The European Union debate!

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

"The EU is based on the rule of law. This means that everything that it does is founded on treaties, voluntarily and democratically agreed by all member countries. These binding agreements set out the EU's goals in its many areas of activity.

One of its main goals is to promote human rights both internally and around the world. Human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights: these are the core values of the EU. Since the 2009 signing of the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights brings all these rights together in a single document. The EU's institutions are legally bound to uphold them, as are EU governments whenever they apply EU law."

Text copied from : http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-info...n/index_en.htm

What are your opinions on the EU's Charter of the Fundamental Rights : http://europa.eu/legislation_summari.../l33501_en.htm

Do you believe that the EU still works under the principles it was founded upon?

With the increasing number of separate nation states denied referendums at will such as the Irish case, and on other occasions ignoring the results of such referendums such as the French and Dutch votes.

Is this in your opinion the way to go in the EU, to have a central government that can ignore specific nation's people and their will?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Do you believe that the EU still works under the principles it was founded upon?

No I do not. It is one of the most protectionist organizations on Earth. The CAP and import tariffs are one of the worst maintainers of developing world poverty in the world today. They impoverish us equally, denying us cheaper imports and tying up our resources producing more expensive alternatives. The ECB and hte rest of the exectuive was until recently one of the most incompetent in the world, and although they have improved, its staff is still not as professional as I would like them to be. They should be the best of the best.

Is this in your opinion the way to go in the EU, to have a central government that can ignore specific nation's people and their will?

Ideally yes, I like the idea of a European state because European countries no longer have any influence in the international arena, and for ecnomy of scale reasons. Obviously it will be a lot looser with a weaker central government than the United States. But the EU is already a state in all but name.

[magpie]

The EU has changed since Britain failed in its veto on the fiscal treaty.
France and Germany along with other eurozone members have bypassed the union with the fiscal pact.
The ECB will also be taken out of the EU to all intents and its control will pass to the majority rule of the fiscal pact countries.
The old days of a member state being able to plead special interest will be gone, One could say there has been a palace coup and the old EU is for all intents and purposes dead.

Thats of course if the citizens of the EU allow it?

[Blau&Gruen]

Thats of course if the citizens of the EU allow it?

Good point. The question is if they have a choice.

[Rolling Thunder]

There's always a choice, even if it involves petrol bombs and uprising.

[Blau&Gruen]

There's always a choice, even if it involves petrol bombs and uprising.

The EU offers democractic possibilities, too, people are not always aware yet.

[Condottiere 40K]

There are several agendas at work; perhaps a palace coup will really come about, but more likely, several factions will come together and compromise, which will probably result in a political union with seemingly contradictory aims.

[Abendstern]

This means that everything that it does is founded on treaties, voluntarily and democratically agreed by all member countries.

If only... There wouldnt have been a Euro let alone a transfer union.

A common currency is a farce when the participants dont play by the same rules. Goes for most any other 'common' thing.

[Mangalore]

With the increasing number of separate nation states denied referendums at will such as the Irish case, and on other occasions ignoring the results of such referendums such as the French and Dutch votes.

That myth again. You do not instate referenda for laughs. They are bound to laws and constitutions as well and the national government/courts/parliament might have leeway on when a referendum is necessary.

More importantly those referenda were about adjusting national constitutional issues that would have prevented the implementation of the EU treaties, they were never held about the EU treaties because the later are international treaties and are constantly handled by the government and parliament. If you then remove or reshape the treaty segments that make a constitutional amendment necessary the legal basis for a referendum goes away.

Overall a EU empowerment through a europewide referendum would be nice, but since people have trouble with their own political systems I can't see that from not getting hijacked besides the point. The absurd play is that on one side the EU is decried as undemocratic but on the other hand eurosceptic countries will do anything to prevent a democratic EU since it would empower the EU government to enormous degrees. The EU constitution was partly shot down because it would have given a lot of power to the EU parliament.

Luckily the EU treaty of Lisbon still transferred alot of new oversight powers to the EU parliament so that development is positive. What they still lack is shaping legislative policy by themselves and budget control.

But once again the undemocratic machinations of the EU are actually in there because member states want to prevent a democratic and hence far more powerful and independant EU government. They do that by giving a commission the directives of what to do and maintaining control via the EU council and by withholding budget and legislative rights from the EU parliament.

