much against it, and I can't, and don't want to, force anyone. I'm simply saying that xenophobic right-wing parties in Switzerland enjoy too much popularity for my liking, and that they have never been particularly fond of open borders and immigration. And I have attempted to argue that this mentality played a role in their rejection of the EU.

No doubt, I and the author of the passage I quoted will be accused of having no love for the European Union.
Chances are that it's true, at least for whoever wrote the blog (the link doesn't work for me).

(Leonstein, you once accused me of that, precisely why I have never been able to understand).
Yeah, that was one of my lesser nights, I must admit.

Why should the Swiss (or anyone for that matter) give up powers reserved to elected governments (either national, or sub-national) and the people to such a body.
The reasons are manifold, and maybe not for this thread, so I'll summarise them by saying that the time for little states is over. Free Trade, Globalisation and the exchange of technology with everyone has had many consequences, and some of these are the end of the ethnic nationstate Europe was founded on, and at the same time the emergence of China and India, which will be powerful economic and political players in the future.
One little Britain (no matter how Great it once was) cannot hope to play a role in that game when its only advantage (its superior technology) is eliminated. The EU is an attempt to turn Europe into a big player that will continue to be able to shape the course of humanity just a little bit, and it has, and will meet challenges that are new and have never really been attempted before.
It'll work out somehow, but I for one am committed to the idea, and will support it.

And they're all named "Älgen Elmer" ("Elmer the Elk") and are never hunted or eaten for their delicious flesh.
[/url]

if anyone ever tried and hunt Älgen Elmer, they might not have enough time on the face of this earth left to taste their flesh (no matter which country they decided to hide in, btw).
plus, i take the off-chance guess that ÄE's flesh might taste..somewhat..wooden?

p.s seems like my subtle propaganda worked out just fine..scandinavia's up in the poll by quite some..[your continued effort to stain its reputation has obviously failed]

SWEDEN!

Do älgen have too much testosterone to eat if they're not castrated early enough?

That's how it is with reindeer ya know.

i dearly hope you are not suggesting castrating Älgen Elmer. or you might as well start running for your life right now.

and you castrate reindeer before shooting them? what a perversion of the second degree.
[scandinavians are nuts. i like them.]

Id live in Iceland, no particular reason. It just appeals to me

Do älgen have too much testosterone to eat if they're not castrated early enough?

That's how it is with reindeer ya know.

I've never heard anything about it. As they hunt wild Elk (Elk farms - hah!), I don't think they can castrate them, so I don't think it's the case, no. They don't taste like testosterone to me.

if anyone ever tried and hunt Älgen Elmer, they might not have enough time on the face of this earth left to taste their flesh (no matter which country they decided to hide in, btw).
plus, i take the off-chance guess that ÄE's flesh might taste..somewhat..wooden?

That's what lingonberry jam is for.

you put the same thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingonberry_jam)on fried herring as you do on cereal?

plus, you murder (http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a385/noblemen/baby20elk.jpg) elks (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/253879/2/Elk.jpg)!!

[i might have to reconsider my vote for sweden.]

and what's that about it not tasting like testosterone to you? ever tried anything else in order to have the comparison?

you put the same thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingonberry_jam)on fried herring as you do on cereal?

Lingon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowberry)

Some people do, I don't. I usually have it with pancakes or meat dishes.

plus, you murder (http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a385/noblemen/baby20elk.jpg) elks (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/253879/2/Elk.jpg)!!

These are Swedish elk/moose (http://images.google.se/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%C3%A4lg&btnG=Search). Nowhere near as cute. Those are Red Deer, my dear.

and what's that about it not tasting like testosterone to you? ever tried anything else in order to have the comparison?

Oh, honey, please...

Netherlands.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to sort the why out in that one. I'm sure there are better reasons to live in other places, but since I haven't been there yet I'll stick with my lame one until it actually becomes an issue.

Well, Switzerland can do that all by itself. And it's not at all certain how the future of the EU will turn out just yet...it all depends a lot on what Merkel does in the next two or so years, and whether Tony can put a good proposal on the table.

i'm sure we all know Phony's record for good proposals. Of course the worst thing about him is that he leads the most sensible Labour party around (and where does that leave us?)

As for Merkel, as soon as she got in, she was in a mad rush to water everything down. Good thing she runs Germany, instead of a pub.

My point is that not every country, inside or outside the EU necessarily disagrees with the EU's economic model.

Nevertheless, the EU isn't necessary for it.

but I can't help but think that this person may just be a little biased in his approach and portrayal of the processes.

You can do better than that. It doesn't matter whether or not you think he is biased, all that matters is if he's right, or wrong (in a History class, back in the good old-bad old days when I was in school, we were asked to comment on a primary source on WW1. It was written by a British Field Marshal, some genius came out with the comment "It is biased against the Germans")

(plus a good bit of rejection of the Anglo-Saxon economic model),

That particular bit of fear-mongering on the part of the leftist opposition to the Constitution always puzzled me. The EU has shown no propensity for the classic liberalism that is the norm in the Anglo-Saxon world, and some new piece of paper won't change all that inertia.

Agreement is always nice, and compromises can hopefully be found, yes.

Agreement =/= Common Foreign Policy.

Free Trade

Political centralisation is not necessary for free trade, and the free trade argument is not germane to the EU. In fact, political decentralisation makes free trade necessary.

Large states can (basically) afford the economic idiocy of autarky, or protectionism.

In large states, protectionism merely causes a reduction in the living standard. In small states, there isn't the capacity to produce all the needs of modern society. A protectionist small state could starve! If Hong Kong had places tariffs, and quotas on food, where would they be?

