|
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. |
On November 02 2015 00:57 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2015 00:51 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:46 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 00:44 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:35 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 00:30 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:20 WhiteDog wrote:On November 01 2015 23:54 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2015 23:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 01 2015 22:43 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
How exactly is the European Union responsible when it's the national governments which lobbied and voted in favor of the measure, with only The Netherlands voting against it? The EU Commission favors stricter rules. It's always the same excuses over and over again : it's not the eu but the nations and blablabla, we need more eu blablabla. The fact that the european commission knew about the volkwagen scandal two years ago and still did nothing, even just for communication, is a failure. How is it an excuse with regards to the vote you brought up? Again, the national governments lobbied in favor of that measure. Not having the EU would have led to an even worse outcome. Your reasoning is completely backwards. It's an excuse because it's always given by people that are usually completly oblivious to the reality of europe as it is. It's not only countries, but the european institutions that give tons of power to lobbying : everybody knows it, it's well documented. It's also the european institutions that permit nations to impose their will on the rest of the countries. It's already been 30 years that some argue that the problem is not those institutions but the countries : fact is, parties have been completly unable to change those institutions for the better. I'm not interested in getting into a wider debate about the EU -- I am addressing the point you raised in your initial post, which was about a specific vote. The measure they voted in favor of was lobbied for by national governments, NOT the EU's Commission, which is in favor of stricter rules. Blaming the EU for that vote and arguing that we would have been better off in this case without the EU is utterly ignorant, considering the responsibility for that decision lies with the national governments and not the Commission. Had the decision been up to the Commission and not representatives from national governments, we would actually have tougher rules. If you want to rant about the EU, suit yourself, but don't be surprised when you get called out for misrepresenting cases to make them fit your narrative. That's some funny arguments you got there. What you're telling me is that you don't want to argue with me on what I am talking about, but in fact prefer to quote only a part of my post - which was mainly about the fact the european institutions knew about the volkswagen scandal two years ago - and respond to it like it is the entirety of my post. May I add that the fact that national governments pushed for a rather gentle regulation can also be seen as a flaw of the europe... and thus still fit "my narrative". Hum... don't respond to any of my post and misrepresent my arguments if you want to be taken seriously. This specific case completely contradicts your narrative. No it does not. And there's no discussion actually. Yes it does, because national governments are to blame and not EU institutions. On November 02 2015 00:46 WhiteDog wrote:responded specifically to that part of your post because using that vote to denounce the European Union is, as I've explained clearly, utterly ignorant So basically, your argument - which is not ignorant but stupid - is that the fact that national countries can always push for their own interests is not a failure for the european institutions ? Again, in this case, it is only a failure in the sense that the way to avoid that decision was to take that authority away from member states and give it to the Commission. It's the exact opposite of your argument that we would be better off without EU institutions. So it is only a failure in a specific sense : so it is still a failure. So my comment was not wrong... And basically you argued against comment I didn't make (that europe imposed on nations a gentle regulation on automobile against their will), thus misrepresenting my point, and then made it seem like i was contradicting myself. Bravo.
I didn't misrepresent your point at all. You were incorrectly blaming EU institutions for the measure that was passed, in support of the point that the EU should be criticized (as opposed to national governments). You therefore completely mischaracterized the case, since in this case national governments were to blame and NOT EU institutions, which actually supported stronger rules. You are now desperately trying to escape the hole you dug yourself into on a technicality, by pretending that the kind of failure you were talking about was that the EU did not have enough authority, when you were in reality arguing the exact opposite. I'm sorry you picked the wrong example to support your narrative.
Let's lay out your brilliant reasoning:
1. EU institutions (namely the Commission) support stricter rules on emissions.
2. National governments support, lobby for, and vote together to adopt less strict rules.
--> WhiteDog's conclusion: criticize EU institutions, which have too much power. Flawless logic!
|
On November 02 2015 01:04 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2015 00:57 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 00:51 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:46 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 00:44 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:35 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 00:30 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:20 WhiteDog wrote:On November 01 2015 23:54 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2015 23:52 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
It's always the same excuses over and over again : it's not the eu but the nations and blablabla, we need more eu blablabla. The fact that the european commission knew about the volkwagen scandal two years ago and still did nothing, even just for communication, is a failure. How is it an excuse with regards to the vote you brought up? Again, the national governments lobbied in favor of that measure. Not having the EU would have led to an even worse outcome. Your reasoning is completely backwards. It's an excuse because it's always given by people that are usually completly oblivious to the reality of europe as it is. It's not only countries, but the european institutions that give tons of power to lobbying : everybody knows it, it's well documented. It's also the european institutions that permit nations to impose their will on the rest of the countries. It's already been 30 years that some argue that the problem is not those institutions but the countries : fact is, parties have been completly unable to change those institutions for the better. I'm not interested in getting into a wider debate about the EU -- I am addressing the point you raised in your initial post, which was about a specific vote. The measure they voted in favor of was lobbied for by national governments, NOT the EU's Commission, which is in favor of stricter rules. Blaming the EU for that vote and arguing that we would have been better off in this case without the EU is utterly ignorant, considering the responsibility for that decision lies with the national governments and not the Commission. Had the decision been up to the Commission and not representatives from national governments, we would actually have tougher rules. If you want to rant about the EU, suit yourself, but don't be surprised when you get called out for misrepresenting cases to make them fit your narrative. That's some funny arguments you got there. What you're telling me is that you don't want to argue with me on what I am talking about, but in fact prefer to quote only a part of my post - which was mainly about the fact the european institutions knew about the volkswagen scandal two years ago - and respond to it like it is the entirety of my post. May I add that the fact that national governments pushed for a rather gentle regulation can also be seen as a flaw of the europe... and thus still fit "my narrative". Hum... don't respond to any of my post and misrepresent my arguments if you want to be taken seriously. This specific case completely contradicts your narrative. No it does not. And there's no discussion actually. Yes it does, because national governments are to blame and not EU institutions. On November 02 2015 00:46 WhiteDog wrote:responded specifically to that part of your post because using that vote to denounce the European Union is, as I've explained clearly, utterly ignorant So basically, your argument - which is not ignorant but stupid - is that the fact that national countries can always push for their own interests is not a failure for the european institutions ? Again, in this case, it is only a failure in the sense that the way to avoid that decision was to take that authority away from member states and give it to the Commission. It's the exact opposite of your argument that we would be better off without EU institutions. So it is only a failure in a specific sense : so it is still a failure. So my comment was not wrong... And basically you argued against comment I didn't make (that europe imposed on nations a gentle regulation on automobile against their will), thus misrepresenting my point, and then made it seem like i was contradicting myself. Bravo. I didn't misrepresent your point at all. You were incorrectly blaming EU institutions for the measure that was passed, in support of the point that the EU should be criticized (as opposed to national governments). You therefore completely mischaracterized the case, since in this case national governments were to blame and NOT EU institutions, which actually supported stronger rules. You are now desperately trying to escape the hole you dug yourself into on a technicality, by pretending that the kind of failure you were talking about was that the EU did not have enough authority, when you were in reality arguing the exact opposite. I'm sorry you picked the wrong example to support your narrative. Let's lay out your brilliant reasoning: 1. EU institutions (namely the Commission) support stricter rules on emissions. 2. National governments support, lobby for, and vote together to adopt less strict rules. WhiteDog's logical conclusion: criticize EU institutions, which have too much power.
Let's go back to the argument step by step, as I would do to explain a baby.
1) I linked two article and I said that europe is a failure ;
2) you quoted one article (on the fact that nations forced europe to vote for a very gentle regulation on automobile) and my sentence (that europe is a failure) and said that the article is unable to support that europe is a failure ;
3) but europeans institutions are made so that they are unable to push for good policies against the interests of dominant power in europe and you agree that this is a failure of said institutions ;
4) my comment is then not wrong : it is still an exemple that europe is a failure (in its inability to pass through national interests).
Your solution to that failure is more europe : against national interests, we need to give more power to the commission and thus we need to change europeans institutions. To me this solution - that would take the form of federalism for exemple is not good for various reasons. This does not mean that there is no failure : you and I both agree on that. This is not technicality, it's simple logic, and you've had none of that until now.
You are then wrong, and you're wasting my time.
|
On November 02 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2015 01:04 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:57 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 00:51 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:46 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 00:44 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:35 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 00:30 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:20 WhiteDog wrote:On November 01 2015 23:54 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
How is it an excuse with regards to the vote you brought up? Again, the national governments lobbied in favor of that measure. Not having the EU would have led to an even worse outcome. Your reasoning is completely backwards. It's an excuse because it's always given by people that are usually completly oblivious to the reality of europe as it is. It's not only countries, but the european institutions that give tons of power to lobbying : everybody knows it, it's well documented. It's also the european institutions that permit nations to impose their will on the rest of the countries. It's already been 30 years that some argue that the problem is not those institutions but the countries : fact is, parties have been completly unable to change those institutions for the better. I'm not interested in getting into a wider debate about the EU -- I am addressing the point you raised in your initial post, which was about a specific vote. The measure they voted in favor of was lobbied for by national governments, NOT the EU's Commission, which is in favor of stricter rules. Blaming the EU for that vote and arguing that we would have been better off in this case without the EU is utterly ignorant, considering the responsibility for that decision lies with the national governments and not the Commission. Had the decision been up to the Commission and not representatives from national governments, we would actually have tougher rules. If you want to rant about the EU, suit yourself, but don't be surprised when you get called out for misrepresenting cases to make them fit your narrative. That's some funny arguments you got there. What you're telling me is that you don't want to argue with me on what I am talking about, but in fact prefer to quote only a part of my post - which was mainly about the fact the european institutions knew about the volkswagen scandal two years ago - and respond to it like it is the entirety of my post. May I add that the fact that national governments pushed for a rather gentle regulation can also be seen as a flaw of the europe... and thus still fit "my narrative". Hum... don't respond to any of my post and misrepresent my arguments if you want to be taken seriously. This specific case completely contradicts your narrative. No it does not. And there's no discussion actually. Yes it does, because national governments are to blame and not EU institutions. On November 02 2015 00:46 WhiteDog wrote:responded specifically to that part of your post because using that vote to denounce the European Union is, as I've explained