Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: RE: To Mister So and So | |
Author: Mister New Statesman | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 22:58:25 11/23/04 Tue In reply to: Ed Harris (Venezia) 's message, "The Norwegians have half of North Sea oil? Who do you think has the other half?" on 21:59:53 11/23/04 Tue "Nonsense - London has been a trading capital long before the Euro was a glint in a Eurocrat’s eye. If Europe and its institutions are responsible for London’s success, why have the cities that have embraced Europe’s institutions more enthusiastically not been more successful?" - Because London was a natural financial centre, and it makes sense to situate one's European HQ there: but only if Britain is in the EU, because there's no point in having a regional headquarters that is outside the region. I grant you the fact that the Euro does not make that much difference in all of this, for it is trade that is the primary concern here. "Oh my God, you don’t really believe that do you. Name a single political institution in the world that has gained more power, and somehow become more benign! Please." - One single political institution? What about the U.S. government? Let me remind you that, for the first few decades, Presidents were not popularly elected and the Senate was appointed by the states. You may not agree with the political decisions of the U.S. of A, but at least you can grant that (apart, of course, from that rather inconvenient electoral college nonsense) it is a democratic system. And one could further argue that, considering the fact that the Lords is an unelected house and that FPTP gives such enormous majorities, Britain's system is more like an electoral dictatorship. This is, of course, in contrast to European concensus politics in which the majorities are listened to and nobody has a stranglehold on power. I am not going to argue for the merits of either, because there are large and obvious weaknesses in proportional representation, but if Europe evolved into something like American democracy then at least it would be a democracy. "I’m afraid they [Northern Europeans] already have [accepted being governed by corrupt bureaucrats]." - No, they haven't. Let me remind you that two of the most vocal opponents of Barroso's election were German (Martin Schulz of the Socialists and Daniel Cohn-Bendit of the Greens), one was Danish (Jens-Peter Bonde, of the same group as UKIP) and one was British (Nigel Farage of UKIP). The same goes with this new furore over Jacques Barrot, the French transport commissioner who "forgot" to tell everyone that he was convicted of embezzlement a few years ago. People are raising a stink about this - you have to pay attention to European affairs. Pick up a copy of the European Voice every so often. Go on. "Replacing a sovereign Parliament with an unelected Commission, a puppet Parliament, European arrest warrants, presidential Government and unrestricted expenses are NOT BRITISH TRAITS as far as I can tell." - I was talking more about culture, actually, as in popular culture, language, music, literature and all that. But if you want to talk politics: Unelected commission? First of all, the commission is chosen by the member-states and not by itself. It is, thus, responsible to the wishes of the national governments. Plus, it only has power to initiate legislation, not to pass it. That is down to the Parliament and the Council. The Council is the ensemble of government ministers from the member-states, THUS representative of the wishes of the national governments, and THUS representative of the wishes of the people. Reading up on this might be a good idea. Talking out of one's arse is generally not a good idea. Puppet Parliament? Well, I thought that you wanted power for the member-states! The Parliament has so few powers because national governments do not give it powers. Now, however, it is beginning to flex its muscle. I am not sure what your opinion is on whether this is a good thing, because your views confuse me. European Arrest Warrants? Ah, yes, but issued by whom? The European Public Prosecutor. Who is responsible to whom? The member-states. Presidential Government? Utter crap. In fact, if anything the Commission more closely represents a European Cabinet, with the President of the Commission gradually becoming more and more like a European Prime Minister. He is elected, or at least his selection is influenced, indirectly by the European Parliament and not directly by the European people. As for Ed? Well, where do I begin? Yes, I have read Monnet's declaration at The Hague Conference, I think it was. I am a Political Science student, you know. But if you look at the contemporary European current of thought, it seems that he's not getting what he's looking for - if anything, we're getting a very Anglo-Saxon Europe. The welfare state is being dismantled, working hours are increasing, retirement ages are increasing, the usage of English is increasing. If you ask a European of the age of about 17 or 18 where he or she wants to study at university, it will either be their own country or Britain. This is a good thing, at least for you lot, because you want to propagate British "values" across the world. And Britain will not lose its identity in a US of E, because it has no reason to. Just because a federal system of government is developed does not mean that national identities will disappear. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Utter Garbage | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:25:31 11/23/04 Tue - Because London was a natural financial centre, and it makes sense to situate one's European HQ there: but only if Britain is in the EU, because there's no point in having a regional headquarters that is outside the region. I grant you the fact that the Euro does not make that much difference in all of this, for it is trade that is the primary concern here. The EU has nothing to do with it. Regional Headquarters have nothing to do with political boundaries. Most American companies’ “European” headquarters also encompass the Middle East and Africa. - One single political institution? What about the U.S. government? Let me remind you that, for the first few decades, Presidents were not popularly elected and the Senate was appointed by the states. You are trying to compare a single political entity with a group of nations that has only achieved the unity attained thus far by deception and lies. Don’t make me laugh. You may not agree with the political decisions of the U.S. of A, but at least you can grant that (apart, of course, from that rather inconvenient electoral college nonsense) it is a democratic system. And one could further argue that, considering the fact that the Lords is an unelected house and that FPTP gives such enormous majorities, Britain's system is more like an electoral dictatorship. An electoral dictatorship maybe – but also one of the few countries in Europe, that has not had a REAL dictatorship in the last two generations. "I’m afraid they [Northern Europeans] already have [accepted being governed by corrupt bureaucrats]." The European Commission is corrupt, and as they are EU members, they are subject to a corrupt institution. Unelected commission? First of all, the commission is chosen by the member-states and not by itself. Chosen is not elected, remember? The fact that our Governments selects them is irrelevant. You would presumably argue that we elect our judges, using the same logic. The Government does not have the power to dismiss them. Therefore there is no accountability, and no democracy. The Parliament that you referred to also does not have the power to dismiss them individually. The can only sack the entire commission, and the commission are under no obligation to respect the wishes of the Parliament, and can nominate the exact same members, should they choose. As you can see, I have read up on it. Talking out of one's arse is generally not a good idea. You would know all about that! Puppet Parliament? Well, I thought that you wanted power for the member-states! I want power for our own Parliament. The Parliament has so few powers because national governments do not give it powers. Now, however, it is beginning to flex its muscle. I am not sure what your opinion is on whether this is a good thing, because your views confuse me. My views are clear, see above. European Arrest Warrants? Ah, yes, but issued by whom? The European Public Prosecutor. Who is responsible to whom? The member-states You mean the member states’ Governments, and if they object to their actions, they can do what exactly? Presidential Government? Utter crap. The new constitution will introduce a EU present, or have you not read it? In fact, if anything the Commission more closely represents a European Cabinet Except for the fact that they are not elected. with the President of the Commission gradually becoming more and more like a European Prime Minister. Except for the fact that they are not elected. He is elected, or at least his selection is influenced, indirectly by the European Parliament and not directly by the European people. Influenced? Please explain how a mature democracy operates on the notion of influence, and not accountability. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |