|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom10025 Posts
On October 24 2018 22:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:08 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 21:54 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2018 21:44 TheDwf wrote:
The EU is undemocratic because there is no corresponding European people who decided to merge their older nations and mutualize their budget, laws, territory and sovereignty Pretty sure the European people voted for the governments that came together and formed the EU. And France even held a referendum for it so 'you' actually got to vote for it. (even tho it only won by a very narrow margin) If you talk about Maastricht, it was 25 years ago and yes, it only won 51/49. But the TCE was also refused in 2005, and it contained all prior treaties, including Maastricht. So from there, there should have been a clarification. But conservatives and "social-democrats" made everything to bury the theme and passed a copy of the TCE together in the Congress in 2008, betraying Sarkozy's promise of a "mini-treaty". Sounds less like a lack of Democracy and more like you don't agree with the choice your Democratically elected government made. Welcome to life.
Its somewhere between the two or a little of both really.
If your democratically elected government decides to sell out some of your democratic rights, do you still have democracy? I think the answer is yes, but less so.
|
On October 24 2018 22:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:16 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2018 22:08 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 21:54 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2018 21:44 TheDwf wrote:
The EU is undemocratic because there is no corresponding European people who decided to merge their older nations and mutualize their budget, laws, territory and sovereignty Pretty sure the European people voted for the governments that came together and formed the EU. And France even held a referendum for it so 'you' actually got to vote for it. (even tho it only won by a very narrow margin) If you talk about Maastricht, it was 25 years ago and yes, it only won 51/49. But the TCE was also refused in 2005, and it contained all prior treaties, including Maastricht. So from there, there should have been a clarification. But conservatives and "social-democrats" made everything to bury the theme and passed a copy of the TCE together in the Congress in 2008, betraying Sarkozy's promise of a "mini-treaty". Sounds less like a lack of Democracy and more like you don't agree with the choice your Democratically elected government made. Welcome to life. Its somewhere between the two or a little of both really. If your democratically elected government decides to sell out some of your democratic rights, do you still have democracy? I think the answer is yes, but less so.
That's a common logical fallacy. A democracy cannot sellout democratic rights just like the mathematical "set of all sets that don't contain themselves" cannot be allowed to be a set by the definition of "a set".
Or how tolerance cannot tolerate the intolerant.
It's a basic definition problem. If your definition of democracy allows for undermining democracy then it is actually not democracy in the first place.
|
On October 24 2018 22:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:16 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2018 22:08 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 21:54 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2018 21:44 TheDwf wrote:
The EU is undemocratic because there is no corresponding European people who decided to merge their older nations and mutualize their budget, laws, territory and sovereignty Pretty sure the European people voted for the governments that came together and formed the EU. And France even held a referendum for it so 'you' actually got to vote for it. (even tho it only won by a very narrow margin) If you talk about Maastricht, it was 25 years ago and yes, it only won 51/49. But the TCE was also refused in 2005, and it contained all prior treaties, including Maastricht. So from there, there should have been a clarification. But conservatives and "social-democrats" made everything to bury the theme and passed a copy of the TCE together in the Congress in 2008, betraying Sarkozy's promise of a "mini-treaty". Sounds less like a lack of Democracy and more like you don't agree with the choice your Democratically elected government made. Welcome to life. Its somewhere between the two or a little of both really. If your democratically elected government decides to sell out some of your democratic rights, do you still have democracy? I think the answer is yes, but less so.
But then, which democratic rights have been sold out? Considering what previously been discussed is an example of representative democracy (commissions, council) and direct democracy (parliament).
|
The main question is who decides for whom in a given place. Even if the EU Parliament had power, you can see that we would quickly run into political aberrations. Exemple: in country A, a government of "radical" socialists is elected. But in the EU Parliament from the previous election, conservatives dominate. You're telling us that people from the country A, who just voted for radical socialists, should get a conservative fiscal policy because in the 26 other countries, conservatives mostly came ahead? It makes zero sense...
|
On October 24 2018 22:27 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 24 2018 22:16 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2018 22:08 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 21:54 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2018 21:44 TheDwf wrote:
The EU is undemocratic because there is no corresponding European people who decided to merge their older nations and mutualize their budget, laws, territory and sovereignty Pretty sure the European people voted for the governments that came together and formed the EU. And France even held a referendum for it so 'you' actually got to vote for it. (even tho it only won by a very narrow margin) If you talk about Maastricht, it was 25 years ago and yes, it only won 51/49. But the TCE was also refused in 2005, and it contained all prior treaties, including Maastricht. So from there, there should have been a clarification. But conservatives and "social-democrats" made everything to bury the theme and passed a copy of the TCE together in the Congress in 2008, betraying Sarkozy's promise of a "mini-treaty". Sounds less like a lack of Democracy and more like you don't agree with the choice your Democratically elected government made. Welcome to life. Its somewhere between the two or a little of both really. If your democratically elected government decides to sell out some of your democratic rights, do you still have democracy? I think the answer is yes, but less so. That's a common logical fallacy. A democracy cannot sellout democratic rights just like the mathematical "set of all sets that don't contain themselves" cannot be allowed to be a set by the definition of "a set". Or how tolerance cannot tolerate the intolerant. It's a basic definition problem. If your definition of democracy allows for undermining democracy then it is actually not democracy in the first place.
Every democracy allows for undermining democracy. That's how democracies get undermined in the first place. The Greeks were writing about this problem when they came up with the idea hundreds of years ago.
|
On October 24 2018 22:31 TheDwf wrote:
The main question is who decides for whom in a given place. Even if the EU Parliament had power, you can see that we would quickly run into political aberrations. Exemple: in country A, a government of "radical" socialists is elected. But in the EU Parliament from the previous election, conservatives dominate. You're telling us that people from the country A, who just voted for radical socialists, should get a conservative fiscal policy because in the 26 other countries, conservatives mostly came ahead? It makes zero sense...
But it is the same in several countries. I mean, if I were living in the state of Bavarian in Germany and I voted for some radical right wing party, I might have been pissed about who are controlling the entire federal parliament, but I would not call Germany an undemocratic nation.
|
On October 24 2018 22:38 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:31 TheDwf wrote:
The main question is who decides for whom in a given place. Even if the EU Parliament had power, you can see that we would quickly run into political aberrations. Exemple: in country A, a government of "radical" socialists is elected. But in the EU Parliament from the previous election, conservatives dominate. You're telling us that people from the country A, who just voted for radical socialists, should get a conservative fiscal policy because in the 26 other countries, conservatives mostly came ahead? It makes zero sense... But it is the same in several countries. I mean, if I were living in the state of Bavarian in Germany and I voted for some radical right wing party, I might have been pissed about who are controlling the entire federal parliament, but I would not call Germany an undemocratic nation.
The current nations are precisely not the regions of a European nation
|
On October 24 2018 22:13 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:04 Big J wrote:On October 24 2018 22:01 Toadesstern wrote:On October 24 2018 21:55 Big J wrote:On October 24 2018 21:40 Toadesstern wrote:
we vote for the MEPs. Those are directly elected.
We do not vote on the Commision, the MEPs (who we voted in) vote on that iirc?
So the argument that the EU is undemocratic would be akin to saying a nation would be undemocratic if it let's you vote for parties (not for one specific person to become leader) who then form a government out of those elected parties and makes those parties decide who will be prime minister/president/chancelor/whatever. The national governments designate commissioners, not the parliament. The parliament can vote on them. They cannot however select someone to become a commissioner. The commission is the only institution capable to initiate laws. The parliament can then pass them or not. And if they do, the European council, so the ministers from the national governments, can still block them. The parliament basically has veto powers, but no prime legislative or executive function. but you vote on those national governments as well, don't you? No. I have never voted on the German government or 26 others. I don't vote in other municipalities in Norway, but they still decide matters in my county in its institution together with representatives from the parties in my municipality parliament. This institution is considered to be a democratic institution. Would you say it is not?