clearly, utterly ignorant So basically, your argument - which is not ignorant but stupid - is that the fact that national countries can always push for their own interests is not a failure for the european institutions ? Again, in this case, it is only a failure in the sense that the way to avoid that decision was to take that authority away from member states and give it to the Commission. It's the exact opposite of your argument that we would be better off without EU institutions. So it is only a failure in a specific sense : so it is still a failure. So my comment was not wrong... And basically you argued against comment I didn't make (that europe imposed on nations a gentle regulation on automobile against their will), thus misrepresenting my point, and then made it seem like i was contradicting myself. Bravo. I didn't misrepresent your point at all. You were incorrectly blaming EU institutions for the measure that was passed, in support of the point that the EU should be criticized (as opposed to national governments). You therefore completely mischaracterized the case, since in this case national governments were to blame and NOT EU institutions, which actually supported stronger rules. You are now desperately trying to escape the hole you dug yourself into on a technicality, by pretending that the kind of failure you were talking about was that the EU did not have enough authority, when you were in reality arguing the exact opposite. I'm sorry you picked the wrong example to support your narrative. Let's lay out your brilliant reasoning: 1. EU institutions (namely the Commission) support stricter rules on emissions. 2. National governments support, lobby for, and vote together to adopt less strict rules. WhiteDog's logical conclusion: criticize EU institutions, which have too much power. Let's go back to the argument step by step, as I would do to explain a baby. 1) I linked two article and I said that europe is a failure ; 2) you quoted one article (on the fact that nations forced europe to vote for a very gentle regulation on automobile) and my sentence (that europe is a failure) and said that the article is unable to support that europe is a failure ; 3) but europeans institutions are made so that they are unable to push for good policies against the interests of dominant power in europe and you agree that this is a failure of said institutions ; 4) my comment is then not wrong : it is still an exemple that europe is a failure (in its inability to pass through national interests). Your solution to that failure is more europe : against private interests, we need to give more power to the commission and thus we need to change europeans institutions. This does not mean that there is no failure : you and I both agree on that. You are then wrong, and you're wasting my time.
First, you're mixing "Europe" and the European Union, which are two different things. Second, you just did exactly what I said: "You are now desperately trying to escape the hole you dug yourself into on a technicality, by pretending that the kind of failure you were talking about was that the EU did not have enough authority, when you were in reality arguing the exact opposite". You were criticizing the European Union, when it is national governments who are to blame. The only failure that can be attributed to the European Union in this case is that it did not have enough authority, to take that decision instead of the national governments. Do you therefore think that the European institutions should be given more power and decide on matters like this instead of national governments? Since you've quite clearly taken the opposite stance, you really have no way of digging yourself out of that hole. Sorry!
|
I gotta side with kwizach on this one. Good arguing kwizach. Nice thorough work.
|
On November 02 2015 01:20 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 01:04 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:57 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 00:51 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:46 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 00:44 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:35 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 00:30 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:20 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
It's an excuse because it's always given by people that are usually completly oblivious to the reality of europe as it is. It's not only countries, but the european institutions that give tons of power to lobbying : everybody knows it, it's well documented.
It's also the european institutions that permit nations to impose their will on the rest of the countries. It's already been 30 years that some argue that the problem is not those institutions but the countries : fact is, parties have been completly unable to change those institutions for the better. I'm not interested in getting into a wider debate about the EU -- I am addressing the point you raised in your initial post, which was about a specific vote. The measure they voted in favor of was lobbied for by national governments, NOT the EU's Commission, which is in favor of stricter rules. Blaming the EU for that vote and arguing that we would have been better off in this case without the EU is utterly ignorant, considering the responsibility for that decision lies with the national governments and not the Commission. Had the decision been up to the Commission and not representatives from national governments, we would actually have tougher rules. If you want to rant about the EU, suit yourself, but don't be surprised when you get called out for misrepresenting cases to make them fit your narrative. That's some funny arguments you got there. What you're telling me is that you don't want to argue with me on what I am talking about, but in fact prefer to quote only a part of my post - which was mainly about the fact the european institutions knew about the volkswagen scandal two years ago - and respond to it like it is the entirety of my post. May I add that the fact that national governments pushed for a rather gentle regulation can also be seen as a flaw of the europe... and thus still fit "my narrative". Hum... don't respond to any of my post and misrepresent my arguments if you want to be taken seriously. This specific case completely contradicts your narrative. No it does not. And there's no discussion actually. Yes it does, because national governments are to blame and not EU institutions. On November 02 2015 00:46 WhiteDog wrote:responded specifically to that part of your post because using that vote to denounce the European Union is, as I've explained clearly, utterly ignorant So basically, your argument - which is not ignorant but stupid - is that the fact that national countries can always push for their own interests is not a failure for the european institutions ? Again, in this case, it is only a failure in the sense that the way to avoid that decision was to take that authority away from member states and give it to the Commission. It's the exact opposite of your argument that we would be better off without EU institutions. So it is only a failure in a specific sense : so it is still a failure. So my comment was not wrong... And basically you argued against comment I didn't make (that europe imposed on nations a gentle regulation on automobile against their will), thus misrepresenting my point, and then made it seem like i was contradicting myself. Bravo. I didn't misrepresent your point at all. You were incorrectly blaming EU institutions for the measure that was passed, in support of the point that the EU should be criticized (as opposed to national governments). You therefore completely mischaracterized the case, since in this case national governments were to blame and NOT EU institutions, which actually supported stronger rules. You are now desperately trying to escape the hole you dug yourself into on a technicality, by pretending that the kind of failure you were talking about was that the EU did not have enough authority, when you were in reality arguing the exact opposite. I'm sorry you picked the wrong example to support your narrative. Let's lay out your brilliant reasoning: 1. EU institutions (namely the Commission) support stricter rules on emissions. 2. National governments support, lobby for, and vote together to adopt less strict rules. WhiteDog's logical conclusion: criticize EU institutions, which have too much power. Let's go back to the argument step by step, as I would do to explain a baby. 1) I linked two article and I said that europe is a failure ; 2) you quoted one article (on the fact that nations forced europe to vote for a very gentle regulation on automobile) and my sentence (that europe is a failure) and said that the article is unable to support that europe is a failure ; 3) but europeans institutions are made so that they are unable to push for good policies against the interests of dominant power in europe and you agree that this is a failure of said institutions ; 4) my comment is then not wrong : it is still an exemple that europe is a failure (in its inability to pass through national interests). Your solution to that failure is more europe : against private interests, we need to give more power to the commission and thus we need to change europeans institutions. This does not mean that there is no failure : you and I both agree on that. You are then wrong, and you're wasting my time. First, you're mixing "Europe" and the European Union, which are two different things.