Of course, a supranational government with the democratic legitimization to exercise its powers would necessitate constitutional amendments in pretty much all EU countries (e.g. the supreme court in Germany made it pretty clear that the German parliament is the highest government body so to give sovereignty to another entity would require a change of the constitution)

It's a merry-go-around of one leads to the other which is the reason the state of the EU institutions is in such limbo and it is very precarious of giving it new powers.

If only... There wouldnt have been a Euro let alone a transfer union.

People seem astonishingly confused how democracy works. None voted the politicians signing the Euro treaty out of power => the demos decided it wasn't bad or didn't care => they democratically legitimized this act.

In contrast it is supposedly the job of politicans to do what is good for the people, not what people like.

[Abendstern]

People seem astonishingly confused how democracy works. None voted the politicians signing the Euro treaty out of power

Vote them out of power? Dont make me laugh, as if there was any party influential enough opposing this. As if there ever was a choice. By voting on parties instead of measures the people just get to decide on what faces they are going to see on television, telling them whats best for them and what is to be done. "Democracy" is given a bad name these days, by people such as you.

the demos decided it wasn't bad or didn't care

Or didnt know what to really do about it without bringing severe hardships upon themselves. On what occasions have politics been overruled by demonstrations lately? And by that I mean matters on which one is told by the politics in power that they are "without alternative"?

In contrast it is supposedly the job of politicans to do what is good for the people, not what people like.

Thats exactly what any tyrant would say.

[eisenkopf]

Vote them out of power? Dont make me laugh, as if there was any party influential enough opposing this. As if there ever was a choice. By voting on parties instead of measures the people just get to decide on what faces they are going to see on television, telling them whats best for them and what is to be done. "Democracy" is given a bad name these days, by people such as you.

Why was no party influential enough? Because you did not vote for them. In fact, it's you who gives democracy a bad name, because you choose to blame others than get your ass up and do something. By just saying that it would be futile, you choose the easy way out and do not accept the responsabilities you have as a citizen.

Or didnt know what to really do about it without bringing severe hardships upon themselves. On what occasions have politics been overruled by demonstrations lately? And by that I mean matters on which one is told by the politics in power that they are "without alternative"?

If they did not know, it's also their fault. Don't give me "they could not know". Informing yourself is one responsability of a citizen. And yes, there are ways to inform yourself despite the left-wing media conspiracy :-)

Thats exactly what any tyrant would say.

With the important difference that a tyrant would refuse to give up power if voted out...

[Abendstern]

Why was no party influential enough? Because you did not vote for them.

With elections every couple of years, the 5% limit, its not an easy process for a new party to get established. That is the minor part of the problem. The real problem is: Once a party gets established it has lost all interest in changing the system that got them into power. Politicians are a social elite (and its first interest is to feed itself and keep itself in power). When it should not even be a profession at all.

In fact, it's you who gives democracy a bad name, because you choose to blame others than get your ass up and do something. By just saying that it would be futile, you choose the easy way out and do not accept the responsabilities you have as a citizen.

Of course, Im as much to blame as the next one. I have a job to attend to, you know. I cant spend al day on this. In fact what Im doing just now is to get my ass up and letting others know about my opinion.

If they did not know, it's also their fault. Don't give me "they could not know". Informing yourself is one responsability of a citizen. And yes, there are ways to inform yourself despite the left-wing media conspiracy :-)

What do you mean, did not know? The people knew about the plans, disliked it. And spare me this left-right-BS. Politics isnt one-dimensional. Thats a fairy tale politicians tell the people so its easy to clasifiy ideas into good and evil, educated and stupid. But maybe you have fallen for it as well.

With the important difference that a tyrant would refuse to give up power if voted out...

Yeah, but a bunch of tyrants patting each others back as they switch in the top position doesnt make it any better for anyone not involved in this procedure.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

That myth again. You do not instate referenda for laughs. They are bound to laws and constitutions as well and the national government/courts/parliament might have leeway on when a referendum is necessary.

More importantly those referenda were about adjusting national constitutional issues that would have prevented the implementation of the EU treaties, they were never held about the EU treaties because the later are international treaties and are constantly handled by the government and parliament. If you then remove or reshape the treaty segments that make a constitutional amendment necessary the legal basis for a referendum goes away.

