EU: "Democracy? What's that?"

[Tsukiyumi]

Oh, well @#!$ that.


And Colmquinn, I can understand your POV too - I'm not all that thrilled to be led by Mr. Texan Biblethumper(no offense, Tsu)...

None taken. And, for the hundredth time, he's from Connecticut. God only knows why he lives here.

On-topic , I agree with the concept of the EU, but only if the people are in control. Of course, there is no such country that I'm aware of...

[Grundig]

Dang it, I knew that, but forgot. Seriously, what's with his drawl then? I owe Texas an apology.

[Tsukiyumi]

...what's with his drawl then?

Brain damage?

[colmquinn]

And Colmquinn, I can understand your POV too - I'm not all that thrilled to be led by Mr. Texan Biblethumper(no offense, Tsu)...

Well at least you guys had your elections for good 'ol GWB, the way they're working it this neck of the woods we'll be getting not much of a say.
I agree with Mikey, initially it was said (before the last ref) that if Ireland didn't ratify then the treaty was dead, seems silly little us got it wrong and didn't understand the question properly and being given another chance to correct our mistake.

In the EU elections in June 09 a group known as Libertas http://www.libertas.eu/ who campaigned against the treaty in Irl are going to form a political party and have candidates in as many countries as they can to allow a kind of protest vote for the other member states who aren't getting a chance to vote on the treaty itself.

Now off to the pub to have some "serious" political discourse

[Sionnach Glic]

Here's the thread I was talking about earlier, in which the EU hypotheticaly becomes one big nation. It's pretty long, and mostly involves a typical Blackstar debate, so for those of you who aren't interested in wading through it, one of Seafort's posts in that thread sums up the major problems:

Economics: the economies of the various EU member states are substantially different - measures necessary to the smooth running of one country's economy would be a disaster in another. This tendency is exacarbated by the profusion of poor southern and eastern countries that have joined the EU in recent years, and absorb a disproportionate amount of the EU budget. This is probably largely due to the manifest incompetance of the European Parliament, which has never had it's budget signed off as balancing by the accountants employed to check it - this has been going on for the last 15 years.

Politics: even worse than the economics. The aim of the European parliament and Commission is to gain more power for itself at the expense of the population. The Commission in particular, which holds most of the power, is appointed with no regard to the principles of democracy, and has the power to overrule elected national parliaments with no oversight by elected representatives. The Parliament is slightly more democratic, but its use of proportional respresentation allows the elected of extremist fringe movements, and has no direct accountability of members to constituents in the manner of a first-past-the-post system. They also highly corrupt, with a tendency to line their own pockets by authorising salaries to non existent staff, among other methods.

[Captain Seafort]

You could have at least cleaned up my typos before you posted that.

But, yes, overall the EU pays scant regard to democracy (this is the second time they've told the Irish to vote again after they got the answer "wrong"). The European Parliament is at least democractic, although it uses a rather iffy system, but the Parliament has very little power - it's the beaurocrats who run the place, either appointed by national governments or promoted from within the Brussels-Strasbourg system.

As to the comparision to the US, it doesn't hold water. The US had from the begining a common history and a common culture, since all the original thirteen states were British colonies. The only common history the members of the EU have is one of beating the crap out of each other - us and the French in particular have been at loggerheads for the best part of a millenia. The culture, economic systems, history, and legal systems of the various members are all completely different.

[Tsukiyumi]

You could have at least cleaned up my typos before you posted that.

...beaurocrats...

You're completely right, of course. Trying to get historical enemies to even talk is hard enough. Trying to get them to merge into a single entity is near impossible.

[shran]

Hell, people can't even agree in country. Almost every country in the EU has some sort of independency movement in its borders, and havoc ensues when two groups of soccer fans meet, supporting different clubs. Considering that, unity is not going to work well in a long time. Add that to Seaforts post, and you know why it won't work.

[Grundig]

I totally understand that the comparison between the EU and the US doesn't hold up. I'm using it as a frame of reference; discovering the differences between the two powers helps me understand more about the nature of the EU. In other words, I'm an ingnorant American, and I have to have everything explained in reference to my little isolated reality

So, do you think it's ultimately worth it to try and unify? Also, if this is so problematic and corrupted, why are only the Irish putting up a fight? I'm asking this honestly, btw.

[Mikey]

As I said, nation-building falls apart when it goes counter to actual natural national divisions. Even more so when done against the will of the consituency.

It's only been lately that they've got it into their minds that they want to be a nation all of their own, and started pushing for more political power, such as having representatives at various international sumits.

"Only lately" as in, "When Sarkozy came to power?"

[Captain Seafort]

So, do you think it's ultimately worth it to try and unify?

It's worth a trading union, which the European Economic Community was formed as, but a political union would be a bad idea even if the lot in charge weren't corrupt and incompetent.

Also, if this is so problematic and corrupted, why are only the Irish putting up a fight? I'm asking this honestly, btw.

It isn't just the Irish - the French and the Dutch told the EU to stick its constitution up its arse a few years ago, and quite a few others were waiting to follow suit. The solution from Brussels was to change the name and pretend it was something completely different. This gave the various governments an excuse to ram it through without holding referenda (which would almost certainly have got a similar response to previously). Fortunately for the countries of Europe, and unfortunately for Brussels, the Irish constitution requires a referendum on anything that alters it, as the EU constitution does.

[Sionnach Glic]

The other countries are opposed to this. The first time they ran it a few years ago, France and a couple of other countries also shot it down. And AFAIK, Ireland got a lot of support from the populations of other EU countries after we shot the last one down.

After it got shot down the first time, they changed the constitution so that it wasn't a constitution, but a "treaty". This allowed them to avoid holding elections in the various countries, and just get the governments of the countries to aprove it. It's only because of our constitution that we're able to hold a vote on it. I'm sure they'll be looking for ways of getting around that, too, if this attempt fails.

[Mark]

A New World Order????

[Tsukiyumi]

Hey, wait. That's our scheme. Get your own scheme, Europe!

[Mark]

Yeah..........vote for as world dictators! We'll cut taxes!