-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
European Parliament Elections 2014 |OT| The Undemocratic EU is Actually Elected
- Thread starter anonymous_abc
- Start date
- Status
Why do you hate England?
EU is neoliberal because it was designed that way. They created a free market system that benefits large corporations who can easily destroy the local competition in smaller EU countries and screw the small guys like all free trade zones do, a currency so inflexible that has been compared to gold and was destined to force austerity all over Europe, and an EU government purposely complicated and undemocratic.
The reason why far-right mutjobs are becoming popular all over Europe is because Europeans are starting to wake up and realize what a cancer EU is while the European left has been an utter disappointment (and I'm talking about real left, not Hollande "left"). They should have been against this corporatist monstrosity from the beginning and if not then at the very least since EU's true face was revealed after the economic meltdown. But no, they continue to be a fucking disappointment while the far-right scum are gaining popularity. I am ashamed of them.
Either EU will destroy Europe and turn it into USA or Europe will destroy EU. Let's hope the left will get off their asses and do something about it.
Wow, you seem to have a really informed opinion of the dynamics of international trade.
Autarky for all countries! Let's sacrifice efficiency and disregard the possibility of internal transfers for the sake of populism and blaming the EU! It's even easier than blaming the domestic politicians!
And it's totally fucking weird that insitutionally strong countries, e.g. with less rent seeking, performed better when borders opened than those with weak ones, who would have thought?
Also, totally rest in rips the nordic countries, we small countries have no chance with the EU and all corporatism =(
Thanks, I'm actually quite well informed. I've seen what free trade zones do to the middle class and how they benefit the corporations and the bankers.
Funny hw you mention efficiency, it's the go to bullshit phrase of European officials when the privatize everything especially in the South.
Why would it be weird? It's what free trade zones do, screw the small guys and benefit the powerful whether they're corporations or countries.
Yes, RIP nordic countries. Sweden for example is a completely different country compared to the Olof years, it's a pity what is starting to happen to them.
You send a clear message to the status quo that you had enough. They can't just ignore us forever. I fucking hate UKIP but honestly I'll be glad if they win this.
I don't really share the same experience.
Maybe you could explain the underlying mechanisms behind it?
I'm open to most ways of presenting it, be it econometrically, a macro-economic model, or maybe through insitutional economic theory.
Yes, it's really funny that I mention it considering the mutual aggregate economic benefits of all involved parts. You seem against handling the potential downsides with fiscal policies, however, so I could see that you would be against it anyway. Even though it's likely a consequence of irrationality or ignorance.
Are you saying that good institutions should not be something for all countries to strive for? Doesn't that just screw everyone over? Well, except rent seekers obviously.
We're practically dead according to the testimony, described by the chain of causality being small and going into the EU leading to imminent destruction, it's a nifty interaction that should be explored more thoroughly.
Although this part is obnoxiously condescending I'll reply anyway. The mechanisms are simple and don't need macroeconomic theory to be explained. Large rich corporations who are used to stiff competition are allowed in markets that are a lot more immature and far less competitive so either they easily destroy the competition and small businesses that exist there or buy them screwing the middle class. Meanwhile rich countries can easily manipulate and control the smaller ones through debt within the Union like it happens with Germany now that practically runs EU. The austerity measures that Germany enforces sink these countries further into debt and make them even more dependent and controlled. Privatizations forced on them help the big corporations further pillage those countries and make them even more poor and dependent.
Are you purposely trying to argue semantics? Nordic countries always had strong economies, it's pretty clear that they're in the big leagues, by saying small I wasn't talking about about size, obviously. Still, they keep getting dragged to the right by the EU circus.
What mutual benefits? The South is in shambles, Ireland is in shambles, France is going down fast, Scandinavian countries are being dragged to the right, and the only one left gaining from all of this is Germany while corporations and banks are pillaging the middle class all over Europe. The only one that doesn't give a fuck is UK because they wisely decided to keep their distance from EU.
So, that must mean that you think the short run economical situation is more important than the long run one. You'd rather be slightly less uncomfortable for some years in the near future, rather than having a brighter future. As you pretty much state that you don't give a shit if the economy is horribly inefficient.
To me it seems that this kind of political discourse has caused the most hurt to the European countries affected the most. Rather than discussing fiscal policy alleviating the transition, they got stuck in the transition itself.
Yes, we had such exceptional economies in the early-mid 90s, and coincidentally Sweden and Finland joined the EU right after those years.
I'm glad our politicians didn't take policy advice from you.
What kind of time perspective do you have? The world not existing before the crises?
And even if we assume what you say is true, what does it have to do with free trade and how does your comment about the Scandinavian political landscape have anything to do with it?
Sorry I can't share your assumption that is based on absolutely nothing that this will be short. The spread of neoliberalism and the pillaging of the European middle class and weaker nations seem kind of permanent to me. Your kind of political discourse is the problem, the kind of discourse that until this post didn't even recognize the huge problems EU and its currency have created.
There is no fiscal matter to discuss here, EU is rotten to the core. Its governing and legislative institutions are purposely undemocratic, there would actually have to be a real economic and banking union for Euro to work which Germany would never accept, and since all these aren't going to happen the main beneficiaries of all this, the banks and the corporations, will continue to pillage the middle class.
Well, at least my beliefs are grounded in research and data.
The only way you could even remotely argue for the idea that a pillaging of the middle class is real phenomenon, would be to look at data since the start of the crises in specific countries.
Because it's certainly not the case here, and that has very little to do with bankers.
Then again, you also just assumed that the bank crisis here in the Nordics during the 90s wasn't that bad. It's ok, I'm sure that other countries viewed it the same way back then!
I'd agree that it's always easier to blame the big bad EU, than to even remotely acknowledge domestic structural problems though.
As I have apparently never acknowledged any issues with the EU, there is only one way to repent, and that's to start blaming everything on them.
Only thing I don't understand is both the fiscal policy and neo-liberal boogeymen, I thought redistribution would suit your flavor and help to control the issue.
CyclopsRock
Member
I find there to be something relatively patronising about the whole thing. The EU parliament was granted greater powers in the Lisbon treaty which hardly anyone got to vote on, despite voter turn out for the election declining literally every single election (from 62% in 1979 to 43% in 2009). Indeed, the few countries that had an opportunity to vote on the European Constitution changes saw a far higher turnout rejecting it than they saw in their subsequent parliamentary elections. In polite society one might argue that this should lead the EP to have less power rather than more, but hey ho, we got the Lisbon Treaty anyway. We have a new addition to the show in the form of the candidates for the President of the EC, who are five people that we have absolutely no reason to think have popular support and we never will do, because we don't get to vote on it anyway, making the whole thing a bit of a charade. And they spend 18m Euros a year (of money they don't have to actually concern themselves with raising, natch) telling us how jolly important they are.
Combine that with the enormity of the groups and my over-arching belief that, no matter who I vote for, the answer they come to will always be "more European integration", I really find it hard to care. On a good day, I don't find it insultingly patronising.
Combine that with the enormity of the groups and my over-arching belief that, no matter who I vote for, the answer they come to will always be "more European integration", I really find it hard to care. On a good day, I don't find it insultingly patronising.
I like how you keep talking about research and data and you provide none. The pillaging of the middle class is happening though austerity and I have plenty of sources on that. They privatize national wealth to corporations for scraps, keep salaries low while unemployment is soaring, often raise taxes on the middle class and all that to save the bankers from a mess they created.
No the Swedish bubble wasn't that bad and was quickly and successfully resolved unlike this humongous clusterfuck the Euro has created. I can't believe you're even comparing the two.
I don't even understand your last paragraph, is neoliberalism not supposed to be bad according to you?
anonymous_abc
Member
Declining voter turnout is indeed very disappointing, but hardly unique to the EUP elections.
To take two examples
Germany:
UK
Switzerland
So what is your answer to that? Also castrate the national parliaments and reduce their power? Who in that case would you like to see gain power in that vacuum?
Democracy can only take into account those that actually voice their opinion. Even if the far right parties and anti EU parties get 30 % that leaves 70% of the electorate in favour of the EU. But their votes somehow don't count? And everyone should leave the EU?
And concerning the Lisbon Treaty it had to be ratified by every member state! Maybe not every state held a referendum about it, but democratically elected parliaments voted on the matter, as they do with so many other matters that don't get a referendum.
I would welcome a more Swiss system with more referendums overall, but you cannot blame the EUP for not allowing you a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, that is on your own governments back!
Ireland had a referendum it fell through, the treaty was changed and then won popular support. How else do you think things like this should work. If something fails not try and improve it and just never touch the subject again?
CyclopsRock
Member
I'd be fine with castrating national parliaments too, but that's another discussion. The point, surely, is that national parliaments are capable of legislating on all matters that the EU Parliament do - indeed, for a thousand or so years of civilised rule in Europe, that's precisely how it was done. Given that the vote share for the EU parliament is going down, where is the justification for increasing it's powers and widening its remit? Apparently the electorate aren't clamouring for it.
Well I mentioned this earlier in the thread but didn't get much of an answer. There's two issues at stake here: One is that when you vote for your MEP, you aren't registering your support (or lack of) for the EU Parliament because the people you're voting for don't have any power over our relationship with it. They can vote for or against the legislation, but they can't change our relationship. So that's sort of a moot point. But even if it were the case, if you're in the UK and you're not a fan of the EU or believe that legislation shouldn't be made at that level, who do you vote for? I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the figures of the EU's support across Europe, especially in the UK - yet all the major parties support our continued presence within it. UKIP are the only party that don't, so unless you happen to be a racist xenophobe, how can you register your dislike without jettisoning your domestic policy choices?
Actually, on that subject, at the last European Parliament Elections in the UK, the English Democrats got 280,000 votes and didn't get any seats. That's a large part of the country to be disenfranchised. The SNP got 320,000 and got 2 seats, whilst the Greens got 1.2m votes and got... 2 seats. This is not an electoral system that encourages people to set up their own parties or support the little guy, and this gets even worse in smaller countries. This is a flaw in elections in general, but it's an argument for localising elections so as to end up with the fewest disenfranchised people as possible. Making it Europe-wide means a huge number of people - who may not even support the institution at all - have no ability to register their desires in the parliament.
I didn't blame the EUP for not having a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. I said the elections were patronising and part of the reason for that is the increasing level of power given to an institution with a decreasing democratic mandate. The fact that our specific gang of loons was responsible for part of that isn't in question!
Well, that sort of "Despite a lack of popular support, we'll keep changing it and changing it" view is part of what's patronising; There's never an option for "less." It's always "more" or "the same". So obviously, given time, it's only going to go in one direction.
Also, did anyone get a referendum in both the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty? Ireland didn't have a referendum on the former - The Netherlands and France did. Ireland didn't bother (for the same reason as the UK - it couldn't be ratified without those two). Then The Netherlands and France didn't get a referendum on Lisbon by Ireland did.
Believe it or not, I'm actually - on balance - in favour of the EU. But there's a bunch about it I don't like, I don't understand why so much of the legislation needs to be done at the EU level. I support a trade union, and pan-European legislation has no better place to be (international infrastructure projects and the like), but I don't really have a way to register my dislike for the gradual encroaching on national parliaments from the EU Parliament.
anonymous_abc
Member
Many (most?) people rightly chastise the EU for not being democratic enough, so it seems a good thing in every way to give the one democratic institution within the EU greater power even while voter participation is decreasing. Surely by giving the EUP more power we can hope that it becomes more important in the eyes of the eloctorate thereby increasing the vote share.
But the EU-parliament votes on issues defining the relationship between member states and the EU too, it's not only roaming charges. So ergo the MEPs have a certain degree of say on that matter too.
As for who you can vote for, I honestly don't know.
Again this is not something you can blame the EU(P) for, within certain rules each member state can decide how to allocate votes and seats.
Germany for example has one voting region for the entire country making it significantly easier for smaller parties to get in, undoubtedly many will next week.
by splitting the UK up into many smaller constituencies with few seats each it makes it very hard for small parties as the system converges towards a FPTP system with one seat per constituency.
The bigger the regions (more population) the easier it is for smaller parties to get in.
But even though it's still significantly better than what you usual have with the god awful FPTP system...
Frankfurter
Member
If popular support for the EU really is that low and people are basically just waiting for a party that's anti-EU, but not some crazy party like UKIP, shouldn't it be pretty easy to setup a party and get support by the people? I mean if you don't like all the parties out there and you feel like there are millions of people in your country that have the same feeling... than establish a new party.
Reasonable people don't normally get into politics unfortunately, so it's either vote for the old boys club or the extremists
We have a chap standing in Reading for the "Roman party", he's a bus driver who seems to save all his spare wages for a deposit every election. His campaign materials are a bit of a mess but his heart is in the right place at least
We have a chap standing in Reading for the "Roman party", he's a bus driver who seems to save all his spare wages for a deposit every election. His campaign materials are a bit of a mess but his heart is in the right place at least
CyclopsRock
Member
I think you've got it the wrong way around, though - I don't think the problem people have with the EU is that they just aren't important enough, because their increase in powers have been inversely proportional to the voter turnout. Like I was saying, it seems like the only answer - irrespective of the question - is "more power in Europe". How low would the vote share have to go before you conceded that position? That's a genuine question by the way, I'm actually curious.
A "degree", sure, but an pan-European parliament is a pretty blunt instrument. National governments are a far better way (and thus far, more effective way) or cleaving power away. Afterall, it's a pretty rare thing for a parliament to concede power to another body. Not unheard of, but rare.
Again this is not something you can blame the EU(P) for, within certain rules each member state can decide how to allocate votes and seats.
