I refer to the number Flixy mentioned.
I refer to the number Flixy mentioned.
Congratulations America
Whether people had an idea or not, ratifying it under a new name without giving anyone a say was bound to stoke resentment. Had there been a referendum then either Lisbon may have been rejected or it could have passed but the resentment would have been dealt with.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Oh, I definitely agree there. Or maybe they could have tried, you know, to try and sell it as an actual good idea rather than saying it's good because they say it's good for us.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Exactly.
The problem is that if you make a deal which has to be flexible enough to appease opposite positions you will have a hard time explaining opponents that something isn't what they think it is.
As for the Lisbon Treaty vs the Constitution; the Lisbon Treaty was essentially different than the Constitution, but because the Constitution already was mostly a repetition of what had already been decided in previous treaties by definition consisted for 99% of things that needed to be in the Constitution too. And it obviously - again - wat too much of a bother to politicians to explain why stripping out only so little really made it different.
Congratulations America
Having a hard time is precisely what democracy is for. Politicians aren't supposed to have an easy time and trying to create short cuts to get an easy time backfires ultimately. Maybe if it had been harder but done right there'd be less resentment now.
You don't seem to understand. What I mean is that if you write a federal constitution, but ostentatiously delete the word federal from the text in order to appease anti-federalists, you can't convince federation-inclined voters that what they get is a federal constitution nor anti-federalists that what you are presenting isn't a federal constitution. The hard time is not in explaining a complicated matter, the hard time is that virtually nobody has a notion of what they are getting. And that includes the people who write the damn stuff.
The whole matter of course is that the vast majority of people claim they want cooperation of some sort, and clarity to boot, but then have a hissyfit if you give them what they proclaimed they wanted.
You could make an endless list of examples of people saying they want things they actually don't want at all.
I'm pretty certain if you would ask a representative group of UK citizens if they want to stop 'health care tourism' by EU citizens they'd say yes. Thinking that this unburdens the NHS, gives them easier access to care and might even lower the tax-burden on them. But if you would actually implement such a policy in cooperation with other EU member states then you'd get an outcry of millions of Brits who live abroad who all of a sudden have to take out private health insurance at an advanced age and British holiday makers would suddenly need travel policies for travel to Europe including coverage for health care or risk having to pay huge bills if something happens. Making the vacation of the average family much more expensive, easily wiping out the savings on lower NHS spending. I have no doubt the majority of people who'd want to end 'health care tourism' wouldn't be so fond of that idea once they realise on many occasions they might be the 'tourists' themselves.
Congratulations America
What you're complaining about is a bug is actually a feature. Getting people to agree to what they want before you go ahead with it is entirely reasonable. Just saying "oh its all too difficult, we know best lets do this" is going to go down like a lead balloon. Especially when the s##t hits the fan over something and you've lost the democratic buy-in to the actions taken.
Personally I go on holiday overseas every year and have travel insurance for when I do. Couldn't care less about EU-wide healthcare as that is what the travel insurance is for (and the fact that none of my holidays in the last decade have been in the EU may be related).
To be fair, that is how representative democracy worksBut they should try to sell their actions (better), yes.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
One principle of representative democracy (for our Parliament at least) is that of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Often expressed through the phrase "no Parliament can bind its successors". The principle behind this then is that if a Parliament does something you dislike then you can eject it at the ballot box and get a different one in.
The EU circumvents that process. Actions are taken that are then essentially irreversible without going for the nuclear option of leaving the EU.
Your government makes irreversible decisions all the time. Can you pretend that the debt doesn't exist, for instance? How about treaties with no escape clause?
Hope is the denial of reality
Spending can be cut, treaties can be exited. But by bundling up vast swathes of law with an undemocratic institution without any mandate it is circumventing the democratic process. If you don't like the Common Agricultural Policy. Tough, another nation can veto any cuts that might get proposed. The option to vote out the people setting our laws isn't there which is a bug problem.
Cutting spending doesn't negate existing debts. And some treaties can't be exited.
And yes, the point of the EU is to add another layer of government above the state. There's no inherent reason a British government is better than a European one. If your issue is the EU being too large and diverse, that's a reason for breaking up the UK and even England.
Hope is the denial of reality
Never mind. I just realized that it is no use talking to you.
Congratulations America
In a new twist; the legality of the referendum may be challenged. In an interview last week a leader of one of the organisations behind the referendum literally said that he could care less about the treaty with Ukraine. That could mean the signatures in support of a referendum were collected under valse pretenses. Which is a violation of the law on referenda.
Congratulations America
Getting rid of a result on a technicality will surely improve the public perception of not being ignored
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Totally. And what does it matter what one leader cares about?
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Even ignoring the fact that I supported Scottish Independence, there is true democracy in the UK which is lacking in the EU, so that's different. Don't conflate the EU with the US Federal government, it isn't the same at all. Imagine that your laws were being set by Mexicans (who have freedom to move to anywhere in North America they want) instead. Without a democratic mandate.
Flixy is completely right of course.
Hazir you may only find it to be of no use to talk because what you're saying is worthless and doesn't have a leg to stand on perhaps.
Or as I usually say, if everyone else seems to be an asshole it's usually because you are being an ass yourself.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
EU is run by directly elected politicians in the parliament, and representatives of all elected governments, right? So it's not entirely undemocratic.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
No it's not. It's ran by a hodge-podge of unelected bureaucrats and member nations etc with the Parliament not only having no true European demos (we still vote on national party lines) but even the deeply flawed European Parliament doesn't run the EU. Neither the Commission nor the European Council are elected.