You are running into technicality it seems. People oftentime do that when they are completly wrong but don't want to accept it.
You were criticizing the European Union, when it is national governments who are to blame. The only failure that can be attributed to the European Union in this case is that it did not have enough authority, to take that decision instead of the national governments.
The national government are to blame in this specific situation (like in almost ALL european subject may I add - the euro is failure because some countries refused to increase wage and pursued a strategy of trade excedent, not due to the european institutions per say) : but the solution to fixing that is into changing european institutions and not changing all national government, so it's obviously a failure of europe.
It's funny that you don't understand since even in your arguments you still agree with me "the only failure that can be attributed to the european union in this case is that it did not have enough authority". Yes then it's a failure for europe and I'm right. It's not technicality it is logic. It is also the exact same problem for the migrants, and I still believe that it prove that the european union is a failure.
Do you therefore think that the European institutions should be given more power and decide on matters like this instead of national governments?
I think that would be a solution : I said many time that an european government and a unified fiscal redistribution within europe is a solution to most of our problem. I just believe this solution to be impossible (or undemocratic) because you don't create a state out of thin air : it is a historical process.
Just to make a little quick and easy metaphore, your argument is exactly like the one some actually use in this forum in the gun thread : it's not the gun that kill people but the people that fire the gun (it's not the european institutions, but the national countries that have power over those institutions). It's is absolutly true, but the solution is not into reforming the people but into regulating the guns. The guns are then at the source of the problem and thus when an idiot decide to kill some innocent people in a university with a gun, we don't discuss the quality and the characteristics of the idiot that fire, we discuss the idea of regulating guns.
|
On November 02 2015 01:27 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2015 01:20 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 01:04 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:57 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 00:51 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:46 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 00:44 kwizach wrote:On November 02 2015 00:35 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2015 00:30 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I'm not interested in getting into a wider debate about the EU -- I am addressing the point you raised in your initial post, which was about a specific vote. The measure they voted in favor of was lobbied for by national governments, NOT the EU's Commission, which is in favor of stricter rules. Blaming the EU for that vote and arguing that we would have been better off in this case without the EU is utterly ignorant, considering the responsibility for that decision lies with the national governments and not the Commission. Had the decision been up to the Commission and not representatives from national governments, we would actually have tougher rules. If you want to rant about the EU, suit yourself, but don't be surprised when you get called out for misrepresenting cases to make them fit your narrative. That's some funny arguments you got there. What you're telling me is that you don't want to argue with me on what I am talking about, but in fact prefer to quote only a part of my post - which was mainly about the fact the european institutions knew about the volkswagen scandal two years ago - and respond to it like it is the entirety of my post. May I add that the fact that national governments pushed for a rather gentle regulation can also be seen as a flaw of the europe... and thus still fit "my narrative". Hum... don't respond to any of my post and misrepresent my arguments if you want to be taken seriously. This specific case completely contradicts your narrative. No it does not. And there's no discussion actually. Yes it does, because national governments are to blame and not EU institutions. On November 02 2015 00:46 WhiteDog wrote:responded specifically to that part of your post because using that vote to denounce the European Union is, as I've explained clearly, utterly ignorant So basically, your argument - which is not ignorant but stupid - is that the fact that national countries can always push for their own interests is not a failure for the european institutions ? Again, in this case, it is only a failure in the sense that the way to avoid that decision was to take that authority away from member states and give it to the Commission. It's the exact opposite of your argument that we would be better off without EU institutions. So it is only a failure in a specific sense : so it is still a failure. So my comment was not wrong... And basically you argued against comment I didn't make (that europe imposed on nations a gentle regulation on automobile against their will), thus misrepresenting my point, and then made it seem like i was contradicting myself. Bravo. I didn't misrepresent your point at all. You were incorrectly blaming EU institutions for the measure that was passed, in support of the point that the EU should be criticized (as opposed to national governments). You therefore completely mischaracterized the case, since in this case national governments were to blame and NOT EU institutions, which actually supported stronger rules. You are now desperately trying to escape the hole you dug yourself into on a technicality, by pretending that the kind of failure you were talking about was that the EU did not have enough authority, when you were in reality arguing the exact opposite. I'm sorry you picked the wrong example to support your narrative. Let's lay out your brilliant reasoning: 1. EU institutions (namely the Commission) support stricter rules on emissions. 2. National governments support, lobby for, and vote together to adopt less strict rules. WhiteDog's logical conclusion: criticize EU institutions, which have too much power. Let's go back to the argument step by step, as I would do to explain a baby. 1) I linked two article and I said that europe is a failure ; 2) you quoted one article (on the fact that nations forced europe to vote for a very gentle regulation on automobile) and my sentence (that europe is a failure) and said that the article is unable to support that europe is a failure ; 3) but europeans institutions are made so that they are unable to push for good policies against the interests of dominant power in europe and you agree that this is a failure of said institutions ; 4) my comment is then not wrong : it is still an exemple that europe is a failure (in its inability to pass through national interests). Your solution to that failure is more europe : against private interests, we need to give more power to the commission and thus we need to change europeans institutions. This does not mean that there is no failure : you and I both agree on that. You are then wrong, and you're wasting my time. First, you're mixing "Europe" and the European Union, which are two different things. You are running into technicality it seems. People oftentime do that when they are completly wrong but don't want to accept it.