Germany for example has one voting region for the entire country making it significantly easier for smaller parties to get in, undoubtedly many will next week.
by splitting the UK up into many smaller constituencies with few seats each it makes it very hard for small parties as the system converges towards a FPTP system with one seat per constituency.
The bigger the regions (more population) the easier it is for smaller parties to get in.
But even though it's still significantly better than what you usual have with the god awful FPTP system...
I'm not sure why you keep thinking I'm "blaming" the EU parliament for these things. I'm expressing my problems with the EU and it's electoral process, not laying blame at the parliament's feet. That said, with 72 MEPs and even if we end up with the same meagre vote share as last time, you'd need over 200,000 votes for a single MEP in a single, giant voting region.
And throughout all this, I constantly ask "why"? Why does free movement of goods and people require homogenised working hours? Homogenised banking systems? The answer, obviously, is that it doesn't, which is why different countries have different opt-outs for various things. I prefer elections being as local as possible so you end up with as little disenfranchisement as possible. What is it that's so virtuous and great about the legislation that comes out of the EU Parliament that makes it worth the disenfranchisement and gradual funnelling of power to them, away from more localised democratic institutions?
It's not a particularly key issue for many people. In fact, Europe is often the (UK) Conservative Party's achilles heel because their members care about it more than the average person - so you're never going to barn-storm an election on an anti-EU ticket. The fact it isn't people's primary concern doesn't mean that concern should be ignored, however. Though, naturally, it is.
anonymous_abc
Member
I'm honestly having a tough time understanding what you are trying to get at... It's obviously bad for any democracy for the vote share to go down. Does that mean democracy is fundamentally flawed? Possibly. But as Churchill said Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
I see no alternative.
All EU-Member states parliaments have willingly ceded power to the EU at multiple times in its history.
Sorry for the blaming jabs, it's just I feel you argue contra I argue pro.
And of course 200k is a lot. But in order to bring down that number we would have to significantly increase the size of the parliament which seems counter productive in the current political climate and impractically in general anyway.
I'm sure we can agree not all descissions have to be (or actually are) made on the highest level.No one in Brussels or Westminster will care about the street name for that new road in Islington. I too am all for legislating things on the appropriate level.
But I think you are fundamentally wrong about why we need all the other legislation just to have free movement of goods and people.
For one that was never the only or main goal of the EU. It's all about market harmonisation. And for that you very much do need homogenisation across vast sways of commercial and private life.
And the amount of opt outs that exist is very small and I don't think anyone is willing any more to hand out new ones in the future.
That's also very typical for a democracy, you have to prioritise. No one will ever find a party they agree with 100% unless they found it themselves. The aim is to find out what is most important to you, prioritise and if you're lucky you will find a party that you can agree with on 60% of issues.
Another great case for more direct democracy and referendums. Everyone would be able to make their opinions heard in a more specialised manner rather than just once every 4-5 years.
IMHO the EU is increasingly an all or nothing affair. I cannot really see the hands of time being reversed on anything major. We will keep the Euro, Schengen and free roaming charges. The founding principle of further harmonisation will inadvertently lead to a closer Union. And in the long run a USoEU. And I am increasingly of the opinion that if the general population of the UK, Greece or any other country doesn't want that they should get to vote on it and leave and let us get along with it.
I honestly don't think (also hope) a referendum on Brexit would be successful and the whining would in all likelihood not stop as there is a significant minority that would continue to not want it. But democracy et al. majority trumps.
ok lol, u have plenty of sources, surely looks like it
Oh, did it suddenly become the Swedish bubble?
As you seem to know the facts, we could probably agree that there isn't any crisis outside of Spain and Greece then given the unemployment rates around Europe.
And when did I compare them in any previous posts? It was a response to you saying that the Nordics always had a strong economy (you could even go further back).
I wasn't doing any value judgment, I'm just saying that your aversion to fiscal policy is weird given that you don't like "neo-liberalism".
Frankfurter
Member
So people are sort of anti-EU, but they don't care enough to vote for another party?
Debate live now
http://derstandard.at/1399462407115/Live-Uebertragung-der-Eurovisionsdebatte
(english)
there are probably better streams though
http://derstandard.at/1399462407115/Live-Uebertragung-der-Eurovisionsdebatte
(english)
there are probably better streams though
cebri.one
Member
- Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe 73%
- European Conservatives and Reformists Group 53%
- Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament 53%
- Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) 53%
- Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance 40%
- Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group 40%
- Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left 27%
Don't know if i'm going to vote.
anonymous_abc
Member
Whatever you do, please go out and vote. I don't care for whom or if you spoil your ballot but at least make the effort to go!