Globalisation

Again, political centralisation isn't necessary to get through this well.

One little Britain (no matter how Great it once was) cannot hope to play a role in that game when its only advantage (its superior technology) is eliminated.

Small states, especially in Europe, have typically been very prosperous, and they don't see the need to participate in pissing contests in which nations vie for economic mastery, they just make shiteloads of money. Of course, large states have the room for these economic parlour games.

Small states tend to be less aggressive because they cannot field large armies, and of they overly tax people to provide for offensive armies, people will simply leave. Leaving a small state is for obvious reasons easier than leaving a large one.

Actually, this problem of people leaving a state is the best argument against centralisation. If states are very small, leaving one is easy, and a good response to bad government, and vice-versa, it is easier to move to states that are less repressive. If the trend towards political centralisation moves on to its logical end, a world state (or, assuming a multi-planetary stage, a state encompassing all humanity), how do people get away from governments that tax and regulate too heavily?

Decentralisation also forces governments to mend their ways, lest they lose their tax base.

Australia's own history bears out my argument. Death taxes were abolished in Queenland in 1978, so the old people went to Queensland to kick the bucket, and the associated industries went to. Within 3 years, the rest of Australia followed suit.

The EU is an attempt to turn Europe into a big player that will continue to be able to shape the course of humanity just a little bit, and it has, and will meet challenges that are new and have never really been attempted before.
It'll work out somehow, but I for one am committed to the idea, and will support it.

In other words, the rationale of the EU is to win pissing contests.

By the way, you are quite wrong in suggesting that no previous attempt has been made to unite Europe from above under one flag.

Anywhere in the British Isles...although i'm partial to England as i live there.

I already live in the Netherlands, so I'll pick Iceland, Belgium, Luxemburg or Switzerland. As long as it's a small country it's okay :)

Hmmm... this is a hard one. I was stationed in the Frankfurt am Main area of Germany for two years when I was in the US Army, and I love Frankfurt. However, I don't really speak any German, so that doesn't help. I have some very good friends in Geneve, Switzerland and I really love that town.

If things go right I'll be spending my next fall semester in Annecy, France as I continue on my French major. I'll probably end up in francophonic Europe at some point, but where will depend on work availablity, I think. I would like to teach English as a foreign language there. I love Michigan, but our economy is quickly going south, and I really have no use for the other states of the Union.

As long as it's a small country it's okay

sweden's not all that big?


Nowhere near as cute
cute (http://www.solnen.com/smaland/florfaun/aelg_01d.html)enough (http://svenska-djur.se/medier/20030904/0100.calf.pej158.jpg)

Oh, honey, please...
yes, dear, how may i help you?

cute (http://www.solnen.com/smaland/florfaun/aelg_01d.html)enough (http://svenska-djur.se/medier/20030904/0100.calf.pej158.jpg)

Yummy.

yes, dear, how may i help you?

By not asking such obvious questions.

By not asking such obvious questions.

but i can't help it, that's the effect you have on me, leaving me all dribbling stupid, incoherent, er, pish posh . it's not me, it's you.


p.s. in case sweden keeps up its elk abuse and this ridiculous consumption of untasty meatballs, i shall really have to relocate. i'll go with..iceland. it's..cold. and small. harboring adorable singers. with a capital i was unable to pronounce untill i was 17. i think it'll do the trick. are there elks in iceland?

Yummy.

By not asking such obvious questions.

I remember from holiday in Norway that elk/moose tastes quiet good, like cow with a somewhat stronger taste...and normal venison...not to bad, but i liked dolphin much more...taste´s like fish although a mammal...strange

p.s. in case sweden keeps up its elk abuse and this ridiculous consumption of untasty meatballs, i shall really have to relocate. i'll go with..iceland. it's..cold. and small. harboring adorable singers. with a capital i was unable to pronounce untill i was 17. i think it'll do the trick. are there elks in iceland?

Our meatballs rule and you know it. Go to Iceland - where there are no elk, as they have nothing but hot springs there.

Ireland. It's where mah peoples be at.

Our meatballs rule and you know it. Go to Iceland - where there are no elk, as they have nothing but hot springs there.

And meatballs made IKEA rich...

And meatballs made IKEA rich...

I do have to admit that when abroad, I do go to IKEA to get my fix. *>_<*

I do have to admit that when abroad, I do go to IKEA to get my fix. *>_<*

When I was a student I used to go to IKEA for breakfast...unlimited coffee, and you could sit until you get your meatballs...therefore I included the scandinavian countries in my choice...out of several reasons

Russia is an European country?

And meatballs made IKEA rich...

Why are there always so many hot women at IKEA? I love it.

There is no such country as the English Isles.

There is no such country as the English Isles.

Oh, and i'd stay in the UK 'cause I can speak the language*

*Except for Newcastle, they speak Geordie :D

Japan.

:::points, laughs:::

Well, well I"ve been livimg in Europe for quite some time without knowing it.

(I'm just a little bit surprised nobody got to that post yet.)

Anyway, I'd say a toss up between the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, and the UK (dude, even this silly Texan twat knows better than the OP). Probably it'd be in that order.

i would say Gran Canaria!!!;)

aww man... For once someone chose to talk about Switzerland, I'm not around...

Oh well... seen as I lived in Switzerland for quite a few years and I just recently moved to France, my next pick would be either Norway or Sweden. ...Just for the summer time that is. I'd go hide in Southern Spain in winter ;)

I'd live in Albania






(joast keeeeding!)

I'd live in England


After that, Italy

aww man... For once someone chose to talk about Switzerland, I'm not around...

Oh well... seen as I lived in Switzerland for quite a few years and I just recently moved to France, my next pick would be either Norway or Sweden. ...Just for the summer time that is. I'd go hide in Southern Spain in winter ;)

Ok, so since you lived in Switzerland, I have a few questions if you dont mind.

1. What do you think of Switzerland, as a country?

2. What do you think of the Swiss people?

3. What do you think about Switzerlands politics (please discuss...I'm very interested in number 3)?

4. What do you think about immigration to Switzerland?

Finland, mostly because (almost) all of my friends live in here and because I couldn't survive without sauna, koskenkorva-liquir, long and cold winters (ok, perhaps that is the exception but I'd miss it anyways) and the Finnish language.

Ei muusta puhettakaan.

Ok, so since you lived in Switzerland, I have a few questions if you dont mind.

1. What do you think of Switzerland, as a country?

2. What do you think of the Swiss people?

3. What do you think about Switzerlands politics (please discuss...I'm very interested in number 3)?

4. What do you think about immigration to Switzerland?
You might get some quite biased answers, since I am Swiss...
let me try
1. I had to go quite far away to realize it's a good place to live. I don't think the Swiss are much different from their neighbours (the italo/franco/germanophone areas probably have more in common with their respective neighbours than between these regions).
I think it's a beautiful country, though small and admittedly very expensive.
Living there didn't leave much to be desired, but that's probably because it's where I grew up...
But in the end it's a country like every other, too, there are positive and less positive things. Growing up there obviously you appreciate certain things others will hardly ever be able to understand and others go unnoticed, but are very much appreciated by foreigners.
2. The Swiss? Why, we're awesome :p
I guess I'm too biased to answer that one. They all seem so... normal to me ;) That said, there are quite a few perfectly normal people I sometimes worry about... they have too high a standard of living to have to think for themselves and so they start believing everything the newspapers/tv tells them (esp. what these intellectuals from my favourite right-wing party tell them... If there weren't so many people actually believing this bs their ads would be highly entertaining...)
But it seems the trend toward right-wing politics is noticeable in other countries, too, so it's not necessarily a Swiss thing.
3. ... politics? I guess I already hinted at my point of view in 2. ... I'm not much into politics as most of the younger generations... no wonder if you see the crap they're trying to sell us...
...or did you want to know about the political system? 'Neutral' Switzerland? the EU? The little known question whether Switzerland should have had colonies or not? :)
4. this -sad but true- depends on which country you're coming from... (if you're talking about possibilities, administrative crap and such...) if you're from the EU, there's no problem, US citizens should be fine, too, but as soon as we're approaching Africa...not so easy anymore... :mad:

I like their "right" politics, atleast from what I have read of them. I also love the idea of a direct democracy, although, admittingly I know it could only work for a handfull of countries. Their immigration policies seem great...they are simply looking out for whats best for their country.

http://europa.eu.int/abc/panorama/howorganised/index_en.htm#parliament and scroll down from there.


Not exactly an objective source.


But it means that racist ideology is tolerated by the Swiss people. An acceptable side-effect?


All it seems to indicate is that the Swiss agree with the SVP's anti-EU stance. Again, the data I've seen ( http://www.parlament.ch/e/homepage/ra-raete/ra-fraktionen/ra-fraktionen-47-legislaturperiode.htm ) shows that, of the four biggest parties, the SVP holds the most seats in the National Council (200 total seats). However, the SPS (Social Democrats) is only 4 seats behind. And the Liberals/FDP are only 16 seats behind. Out of 200.

And again, in the Council of States, the SVP has the least support of all the four largest parties.

As such, electoral support appears to be spread across the four largest parties fairly evenly; SVP does not hold a large lead, and it does not even come close to a majority of any kind.

Since support for the SVP went up only after the founding of the EU, and support of the other three major parties continues to be high, I again conclude that overall support for the SVP indicates nothing more than an endorsement of an anti-EU platform. It's called coalition government, and it's how proportional parliaments tend to work. Especially when the electorate tends to spread its support across many different parties.

So, if the SVP is motovated by xenophobia and racism (an assertion you have yet to support, actually), and if racist and xenophobic ideology is tollerated by the Swiss people, why for so long was electoral support for SVP so very low in pre-1991/1995 elections? This is what I don't understand: surely if the Swiss tollerated such ideas, the SVP would have performed much better earlier on, even before the EU became an issue. What is your answer to that question?


I said that the Swiss voted for a party that you now also accept to be xenophobic and racist.


I believe that any such statement I made regarding the SVP and xenophobia or racism were qualified with an "if" (If any such statement wasn't, it should have been). The SVP may be motovated by xenophobia or racism; I don't know, because I have not seen any data that suggests any such thing. Simply opposing the EU is not enough proof or evidence.

At any rate, while the Swiss do tend to vote for the SVP, as I have explained above, they also tend to vote for the SPS (Social Democrats), FDP (Free Democrats/Liberals), and CVP (Christian Democrats) strongly as well.

Spain, Spain, and Spain. My wife, kids, and me lived there for three wonderful years. Great people, wonderful food, and good climate. Go Spain, go.

And besides, have you had a look how immigration works in Switzerland?
http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/social_trends/20030123_trends_s24/

Actually, it makes perfect sense to me that an applicant for citizenship should have to demonstrate good reason for becoming a member of a particular political entity, for accepting the benifits thereof. The long residency period and review process demonstrates that an applicant is serious in accepting the rights and responsibilities expected of him or her. It also makes sense to put this decision up to the members of the community; these people have been living around the applicant for a long time, and are thus most qualified to assess his character. Besides, this is democracy, government by the people, is it not? No human being (regardless of skin color, ethnicity, gender, religion, or any other irrevelant factor) has a right to become a naturalized Swiss citizen, nor such a citizen of any other country.