No, it's simply a matter of being precise. "Europe" is often used to refer to European countries and national governments together in general, not necessarily to the European Union itself. Since the distinction between European institutions and national governments is at the core of this discussion, it's important to use the correct terms to refer to the relevant actors.
On November 02 2015 01:27 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +You were criticizing the European Union, when it is national governments who are to blame. The only failure that can be attributed to the European Union in this case is that it did not have enough authority, to take that decision instead of the national governments. The national government are to blame in this specific situation (like in almost ALL european subject may I add - the euro is failure because some countries refused to increase wage and pursued a strategy of budgetary excedent, not due to the european institutions per say) : but the solution to fixing that is into changing european institutions and not changing all national government, so it's obviously a failure of europe. It's funny that you don't understand since even in your arguments you still agree with me "the only failure that can be attributed to the european union in this case is that it did not have enough authority". Yes then it's a failure for europe and I'm right. It's not technicality it is logic. It is also the exact same problem for the migrants, and I still believe that it prove that the european union is a failure. Show nested quote +Do you therefore think that the European institutions should be given more power and decide on matters like this instead of national governments? I think that would be a solution : I said many time that an european government and a unified fiscal redistribution within europe is a solution to most of our problem. I just believe this solution to be impossible (or undemocratic) because you don't create a state out of thin air : it is a historical process.
The problem is that you didn't simply say that the solution of granting more power to EU institutions was impossible: you said it was a "stupid and ignorant" solution, and argued against it. This means that you said, with regards to the measure voted, that it was a "failure" of the European Union and simultaneously argued against the only solution to attempt to fix it with regards to the EU, namely to have a decision like that one taken by European institutions instead of national governments (through their representatives).
If you therefore still believe, as you originally argued, that it would be "stupid and ignorant" for the EU to have more authority over this, then you are, as I've explained repeatedly, contradicting yourself. The only reason this could be conceived as a failure of the European Union is that EU institutions did not have enough authority. If you think giving them more authority would be "stupid and ignorant", then it is contradictory from a logical point-of-view to argue it was a failure of the EU. And in any case, the responsibility for the measure voted lies with national governments, which are the ones who actually took the decision to make the rules less strict contrary to what the Commission believes should be done.
|
No, it's simply a matter of being precise. "Europe" is often used to refer to European countries and national governments together in general, not necessarily to the European Union itself. Since the distinction between European institutions and national governments is at the core of this discussion, it's important to use the correct terms to refer to the relevant actors.
It is technicality.
The problem is that you didn't simply say that the solution of granting more power to EU institutions was impossible: you said it was a "stupid and ignorant" solution, and argued against it. This means that you said, with regards to the measure voted, that it was a "failure" of the European Union and simultaneously argued against the only solution to attempt to fix it with regards to the EU, namely to have a decision like that one taken by European institutions instead of national governments (through their representatives).
It is stupid an ignorant because it is impossible. I even said that this argument has been done since 30 years : Mitterand was already talking about a social europe. It never happened, but europe gained more power over nations always in the wrong way : why is that ? You are, again, quoting part of my argument and misrepresenting my argument to support your claim.
And it is also very stupid and ignorant to argue that it is "the only solution to fix it".
If you therefore still believe, as you originally argued, that it would be "stupid and ignorant" for the EU to have more authority over this, then you are, as I've explained repeatedly, contradicting yourself.
I am not at all, it's just that - it seems - my argument a little too developped for you to actually understand them. A unified monetary policy, with a unified budgetary policy and a european government would theorically fix most problem. I've said it not once, not twice, but plenty of time throughout this topic.
But it is a theorical solution, impossible in practice : I gave you an exemple in the previous posts.
And just for argument sake, you are basically arguing that giving MORE power to people such as Juncker would fix european problems : this is, in itself, funny. I also pointed out that the europe is not unable to impose things on countries : it imposed austerity on weaker countries such as portugal or greece so even with more power it does not seems to be able to do what is needed.