Bedameister
Member
I just voted. I already voted the last time (when was that? 5 years ago?) but I was to young to actually care. This time I'm very excited on how it will turn out.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Will sell my vote to whoever pays for my copy of Mariokart 8.
obin_gam
Member
I voted yesterday.
I hope The Pirate Party gets to keep at least one of their 2 seats. So far they've (among other things)
These are all things I consider important for the future of our society, and someone needs to keep fighting for them.
I hope The Pirate Party gets to keep at least one of their 2 seats. So far they've (among other things)
- Stopped ACTA.
- Gathered huge support for copyright reform
- Helped keep personal information private.
- Stopped an agreement suggesting that people should get banned from the internet if copyrightholdes accused them of uploading material.
- Worked against the SWIFT agreement, which gives U.S. authorities access to all Europeans banking transactions.
- Passed an exception in trademark law, which explicitly says that the owner of a trademark can never prohibit others from using it in artistic works, social criticism , product comparisons and reviews.
- Worked to lower roaming fees.
- Pushed for a strategy of digital freedom, which the EU has now adopted as part of its foreign policy.
- Fought hard to counter the major telecom operators monopoly on internet and telecommunications, and worked for the highest possible speeds for Europe's internet ventures.
- Passed an agreement with a major exception in copyright law, which will make it easier to produce books for the visually impaired and blind people
These are all things I consider important for the future of our society, and someone needs to keep fighting for them.
Sonik
Member
As a Brit, I'll definitely be voting as well, although I've still not decided which party to vote for.
I'm not at all sure that the EU is really working, but nor am I certain that it's broken beyond repair. If the Conservatives were to hold an in-or-out referendum tomorrow, for the first time in my life I would seriously consider not turning out to vote, purely because I don't feel qualified enough to make that decision.
I do worry that the naysayers are right; that it's an expensive, bureaucratic, ineffective muddle of elite-led institutions promoting an agenda agreed behind-closed-doors. When I look at what is going on in southern and eastern Europe, I think, heck, nevermind our own national interest, is this mess even working in the interest of Europe?
But at the same time, I do quite like the idea, in principle, of a degree of European integration. In the modern globalising world I think it makes sense to work together with our neighbours to promote our common interests, and I enjoy the benefits of European citizenship. Indeed, I wish that I could also enjoy the benefits of the Schengen Agreement - I'm assured that immigration is already 'totally out of control', so if we have handed over our sovereignty then we might as well claim our reward!
The thing is, even if the EU is a problem, it's clearly not the biggest problem facing this country. I really resent how the political circus obsesses over bad old Brussels but makes so little noise about how power and wealth is so over-centralised in London. That's what really hurts this country, but we focus on foreign influence instead of getting our own house in order.
I'm not at all sure that the EU is really working, but nor am I certain that it's broken beyond repair. If the Conservatives were to hold an in-or-out referendum tomorrow, for the first time in my life I would seriously consider not turning out to vote, purely because I don't feel qualified enough to make that decision.
I do worry that the naysayers are right; that it's an expensive, bureaucratic, ineffective muddle of elite-led institutions promoting an agenda agreed behind-closed-doors. When I look at what is going on in southern and eastern Europe, I think, heck, nevermind our own national interest, is this mess even working in the interest of Europe?
But at the same time, I do quite like the idea, in principle, of a degree of European integration. In the modern globalising world I think it makes sense to work together with our neighbours to promote our common interests, and I enjoy the benefits of European citizenship. Indeed, I wish that I could also enjoy the benefits of the Schengen Agreement - I'm assured that immigration is already 'totally out of control', so if we have handed over our sovereignty then we might as well claim our reward!
The thing is, even if the EU is a problem, it's clearly not the biggest problem facing this country. I really resent how the political circus obsesses over bad old Brussels but makes so little noise about how power and wealth is so over-centralised in London. That's what really hurts this country, but we focus on foreign influence instead of getting our own house in order.
sadly, that's pretty much true for every single country in the eu.
From what I could gather, the EU parliament is pro citizens most of the time - contrary to the council and the... 3rd part. The austerity stuff going on in southern Europe seems mostly their (the councils?) fault.
I've been anti eu my whole life, but the more I read, the more I realized that we, as small countries have barely any bargaining power on our own left. Even Germany would have a hard time on their own, and they are by far the biggest. I want this thing to work and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt this time, as rules seem to have chanced in our favour (as in, the parliament got an upgrade). And as I said, whoever gets to become council president will be the real test.
What is it you feel that's not working about the EU?
I wish I could provide specific examples, but I have this vague sense that the EU is a very expensive and not very effective bureaucracy. Many of its flagship projects - the CAP, the EAW, the Euro, EU expansion - appear to have been mismanaged or were simply ill-advised from the start. And although the Greek crisis is too complex for me to judge, it's difficult to be confident that the EU has handled it adequately.
My gut feeling is that the EU has gotten to big for its boots. It's taken on a broad range of responsibilities, but it lacks the power, unity and coherence to take decisive action and deliver bold solutions. Instead, we've ended up with a complex and wishy-washy organisation that seems to dither and compromise at every turn, fiddling while Athens burns.
I worry that, as a continent, we'd be better off scaling back political and monetary integration, because we're pooling too much authority into an organisation that seems unable to wield it effectively, and instead of multiplying our collective capacity we're actually reducing it.
That's just my intuition and I could be totally incorrect. Maybe the EU is doing a good job in preventing Greece from sliding into oblivion; maybe it's done the best anyone could hope for regarding Ukraine. But it doesn't seem like it.
anonymous_abc
Member
Endgame nearing.
Going to go out campaigning this afternoon.
Going to go out campaigning this afternoon.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Come on, there's a battle about everything. From economic policies, which btw is dictated by the largest players, to foreign policy where every country have their own interest and these interests can be opposite to other countries within the union.
Why do France and Germany have the largest pull? That what is not working. Large states determine the policies across the continent. I am pro EU mind you, but these things irk me a lot.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/18/eurozone-problems-european-elections
You are putting all the blame on the "lazy southern Europeans that can't manage their countries" when Germany and the Euro are also to blame. The single currency is going to destroy Europe and voting won't change much.
I am not going to vote.
CyclopsRock
Member
Basically, yeah - most people value education, healthcare, transport infrastructure etc more than whether we're in the EU, but that means that for people to whom the EU is the most important thing, they have no one to vote for but UKIP, irrespective of their other policy positions.
I can't help but think if Germany had won the second world war that the EU would look similar to what it is today, just a lot less subtle.
A protectionist continent with Germany being a fiscal magnet to the expense of everyone else.
The EU should have been a free trade and arms treaty, simple as that. The current mess is incomprehensible to me.
titusandronicus
Member
I didn't register in time, can I on the day?
CyclopsRock
Member
Sorry, I didn't see this before! I've been off enjoying the free movement of people's across the EU!
I meant re: the EU's legitimacy. You can't feasibly de-claw a national legislature in a country without local legislatures (a la the US) because you'd be destroying the rule of the law. That's not the case with the EU, so my question was really how low the voter turnout would have to get before you believed that the lack of legitimacy meant that the EU should have less power, not more. In making this decision, it would be ceding power bacl to national legislatures, not turning your back on democracy as a concept. Merely, this one theatre of it.
Certainly, and many have also claimed power back, also. We were talking, however, about how the EU parliament has a role in negotiating the seat of power on various policy fronts. My point was simply that national governments are a far more effective way of doing this (even when it involves giving more power) than a pan-European parliament, because it's far easier for voices to get lost when nations do not hold a veto (as is the case in the EP, where an MEP's nationality is an irrelevance).
I don't think it is - we could simply have each region (or country, if you have a single region as per Germany) send only one member from each party that wins a single MEP threshold, and have their votes in parliamentary legislative ballots counted for more. You would still need some more, but instead of having 30 UKIP MEP's all voting the same way, have one voting 30 times and use the other 29 desks to allow smaller parties to have their voices heard, even if their votes are only worth 1 (or 0.1, whatever their voteshare warranted). It's not like, in the list system used in the UK and other countries, individual parliamentarians are accountable anyway, or at least they are only in the most diffused way possible. The only way Dan Hannan (Conservative MEP for the SE England) wouldn't be elected is if he chose not to run again. This is the case in many "safe seats" across the country, but this is generally perceived to be a bad thing, yet the list system of elections cements it.
Why? Like I said, the opt outs that many countries have on various issues suggests that we do not need homogenising. Indeed, I'd argue it's rather healthier to have some countries have some regulations and others have others; Allow workers, with their wonderfully bestowed free right of movement, choose where they'd rather work, and under which conditions. Personally, I wouldn't like to be told that I'm not allowed to work over a certain number of hours (bearing in mind, I don't operate heavy machinery or drive a truck!) and I'm grateful that I live in a country with an opt out for that bit. But, likewise, I'm also grateful that, should I ever find the desire to have my working hours dictated to me by busy bodies under the guise of protecting me, Paris is a mere 3-hour train ride away! And I do love the SNCF jingle!
And how much harm is that doing? I'd like to point out that, whilst their number may not be huge, one of the UK's opt-outs is the one thing stopping us from being legally obliged to join the Euro. Given the utter train wreck of confused champagne buggery that is the Eurozone, I'd argue that it's the most significant bit of legislation governing the UK's current handsome growth prospects in existence. The Euro is an absolute scourge even if the EU federalised over night, never mind the fact that it hasn't. God Bless the Maastricht Rebels!
I'm not opposed to more referendums or direct democracy, but I'm not sure such a move would do our relationship with the EU much good! And you're right that it's a flaw in party political democracy, but one might argue that this particularly makes it particularly troubling to give away power from the national legislature to the EU parliament without a referendum. It's that transfer of power that's the problem, because I don't think it's right that the European Parliament should be your chief concern if you don't want to cede power to it. Power ceded is much harder to reclaim than initially giving it away. The reason we've never been given a referendum on any of it in the UK, despite a few wooly promises and a pretty significant public demand for one, is because everyone fears the result. That's not exactly democracy in action, when people are forced to vote either blue, red or yellow nationally because the only alternative is UKIP.
Indeed, so let's have the opportunity to allow a majority to do some trumping! I feel the same re: Scottish Nationalism, and that if Scotland votes to remain with the UK, there will always be further calls for another vote, or another movement. But, in both cases, they will be the first referendums (if we get one on the EU) for a very long time (even longer for the EU in the sense that it's changed so significantly since the last one - Scotland's relationship with the UK has been static for some time, sans the Scottish Parliament which is already a concession of power).
But I really disagree with you re: the inevitability of closer union. That flies with me for the Eurozone, yes, but not for the 28. If Germany and France and Poland and Romania want to get together and support one another's debt, I'd suggest that, indeed, they either shit, or get off the pot. That's a problem that's not going away for the Eurozone as long as they remain the Eurozone, and it's the inevitable consequence of sharing a currency; maintaining national budgets whilst throwing away national abilities to flip switches and throw levers, fiscally speaking. But that's got nothing to do with the rest of us. I've never been giving a convincing argument as to why the UK needs to have the same banking regulations as Germany just so that a Parisian can work in London, or a shoe maker in Wales can sell stock to a boutique in Madrid without getting taxed through the arsehole.
I meant re: the EU's legitimacy. You can't feasibly de-claw a national legislature in a country without local legislatures (a la the US) because you'd be destroying the rule of the law. That's not the case with the EU, so my question was really how low the voter turnout would have to get before you believed that the lack of legitimacy meant that the EU should have less power, not more. In making this decision, it would be ceding power bacl to national legislatures, not turning your back on democracy as a concept. Merely, this one theatre of it.
Certainly, and many have also claimed power back, also. We were talking, however, about how the EU parliament has a role in negotiating the seat of power on various policy fronts. My point was simply that national governments are a far more effective way of doing this (even when it involves giving more power) than a pan-European parliament, because it's far easier for voices to get lost when nations do not hold a veto (as is the case in the EP, where an MEP's nationality is an irrelevance).
Sorry for the blaming jabs, it's just I feel you argue contra I argue pro.
And of course 200k is a lot. But in order to bring down that number we would have to significantly increase the size of the parliament which seems counter productive in the current political climate and impractically in general anyway.
I don't think it is - we could simply have each region (or country, if you have a single region as per Germany) send only one member from each party that wins a single MEP threshold, and have their votes in parliamentary legislative ballots counted for more. You would still need some more, but instead of having 30 UKIP MEP's all voting the same way, have one voting 30 times and use the other 29 desks to allow smaller parties to have their voices heard, even if their votes are only worth 1 (or 0.1, whatever their voteshare warranted). It's not like, in the list system used in the UK and other countries, individual parliamentarians are accountable anyway, or at least they are only in the most diffused way possible. The only way Dan Hannan (Conservative MEP for the SE England) wouldn't be elected is if he chose not to run again. This is the case in many "safe seats" across the country, but this is generally perceived to be a bad thing, yet the list system of elections cements it.
Why? Like I said, the opt outs that many countries have on various issues suggests that we do not need homogenising. Indeed, I'd argue it's rather healthier to have some countries have some regulations and others have others; Allow workers, with their wonderfully bestowed free right of movement, choose where they'd rather work, and under which conditions. Personally, I wouldn't like to be told that I'm not allowed to work over a certain number of hours (bearing in mind, I don't operate heavy machinery or drive a truck!) and I'm grateful that I live in a country with an opt out for that bit. But, likewise, I'm also grateful that, should I ever find the desire to have my working hours dictated to me by busy bodies under the guise of protecting me, Paris is a mere 3-hour train ride away! And I do love the SNCF jingle!