And again, I fail to see how the alledged behavior of one political party necessarily reflects the attitudes of Swiss political culture in general.

If you could live in any of the above 10 European countries, which would you proudly call your own, and why?
As an Irish person I object to my country being referred to as part of the "English Isles". It's just so wrong. Stupid Americans... :mad:

Anyway I choose Sweden or Finland if not my own country.

Spain, Spain, and Spain. My wife, kids, and me lived there for three wonderful years. Great people, wonderful food, and good climate. Go Spain, go.
Actually you make a good point, Spain is great.

As an Irish person I object to my country being referred to as part of the "English Isles". It's just so wrong. Stupid Americans... :mad:

Anyway I choose Sweden or Finland if not my own country.

Hey, not all of us are stupid. I'm an Irish-American and know Ireland is not part of the English Isles. Ireland is Ireland and any American who says it is not...well they are stupid Americans. :D

You can do better than that. It doesn't matter whether or not you think he is biased, all that matters is if he's right, or wrong.
He may be right, to an extent. I'm pretty sure he expects the worst of everyone involved and paints a sort of worst case scenario.
In practice the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, between the faulty system and the few idealists who genuinely want to represent their constitutents.
The problem is that the EU was started as an agreement between nations like any other. It's not necessarily easy to quickly change that into a fully democratic process, but I would've hoped the constitution would do the trick.
Now with it defeated, we are struck with a few more years of things as they have been, and then hopefully an even more democratic second attempt - if all goes right after the budget and therefore the future of the EU is worked out.

That particular bit of fear-mongering on the part of the leftist opposition to the Constitution always puzzled me. The EU has shown no propensity for the classic liberalism that is the norm in the Anglo-Saxon world, and some new piece of paper won't change all that inertia.
Well, I guess Tony did the fear-mongering crowd a favour there. Read this interesting discussion I had with a French guy going by the name of Psylos a few days ago...it's an unusual viewpoint here, but in France it's actually quite common.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=457324&page=6
It's page 6 onwards basically.

Political centralisation is not necessary for free trade, and the free trade argument is not germane to the EU. In fact, political decentralisation makes free trade necessary.
Well, Free Trade without political cooperation, or even some sort of committment to the common good of those involved can be observed in NAFTA.

Fact of the matter is that protectionism is obvious in the US, in the EU, in China and pretty much every other country. No matter how stupid it may be, the idea will always find supporters. The EU has the capacity to create this one common market in which companies can grow and from there launch their international campaigns.
The EU has on aggregate helped the economies of its members, I think it's difficult to argue against that, and without political cooperation by the heads of state, and a bit of idealism on their part, it couldn't have happened.

Small states, especially in Europe, have typically been very prosperous, and they don't see the need to participate in pissing contests in which nations vie for economic mastery, they just make shiteloads of money.
Eventually, they will end up making less...and living standards will move apart. Open market or not, their political weight will simply be too small to affect anything out there.

Small states tend to be less aggressive because they cannot field large armies, and of they overly tax people to provide for offensive armies, people will simply leave. Leaving a small state is for obvious reasons easier than leaving a large one.
I think we can agree that the EU is not an offensive force in this world, and probably won't be for some time. For the time being there is NATO, which is independent of all this.

If the trend towards political centralisation moves on to its logical end, a world state (or, assuming a multi-planetary stage, a state encompassing all humanity), how do people get away from governments that tax and regulate too heavily?
You trust democracy, do you not? As long as there are the basic political freedoms, things will work themselves out, just as they might in a completely free market.
And once the basic freedoms are gone, well...find me the dictatorship that simply lets people leave.

Australia's own history bears out my argument. Death taxes were abolished in Queenland in 1978, so the old people went to Queensland to kick the bucket, and the associated industries went to. Within 3 years, the rest of Australia followed suit.
And you get decisions that may not reflect the democratic process, simply because outside pressures force the government to act a certain way, maybe against the wishes of everyone.
This time the decision might have gone in a way that is favourable to your personal beliefs, but there is no guarantee of that happening always.

In other words, the rationale of the EU is to win pissing contests.
If you want to call it that, yes. It is an attempt to stay important to the world, and keep influencing history. And it also used to be an attempt to guarantee that no new war could begin, seeing as to how Europeans are the only people who can do that.

By the way, you are quite wrong in suggesting that no previous attempt has been made to unite Europe from above under one flag.
But this was not done by force, which makes it unique. This time it was the voluntary agreements made by democratic governments - all previous times it was dictators and absolutists trying to rule the place.

Not exactly an objective source.
Well, see above. There is a democratic element in there, and the constitution was meant to make that element bigger still. So in the quarters of the "bureaucratic elite" there is a certain committment to democracy.

As such, electoral support appears to be spread across the four largest parties fairly evenly; SVP does not hold a large lead, and it does not even come close to a majority of any kind.
I didn't say that either.

Since support for the SVP went up only after the founding of the EU, and support of the other three major parties continues to be high, I again conclude that overall support for the SVP indicates nothing more than an endorsement of an anti-EU platform. It's called coalition government, and it's how proportional parliaments tend to work. Especially when the electorate tends to spread its support across many different parties.
Okay, let's say you really don't want your homecountry to join the EU. There is this party which really disapproves of joining (actually, all major political parties in Switzerland oppose joining, so your argument is kinda moot anyways), but it also advocates keeping immigration down, and uses xenophobic campaign methods (including the use of the word "negro" on posters) and speeches.
If you still vote for that party, then that means that at least you are not outraged by these methods and likely motivations. You tolerate them as a necessary evil of staying out of the EU - and that is unacceptable to me.