As for the European Parliament it is not only not running the EU but for what power it has it is very deeply flawed. It is "elected" using a terrible voting system and then power is won on a very questionable basis. For instance who is the President of the European Parliament? Martin Schulz. How was he elected, you'd think surely it was by winning the European Parliament elections? No it was because he lost the European Parliament elections that he became President.
You couldn't make this up.
----------------
As for the European Council, the national governments are elected to run their own nations, not each other.
It may indeed. But it was more than a bit stupid to admit ulterior motives that blatantly. After all the result isn't binding to start with, so a conviction could give the government an excuse not to bother with an adjusted agreement.
Congratulations America
As it is not binding, the government doesn't need an excuse. What it needs is a believable explanaition.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Indeed. To reject the will of the people on a figleaf is only going to anger people further.
You mean bring set by the federal government, over which Georgians have some, but clearly not much, influence? Your laws aren't being created by the Germans or the Belgians. They're being created by the EU, an organization over which the UK has more influence than Georgia does over the US.
And it's dishonest to talk about lack of EU democracy when it's the eurosceptics, led by the UK, who have blocked most steps at closer and more accountable union.
Hope is the denial of reality
The main reason for the EU Parliament's lack of real power is the unwillingness of countries like the UK to cede it power. The existing EU institutions are more than capable of representing the will of the European public in a democratic manner.
Hope is the denial of reality
Not really. Democratic accountability in the Federal US (and the power that goes with it) rests with the POTUS (that is directly[ish] elected by Georgians and others in an election designed to elect the POTUS), the Senate (that is directly elected by Georgians and others in an election designed to elect the Senate) and the House of Representatives (that is directly elected by Georgians and others in an election designed to elect the Representatives).
Power in the EU primarily rests with the Commission (unelected) and the European Council (not at all elected in an election designed to elect the European Council).
The two are completely unrelated.
The cause is irrelevant, and I don't align myself with the eurosceptics. There should be no power without responsibility or accountability. It is the fault of everyone who has allowed this situation to transpire that the power has been transferred without accountability.And it's dishonest to talk about lack of EU democracy when it's the eurosceptics, led by the UK, who have blocked most steps at closer and more accountable union.
Though the skeptics are least responsible for this as they've opposed both the hand over of power AND the accountability. They have been logically consistent. The power was transferred despite not because of the skeptics and it is those who have allowed that power to go without accountability to go with it that are responsible.
The skeptics want power to return to those who are fully accountable. They are honest and legitimate unlike those who fudge the situation because it's too difficult to resolve otherwise.
Let's see who has power in the EU.
The European Council: composed of the heads of state/government of the EU states. Britain has direct control over one person there, but not the rest. That one person is supposed to represent British interests. US equivalent = Senate. I vote for the Georgian senators. They represent Georgia's interests. I have 0 influence over the other 98 Senators, and they have quite a lot of power over me.
Council of Ministers: composed of ministers from most European states, who are effectively the heads of the EU bureaucracy. You don't vote for your minister, though you do vote for the party that appoints him/her. Equivalent: US secretaries. I vote for the president. I have no direct say over who becomes Secretary of State, Defense, etc.
European commission: effectively, the bureaucracy. You get indirect say over who us one of the commissioners. Again, the equivalent is the US bureaucracy. I vote for the president. I hope he appoints a good Secretary of State, who will then appoint a good under-secretary for European Affairs. That under-secretary is technically meant to represent the bureaucracy, not the US president. Which means my influence over that person is further weakened. Same as your influence over the actions of the European commission.
European parliament: equivalent to the US House. Only difference is you haven't given it enough powers to be relevant.
European Court of Justice: each state gets a judge, who are then meant to be neutral. Equivalent: US Supreme Court. In fact, you at least have more direct influence over who one of the judges is. As a Georgian, I have 0 influence over the makeup of the Supreme Court. I get a say over who the president is and who two of the Senators are (both with a role in choosing SC justices), but I'm 1 out of 200,000,000 eligible voters and my senators are but 2 of 100. You get 1 out of 28.
There's no EU president, but that's because the Eurosceptics don't want one. Furthermore, if we think of the EU as a parliamentary system, there's no democratic deficit merely because of the absence of this position.
You get direct say over the European Parliament and indirect say through the British Parliament. If you don't like what the British representatives do to represent your interests in the EU, vote for a different party. And the reason eurocrats have so much power is because the EU has numerous responsibilities but Eurosceptics aren't willing to allow the creation of elected bodies to carry out those responsibilities.The cause is irrelevant, and I don't align myself with the eurosceptics. There should be no power without responsibility or accountability. It is the fault of everyone who has allowed this situation to transpire that the power has been transferred without accountability.
Last edited by Loki; 04-09-2016 at 08:36 PM.
Hope is the denial of reality
I expect LF to come out to accuse you of being obsessed with the EU.
By the way your description left out the role of the EP in the selection of the president of the Coniston. So it is a bit outdated.
Last edited by Hazir; 04-09-2016 at 06:58 PM.
Congratulations America
Sorry.And the thing, I'm pretty sure the European federalists would be more than happy to have directly elected European officials with more power.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote