|
| Thread: The Euro-American War |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV |
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted June 05, 2005 10:33 PM |
|
|
the problem with teh brits and europe is that the british are still living in another world... but they do not realy want a diveded europe. all they want is to be on top of the french no matter what the cost, or what is the reality
An of course you can't forget about the great "Empire Syndrom" where a considerable part of the bristh public belives or has an illusion of britain still being a world leader and able to get by smoothly on their own...
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted June 05, 2005 10:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
An of course you can't forget about the great "Empire Syndrom" where a considerable part of the bristh public belives or has an illusion of britain still being a world leader and able to get by smoothly on their own...
Which is totally different from the French.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2005 10:48 PM |
|
|
lol...nooo the french just think that they are the greatest in the world...which is totaly different 
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted June 05, 2005 10:54 PM |
|
|
Fools. Everyone knows that I'm the greatest in the world. (Followed closely by the ancient Easter Islanders, of course)
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted June 05, 2005 11:57 PM |
|
|
Fool. The Easter Islanders couldn't even write in a comprehensible fashion.
Ahem...
So, to a more fitting subject: The so-called "democratic deficit" of the European Union. I seem to recall that someone on page 4 said that this was an exaggerated matter. I'm not sure if I can agree with that:
All of the EU member states are well-established democracies (although I personally have some doubts about the Italians...). This of course means that the population in each state elects a national assembly, a government, and in some states a persident as well (Finland and France). These elected institutions weild power on behalf of the voters, are responsible for their own actions, and can be kicked out of office by the voters during the next elections, if the voters aren't happy with how their representatives have represented them. Laws, taxes and budgets are made in open processes where the population and the massmedia have a right of access. The processes are open, and, at least to a certain degree, transparent.
But what happens when national authorities transfer political power to the institutions of the EU? What happens to democracy?
(You'll have to excuse it if the names of some of the following institutions are wrong, but I have no idea what they're called in English, so I merely translate them directly from Norwegian. However, with some basic knowledge, it shouldn't be too hard to understand what I'm talking about. )
 In the Minister Council and the European Council, the voters are only indirectly represented. They have elected the governments who represent the member states (but not the government members). In addition, the negotiations in these agencies as a rule take place behind closed doors, where the public have little to none access.
In the European Commission, the members have been picked by the government, and as such, they can hardly be defined as "elected by popular vote". In spite of this, they have extensive political powers.
The members of the European Parliament are elected directly by the European citizens, but the participation in these elections are usually extremely low. Also, the parliament's powers are very limited, compared to "normal" national assemblies.
These conditions are the reasons why we talk about a "democratic deficit" in the EU. The executive agencies that have political power in the EU are not under the same democratic control as the executive agencies in the member states. It is somewhat of a paradox that so many democratic countries have developed a cooperation that doesn't meet the same dmocratic standards.
In theory, it's not hard to solve this problem: If the European Parliament is given the same authority as a national assembly, democracy could be "lifetd up" to the European level - but this is exactly what the member states fears, since it will completely destroy national sovereignty.
In other words, this seems to be an unsolvable dilemma: It's not possible to find a proper solution to the democratic problems of the EU without creating the European United States with ageencies elected through popular the vote. This would mean the end to European national states as we have known them in the last 200 years, and at the entry to the 21th century, very few people desire something like this.
But why not?
Please note: This post is, with the exception of the comment about "But why not?", not normative, but descriptive. I.e., it's not merely my opinion (although it basically is), but facts backed by research.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 07, 2005 03:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But what happens when national authorities transfer political power to the institutions of the EU? What happens to democracy?
What then? U r talking like they are some kind of external enemy bodies, and not composed of democratically legitimate officials representing the member-states, what they actually are.
One grossly-twisted argument by Euro-skeptics (disguised as democrats) is when you say the voters are indirectly represented. Does that stand for illegitimate as well? Are the courts in ur country, the army and police officials, in the end, is the government itself in ur country in opposition to democratic values?! No country in the world elects its government on direct elections, and yet in most countries it’s precisely the government which wields the greatest power. How come in this case its perfectly normal that its elected indirectly by the parliament or (less common) the president, by giving mandate to the Primeminister?! Its absurd to claim “democratic deficit” merely by pointing out to the absence of direct elections, like with the EU bodies.
Both the Minister Council and the European Council are composed of government members and (in the case of the European Council) Presidents and Primeministers. Denying the legitimacy of these structures is denying the legitimacy of all governments of Europe. Furthermore, they have a much greater legitimacy than the European Parliament and their decisions are always more valid than those of the Parliament. What would have a bigger value for you – what ur government representatives have agreed with other government representatives, or what some Parliament whose members were elected with poor democratic censuses decides?
The European Commission cant pass laws, they function as a kind of government of the EU, representing the working mechanism of the Union. Therefore, its both impossible and unnecessary to have them elected by popular vote.
Quote:
If the European Parliament is given the same authority as a national assembly, democracy could be "lifetd up" to the European level - but this is exactly what the member states fears, since it will completely destroy national sovereignty.
Although, I agree about strengthening the authority of the Parliament, its no way to eliminate the “democratic deficit” people talk about. Let me remind you that precisely because of the allegedly fear or this deficit, people are paranoic about leaving part of their national sovereignity to the Union.
There are numerous moduses the EU could take on in order to continue on its path as a unifying concept for the Europeans and expand that role. It doesn’t nearly imply that the American model is the only viable one. What really lacks is the political will to do so and a great deal of nationalistic deficit; not having that, people invent various excuses why the EU is a bad future prospect, what imo is by any chance not the case. Certainly, I’m not saying its perfect - at the moment its too robust, massive, but also impossible to reform without any countries giving up fractions of their national sovereignity, thus giving rise to a new European sovereignity.
Please note, I'm not arguing with terje for "his" theses, but with the theses themselves.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted June 07, 2005 07:48 PM |
|
|
Hehe, this is the last time I take something I read in a textbook for granted. Just goes to show that even the institution we should be supposed to trust the most, namely our educational system - a system that should stand for truth, not propaganda (God, I'm so naïve  ), has to be approached with caution. Hidden agendas everywhere. 
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 07, 2005 10:12 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 7 Jun 2005
|
Indeed . . . .
After much deliberation and long periods of careful thought weighing the 'truth' of today's society, I've recently taken up membership in the ranks of the Illuminati. With so many conspiracies today, one truly hasn't got much choice in the matter. We can either be victims or powerful counter-revolutionaries.
I refuse to play the part of plebian in this dramatic fiasco of a world. Fight fire with fire, I always say.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 07, 2005 10:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
the problem with teh brits and europe is that the british are still living in another world... but they do not realy want a diveded europe. all they want is to be on top of the french no matter what the cost, or what is the reality
Speaking as a Brit I can say that certainly isn't what annoys us most about europe at all but rather a stereotypical view about what the British think.
As for the French, remember they were the ones keeping us OUT of europe for quite some time....
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted June 08, 2005 08:55 PM |
|
|
Speaking of stereotypes, wasn't that de Gaulle's merit; to keep you Brits out of the EU? Not "the French"?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 08, 2005 11:49 PM |
|
|
And who put him in office?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted June 11, 2005 12:14 AM |
|
|
Uh, Satan?
Anyway, I found this neat little comment on American conservatives' reactions to the French Non. Thought I'd translate it to you:
"The American rightwing has been eagerly awaiting the results of the French Constitutional Referendum, and this week, they've released their cheers of joy. The Weekly Standard 's Irving Kristol has been talking about how the 'no' represents a 'liberation' of France, with badly hidden allusions to 1944. However, Philip Gordon, a commentator in The New Republic, has poured cold water into the blood [I'm unsure of whether this is an actual English idiom, but I hope you get the meaning - after all, you're clever little buggers, ain't you?  ] of the cheerleaders.
"It isn't so that France voted 'no' because of his attitude to the Iraqi War. Rather, this is one of the few things the French like about him. Are the French sick and tired of protectionism and regulations, like Kritol and his like-minded comrades? No. These are the things of which the left definitively craves more of. A delay or stop in the EUs expansion eastwards is quite the opposite of what the US should be hoping for, since most of the new candidate states are more positive towards the US than the current members.
"Under the surface of this debate, we find a deep split in Americans' views on Europe. The conservatives wants a divided Europe, which to a lesser extent will be an obstacle for the US. The liberals, however, wants a stronger, united Europe, to serve as a partner and as a counterweight to the dominating Right in their own country [i.e. the US]. In this sense, the French 'no' is still a victory for Kristol and his fellow conservatives, but it's not untimely to ask: How clever is it really, to cheer a triumph that European nationalists, populists, socialists and communists celebrate as well?"
I am of course not able to comment on the validity of the points of view presented in this short commentary, since I have fairly limited knowledge about the various political movements in the US, but I thought it none the less was an interesting little thing.
Also, I found it kinda funny that the conservative opinions sketched here seem to fit very well with the opinions our own dear Conservative In Residence, Khayman, posted on page 4.
|
| |
|
|