Overall a EU empowerment through a europewide referendum would be nice, but since people have trouble with their own political systems I can't see that from not getting hijacked besides the point. The absurd play is that on one side the EU is decried as undemocratic but on the other hand eurosceptic countries will do anything to prevent a democratic EU since it would empower the EU government to enormous degrees. The EU constitution was partly shot down because it would have given a lot of power to the EU parliament.

Luckily the EU treaty of Lisbon still transferred alot of new oversight powers to the EU parliament so that development is positive. What they still lack is shaping legislative policy by themselves and budget control.

But once again the undemocratic machinations of the EU are actually in there because member states want to prevent a democratic and hence far more powerful and independant EU government. They do that by giving a commission the directives of what to do and maintaining control via the EU council and by withholding budget and legislative rights from the EU parliament.

Of course, a supranational government with the democratic legitimization to exercise its powers would necessitate constitutional amendments in pretty much all EU countries (e.g. the supreme court in Germany made it pretty clear that the German parliament is the highest government body so to give sovereignty to another entity would require a change of the constitution)

It's a merry-go-around of one leads to the other which is the reason the state of the EU institutions is in such limbo and it is very precarious of giving it new powers.

I understand what you mean on giving the EU parliament more power is also a way to promote more democracy for the union, that would mean though that smaller countries have less representatives perhaps going hand to hand with population percentages in the union. Wouldn't that give too much power to certain states in the union? Not that power is not one-sided right now as it is, but I don't see how a more powerful parliament can make things more democratic for the whole of the population base.

People seem astonishingly confused how democracy works. None voted the politicians signing the Euro treaty out of power => the demos decided it wasn't bad or didn't care => they democratically legitimized this act.

In contrast it is supposedly the job of politicans to do what is good for the people, not what people like.

I don't agree with this part at all, in my opinion a politicians job is to do whatever the people want him to do. Even if it means the people's doom, if it's their choice..... There are countless examples of leaders who lead their people to their ruin by thinking he is acting for their interests without regularly pausing to take heed on the people's point of view.

I think the leader that would be loved by all would be the leader who would conduct a referendum on every single thing that is to be decided. It's easier in our days than ever before with the internet!

And if something goes wrong.. well blame the hackers!

[Alastor]

I think the leader that would be loved by all would be the leader who would conduct a referendum on every single thing that is to be decided. It's easier in our days than ever before with the internet!

And if something goes wrong.. well blame the hackers!

Good luck leading a state anywhere but destruction with a system like that though. The majority of people are simply not politically responsible enough to be allowed to decide on pivotal issues, not to mention the technocratic thingummy, how the hell is my grandpa supposed to vote on ie an economic referendum when he doesn't even understand what inflation is?

That way decisions will be subject to media-manipulation and fear-mongering. Thanks but if being ruled democratically means being ruled by a mob I'd rather refrain, we already see enough of that herd-mentality during elections. A referendum should only be used on special occasions, not as a rule, though if it happened a bit more often than once every 30 years that wouldn't be bad I guess.

[Mangalore]

I understand what you mean on giving the EU parliament more power is also a way to promote more democracy for the union, that would mean though that smaller countries have less representatives perhaps going hand to hand with population percentages in the union. Wouldn't that give too much power to certain states in the union? Not that power is not one-sided right now as it is, but I don't see how a more powerful parliament can make things more democratic for the whole of the population base.

They have out of proportion voting power in the EU council. The reason most countries have a two chamber system is to balance regional differences with population sizes. In essence the EU council has every nation given a seat regardless of population size and huge voting power since the double majority means the small countries can veto in numbers when being overpowered in population voting power.

I don't agree with this part at all, in my opinion a politicians job is to do whatever the people want him to do. Even if it means the people's doom, if it's their choice..... There are countless examples of leaders who lead their people to their ruin by thinking he is acting for their interests without regularly pausing to take heed on the people's point of view.

You just reformulated how democracy works. That is not in question. There is also the fact that what people want are usually conflicting interests(welfare security vs. low taxes) listening to them is pointless aka the politicians have to figure out how to balance competing interests. If a democratic politician could hand out thousands of euros to each citizen for free, he would do it, since he would get reelected but reality stands in the way and he has to steal that money from somewhere he has to decide which voters he pisses of now and gives candy later and which choices give longer term advantages and once the people realize it reelects him later.

The main difficulty is that there are myriad of people's opinion and the majority ones aren't necessarily the good or productive ones (I mean wanting lower taxes is neat but it has solved nothing since the difficulty is in what to do to get the groundwork to do it).

That is the main core of most criticism to democracy: Mob rule != good rule. The job of politicians is to channel opinions not just because that was the only practical way to do it in the past but because most people do not invest much thoughts in what they want and politics have to figure out what and how and when and where and in some cases tell the people what they need to want right now.

It is also a difficulty that most people want a leader aka not care about these decisions and in that setup it is preferrable that said leader is only temporarily empowered .

[Blau&Gruen]

European Citizens' Initiative - since 1. April 2012


see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...%27_Initiative

The European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) is one of the major innovations of the Treaty of Lisbon, aimed at increasing direct democracy in the European Union. The initiative enables one million EU citizens, who are nationals of at least one quarter of the Member States, to call directly on the European Commission to propose a legal act in an area where the Member States have conferred powers onto the EU level. This right to request the Commission to initiate a legislative proposal puts citizens on the same footing as the EP and the Council, who enjoy this right according to Art. 225 and 241 TFEU, respectively. The Commission holds the right of initiative in the EU.

[eisenkopf]

I understand what you mean on giving the EU parliament more power is also a way to promote more democracy for the union, that would mean though that smaller countries have less representatives perhaps going hand to hand with population percentages in the union. Wouldn't that give too much power to certain states in the union? Not that power is not one-sided right now as it is, but I don't see how a more powerful parliament can make things more democratic for the whole of the population base.

In fact, it is already that way to accomodate smaller countries. The vote of a Greek is worth more than my vote, because Greece sends more reprensatives to the Parliament than Germany (in relation to population). Do I think this is fair? No. But I accept that it is (at the moment) still necessary.

I don't agree with this part at all, in my opinion a politicians job is to do whatever the people want him to do. Even if it means the people's doom, if it's their choice..... There are countless examples of leaders who lead their people to their ruin by thinking he is acting for their interests without regularly pausing to take heed on the people's point of view.

I think the leader that would be loved by all would be the leader who would conduct a referendum on every single thing that is to be decided. It's easier in our days than ever before with the internet!

And if something goes wrong.. well blame the hackers!

What you describe is a direct democracy that does not need any policiticians. If they are supposed to only vote exactly what the demos wants, why have representatives at all?

In a representative democracy, the politicians can vote differently than what the people might want, for a reason. If it turns out bad, they should lose the next elections. As for looking only after their own interests: That is not in the spirit of it, and should be punished during the next elections.

The people have full responsability for the actions of the representatives. Unfortunately, people are lazy, and it is easier to blame politicians for anything that's wrong, but vote for them next time as well, than to change anything by voting for someone else or found your own party.... so that's what happens most of the time.

Every people has the representatives they deserve...


As for the original question of EU, rights, etc: The charter says nothing about how the citizens political participation should look like, because that is a matter of nation states at the moment, and the implementations vary greatly. Some nation have referenda, others don't. Whether they are held, and whether the will of the people is respected, depends on the national governments. Of course, these governments like to blame Brussels if the outcome is something they don't like and therefore ignore...

Otherwise, what Mangalore wrote.

[Jom]

Moved to the Political Academy.

[magpie]

Hmm. I think we live in interesting times my friends,
The fiscal pact in a way has maybe done something that its inventor,s did not forsee.
The masses are becoming very interested in politic,s as they come to realize that their personal survival depends on knowing what the hell is going on.

Slowly but surely the established parties are getting trimmed as each election comes up and people decide they want a system that the EU works for the citizens and not for a privileged cozy club.
It will be a long hard road and could go either way.

[Treize]

Let us have an EU that is an institution for countries to negotiate international issues and to make treaties to counter these problems. The last thing we need is a federal government as we currrently have. Lets abolish the European Commission and the European Parliament and hand over the remaining power to the state's representatives.

Cooperation between independent states, no EUSSR.