|
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 April 09 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
Face it, Europe has a collective sense of Stockholm Syndrome with regards to the US. Whenever the US elects an aggressive idiot they mostly just quietly take it and try their best not to start a commotion, but express their deepest most jubilant excitement whenever the US does something mildly favorable towards them. If Trump won't change that nothing will.
Aaaaaaaand this is why EU integration is the way forward. We really have a choice between being a bunch of small/medium size nations squizzed between a big brother that dwarf every single one of us and a nostalgic former superpower with delusionnal imperial dreams, or being arguably the most powerful federation on earth, able to deal equally with the States and build a partnership with Russia based on the assumption that its regime doesn't mess with us.
As long as Western Europe doesn't unite, its influence will always be completely overshadowed by the US. They have the economic influence, the army, a unified government (well, these days that ain't a great asset) while we are a conglomerate of more or less convergent interests that struggle to do anything together. The world has become too small for countries of 5-70 million people to really compete with the US, Russia, China and India. So as long as we don't sort that shit and get a functional supranational government, we are the bitches of the least scary superpower, and that is the US, which, despite all their flaws are a great country compared to a kleptocratic Russia or a far away ruthless dictatorship like China.
|
why is being a puppet or associated state to US, Russia, China and India worse than being in EU?; at least 2 of those would be better than the current EU.
|
On April 09 2017 18:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
Face it, Europe has a collective sense of Stockholm Syndrome with regards to the US. Whenever the US elects an aggressive idiot they mostly just quietly take it and try their best not to start a commotion, but express their deepest most jubilant excitement whenever the US does something mildly favorable towards them. If Trump won't change that nothing will. Aaaaaaaand this is why EU integration is the way forward. We really have a choice between being a bunch of small/medium size nations squizzed between a big brother that dwarf every single one of us and a nostalgic former superpower with delusionnal imperial dreams, or being arguably the most powerful federation on earth, able to deal equally with the States and build a partnership with Russia based on the assumption that its regime doesn't mess with us. As long as Western Europe doesn't unite, its influence will always be completely overshadowed by the US. They have the economic influence, the army, a unified government (well, these days that ain't a great asset) while we are a conglomerate of more or less convergent interests that struggle to do anything together. The world has become too small for countries of 5-70 million people to really compete with the US, Russia, China and India. So as long as we don't sort that shit and get a functional supranational government, we are the bitches of the least scary superpower, and that is the US, which, despite all their flaws are a great country compared to a kleptocratic Russia or a far away ruthless dictatorship like China.
Your argument is way too reasonable and you give way too much respect to what the enemies of Europe are saying. It is not what they are meaning.
The unspoken questions are:
- How is a strong souvereign Europe better for Russia or the USA than one that you can enforce a certain hegemony over?
- Why would a radical nationalist care about material questions?
There is nothing in this deal for them, which is why they will always be against this idea for a long, long time. This is what the friends of Europe would actually have to communicate. The USA and Russia being united in their hatred for Europe is actually a very good sign, it means we are already standing up to their interests.
|
Do you propose a different system for choosing commissioners? Or will your militarised EU superstate be in the hands of Juncker and the like? The alternative is formally acknowledging Empress Merkel, as opposed to the informal acknowledgement that currently exists, I suppose.
|
On April 09 2017 21:05 bardtown wrote:
Do you propose a different system for choosing commissioners? Or will your EU superstate be in the hands of Juncker and the like? The alternative is formally acknowledging Empress Merkel, as opposed to the informal acknowledgement that currently exists, I suppose.
If the consequences of this kind of propaganda wouldn't be so bad, it would actually be funny. Claiming one of the weakest, flip-flopping, right-winger politicians I have ever witnessed to be the Empress of Europe is quite an impressive achievement of the far-right nationalists.
You want to know why Merkel is the leader of the conservatives in Germany and chancellor? Because when the party imploded on decade-long corruption and they had to find a new leader they thought putting a woman from East Germany in charge who simply could not have any connection to what the Western German CDU had been doing was a great trick and they would just replace her at some point. Turns out she won the election 2005 after Schröders neoliberalism was punished by former SPD voters taking a turn to the left and CDU/CSU have since had to comply with her. Why she is still in power? You may want to ask former SPD voters why they are voting for the far-left now and former Liberal voters why they rather put up with the conservatives, than another corrupt-to-the-bone middle-right party.
|
On April 09 2017 21:05 bardtown wrote:
Do you propose a different system for choosing commissioners? Or will your militarised EU superstate be in the hands of Juncker and the like? The alternative is formally acknowledging Empress Merkel, as opposed to the informal acknowledgement that currently exists, I suppose.
What about giving more power to the democratically elected european parliament, finally get rid of that stupid comission and replace it by an elected government?
I think people fail to see that the EU is not governed by shadowy technocratic overlords, but by either people they vote for directly in the european elections, or an (inefficient) council of also democratically elected government representatives. If people think that the EU governance sucks, maybe they should stop voting with their feet (when those people vote at all). The turnout for the europarliament is a disgrace, and then i hear complains that it's not democratic enough. Yeah, if you don't vote, you are not represented.
|
I'm not a far-right nationalist. And you didn't answer the question.
Merkel is in power because the Germans find her to be competent. It is not her traits as an individual that make her the de facto Empress of the EU, it is simply the fact that she is the Chancellor of Germany.
|
On April 09 2017 21:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 21:05 bardtown wrote:
Do you propose a different system for choosing commissioners? Or will your militarised EU superstate be in the hands of Juncker and the like? The alternative is formally acknowledging Empress Merkel, as opposed to the informal acknowledgement that currently exists, I suppose. What about giving more power to the democratically elected european parliament, finally get rid of that stupid comission and replace it by an elected government? I think people fail to see that the EU is not governed by shadowy technocratic overlords, but by either people they vote for directly in the european elections, or an (inefficient) council of also democratically elected government representatives. If people think that the EU governance sucks, maybe they should stop voting with their feet (when those people vote at all). The turnout for the europarliament is a disgrace, and then i hear complains that it's not democratic enough. Yeah, if you don't vote, you are not represented.
Maybe people don't vote for the European elections precisely because the Parliament has little power?
Maybe one should ask clearly people if they want to further delegate sovereignty instead of pushing for a hidden, forced federalist strategy?
Maybe the European treaties—which were never accepted in some countries to begin with!—should leave some room when it comes to financing States or the way countries want to deal with globalization?
You blame people for “voting with their feet”. Care to explain how I am supposed to have influence over what German, Polish or Portuguese vote? I don't even have access to their national debates! How can there be any European democracy on this basis?
|
On April 09 2017 21:33 bardtown wrote:
I'm not a far-right nationalist. And you didn't answer the question.
Merkel is in power because the Germans find her to be competent. It is not her traits as an individual that make her the de facto Empress of the EU, it is simply the fact that she is the Chancellor of Germany.
I didn't say you were, I only named where the wind blows from, to use my best Germish.
Most people don't think politicians are competent. How the chancellor of Germany is the Emperor of Europe is beyond me. She/he obviously has a lot of influence, given that half of Europe has long tied their economy and currencies to Germany, which by the way is a strong argument in favor of the Euro, so that there is a common currency around, not a DM with a bunch of wannabe DMs.
As for your question. I am in favor of a very strong, democratically elected parliament and a weak, yet directly elected government. Furthermore, in case of the EU I would also advocate a second chamber to represent the countries interests. Maybe something similar to the US senate, so 2 senators per country. (how they are selected should be left to the states)
To vote for the government I would like to have the legislative chambers work out a plan for ministries for the next governmental period and then have the ministers, commissioners, secretaries of the EU or whatever you want to call them, directly elected.
|
How do you imagine the position of smaller countries like Cyprus, Malta, Luxembourg or the Baltics in a system built around strong, democratically elected parliament?
|
On April 09 2017 21:54 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 21:33 bardtown wrote:
I'm not a far-right nationalist. And you didn't answer the question.
Merkel is in power because the Germans find her to be competent. It is not her traits as an individual that make her the de facto Empress of the EU, it is simply the fact that she is the Chancellor of Germany. I didn't say you were, I only named where the wind blows from, to use my best Germish. Most people don't think politicians are competent. How the chancellor of Germany is the Emperor of Europe is beyond me. She/he obviously has a lot of influence, given that half of Europe has long tied their economy and currencies to Germany, which by the way is a strong argument in favor of the Euro, so that there is a common currency around, not a DM with a bunch of wannabe DMs. As for your question. I am in favor of a very strong, democratically elected parliament and a weak, yet directly elected government. Furthermore, in case of the EU I would also advocate a second chamber to represent the countries interests. Maybe something similar to the US senate, so 2 senators per country. (how they are selected should be left to the states) To vote for the government I would like to have the legislative chambers work out a plan for ministries for the next governmental period and then have the ministers, commissioners, secretaries of the EU or whatever you want to call them, directly elected.
If you actually succeeded in getting a strong democratic parliament with high turnout you would undermine your own aims because the majority of people want more powers returned to national governments. Regarding the EU's military ambitions, you would then have the potential for dozens of countries being dragged into wars against the will of their representatives. Alternatively, you could have a higher threshold (say 66% or 75%) which would result in the military never being used and its entire purpose being undermined. This kind of high level planning of institutions makes me very suspicious.
|
On April 09 2017 22:18 Sent. wrote:
How do you imagine the position of smaller countries like Cyprus, Malta, Luxembourg or the Baltics in a system built around strong, democratically elected parliament?
With a senate that is more or less replacing the European Council, so the change in theory is marginal. Practically though those senators can act more freely, as they do not share the positions of chancellor/prime minister and member of council and they are fulltime employed for European work and don't just squeeze in a meeting from time to time while their actual job is on a national level.
|
On April 09 2017 22:22 bardtown wrote:
If you actually succeeded in getting a strong democratic parliament with high turnout you would undermine your own aims because the majority of people want more powers returned to national governments.
I do not see what's the problem with that. If a democratically elected government choses to give national governments certain rights, who am I to stand in their way? The important part is that there is a democratic structure you can build on.
On April 09 2017 22:22 bardtown wrote:
Regarding the EU's military ambitions, you would then have the potential for dozens of countries being dragged into wars against the will of their representatives.
I have to pay taxes and accept rights that I am absolutely against. That's democracy. However, again, the senate would have certain rights to prevent such actions (certain number of senators corresponds to certain number of countries being against or 50-50 of these issues) and the EU does not even have a military at this point in time and is far from having one anyways.
On April 09 2017 22:22 bardtown wrote:
Alternatively, you could have a higher threshold (say 66% or 75%) which would result in the military never being used and its entire purpose being undermined. This kind of high level planning of institutions makes me very suspicious.
In case of a true defensive pupose you'd probably reach up to 90% approval. So a high threshold would be exactly a great tool to prevent the EU to become another idiotic hegomonial entity on the world, while giving it certain military powers.
|
On April 09 2017 21:33 bardtown wrote:
I'm not a far-right nationalist. And you didn't answer the question.
Merkel is in power because the Germans find her to be competent. It is not her traits as an individual that make her the de facto Empress of the EU, it is simply the fact that she is the Chancellor of Germany.
Maybe, just maybe, Germany is at the forefront of the EU because no one else seems to want the job.
Its hard not to become 'de facto Empress of Europe' when everyone else looks to you to act first.
|
On April 09 2017 23:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 21:33 bardtown wrote:
I'm not a far-right nationalist. And you didn't answer the question.
Merkel is in power because the Germans find her to be competent. It is not her traits as an individual that make her the de facto Empress of the EU, it is simply the fact that she is the Chancellor of Germany. Maybe, just maybe, Germany is at the forefront of the EU because no one else seems to want the job. Its hard not to become 'de facto Empress of Europe' when everyone else looks to you to act first.
It's because Germany is the economic powerhouse of Europe and pays disproportionately into the project. It doesn't matter what other people want - no-one else can fill the role of the German chancellor in the EU.
|
On April 09 2017 23:12 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 23:03 Gorsameth wrote:On April 09 2017 21:33 bardtown wrote:
I'm not a far-right nationalist. And you didn't answer the question.
Merkel is in power because the Germans find her to be competent. It is not her traits as an individual that make her the de facto Empress of the EU, it is simply the fact that she is the Chancellor of Germany. Maybe, just maybe, Germany is at the forefront of the EU because no one else seems to want the job. Its hard not to become 'de facto Empress of Europe' when everyone else looks to you to act first. It's because Germany is the economic powerhouse of Europe and pays disproportionately into the project. It doesn't matter what other people want - no-one else can fill the role of the German chancellor in the EU.
Which is why a common democratic structure is an amazing thing to have for countries that are bound to the German economy one way or another. Though only talking about Germany obviously distorts reality. Each country has a proportional influence over all other countries economic realities. Killing these economic networks over night would be incredibly bad, not killing these network gradually takes away from the souvereignty of the countries. The solution: a common political platform, i.e. the EU.
|
I'm all for a more democratic EU. I'm interested to see what happens if Germany gets outvoted on something they actually care about.
|
On April 09 2017 23:42 bardtown wrote:
I'm all for a more democratic EU. I'm interested to see what happens if Germany gets outvoted on something they actually care about.
This could be happening very frequently, after the UK leaving. You see, right now the Northern countries and the Southern countries are kind of balanced, both barely having a blocking minority in the council. With the UK committing Sodoku, the Northern countries won't have that minority anymore and can't veto on many things without the help of the East, which will probably try to bargain with the Northern countries on such matters.
Good thing the UK does not care about trade relations with the EU, because we might find ourselves in a Union that is far more protective in that regard than it is now, when British interests are represented (naturally going hand in hand with German interests). Or as David Cameron put it when stepping down: Dup doooo, do do.
|
What you're talking about is the EU 'committing Sudoku'. You're just not understanding the situation in sufficient depth to see that. If the poor, subsidised countries consistently outvote the wealthy contributors, discontentment will only grow. Sounds like a recipe for Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands to seriously consider their positions. I don't share your opinion though. The south and the east will most likely toe the German line to keep their German funding.
|
How come the EU apparently simply follows the money yet also compromised the UKs self determination? If being merely 2nd behind Germany was bad enough what other bloc does the UK intend to dominate to its satisfaction?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