So, if the SVP is motovated by xenophobia and racism (an assertion you have yet to support, actually), and if racist and xenophobic ideology is tollerated by the Swiss people, why for so long was electoral support for SVP so very low in pre-1991/1995 elections?
Because the world was a different place then. Immigration was nowhere near the levels it is now, the EU was indeed a distant shadow, and the world was not yet sorted out after the Cold War.
Today millions of economic refugees leave the third world every year, and many of those undoubtedly try and get into Switzerland. I'm not saying that the EU is not a major reason for the support for the SVP, but I'm saying that xenophobia and racism are a factor in the decision in voting for a party like that (if you read the links from the BBC and the Economist, you'd know what I'm talking about)...especially considering that the CVP for example advocates cooperation but not actually joining the EU in a sensible way that doesn't impact the sovereignty of Switzerland at all.
The SVP however stands for isolationism and rejection of any sort of friendly relations with the outside (I wish you understood German so you could read their website).

At any rate, while the Swiss do tend to vote for the SVP, as I have explained above, they also tend to vote for the SPS (Social Democrats), FDP (Free Democrats/Liberals), and CVP (Christian Democrats) strongly as well.
Obviously. But still, such support for a party that is essentially the same as the BNP in Britain is an issue. (Where are you from by the way, are you aware what the BNP (http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/mission.htm) is and wants?)

Monaco and rub body parts with all the 'Beautiful People' (especially the females).

(actually, all major political parties in Switzerland oppose joining, so your argument is kinda moot anyways)


But are all major Swiss political parties motovated by xenophobia and racism? If not, then high levels of support for non-xenophobic and non-racist parties indicates that such ideologies are not necessarily popular in Switzerland.


If you still vote for that party, then that means that at least you are not outraged by these methods and likely motivations.


Or voters, while in disagreement with such repugnant tactics, nonetheless consider the anti-EU issue important enough to bring another anti-EU party into the coalition government.


You tolerate them as a necessary evil of staying out of the EU - and that is unacceptable to me.


I am not a Swiss citizen, so what I personally think or tolerate has no effect on the reality of Swiss politics. If you are not a Swiss citizen, then what you think or tolerate is irrelevant as well. Again, do not let your own political ideological bias cloud your objective analysis.

---

If xenophobia and racism are a problem in Switzerland, please explain why the country is listed by Transparency International as being one of the least corrupt states: http://www.transparency.org/policy_and_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2005 . Also, while Freedom House does charge the SVP with having a "xenophobic bent" (a charge which, to be clear, I have neither supported nor rejected), it nonetheless has given Switzerland a consistantly perfect score on political and civil rights: http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/switzerland.htm . Again, a seemingly strange result for a country whose citizens supposedly tollerate xenophobia or racism.

If not, then high levels of support for non-xenophobic and non-racist parties indicates that such ideologies are not necessarily popular in Switzerland.
They are popular enough with a percentage of voters that is relatively large, compared to other countries around it.
And for the record, I think Austria has the same problem.

Or voters, while in disagreement with such repugnant tactics, nonetheless consider the anti-EU issue important enough to bring another anti-EU party into the coalition government.
That's a curious way of looking at it.

Would you vote for the American Nazi Party simply because they advocate a certain road program you like?

I am not a Swiss citizen, so what I personally think or tolerate has no effect on the reality of Swiss politics. If you are not a Swiss citizen, then what you think or tolerate is irrelevant as well. Again, do not let your own political ideological bias cloud your objective analysis.
A misunderstanding...I didn't mean "you" as in you, but as in the Swiss citizen who votes for the SVP. I appologise.

If xenophobia and racism are a problem in Switzerland, please explain why the country is listed by Transparency International as being one of the least corrupt states: http://www.transparency.org/policy_and_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2005.
Corruption is not really an indicator for xenophobia and racism.

Also, while Freedom House does charge the SVP with having a "xenophobic bent" (a charge which, to be clear, I have neither supported nor rejected)...
Well, the evidence seems to be in favour of it from all sides, and the high support (as well as your link) seem to indicate that there are a lot of people who fit exactly the category of typical SVP voter I'm trying to paint here.
However, the SVP's vote share increased gradually over the 1990s-corresponding with a rightward move by the party--as it poached voters initially from small far-right parties, and then increasingly from the Radicals.

...it nonetheless has given Switzerland a consistantly perfect score on political and civil rights: http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/switzerland.htm . Again, a seemingly strange result for a country whose citizens supposedly tollerate xenophobia or racism.
Not all citizens. Just the citizens who voted for the SVP.
And besides, again the political environment says little about the attitude of the people. I'd dare say that if the SVP actually won government, the scores might change a bit.

Obviously. But still, such support for a party that is essentially the same as the BNP in Britain is an issue. (Where are you from by the way, are you aware what the BNP (http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/mission.htm) is and wants?)

I was just doing a bit of reading on this party and while I have to say that on most views they are too extreame for my tastes, they hit it right on the ball with immigration and Islam. The rest of their stuff just seems like British Jingoism and is just crap produced by a bunch of Neo-Nazi Brits wired up on too much tea.

I wish America could open up to these ideas about immigration and Islam....*Sigh* It seems like Switzerland has though, maybe there is hope.

(looks down at shirt) I am going to go with Czech Republic (currently is whering Czech Republic Hockey tee-shirt) becuase i am mainly Czech, and Prague is the premier city in eastern europe. For views on the rest of eastern europe watch Eurotrip. hehehe. Greece is a close second cuz it is so beautiful.