You are trying to trap me into discussing with you about europe while you said that you don't wanted to do it previously. This seems like your modus operandi : misrepresent the arguments of others, and when proved wrong, jump ship and change subject. I guess that, in the midst of all that, we still advanced a little : we are now agreeing on the fact that what I quoted is indeed an exemple of the failure of europe. I was not wrong then.
|
It'd be a technicality if you could claim with certainty that in a federal Europe instead of the indirect supra-national thing we have the exact same thing would have happened, which I think is a very doubtful claim. You often seem to idolize localized government although in reality there's generally more corruption and shady stuff going on the farther you move down the hierarchy. The Commission generally seems to do a pretty good job and it's often national governments (in the case of car emissions I'll have to admit that Germany is the bad guy here) exercising so much pressure that the directions coming out of the process are so ambiguous that everybody can do what he wants. To have clearer legislation the first step would be to give the EU more power to pass law instead of only providing guidelines that have to be turned into national law.
|
On November 02 2015 01:54 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +No, it's simply a matter of being precise. "Europe" is often used to refer to European countries and national governments together in general, not necessarily to the European Union itself. Since the distinction between European institutions and national governments is at the core of this discussion, it's important to use the correct terms to refer to the relevant actors. It is technicality.
No, it's simply a matter of being precise. "Europe" is often used to refer to European countries and national governments together in general, not necessarily to the European Union itself. Since the distinction between European institutions and national governments is at the core of this discussion, it's important to use the correct terms to refer to the relevant actors.
On November 02 2015 01:54 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +The problem is that you didn't simply say that the solution of granting more power to EU institutions was impossible: you said it was a "stupid and ignorant" solution, and argued against it. This means that you said, with regards to the measure voted, that it was a "failure" of the European Union and simultaneously argued against the only solution to attempt to fix it with regards to the EU, namely to have a decision like that one taken by European institutions instead of national governments (through their representatives). It is stupid an ignorant because it is impossible. I even said that this argument has been done since 30 years : Mitterand was already talking about a social europe. It never happened, but europe gained more power over nations always in the wrong way : why is that ? You are, again, quoting part of my argument and misrepresenting my argument to support your claim. And it is also very stupid and ignorant to argue that it is "the only solution to fix it". Show nested quote +If you therefore still believe, as you originally argued, that it would be "stupid and ignorant" for the EU to have more authority over this, then you are, as I've explained repeatedly, contradicting yourself. I am not at all, it's just that - it seems - my argument a little too developped for you to actually understand them. A unified monetary policy, with a unified budgetary policy and a european government would theorically fix most problem. I've said it not once, not twice, but plenty of time throughout this topic. But it is a theorical solution, impossible in practice : I gave you an exemple in the previous posts. And just for argument sake, you are basically arguing that giving MORE power to people such as Juncker would fix european problems : this is, in itself, funny.
You seem to be very confused about this discussion. You have repeatedly said that I am supporting a course of action to give more power to EU institutions, or in this case" to people such as Juncker". At no point in this exchange did I advocate for any course of action: all I did was explain to you what considering that the vote on the measure was a "failure" the European Union logically implied in terms of how one thinks authority should be distributed between national governments and the EU on a matter like this one.
When I said that giving more power to the EU was the "only solution to fix" to what you described a "failure of the EU", it was not as a policy prescription that I endorsed (I did not make a claim one way or the other), but as a logical corollary of seeing the vote as a failure of the EU (because national governments got what they wanted and the Commission did not). Calling the vote a "failure" of the EU institutions necessarily implies that the EU institutions did not have enough authority or influence over the member states, because that is the only way it can be said that they failed: it is not them which took the decision but the member states.
You therefore cannot simultaneously blame the EU for the vote and argue that it would be "stupid and ignorant" to grant more authority to the EU on this issue, precisely because without more authority the EU cannot possibly do anything else than let the national governments decide.
On November 02 2015 01:54 WhiteDog wrote:
You are trying to trap me into discussing with you about europe while you said that you don't wanted to do it previously. This seems like your modus operandi : misrepresent the arguments of others, and when proved wrong, jump ship and change subject. I guess that, in the midst of all that, we still advanced a little : we are now agreeing on the fact that what I quoted is indeed an exemple of the failure of europe. I was not wrong then.
I'm not trying anything of the sort -- I'm still explaining the same issue to you. At no point did I misrepresent your argument. With regards to your last two sentences, I've explained at length that the only way this could be seen as a "failure" of the European Union was to consider that 1. it was first a failure of national governments 2. the European Union should have more authority over national governments on this issue. Since you've called the second point "stupid and ignorant", you are logically inconsistent. See above.
|
On November 02 2015 02:08 Nyxisto wrote:
It'd be a technicality if you could claim with certainty that in a federal Europe instead of the indirect supra-national thing we have the exact same thing would have happened, which I think is a very doubtful claim. You often seem to idolize localized government although in reality there's generally more corruption and shady stuff going on the farther you move down the hierarchy. The Commission generally seems to do a pretty good job and it's often national governments (in the case of car emissions I'll have to admit that Germany is the bad guy here) exercising so much pressure that the directions coming out of the process are so ambiguous that everybody can do what he wants. To have clearer legislation the first step would be to give the EU more power to pass law instead of only providing guidelines that have to be turned into national law.
I don't idolize local government at all, I idolize the association of workers against the state that is one of the few tool of the dominant to assert domination over the dominated.
The problem is that local government are also place of struggle that the dominated can, from time to time, contest and influence. They can also destroy them and force a complete change - like for the revolution (with, most of the time, bad result in the end but whatever, the short term gain makes it worth some time). A european government, having no history and social basis, would never be accepted by the population and would have to be an undemocratic process. Talking about it is then stupid : who actually believe that the population would agree with it today ?
The funniest thing is that almost all countries would most likely refuse a federal europe : the north because they would most likely lose some power and money through fiscal redistribution, the south because as of now the europe is a synonym of colonisation and has lost all credibility, and even middle ground countries such as France because it is a deeply nationalist country that takes great pleasure in valorizing its identity, its culture and its specificity.
Calling the vote a "failure" of the EU institutions necessarily implies that the EU institutions did not have enough authority or influence over the member states, because that is the only way it can be said that they failed: it is not them which took the decision but the member states.
At this point it is a comedy. You switch horses, jump ship, forget logical step. You're a circus by yourself.
The failure of the EU institutions imply that those institutions are made so that national government can push for their interests (and thus that dominant countries can defend their interests better), not that the EU did not have more power : giving more power to the EU is a solution to a failure. Another solution would be to get back to local government, and let representative at the national level discuss on the course of action.
|
Turkey's AK Party appeared to be closing in on its goal of recovering a single-party majority and governing alone, partial general election results showed on Sunday, in what would be a major turnaround for embattled President Tayyip Erdogan.
The vote was Turkey's second in five months, after the AKP in June lost the overall majority it had enjoyed since 2002. Erdogan had presented it as a chance to restore stability at a time of tension over Kurdish insurrection and two bombings while critics fear a drift to authoritarianism under the president.
With around two thirds of the votes counted, the AKP was on 52 percent, according to state-run broadcaster TRT, higher than many party officials had expected. The main opposition CHP was at 22.5 percent.
Two senior AKP officials told Reuters they expected to be able to form a single-party government again, with one of them forecasting a final share of around 45-46 percent of the vote.
"If this trend continues, it is likely that we will have a single-party government," the second official said.
Since June, a ceasefire with Kurdish militants has collapsed, the war in neighbouring Syria has worsened and Turkey - a NATO member state - has been buffeted by two Islamic State-linked suicide bomb attacks that killed more than 130 people.
Investors and Western allies hope the vote will help restore stability as well as confidence in an $800 billion economy, allowing Ankara to play a more effective role in stemming a flood of refugees from neighbouring wars via Turkey into Europe and helping in the battle against Islamic State militants.
TRT's partial results said the nationalist MHP opposition stood at 11.4 percent, with support for the pro-Kurdish HDP dropping to 10.5 percent, perilously close to the 10 percent margin needed to enter parliament.
The results could still change significantly, with counting not yet completed in the country's largest cities.
uk.reuters.com
Not sure if this is the right thread but Turkey is pretty important to European politics so I'll post it anyway.
PRetty sad if Erdogan wins a majority. Turkey will be stuck with that asshat forever if he wins.
|
On November 02 2015 02:16 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +Calling the vote a "failure" of the EU institutions necessarily implies that the EU institutions did not have enough authority or influence over the member states, because that is the only way it can be said that they failed: it is not them which took the decision but the member states. At this point it is a comedy. You switch horses, jump ship, forget logical step. You're a circus by yourself.
Great rebuttal.
On November 02 2015 02:16 WhiteDog wrote:
The failure of the EU institutions imply that those institutions are made so that national government can push for their interests, not that the EU did not have more power : giving more power to the EU is a solution to a failure. Another solution would be to get back to local government, and let representative at the national level discuss on the course of action.
Perhaps the issue is that you do not understand how transfers of competence and distribution of authority work. I don't know if by "local government" you mean government at the national level or at the subnational level, but in the first case national governments precisely decided they wanted less strict rules (as opposed to the Commission), which means that without EU institutions they would enforce exactly that (perhaps to an even larger degree), and in the second case this is a matter of how individual states distribute political authority on their own territory, which is not a competence of EU institutions (and therefore not their failure). With regards to the measure that was voted, therefore, see my previous post for the logical inconsistencies of your position.
|
I'm going to agree with whitedog here. The structure of the EU is to blame to a significant degree. What it does is the politicians' dream of imposing top down standards with no accountability.
|
but in the first case national governments precisely decided they wanted less strict rules (as opposed to the Commission)
The national government that you talk about in this specific exemple are the executive and not the legislative like they are supposed to when talking about reglementation. In this specific exemple, the executive can push for specific reglementation without even being responsible before their voters (since it's at the european level and behind closed doors) while a debate and a vote in the parlament would be totally different.
which means that without EU institutions they would enforce exactly that (perhaps to an even larger degree)
This is actually a great leap (but again you're very good at going from places to places without any logical step in between) : there are countries within EU that might do that, like France and Germany where the automobile industry is important and has influence. But there is a good chance to believe that other countries, free of the influence of those two, would not behave the same at the national level than at the european level.
Here is the problem, you actually believe that all countries individually preferred less strict rules on automobile - if that was the case, that woudn't be a problem because it would just be a democratic decision and the only thing I could do is pity the stupidity of european people who voted for such politicians, and that is true with the current europe or with european institutions with more powers.
The problem is not that at all, it is that the dominant power within europe can use their influence to push for their interests on the entirety of europe (and it is exactly what has been done over the last few years).
|
On November 02 2015 02:52 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +but in the first case national governments precisely decided they wanted less strict rules (as opposed to the Commission) The national government that you talk about in this specific exemple are the executive and not the legislative like they are supposed to when talking about reglementation. In this specific exemple, the executive can push for specific reglementation without even being responsible before their voters (since it's at the european level and behind closed doors) while a debate and a vote in the parlament would be totally different. Show nested quote +which means that without EU institutions they would enforce exactly that (perhaps to an even larger degree) This is actually a great leap (but again you're very good at going from places to places without any logical step in between) : there are countries within EU that might do that, like France and Germany where the automobile industry is important and has influence. But there is a good chance to believe that other countries, free of the influence of those two, would not behave the same at the national level than at the european level. Here is the problem, you actually believe that all countries individually preferred less strict rules on automobile - if that was the case, that woudn't be a problem because it would just be a democratic decision and the only thing I could do is pity the stupidity of european people who voted for such politicians, and that is true with the current europe or with european institutions with more powers. The problem is not that at all, it is that the dominant power within europe can use their influence to push for their interests on the entirety of europe (and it is exactly what has been done over the last few years).
This brings us back exactly to the point I made earlier, namely that your criticism should not be aimed at the EU but at national governments (and in the context of what you're referring to here, national executives). The Commission precisely supported stricter rules, contrary to what national representatives wanted. Only The Netherlands voted against the measure, which does indicate other national governments supported it -- those national governments (and their executive branches) are elected at the national level, which is not a failure of the EU (and voters can choose to sanction them if they'd like). The Commission had no deciding authority over this particular emission rules issue because national governments did not grant it the authority. Your beef in this case is not with supranational EU institutions, it is with the fact that national governments retain too much power through intergovernmental bodies.
|
Not at all but whatever you refuse to understand it's your right.
|
as far as i understood, when whitedog said that the EU commission is a failure, he didn't meant it was a failure because it supported stricter rules but because it had no power to do anything about it?; and because EU and the EU commission is set up the way it is, giving more power to the commission will amount to nothing anyway?.
you give the Commission more power -> it passes some regulations -> a country refuses to obey them -> then EU does what?. attack it?, sanction it?, places it under an embargo?, takes it to court?.
|
On November 02 2015 03:40 xM(Z wrote:
as far as i understood, when whitedog said that the EU commission is a failure, he didn't meant it was a failure because it supported stricter rules but because it had no power to do anything about it?; and because EU and the EU commission is set up the way it is, giving more power to the commission will amount to nothing anyway?.
Even your resume is very influenced by the rather poor vision kizwach proposed. I said that whatever the subject the european union is a failure : the voting on automobile legislation is just another exemple of the europe incapacity to change things for the better.
What I see is that the current institutions are flawed and that the solutions are either to get back to national institutions or to give more power to the european institutions (which I believe is not possible). But, let's not forget that the EU had no problem enforcing regulation and policies on weaker countries (as they proved in Greece), even with the current institutions : the problem is not that national interest dominate european insterests in the current europe (like kizwach argue), but that the dominant powers use the european institutions to assert their dominance and profit from it and that those institutions do not make politicians accountable for their policies.
The idea that europe did not force anything on nations is shortsighted, there are plenty of exemple where the situation is reversed and where some nations accepted specific policies under the influence of european institutions (like privatisations in most countries for exemple).
So the ideas that the blame is on the national government is not the right way to see it : the problem is the inability of european institutions to regulate politics in a good way, so that powers have counter powers (like in most democracy today) and so that elected are accountable for their policies.
Let's take Germany as an exemple : if say Merkel (or a member of her government), a month after the Volkswagen scandal, proposed a regulation to the bundestag that would lower the restrictions on automobile, do you really believe that the journalists, the other representatives and the civilian society would stay idle to this ? They would act as counter power and a debate would rise. So at the national level, that kind of situation is not possible (30 no name voting in a room somewhere in europe).
you give the Commission more power -> it passes some regulations -> a country refuses to obey them -> then EU does what?. attack it?, sanction it?, places it under an embargo?, takes it to court?.
To me the problem arose with just the "you give the commission more power" part. How do you do that ? On what ground ? Do you propose people to vote for a new european constitution ? Do you impose the solution without passing by a democratic process ? Do you propose it directly to the elected representative of the nation ? Either way, it is almost impossible to democratically legitimate such change in our democratic process today.
|
EU had no problem enforcing regulation and policies on weaker countries
that could be argued upon a little better/from different angles but yea i kinda got it.
the misunderstanding arose(imo) because kwizach thought you want to talk about the vote, who was right/who was wrong there and maybe why, but you just used the vote to take a stab at EU and the EU Commission with no intention to actually talk about it.
was all about the perspective from which it was discussed.
|
On November 02 2015 04:50 xM(Z wrote:that could be argued upon a little better/from different angles but yea i kinda got it. the misunderstanding arose(imo) because kwizach thought you want to talk about the vote, who was right/who was wrong there and maybe why, but you just used the vote to take a stab at EU and the EU Commission with no intention to actually talk about it. was all about the perspective from which it was discussed.
I took the vote for what it is, another proof that nothing good comes out of europe, whatever the subject may be. It's impotent when it's about the strong and dictatorial when it's about the weak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