The question is whether they decide matters that concern you personally, hence you should have a say in them. Id they decide for their municipiality and you for yours the implivations for you are probably minor if not inexistent. If Germany sends an idiot like Günther Oettinger into the commission I want to have at least a say in that, because he has a say in my life.
I am not a democrat by the way, I am a liberal, the freedom of the individual is my one and only maxime. "Democracy" (i.e. majority voting and representation) is a technical method to spread power and reach compromise on matters of mutual concern that I think is superior to all other forms of government that have been tried from a liberal point of view. Like all other forms of government it is flawed in the way that it allows for personal/majority preferences to be forced upon society, but it mediates them better than having an inbred king go to war out of boredom or personal national fanatism.
The further away from the people you put those decisions - MEPs that vote for national governments that vote for EU governments - the less responsibility and moderation from the original voter base such a system has and the less democratic it will become. This directly relates to irresponsible politic demands in elections, because in the end the voter can conveniently shift the blame on a government that promised things it couldn't hold.
|
On October 24 2018 22:42 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:38 Neneu wrote:On October 24 2018 22:31 TheDwf wrote:
The main question is who decides for whom in a given place. Even if the EU Parliament had power, you can see that we would quickly run into political aberrations. Exemple: in country A, a government of "radical" socialists is elected. But in the EU Parliament from the previous election, conservatives dominate. You're telling us that people from the country A, who just voted for radical socialists, should get a conservative fiscal policy because in the 26 other countries, conservatives mostly came ahead? It makes zero sense... But it is the same in several countries. I mean, if I were living in the state of Bavarian in Germany and I voted for some radical right wing party, I might have been pissed about who are controlling the entire federal parliament, but I would not call Germany an undemocratic nation. The current nations are precisely not the regions of a European nation
But would you call such a system democratic? Or is it undemocratic when the system is applied to a 'federal' institution between nations and democratic when applied to a nation and its regions?
|
United Kingdom10025 Posts
On October 24 2018 22:38 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:31 TheDwf wrote:
The main question is who decides for whom in a given place. Even if the EU Parliament had power, you can see that we would quickly run into political aberrations. Exemple: in country A, a government of "radical" socialists is elected. But in the EU Parliament from the previous election, conservatives dominate. You're telling us that people from the country A, who just voted for radical socialists, should get a conservative fiscal policy because in the 26 other countries, conservatives mostly came ahead? It makes zero sense... But it is the same in several countries. I mean, if I were living in the state of Bavarian in Germany and I voted for some radical right wing party, I might have been pissed about who are controlling the entire federal parliament, but I would not call Germany an undemocratic nation.
It may certainly feel undemocratic, however, if certain legal borders were redrawn that handed power to a certain group at the expense of the people you have elected.
|
On October 24 2018 22:42 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:38 Neneu wrote:On October 24 2018 22:31 TheDwf wrote:
The main question is who decides for whom in a given place. Even if the EU Parliament had power, you can see that we would quickly run into political aberrations. Exemple: in country A, a government of "radical" socialists is elected. But in the EU Parliament from the previous election, conservatives dominate. You're telling us that people from the country A, who just voted for radical socialists, should get a conservative fiscal policy because in the 26 other countries, conservatives mostly came ahead? It makes zero sense... But it is the same in several countries. I mean, if I were living in the state of Bavarian in Germany and I voted for some radical right wing party, I might have been pissed about who are controlling the entire federal parliament, but I would not call Germany an undemocratic nation. The current nations are precisely not the regions of a European nation
yes, but that's a completly different point to make.
That's saying that the EU has no right to impose those rules onto the nations. It says nothing about wether or not it's democratic in principal.
|
On October 24 2018 22:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:13 Neneu wrote:On October 24 2018 22:04 Big J wrote:On October 24 2018 22:01 Toadesstern wrote:On October 24 2018 21:55 Big J wrote:On October 24 2018 21:40 Toadesstern wrote:
we vote for the MEPs. Those are directly elected.
We do not vote on the Commision, the MEPs (who we voted in) vote on that iirc?
So the argument that the EU is undemocratic would be akin to saying a nation would be undemocratic if it let's you vote for parties (not for one specific person to become leader) who then form a government out of those elected parties and makes those parties decide who will be prime minister/president/chancelor/whatever. The national governments designate commissioners, not the parliament. The parliament can vote on them. They cannot however select someone to become a commissioner. The commission is the only institution capable to initiate laws. The parliament can then pass them or not. And if they do, the European council, so the ministers from the national governments, can still block them. The parliament basically has veto powers, but no prime legislative or executive function. but you vote on those national governments as well, don't you? No. I have never voted on the German government or 26 others. I don't vote in other municipalities in Norway, but they still decide matters in my county in its institution together with representatives from the parties in my municipality parliament. This institution is considered to be a democratic institution. Would you say it is not? The question is whether they decide matters that concern you personally, hence you should have a say in them. Id they decide for their municipiality and you for yours the implivations for you are probably minor if not inexistent. If Germany sends an idiot like Günther Oettinger into the commission I want to have at least a say in that, because he has a say in my life. I am not a democrat by the way, I am a liberal, the freedom of the individual is my one and only maxime. "Democracy" (i.e. majority voting and representation) is a technical method to spread power and reach compromise on matters of mutual concern that I think is superior to all other forms of government that have been tried from a liberal point of view. Like all other forms of government it is flawed in the way that it allows for personal/majority preferences to be forced upon society, but it mediates them better than having an inbred king go to war out of boredom or personal national fanatism. The further away from the people you put those decisions - MEPs that vote for national governments that vote for EU governments - the less responsibility and moderation from the original voter base such a system has and the less democratic it will become. This directly relates to irresponsible politic demands in elections, because in the end the voter can conveniently shift the blame on a government that promised things it couldn't hold.
you have a say in it. You get to vote on it.
The people in Hawaii (for the most part) voted for Clinton in the 2016 US election. The people in Texas (for the most part) voted for Trump in the 2016 US election. And as we all know in the end Trump ended up with... I was about to say more votes but let's say he won.
That doesn't mean the people in Hawaii had no say in it. They did
|
On October 24 2018 22:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:13 Neneu wrote:On October 24 2018 22:04 Big J wrote:On October 24 2018 22:01 Toadesstern wrote:On October 24 2018 21:55 Big J wrote:On October 24 2018 21:40 Toadesstern wrote:
we vote for the MEPs. Those are directly elected.
We do not vote on the Commision, the MEPs (who we voted in) vote on that iirc?
So the argument that the EU is undemocratic would be akin to saying a nation would be undemocratic if it let's you vote for parties (not for one specific person to become leader) who then form a government out of those elected parties and makes those parties decide who will be prime minister/president/chancelor/whatever. The national governments designate commissioners, not the parliament. The parliament can vote on them. They cannot however select someone to become a commissioner. The commission is the only institution capable to initiate laws. The parliament can then pass them or not. And if they do, the European council, so the ministers from the national governments, can still block them. The parliament basically has veto powers, but no prime legislative or executive function. but you vote on those national governments as well, don't you? No. I have never voted on the German government or 26 others. I don't vote in other municipalities in Norway, but they still decide matters in my county in its institution together with representatives from the parties in my municipality parliament. This institution is considered to be a democratic institution. Would you say it is not? The question is whether they decide matters that concern you personally, hence you should have a say in them. Id they decide for their municipiality and you for yours the implivations for you are probably minor if not inexistent. If Germany sends an idiot like Günther Oettinger into the commission I want to have at least a say in that, because he has a say in my life. I am not a democrat by the way, I am a liberal, the freedom of the individual is my one and only maxime. "Democracy" (i.e. majority voting and representation) is a technical method to spread power and reach compromise on matters of mutual concern that I think is superior to all other forms of government that have been tried from a liberal point of view. Like all other forms of government it is flawed in the way that it allows for personal/majority preferences to be forced upon society, but it mediates them better than having an inbred king go to war out of boredom or personal national fanatism. The further away from the people you put those decisions - MEPs that vote for national governments that vote for EU governments - the less responsibility and moderation from the original voter base such a system has and the less democratic it will become. This directly relates to irresponsible politic demands in elections, because in the end the voter can conveniently shift the blame on a government that promised things it couldn't hold.
They decide plenty of things that concerns me personally, e.g. public transit, wildlife/fauna protection, certain parts of education,etc. These institutions are considered to be a vital part of Norway and its democracy. But apparently they are an undemocratic institution by your standards.
|
On October 24 2018 22:45 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:42 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 22:38 Neneu wrote:On October 24 2018 22:31 TheDwf wrote:
The main question is who decides for whom in a given place. Even if the EU Parliament had power, you can see that we would quickly run into political aberrations. Exemple: in country A, a government of "radical" socialists is elected. But in the EU Parliament from the previous election, conservatives dominate. You're telling us that people from the country A, who just voted for radical socialists, should get a conservative fiscal policy because in the 26 other countries, conservatives mostly came ahead? It makes zero sense... But it is the same in several countries. I mean, if I were living in the state of Bavarian in Germany and I voted for some radical right wing party, I might have been pissed about who are controlling the entire federal parliament, but I would not call Germany an undemocratic nation. The current nations are precisely not the regions of a European nation But would you call such a system democratic? Or is it undemocratic when the system is applied to a 'federal' institution between nations and democratic when applied to a nation and its regions?
If people recognize their nation (= they're willing to live together) and don't secede, it's democratic. Popular support is the key, for instance the loss of popular support (and thus legitimacy) is what triggers crisis linked to independentism (e.g. the Catalunya case)
|
On October 24 2018 22:54 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:45 Neneu wrote:On October 24 2018 22:42 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 22:38 Neneu wrote:On October 24 2018 22:31 TheDwf wrote:
The main question is who decides for whom in a given place. Even if the EU Parliament had power, you can see that we would quickly run into political aberrations. Exemple: in country A, a government of "radical" socialists is elected. But in the EU Parliament from the previous election, conservatives dominate. You're telling us that people from the country A, who just voted for radical socialists, should get a conservative fiscal policy because in the 26 other countries, conservatives mostly came ahead? It makes zero sense... But it is the same in several countries. I mean, if I were living in the state of Bavarian in Germany and I voted for some radical right wing party, I might have been pissed about who are controlling the entire federal parliament, but I would not call Germany an undemocratic nation. The current nations are precisely not the regions of a European nation But would you call such a system democratic? Or is it undemocratic when the system is applied to a 'federal' institution between nations and democratic when applied to a nation and its regions? If people recognize their nation (= they're willing to live together) and don't secede, it's democratic. Popular support is the key, for instance the loss of popular support (and thus legitimacy) is what triggers crisis linked to independentism (e.g. the Catalunya case)
But with Brexit in mind, can't you apply the same thing to EU?
|
On October 24 2018 22:54 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:45 Neneu wrote:On October 24 2018 22:42 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 22:38 Neneu wrote:On October 24 2018 22:31 TheDwf wrote:
The main question is who decides for whom in a given place. Even if the EU Parliament had power, you can see that we would quickly run into political aberrations. Exemple: in country A, a government of "radical" socialists is elected. But in the EU Parliament from the previous election, conservatives dominate. You're telling us that people from the country A, who just voted for radical socialists, should get a conservative fiscal policy because in the 26 other countries, conservatives mostly came ahead? It makes zero sense... But it is the same in several countries. I mean, if I were living in the state of Bavarian in Germany and I voted for some radical right wing party, I might have been pissed about who are controlling the entire federal parliament, but I would not call Germany an undemocratic nation. The current nations are precisely not the regions of a European nation But would you call such a system democratic? Or is it undemocratic when the system is applied to a 'federal' institution between nations and democratic when applied to a nation and its regions? If people recognize their nation (= they're willing to live together) and don't secede, it's democratic. Popular support is the key, for instance the loss of popular support (and thus legitimacy) is what triggers crisis linked to independentism (e.g. the Catalunya case)
I'm pretty sure that's not how it works 🤔
|
On October 24 2018 22:36 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:27 Big J wrote:On October 24 2018 22:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 24 2018 22:16 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2018 22:08 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 21:54 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2018 21:44 TheDwf wrote:
The EU is undemocratic because there is no corresponding European people who decided to merge their older nations and mutualize their budget, laws, territory and sovereignty Pretty sure the European people voted for the governments that came together and formed the EU. And France even held a referendum for it so 'you' actually got to vote for it. (even tho it only won by a very narrow margin) If you talk about Maastricht, it was 25 years ago and yes, it only won 51/49. But the TCE was also refused in 2005, and it contained all prior treaties, including Maastricht. So from there, there should have been a clarification. But conservatives and "social-democrats" made everything to bury the theme and passed a copy of the TCE together in the Congress in 2008, betraying Sarkozy's promise of a "mini-treaty". Sounds less like a lack of Democracy and more like you don't agree with the choice your Democratically elected government made. Welcome to life. Its somewhere between the two or a little of both really. If your democratically elected government decides to sell out some of your democratic rights, do you still have democracy? I think the answer is yes, but less so. That's a common logical fallacy. A democracy cannot sellout democratic rights just like the mathematical "set of all sets that don't contain themselves" cannot be allowed to be a set by the definition of "a set". Or how tolerance cannot tolerate the intolerant. It's a basic definition problem. If your definition of democracy allows for undermining democracy then it is actually not democracy in the first place. Every democracy allows for undermining democracy. That's how democracies get undermined in the first place. The Greeks were writing about this problem when they came up with the idea hundreds of years ago.
Every law system can be undermined by the anarchic nature of reality. The world is made up by the self-interests of living and acting people and those actions don't need to follow laws or fit into descriptions of "democracy" or any other system.
The concern of politics is to overcome that anarchy for some reason.
The concern of liberal politics is to find a system that works for all reasons that don't deny other reasons and mediate all conflicts of interests.
All of that is philosophically nice, but the world does not run on philosophy but on people subscribing to technical methods. Like democracy. Which is not a technical method if it can deny itself.
|
On October 24 2018 22:57 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:54 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 22:45 Neneu wrote:On October 24 2018 22:42 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 22:38 Neneu wrote:On October 24 2018 22:31 TheDwf wrote:
The main question is who decides for whom in a given place. Even if the EU Parliament had power, you can see that we would quickly run into political aberrations. Exemple: in country A, a government of "radical" socialists is elected. But in the EU Parliament from the previous election, conservatives dominate. You're telling us that people from the country A, who just voted for radical socialists, should get a conservative fiscal policy because in the 26 other countries, conservatives mostly came ahead? It makes zero sense... But it is the same in several countries. I mean, if I were living in the state of Bavarian in Germany and I voted for some radical right wing party, I might have been pissed about who are controlling the entire federal parliament, but I would not call Germany an undemocratic nation. The current nations are precisely not the regions of a European nation But would you call such a system democratic? Or is it undemocratic when the system is applied to a 'federal' institution between nations and democratic when applied to a nation and its regions? If people recognize their nation (= they're willing to live together) and don't secede, it's democratic. Popular support is the key, for instance the loss of popular support (and thus legitimacy) is what triggers crisis linked to independentism (e.g. the Catalunya case) But with Brexit in mind, can't you apply the same thing to EU?
You mean that if people don't outright leave the EU, they agree with its behaviour and rules?
|
On October 24 2018 23:03 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:36 iamthedave wrote:On October 24 2018 22:27 Big J wrote:On October 24 2018 22:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 24 2018 22:16 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2018 22:08 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 21:54 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2018 21:44 TheDwf wrote:
The EU is undemocratic because there is no corresponding European people who decided to merge their older nations and mutualize their budget, laws, territory and sovereignty Pretty sure the European people voted for the governments that came together and formed the EU. And France even held a referendum for it so 'you' actually got to vote for it. (even tho it only won by a very narrow margin) If you talk about Maastricht, it was 25 years ago and yes, it only won 51/49. But the TCE was also refused in 2005, and it contained all prior treaties, including Maastricht. So from there, there should have been a clarification. But conservatives and "social-democrats" made everything to bury the theme and passed a copy of the TCE together in the Congress in 2008, betraying Sarkozy's promise of a "mini-treaty". Sounds less like a lack of Democracy and more like you don't agree with the choice your Democratically elected government made. Welcome to life. Its somewhere between the two or a little of both really. If your democratically elected government decides to sell out some of your democratic rights, do you still have democracy? I think the answer is yes, but less so. That's a common logical fallacy. A democracy cannot sellout democratic rights just like the mathematical "set of all sets that don't contain themselves" cannot be allowed to be a set by the definition of "a set". Or how tolerance cannot tolerate the intolerant. It's a basic definition problem. If your definition of democracy allows for undermining democracy then it is actually not democracy in the first place. Every democracy allows for undermining democracy. That's how democracies get undermined in the first place. The Greeks were writing about this problem when they came up with the idea hundreds of years ago. Every law system can be undermined by the anarchic nature of reality. The world is made up by the self-interests of living and acting people and those actions don't need to follow laws or fit into descriptions of "democracy" or any other system. The concern of politics is to overcome that anarchy for some reason. The concern of liberal politics is to find a system that works for all reasons that don't deny other reasons and mediate all conflicts of interests. All of that is philosophically nice, but the world does not run on philosophy but on people subscribing to technical methods. Like democracy. Which is not a technical method if it can deny itself.
just to put this clearly to save us all some time:
According to this you would be against two nations merging even if both nations held a referndum and in both nations the outcome was 99% in favor of the merger.
Because those 1% that disagreed with it would have lost their democracy (democractic rights) in some way. Your vote only is worth 50% now, you don't get to vote on something you got to vote on earlier etc.
I don't think there's a point in arguing with that...
|
On October 24 2018 23:03 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 22:57 Neneu wrote:On October 24 2018 22:54 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 22:45 Neneu wrote:On October 24 2018 22:42 TheDwf wrote:On October 24 2018 22:38 Neneu wrote:On October 24 2018 22:31 TheDwf wrote:
The main question is who decides for whom in a given place. Even if the EU Parliament had power, you can see that we would quickly run into political aberrations. Exemple: in country A, a government of "radical" socialists is elected. But in the EU Parliament from the previous election, conservatives dominate. You're telling us that people from the country A, who just voted for radical socialists, should get a conservative fiscal policy because in the 26 other countries, conservatives mostly came ahead? It makes zero sense... But it is the same in several countries. I mean, if I were living in the state of Bavarian in Germany and I voted for some radical right wing party, I might have been pissed about who are controlling the entire federal parliament, but I would not call Germany an undemocratic nation. The current nations are precisely not the regions of a European nation But would you call such a system democratic? Or is it undemocratic when the system is applied to a 'federal' institution between nations and democratic when applied to a nation and its regions? If people recognize their nation (= they're willing to live together) and don't secede, it's democratic. Popular support is the key, for instance the loss of popular support (and thus legitimacy) is what triggers crisis linked to independentism (e.g. the Catalunya case) But with Brexit in mind, can't you apply the same thing to EU? You mean that if people don't outright leave the EU, they agree with its behaviour and rules?
If you agree with its behaviour and rules, you stay in the EU. If you don't, you either vote in those you want to change it or leave it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