Germany or Sweden. I picked Sweden because that's where I'd prolly prefer to grow old.

Would you vote for the American Nazi Party simply because they advocate a certain road program you like?

The American Nazi Party may be slightly more extreame than the SVP:rolleyes:

Lived in the UK. To cold and expensive. Stationed in Germany, alot of fun but again cold during winter. Travelled through Spain and Portugal. These two would be my second choice. My choice would be my all time favorite European nation: ITALIA.

...they hit it right on the ball with immigration and Islam...
You would be exactly the type such parties like: You like making generalised statements about peoples, races and religions, you like engaging in all sorts of pseudo-scientific racial studies and you refuse to heed any sort of advice on how the world really is.

Would you vote for the American Nazi Party simply because they advocate a certain road program you like?


1) a "road program" is hardly on the same level of significance as the EU. They are not comparable.

2) Demonstrate that the SVP is comparable to the "American Nazi Party."

3) As I have already explained, in the course of objective analysis, the personal opinion or behavior of the observer/analyist is irrelevant.


Corruption is not really an indicator for xenophobia and racism.


On the contrary. You provided an article about Swiss immigration law ( http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/social_trends/20030123_trends_s24/ ) which talks about how the SVP conducts meetings that "...can be an extremely humiliating experience for foreigners from poorer Eastern European and African countries who can be forced to answer intrusive questions." The article appears to assert that the xenophobic tendencies of the SVP taint the immigration and naturalization process; that is, the immigration and naturalization process is corrupted. The Transparency International analysis suggests, however, that corruption there is very low.


I'd dare say that if the SVP actually won government, the scores might change a bit.

And until new electoral data, and resulting political activity, support this speculation, it is nothing more than that: speculation. :) Edit: I am not concerned with what might be; I am concerned with what is now.

Spain. Or Greece. Greek girls are hot.
AMEN TO THAT! i wish i could remember that link that proved it... stupid reformatting without making back ups:headbang:

The American Nazi Party may be slightly more extreame than the SVP:rolleyes:
It's the principle. I was making an hyperbolic example.

You would be exactly the type such parties like: You like making generalised statements about peoples, races and religions, you like engaging in all sorts of pseudo-scientific racial studies and you refuse to heed any sort of advice on how the world really is.

More or less.:D

But to each his own.

While you may not like how I, or many other people (Swiss included according to you) look at the world, I do not like the way you look at it. However, I respect it because you are educated and present your reasons. We differ on every topic I have seen us post together in, however I never fail to read your posts with interests.

But now that you mention it, I honestly dont think I have ever engaged in any "pseudo-scientific racial studies". Unless you consider the one thread about "Whats your background" and that was more of a racial talk, not a study, but its cool anyway.

One last word. It is very important for me to state that with parties such as that British one you sent me the links to, I agree with about 2 or 3 of their stances, out of their whole political agenda. I would NEVER vote for them, and would instead wish the party I was voting for adopt and incorporate those 2 or 3 stances into their own agenda, thats all. And like I said before, the SVP is SLIGHTLY less extreame than the American Nazi Party or that British one, just slightly,;)

1) a "road program" is hardly on the same level of significance as the EU. They are not comparable.

2) Demonstrate that the SVP is comparable to the "American Nazi Party."

3) As I have already explained, in the course of objective analysis, the personal opinion or behavior of the observer/analyist is irrelevant.
See above. The point was to make you think - you probably would not vote for the Nazis because there are parts of their program with which you disagree violently, even though you may agree with others.
For the voters of the SVP, this apparently is not the case.

The article appears to assert that the xenophobic tendencies of the SVP taint the immigration and naturalization process; that is, the immigration and naturalization process is corrupted. The Transparency International analysis suggests, however, that corruption there is very low.
:confused:
What sort of corruption do they measure? I was under the impression that corruption largely concerns money changing hands.
And my article doesn't actually talk about the SVP, it was more an indication of how Swiss law treats foreigners sometimes.

You would be exactly the type such parties like: You like making generalised statements about peoples, races and religions, you like engaging in all sorts of pseudo-scientific racial studies and you refuse to heed any sort of advice on how the world really is.

I see the world out of my eyes, and you with yours.

I could say the same thing to you with 100% sincerity behind it.

You refuse to heed any sort of advice on how the world really is.

You refuse to heed any sort of advice on how the world really is.
Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. But definitely closer to my side! :p

Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. But definitely closer to my side! :p

lol...always trying to get the last word in..:p Oh, by the way, congrats on hitting your 2000 mark!:cool: Anyway, even though we are about as opposite as you can get, I truley respect your ideas and always look foward to reading them, even if I oppose each and every one of them.

Look at my two cents:

No way, everyone knows that everything tips to the "right" side, :D

I'd live in the Orkneys.

He may be right, to an extent. I'm pretty sure he expects the worst of everyone involved and paints a sort of worst case scenario.
In practice the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, between the faulty system and the few idealists who genuinely want to represent their constitutents.

The measure of a political system is what can/will happen if the worst men get in to it. The EU is quite weak in this regard.

Well, Free Trade without political cooperation, or even some sort of committment to the common good of those involved can be observed in NAFTA

NAFTA is not free trade. It is managed trade.

I shall write the full text of a document necessary to have free trade: Any person who wishes to import, or export goods to and from the United States of Disraeliland 3 shall have the right to do so with no interference.

Eventually, they will end up making less...and living standards will move apart. Open market or not, their political weight will simply be too small to affect anything out there.

The facts don't bear that out, and there is no logical connection between political weight, and prosperity.

I think we can agree that the EU is not an offensive force in this world, and probably won't be for some time.

The EU has an enourmous potential to be aggressive. Luxembourg, on the other hand can field a Batallion of light infantry.

I don't accept that the EU will stay peaceful, for precisely the reasons you outline, their idea that they have some historic role to play.

You trust democracy, do you not? As long as there are the basic political freedoms, things will work themselves out, just as they might in a completely free market.

That single check is not good enough, the democratic process has an inherient weakness, the ease with which votes can be bought.

It is an attempt to stay important to the world, and keep influencing history.

No one asked Europe to stick its nose in, and the last 200 years ought to persuade you to mind your own business.

And it also used to be an attempt to guarantee that no new war could begin, seeing as to how Europeans are the only people who can do that.

You can't be serious. Over the last two centuries, Europe has started more wars than everyone else put together. The reasons Europe has been relatively peaceful since 1945 are the Russians, and the US.

But this was not done by force, which makes it unique.

It was not done by the people's consent.


I don't see the European Project benefitting the people. It has been good for government, they have become much more powerful, and in Brussels, they have a place in which to dump politicians and civil servants they don't like.

I shall write the full text of a document necessary to have free trade: Any person who wishes to import, or export goods to and from the United States of Disraeliland 3 shall have the right to do so with no interference.
I'd agree. But in reality, this is rather a difficult thing to make happen politically.

The facts don't bear that out, and there is no logical connection between political weight, and prosperity.
I guess it comes down to force, and the possibility of using it. The US has the influence it has because if necessary, it can use economic and even military measures to back itself up.
A UK in 50 years, with a big US, a big China, a big India, and a fast-growing Brazil, becomes irrelevant to the way international politics goes about.
The political weight of the UK then is no greater than South Korea's is now. If peaceful ideas (not going to war with Iraq for example) are going to have a voice, it is a good idea to make that voice as loud as possible.

The EU at this point is a voluntary agreement between nations along the lines of "Together we are strong", and with the basic idea that a long-lasting cooperation like this has a synergy effect.

The EU has an enourmous potential to be aggressive. Luxembourg, on the other hand can field a Batallion of light infantry.

I don't accept that the EU will stay peaceful, for precisely the reasons you outline, their idea that they have some historic role to play.
Can that role not be a peaceful one?
Germany for example has done well to learn from its past and abandon militarism. Despite having an army that is trustworthy to do the right thing, and involvement in all sorts of multilateral agreements, the reluctance to use German forces remains.
That sort of thing is what the EU should be looking for as far as aggressive policy is concerned.

That single check is not good enough, the democratic process has an inherient weakness, the ease with which votes can be bought.
It's the best we have. Even an anarchistic society would require a certain size in order to provide the same sort of variety and living standards we enjoy today...and that would again come down to elections of sorts.

No one asked Europe to stick its nose in, and the last 200 years ought to persuade you to mind your own business.
Habermas describes it as a counter-balance. The persuasion is there, but so is the idea to prevent the same mistakes from being made by others.

You can't be serious. Over the last two centuries, Europe has started more wars than everyone else put together. The reasons Europe has been relatively peaceful since 1945 are the Russians, and the US.
The first steps towards the EU were agreements between DeGaulle and Adenauer, between France and Germany. It was accepted that the hostilities between the two had been central to both wars, and that eternal friendship would be integral to prevent the next.
Of course the Cold War did more, but the initial motivation behind the EU was one of preventing new conflict.

It was not done by the people's consent.
The fact of the matter is however that in the most Eurosceptic of EU nations, the UK, only a quarter actually want to leave.
Whether or not there was a vote on every issue, the majority of people in Europe think the EU is a good thing, and want to stay a part of it. And even Croatians now accept that the EU might be preferrable to nationalism and hiding war criminals.
It is and remains an attractive concept.

I don't see the European Project benefitting the people. It has been good for government, they have become much more powerful, and in Brussels, they have a place in which to dump politicians and civil servants they don't like.
You should travel to Europe one day. It has benefitted my family a lot, my grandmother now owns a house on Mallorca...they don't have to change currencies, they don't have to be controlled at borders, they don't have to do anything they wouldn't have to do if they simply drove somewhere else in Germany.
You can argue about the politics, but on the ground, most people do benefit from it one way or another.

Oh, like New Zealand actually being part of Australia, right? :rolleyes:
First of all Australia is owned by New Zealand and is known as the Western Island.

Second of all it is the British Isles and Ireland is part of it.*Shifty eyes*

D)Northern Island is Ireland.

I'd agree. But in reality, this is rather a difficult thing to make happen politically.

Which is why small states are better. They must enact such laws, or they will have serious problems, rather than a small reduction in the standard of living.

I guess it comes down to force, and the possibility of using it. The US has the influence it has because if necessary, it can use economic and even military measures to back itself up.

None of which has anything to do with economic prosperity, you're mistaking a nation's ability to screw other people economically with being prosperous.

The EU at this point is a voluntary agreement between nations along the lines of "Together we are strong", and with the basic idea that a long-lasting cooperation like this has a synergy effect.

It is an agreement between governments, and these governments did not seek the peoples' permission to make such an agreement, they barely sought the permission of parliament.

Can that role not be a peaceful one?

One can say that today, but the potential is there, and of all the parts of the world, Western Europe has been the least thoughtful, and most destructive in its use of force.

the initial motivation behind the EU was one of preventing new conflict.

No, it was always about a European Superstate.

It's the best we have.

Yes, but centralisation is not compatible with democracy, nor is it compatible with good-government. De-centralisation is essential for both.

The persuasion is there, but so is the idea to prevent the same mistakes from being made by others.

Nevertheless, no one asked Europe to interfere in the world's affairs.

