3 ms·

Yes, exactly. Nations gave away sovereign, constitutional powers literally after their populations boldly rejected the terms, in a fair and open democratic proc

by jariel 6y ago

Yes, exactly. Nations gave away sovereign, constitutional powers literally after their populations boldly rejected the terms, in a fair and open democratic processes. Other European nations, verging on 'voting no' were denied the chance precisely because the EU apparatus knew what the outcome would be. There's basically no defence of that issue, and the patronizing arguments defending 'indirect' nature of democracy of the EU wear thin - voters have no material impact on the EU, which is how it was designed, very much on purpose. The limitation that MEPs have no ability to introduce legislation or frankly drive any of the real legislative process is by design. It's mesmerizing to watch legions of young people defend an undemocratic system that their ancestors literally fought for 2000 years to overcome, with literally millions dead. 'Reason' lasted only one generation, before ostensibly well meaning actors took away the rights of the plebes before their eyes, and convinced them that it was in their best interest. There is obvious need for reform, and if there was, I'll bet Norway and UK would be part of it, and possibly even Switzerland.

avianlyric 6y ago
> ancestors literally fought for 2000 years to overcome, with literally millions dead. Not sure how good your history is. But the EU was built by an ancestors who were fed of fighting and dying by the millions in wars that did nothing to actually improve people lives. The whole purpose of the EU from day zero was to ensure lasting peace in Europe, and given there haven't been any domestic European wars since its creation, I would say it's been pretty successful.
- jariel 6y ago
  "The whole purpose of the EU from day zero was to ensure lasting peace in Europe" ? You do realize the EU as a body politic is very recent? (Not sure how good your history is. ?) 1) Yes, major powers who have economically integrated tend not to fight, that's great. It's the same all over the world. The US doesn't fight Japan either. 2) Europe's true sovereign guarantor, the US and their Nuclear Umbrella, which is the other 1/2 of the equation. 'The EU' is long after the fact. Moreover - it's besides the point - as I articulated, the EU has fundamental flaws with respect to democracy that can't be addressed with any reasonable argument it seems. EU citizens have little to no influence over their body politic, because all the power is a few points indirection away from their reach. Europeans were told after the election who their anointed leader would be, what her political platform was, and what her vision for the EU was. Just consider why for a moment the EU doesn't require leaders to be publicly announced and vetted before elections? Wouldn't that be a highly rational, reasonable, and arguably necessary element for legitimate democracy? What were EU leaders thinking when they definitely decided that this would not be required? It's absurd. Many citizens saw it was absurd, voted against the Constitutional Treaty, and it was passed anyhow.
  - pmontra 6y ago
    > Europeans were told after the election who their anointed leader would be, what her political platform was, and what her vision for the EU was. > Just consider why for a moment the EU doesn't require leaders to be publicly announced and vetted before elections? I'm from Italy. This is exactly what our Constitution provides about our Prime Ministers. They can be anybody, even without a seat in Parliament (or current Prime Minister doesn't.) The President of the Republic appoints them, probably even you because I don't see requirements about citizenship or residency. They must be confirmed by a vote of the Parliament (50%+1) and that's it. Actually, if they are not confirmed they still are Prime Minister until the President appoints somebody else. You can check Articles 92 to 96 of the Constitution at http://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf http://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costit... (PDF, English) from the site of one of the chambers of the Parliament. I don't particularly like this but it's an example of how that is usual in Europe. Many other countries don't have direct elections for their leaders. Given this status it's normal that we don't elect the President of the Commission. Furthermore what really matters is the Council, made by the leaders of each country. The Commission is the government but the real power is in the Council. A Commission going against the Council doesn't have any political backing.
dmitriid 6y ago
> It's mesmerizing to watch legions of young people defend an undemocratic system that their ancestors literally fought for 2000 years to overcome, with literally millions dead. It's mesmerizing to watch legions of young people defend a Union they grew up in with no wars, with relative economic stability, with open borders and unencumbered travel. Compared to their ancestors who literally sacrificed millions of people fighting over each square millimiter of land for centuries on end. > There is obvious need for reform, and if there was, I'll bet Norway and UK would be part of it, and possibly even Switzerland. Norway and Switzerland are not part of EU [1]. UK has left the EU and it will be fascinating how it will function now that it has severed basically all ties with the EU. [1] They are a part of the Schengen Area and various other treaties. They are, however, tightly integrated into the EU and are basically bound by most of EU's laws.
- jariel 6y ago
  "It's mesmerizing to watch legions of young people defend a Union they grew up in with no wars, with relative economic stability, with open borders and unencumbered travel." A little bit like a Chinese citizen, defending their lack of democracy 'because 7% growth every year and stability!'. Not only are things things 1) possible without the EU, 2) they were mostly put in place long before the body politic existed (the EEC is a primary driver of the above) 3) it has nothing to do with the democracy deficit. "UK has left the EU and it will be fascinating how it will function now that it has severed basically all ties with the EU." The UK has not 'severed all ties' ... but, are you truly asking how it's possible for a sovereign nation to function without the EU? How does Australia function? How does Japan function? ? They will all get along mostly fine. Again - none of the arguments given point to any reasonable underlying motivation for denying EU citizens the right to chose their leaders. --> EU citizens are denied the right to vet, or vote for the leaders and their platforms, their elected officials cannot enact legislation, and their ability to censure the non-elected leaders (this is maybe the most important power) is basically non-existent. It's an existential problem.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    > How does Australia function? By mining huge amounts of raw resources and selling to their near by neighbours as well as the rest of the world. The U.K. doesn’t have access to any useful raw materials apart from perhaps coal. > How does Japan function? Through massive government borrowing. Their debt is 223% of GDP. Now it hasn’t really bitten them yet, but it’s increasingly looking like it’s gonna be a serious problem for them. I’m not either of those options is something I would pick for the U.K.

by jariel 6y ago

avianlyric 6y ago

> ancestors literally fought for 2000 years to overcome, with literally millions dead. Not sure how good your history is. But the EU was built by an ancestors who were fed of fighting and dying by the millions in wars that did nothing to actually improve people lives. The whole purpose of the EU from day zero was to ensure lasting peace in Europe, and given there haven't been any domestic European wars since its creation, I would say it's been pretty successful.

jariel 6y ago
"The whole purpose of the EU from day zero was to ensure lasting peace in Europe" ? You do realize the EU as a body politic is very recent? (Not sure how good your history is. ?) 1) Yes, major powers who have economically integrated tend not to fight, that's great. It's the same all over the world. The US doesn't fight Japan either. 2) Europe's true sovereign guarantor, the US and their Nuclear Umbrella, which is the other 1/2 of the equation. 'The EU' is long after the fact. Moreover - it's besides the point - as I articulated, the EU has fundamental flaws with respect to democracy that can't be addressed with any reasonable argument it seems. EU citizens have little to no influence over their body politic, because all the power is a few points indirection away from their reach. Europeans were told after the election who their anointed leader would be, what her political platform was, and what her vision for the EU was. Just consider why for a moment the EU doesn't require leaders to be publicly announced and vetted before elections? Wouldn't that be a highly rational, reasonable, and arguably necessary element for legitimate democracy? What were EU leaders thinking when they definitely decided that this would not be required? It's absurd. Many citizens saw it was absurd, voted against the Constitutional Treaty, and it was passed anyhow.
- pmontra 6y ago
  > Europeans were told after the election who their anointed leader would be, what her political platform was, and what her vision for the EU was. > Just consider why for a moment the EU doesn't require leaders to be publicly announced and vetted before elections? I'm from Italy. This is exactly what our Constitution provides about our Prime Ministers. They can be anybody, even without a seat in Parliament (or current Prime Minister doesn't.) The President of the Republic appoints them, probably even you because I don't see requirements about citizenship or residency. They must be confirmed by a vote of the Parliament (50%+1) and that's it. Actually, if they are not confirmed they still are Prime Minister until the President appoints somebody else. You can check Articles 92 to 96 of the Constitution at http://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf http://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costit... (PDF, English) from the site of one of the chambers of the Parliament. I don't particularly like this but it's an example of how that is usual in Europe. Many other countries don't have direct elections for their leaders. Given this status it's normal that we don't elect the President of the Commission. Furthermore what really matters is the Council, made by the leaders of each country. The Commission is the government but the real power is in the Council. A Commission going against the Council doesn't have any political backing.

dmitriid 6y ago

> It's mesmerizing to watch legions of young people defend an undemocratic system that their ancestors literally fought for 2000 years to overcome, with literally millions dead. It's mesmerizing to watch legions of young people defend a Union they grew up in with no wars, with relative economic stability, with open borders and unencumbered travel. Compared to their ancestors who literally sacrificed millions of people fighting over each square millimiter of land for centuries on end. > There is obvious need for reform, and if there was, I'll bet Norway and UK would be part of it, and possibly even Switzerland. Norway and Switzerland are not part of EU [1]. UK has left the EU and it will be fascinating how it will function now that it has severed basically all ties with the EU. [1] They are a part of the Schengen Area and various other treaties. They are, however, tightly integrated into the EU and are basically bound by most of EU's laws.

jariel 6y ago
"It's mesmerizing to watch legions of young people defend a Union they grew up in with no wars, with relative economic stability, with open borders and unencumbered travel." A little bit like a Chinese citizen, defending their lack of democracy 'because 7% growth every year and stability!'. Not only are things things 1) possible without the EU, 2) they were mostly put in place long before the body politic existed (the EEC is a primary driver of the above) 3) it has nothing to do with the democracy deficit. "UK has left the EU and it will be fascinating how it will function now that it has severed basically all ties with the EU." The UK has not 'severed all ties' ... but, are you truly asking how it's possible for a sovereign nation to function without the EU? How does Australia function? How does Japan function? ? They will all get along mostly fine. Again - none of the arguments given point to any reasonable underlying motivation for denying EU citizens the right to chose their leaders. --> EU citizens are denied the right to vet, or vote for the leaders and their platforms, their elected officials cannot enact legislation, and their ability to censure the non-elected leaders (this is maybe the most important power) is basically non-existent. It's an existential problem.
- avianlyric 6y ago
  > How does Australia function? By mining huge amounts of raw resources and selling to their near by neighbours as well as the rest of the world. The U.K. doesn’t have access to any useful raw materials apart from perhaps coal. > How does Japan function? Through massive government borrowing. Their debt is 223% of GDP. Now it hasn’t really bitten them yet, but it’s increasingly looking like it’s gonna be a serious problem for them. I’m not either of those options is something I would pick for the U.K.