6 ms·

> Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? That's called a strawm

by scribu 10y ago

> Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? That's called a strawman argument. Of course no one would want to be part of such an org, if that was all there was to it. But you conveniently left out all the benefits of being in that org (some of which were mentioned in this thread).

maratd 10y ago
> That's called a strawman argument. Stop whining. > But you conveniently left out all the benefits of being in that org I don't believe I said there weren't any. There are many. It seems the voters value their liberty and self-determination more.
- madgar 10y ago
  I'm guessing you believe every US state should be calling to secede, because they "have zero control" and "have to pay taxes" to the federal government? Since US states, just like Britain in the EU, participate in the larger governing body through representatives?
  - maratd 10y ago
    > Since US states, just like Britain in the EU, participate in the larger governing body through representatives? Not quite. For the US federal government, you get to vote for 2 senators, a number of congressmen, and the president. You get to vote for zero in the EU.
    - arrrg 10y ago
      Members of parliament? Plus, commissioners are appointed by the member state governments, so indirectly you can vote for those, too. There are no kings or queens running the EU, nor do people just randomly show up and get power. Everyone who has power is either elected or was appointed by someone who was elected.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      > Not quite. For the US federal government, you get to vote for 2 senators, a number of congressmen, and the president. Senators used to be picked by the state congress and presidents are elected via the electoral college, not the popular vote, so when the US was founded and for much of its history, the people's voice was solely from the house of representatives which was the original intention of the founders. Like the US, the EU will evolve, but like the original US, the EU members are elected by the people's representatives, which is hardly no control or will of the people.
      - maratd 10y ago
        > when the US was founded and for much of its history When the US was founded and for much of its history, women couldn't vote. And this was the intention of the founders. And it's irrelevant. You judge a political entity by its current state. They can vote now. And now, you elect your Senators directly. You also elect your President directly, albeit within the confines of your state. > Like the US, the EU will evolve I disagree with you here, there is no guarantee of this. It may, it may not. > the EU members are elected by the people's representatives, which is hardly no control or will of the people. Selection is very different from election, even if done by those who were elected. Nobody is screaming dictatorship here, but it really isn't the same thing.
        gnaritas 10y ago
        > And this was the intention of the founders. And it's irrelevant. It was relevant to the next point made (not the founders intentions), that everything evolves even the U.S. > disagree with you here, there is no guarantee of this. It may, it may not. It will, because nothing stays static, every generation has their own views about issues and all societies continually evolve, so yes, there is a guarantee of this. > Selection is very different from election, even if done by those who were elected. They're effectively the same thing and it's what elected representatives are for. You can't claim you don't have a say in the people selected when you elect the selectors.
        maratd 10y ago
    - scribu 10y ago
      > You get to vote for zero in the EU. The European Parliament is directly elected by EU citizens, with the UK getting 73 seats. [0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
      - maratd 10y ago
        I'll revise my previous statement to "You get to vote for 1/3 in the EU." I will note that this legislative body has no capacity to actually introduce legislation, as noted in the very article you quoted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Legislative_procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Legislativ...
        tremon 10y ago
        Make that 2/3 please. I assume that with your 1/3 you are referring to the European Parliament, and the other two you are considering are the European Commission and the Council of the EU, right? But the latter is chosen directly, because it is composed of the ministers of the respective member states. So of the three, only the Commission is appointed instead of elected.
        maratd 10y ago
        If you really want to quibble about the fraction, I can revise it to 2/7. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutions_of_the_European_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutions_of_the_European... Of those, only the parliament is directly elected. The council consists of elected officials who are automatically appointed and the presidency rotates. While that isn't necessarily a bad scheme, it isn't exactly democratic ... more like sequential?
        tremon 10y ago
        Nope, still wrong. If you want to count all the institutions, it is 3/7: the European Parliament, the European Council, and the Council of the EU. And are you really suggesting that people in the UK and in the rest of the world really do elect their judges, treasury officers, and accountants? Even in the US, the much-vaunted example, Supreme Court judges and the Federal Reserve chairman are appointed, not elected.
- dang 10y ago
  > Stop whining. This breaks the HN guidelines by being uncivil. Please edit such bits out of your comments here. Your comment would be much better with just the last sentence.
reitanqild 10y ago
>>>> Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? >> That's called a strawman argument. Of course no one would want to be part of such an org, if that was all there was to it. And here I think you repeat the mistake discussed here: belittling people who don't agree with you.
- tremon 10y ago
  No, I'm not belittling people because they disagree. I'm belittling people because they employ misdirection to "win" an argument.
- scribu 10y ago
  I expressed my opinion that GP's argument was poor and explained why. How is that belittling?!
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    You dismissed it as strawman although while not mathematically correct this is what lots of people feel.
    - tremon 10y ago
      It's what people have been made to feel by twenty years of UKIP (a.o.) anti-EU posturing. Pointing out that that "feeling" is based on lies is not any more belittling than using lies to win an argument is belittling your opponent.
      - reitanqild 10y ago
        I guess you are giving UKIP too much credit here. We have the same here with no UKIP. Politicians have tried twice to get Norwegians into EU using dubious arguments and people mobilized broadly twice to avoid it. Edit: removed "all kinds of" in font of dubious to be less hyperbolic.

by scribu 10y ago

maratd 10y ago

> That's called a strawman argument. Stop whining. > But you conveniently left out all the benefits of being in that org I don't believe I said there weren't any. There are many. It seems the voters value their liberty and self-determination more.

madgar 10y ago
I'm guessing you believe every US state should be calling to secede, because they "have zero control" and "have to pay taxes" to the federal government? Since US states, just like Britain in the EU, participate in the larger governing body through representatives?
- maratd 10y ago
  > Since US states, just like Britain in the EU, participate in the larger governing body through representatives? Not quite. For the US federal government, you get to vote for 2 senators, a number of congressmen, and the president. You get to vote for zero in the EU.
  - arrrg 10y ago
    Members of parliament? Plus, commissioners are appointed by the member state governments, so indirectly you can vote for those, too. There are no kings or queens running the EU, nor do people just randomly show up and get power. Everyone who has power is either elected or was appointed by someone who was elected.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    > Not quite. For the US federal government, you get to vote for 2 senators, a number of congressmen, and the president. Senators used to be picked by the state congress and presidents are elected via the electoral college, not the popular vote, so when the US was founded and for much of its history, the people's voice was solely from the house of representatives which was the original intention of the founders. Like the US, the EU will evolve, but like the original US, the EU members are elected by the people's representatives, which is hardly no control or will of the people.
    - maratd 10y ago
      > when the US was founded and for much of its history When the US was founded and for much of its history, women couldn't vote. And this was the intention of the founders. And it's irrelevant. You judge a political entity by its current state. They can vote now. And now, you elect your Senators directly. You also elect your President directly, albeit within the confines of your state. > Like the US, the EU will evolve I disagree with you here, there is no guarantee of this. It may, it may not. > the EU members are elected by the people's representatives, which is hardly no control or will of the people. Selection is very different from election, even if done by those who were elected. Nobody is screaming dictatorship here, but it really isn't the same thing.
      - gnaritas 10y ago
        > And this was the intention of the founders. And it's irrelevant. It was relevant to the next point made (not the founders intentions), that everything evolves even the U.S. > disagree with you here, there is no guarantee of this. It may, it may not. It will, because nothing stays static, every generation has their own views about issues and all societies continually evolve, so yes, there is a guarantee of this. > Selection is very different from election, even if done by those who were elected. They're effectively the same thing and it's what elected representatives are for. You can't claim you don't have a say in the people selected when you elect the selectors.
        maratd 10y ago
  - scribu 10y ago
    > You get to vote for zero in the EU. The European Parliament is directly elected by EU citizens, with the UK getting 73 seats. [0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
    - maratd 10y ago
      I'll revise my previous statement to "You get to vote for 1/3 in the EU." I will note that this legislative body has no capacity to actually introduce legislation, as noted in the very article you quoted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Legislative_procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Legislativ...
      - tremon 10y ago
        Make that 2/3 please. I assume that with your 1/3 you are referring to the European Parliament, and the other two you are considering are the European Commission and the Council of the EU, right? But the latter is chosen directly, because it is composed of the ministers of the respective member states. So of the three, only the Commission is appointed instead of elected.
        maratd 10y ago
        If you really want to quibble about the fraction, I can revise it to 2/7. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutions_of_the_European_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutions_of_the_European... Of those, only the parliament is directly elected. The council consists of elected officials who are automatically appointed and the presidency rotates. While that isn't necessarily a bad scheme, it isn't exactly democratic ... more like sequential?
        tremon 10y ago
        Nope, still wrong. If you want to count all the institutions, it is 3/7: the European Parliament, the European Council, and the Council of the EU. And are you really suggesting that people in the UK and in the rest of the world really do elect their judges, treasury officers, and accountants? Even in the US, the much-vaunted example, Supreme Court judges and the Federal Reserve chairman are appointed, not elected.
dang 10y ago
> Stop whining. This breaks the HN guidelines by being uncivil. Please edit such bits out of your comments here. Your comment would be much better with just the last sentence.

reitanqild 10y ago

>>>> Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? >> That's called a strawman argument. Of course no one would want to be part of such an org, if that was all there was to it. And here I think you repeat the mistake discussed here: belittling people who don't agree with you.

tremon 10y ago
No, I'm not belittling people because they disagree. I'm belittling people because they employ misdirection to "win" an argument.
scribu 10y ago
I expressed my opinion that GP's argument was poor and explained why. How is that belittling?!
- reitanqild 10y ago
  You dismissed it as strawman although while not mathematically correct this is what lots of people feel.
  - tremon 10y ago
    It's what people have been made to feel by twenty years of UKIP (a.o.) anti-EU posturing. Pointing out that that "feeling" is based on lies is not any more belittling than using lies to win an argument is belittling your opponent.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      I guess you are giving UKIP too much credit here. We have the same here with no UKIP. Politicians have tried twice to get Norwegians into EU using dubious arguments and people mobilized broadly twice to avoid it. Edit: removed "all kinds of" in font of dubious to be less hyperbolic.