And how much harm is that doing? I'd like to point out that, whilst their number may not be huge, one of the UK's opt-outs is the one thing stopping us from being legally obliged to join the Euro. Given the utter train wreck of confused champagne buggery that is the Eurozone, I'd argue that it's the most significant bit of legislation governing the UK's current handsome growth prospects in existence. The Euro is an absolute scourge even if the EU federalised over night, never mind the fact that it hasn't. God Bless the Maastricht Rebels!
I'm not opposed to more referendums or direct democracy, but I'm not sure such a move would do our relationship with the EU much good! And you're right that it's a flaw in party political democracy, but one might argue that this particularly makes it particularly troubling to give away power from the national legislature to the EU parliament without a referendum. It's that transfer of power that's the problem, because I don't think it's right that the European Parliament should be your chief concern if you don't want to cede power to it. Power ceded is much harder to reclaim than initially giving it away. The reason we've never been given a referendum on any of it in the UK, despite a few wooly promises and a pretty significant public demand for one, is because everyone fears the result. That's not exactly democracy in action, when people are forced to vote either blue, red or yellow nationally because the only alternative is UKIP.
Indeed, so let's have the opportunity to allow a majority to do some trumping! I feel the same re: Scottish Nationalism, and that if Scotland votes to remain with the UK, there will always be further calls for another vote, or another movement. But, in both cases, they will be the first referendums (if we get one on the EU) for a very long time (even longer for the EU in the sense that it's changed so significantly since the last one - Scotland's relationship with the UK has been static for some time, sans the Scottish Parliament which is already a concession of power).
But I really disagree with you re: the inevitability of closer union. That flies with me for the Eurozone, yes, but not for the 28. If Germany and France and Poland and Romania want to get together and support one another's debt, I'd suggest that, indeed, they either shit, or get off the pot. That's a problem that's not going away for the Eurozone as long as they remain the Eurozone, and it's the inevitable consequence of sharing a currency; maintaining national budgets whilst throwing away national abilities to flip switches and throw levers, fiscally speaking. But that's got nothing to do with the rest of us. I've never been giving a convincing argument as to why the UK needs to have the same banking regulations as Germany just so that a Parisian can work in London, or a shoe maker in Wales can sell stock to a boutique in Madrid without getting taxed through the arsehole.
Because they're the largest countries? Who do you expect to have greatest influence if not the biggest member states? Mind you, Britain could join them as well, but they rather choose to bitch and moan while simultaneously enjoying rebates and special rulings no one else has. Makes me sometimes want them to finally get done with the EU and get out.
As for the other big countries? Well, Spain's economy is a bit of a mess and lol Italian politics.
There's bitching and moaning in most countries.
anonymous_abc
Member
I love it too, gets even better when you don't need to carry multiple curencies around.
I don't know, I don't think I can put a number to it and I don't think it's will be in anyway clear once number x is passed.
I don't care about how things effect zee Germans. I very much care about how things affect the citizens currently living within those borders. For me it has nothing to do with nationality and I am glad that the EP doesn't vote along national lines or has a national veto.
Not sure how I feel about this delegate system of democracy. The EP has plenty of parties in it already, I don't think it would become more efficient or democratically accountable by increasing that number. And the delegate system would only lead to an even more elite system where you can bet your sweet ass, that most delegates would come from the powerbases of the respective parties, usualy the national capitols. So the broad geographic representation would seriosuly suffer.
I am having trouble finding a comprehensive list of what countries have how many opt outs, because I really don't think it's many countries or in many areas. It is manely UK, Ireland and Denmark and manely related to the Euro and Shengen. And to take your example. In practice noone in Germany is forced to work less than 48 hours. If you want to you fiddle your time sheet and no one will care. The whole point though is for it to be nice to not be forced to do so. It's the kind of legislation in place to protect the weak in our society not stop you from working however much you want. Obviously that is not the way it is framed in the political discussion by the UK it's all about 'taking away workers liberties' or such nonsence.
What can I say, it's the system the west currently has. More direct democracy is slowly coming and I am sure we will have more of it in future. I hope the next EP can get european referendums off the ground.
We will see. The UK will get it's referendum and it will be hella interesting to watch.
Seeing as only two countries are set to not adopt the Euro, my point still stands and was manely aimed ad the Eurogroup anyway. Of course the UK won't come closer to the UK in its current form. And we already have a EU of two speeds (as it is called in Germany) where the core grows closer together ever quicker and the rest fumbles along at the side lines.
Banking regulation is the kind of prime example what we need the EU for, things like transaction tax only work if the area covered by such legislation is as large as possible. Only Belgium or only Portugal to introduce souch mechanisms would not help protect the European economy overall. It requires transnational agreements which are significantly easier to implement with the EU framework than if it where 28 nations making 28² bilateral agreements.
- Status