And you get decisions that may not reflect the democratic process, simply because outside pressures force the government to act a certain way, maybe against the wishes of everyone.

The decisions do reflect the peoples' will. They simply vote with their feet, rather than with a pencil. De-centralisation is meant to improve government, and the standards of living by providing competition. I don't have a whole-hearted trust in democracy, because there is always the temptation towards getting votes by screwing other people. This is not good for liberty (and having personal, social, and economic liberty is more important than democracy, it is just that democracy is the best way to ensure them)

The fact of the matter is however that in the most Eurosceptic of EU nations, the UK, only a quarter actually want to leave.

You're missing the point. The point is that the people weren't asked whether they wanted to opt in.

You should travel to Europe one day. It has benefitted my family a lot, my grandmother now owns a house on Mallorca...they don't have to change currencies, they don't have to be controlled at borders, they don't have to do anything they wouldn't have to do if they simply drove somewhere else in Germany.

One can own property outside one's own country without a massive, bureaucratic, undemocratic morass, in fact property rights would be stronger without the EU.

Changing currencies is not the huge burden that Eurofanatics say it is, nor is having to apply for Visas, or showing a passport to immigration authorities.

However, your praises of the EU can essentially be boiled down to "The EU is good because we get little conveniences, and this is worth the erosion of local soverignty, and liberties". If this is the "argument" for the EU being good, then it is utterly unpersuasive.

See above. The point was to make you think - you probably would not vote for the Nazis because there are parts of their program with which you disagree violently, even though you may agree with others.
For the voters of the SVP, this apparently is not the case.


The actual fact of the matter is that the voters show high levels of support for the SVP in the National Council, while the SVP is the least supported party in the Council of States. The explaination for why this is so is quite simple.

The National Council is elected by a system of proportional representation. The chief advantage of proportional representation is that more parties can enter into and form the government. As such, voters are more likely to support extreme parties because they feel secure in the knowledge that other more moderate parties will be present in government and will restrain and temper the more extreme elements.

However, the SVP does very poorly in the Council of States because the seats in that house are elected by first-past-the-post majority (except for one canton where it is proprotional, but since there are only two seats in that canton to contest, it may as well be first-past-the-post). First-past-the-post systems, like those seen in the United States and the UK, produce two party systems. As such, the potential for more extreme parties, like the SVP, to exercise power unchecked by other moderate parties is much greater in the Council of States. Thus, voters are far more likely to support the moderate parties in the Council of States, for fear of the more extreme parties, like the SVP, gaining power unopposed (!!!!!). This is exactly what the electoral data ( http://www.parliament.ch ) show: the FDP and CVP possess the most seats in the Council of States, while the SVP has the least.

Taken together, these factors support the hypothesis that the Swiss back the SVP's anti-EU stance, while rejecting the SVP's other more extreme positions. The Swiss are willing to tolerate the SVP in the National Council because they know that the other parties are there and are able to oppose its more extreme positions. The SVP suffers from lack of support in the Council of States because relying on such a check of power there is extremely dangerous.

Again, the data would seem to suggest that the Swiss brought the SVP into the coalition government only for its anti-EU stance, while rejecting any more extreme xenophobic or racist positions.

Ireland

Italy: I like especially their men, but also their food, climate, history, nature, their weird way of behaving :) ...

I'd live in Switzerland, because the Swiss win every war.

I'd live in my current country U.K (England!) because of the language and the fact that its summed up in one word "Great" the clue is in the name :D

if I had to choose somewhere else I would have to say Germany for the dunking donuts and the fact that they will speak English (2 world wars 1 world cup)

First of all Australia is owned by New Zealand and is known as the Western Island.

Second of all it is the British Isles and Ireland is part of it.*Shifty eyes*

D)Northern Island is Ireland.

Right.

Whatever it is you've been smoking, can I have some of it?

I'd live in my current country U.K (England!) because of the language and the fact that its summed up in one word "Great" the clue is in the name :D

if I had to choose somewhere else I would have to say Germany for the dunking donuts and the fact that they will speak English (2 world wars 1 world cup)

Germans hate all other languages except german...

vote:
SWEDEN!

because I live there now, I wouldn't want to live in any other european country...

Germans hate all other languages except german...

vote:
SWEDEN!

because I live there now, I wouldn't want to live in any other european country...

pardon!?!?, when was the last time you were in Germany? hate all other languages?!?!? where you from buddy? stereotypia?

Deutschland :)

pardon!?!?, when was the last time you were in Germany? hate all other languages?!?!? where you from buddy? stereotypia?

And it's not as though there's only one type of German language.

Just go down to Schwabenland and listen to young girls talk. It's like nails on a blackboard - and I'm not a native German speaker.

Germans hate all other languages except german...

vote:
SWEDEN!

because I live there now, I wouldn't want to live in any other european country...

Sure we do... that's why all Germans speak at least one foreign language, most two and many even more... :rolleyes:

And it's not as though there's only one type of German language.

Just go down to Schwabenland and listen to young girls talk. It's like nails on a blackboard - and I'm not a native German speaker.

i know, my father is of Bavarian and Firsian origins and his father spoke Frisian, Plattdeutsch and Hochdeutsch, while my grandmother spoke Bayerische and Hochdeutsch, all pretty distinct languages/dialects.

British Isles - England, I was born here, and it's nice.
A second option would definately be Spain, Catalunya in particular if it were to become an independant nation.

Germans hate all other languages except german...

vote:
SWEDEN!

because I live there now, I wouldn't want to live in any other european country...

aha.
ahaha.
ahahaha!

[you only get spared the rest because of your vote for sweden.]