How would you vote on the European Constitution?

[CyberRose]

so how can you argue if you can't understand in the first place?

I can't argue if I don't understand what you're going on about can I?

I think it's considered courteous to explain what you meant instead of making snide remarks no?

 

[butchersapron]

I mean, we're not having a referendum so those complaining we are not having one must be pissed off because they want a EU Constitution

Uh...why? They can easily enough be pissed off about the deceit, about the principle. And about what other stich ups they suspect the labour party is up to relating to the EU...

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I can't argue if I don't understand what you're going on about can I?

I think it's considered courteous to explain what you meant instead of making snide remarks no?

I don't understand how it works, we have very little information on that and the little we have is biaised (telegraph, etc). so, if we don't understand that, how can we make a a reasoned judgment and engage in a proper debate?

 

[CyberRose]

I don't understand how it works, we have very little information on that and the little we have is biaised (telegraph, etc). so, if we don't understand that, how can we make a a reasoned judgment and engage in a proper debate?

You don't understand how the EU works you mean?

If you look on the website of any MEP (probably not UKIP ones) you'll find leaflets that tell you how it works

 

[CyberRose]

Uh...why? They can easily enough be pissed off about the deceit, about the principle. And about what other stich ups they suspect the labour party is up to relating to the EU...

But why would anyone who didn't want a Constitution be pissed off that we're not having one?

And even if we did have one it's not like it would change much, other than giving workers more rights and improving the democratic accountability of the EU - but that's something that should be opposed right?

 

[butchersapron]

Yeah, you got me bang to rights there. That's my nightmare. You really have bought all the PR haven't you?

 

[CyberRose]

Yeah, you got me bang to rights there. That's my nightmare. You really have bought all the PR haven't you?

Yes I have different opinions to you therefore I must be brainwashed or something right?

I happen to be very pro-EU and that is my own decision, not because I've been "brainwashed" (altho I find it hilarious that anyone could be brainwashed into being PRO-eu with the British media the way it is!)

We have different opinions over economics as a whole so forusing our arguments on the EU is just daft as it's unlikely we're going to agree. If you don't believe in the economic system the world operates by, or the form of democracy accepted as being the "norm" (which I do with some tweaking here and there) then having a discussion about the EU is a bit pointless isn;t it?

 

[gosub]

We don't elect a government, we elect representatives who may be called upon to serve in a government by someone who was allowed to form one by the Queen, they currently only get to vote on any of the legislation arrived at by the technocrats after its been signed up to by a National government, though failure to implement agreed EU policy can lead to fines . Oddly enough Theresa May issued a press release about changing that only yesterday need a shower now having visited that website


I take issue with you over "opportunistic" as while I have never had an opportunity to be consulted about this "democratic" institution in my entire life. Since I stumbled onto the issue through the RP 10 years ago I've been consistent in what I have called for, though I have found champions of this empire increasingly duplicitous and desperate. It would be risible if it didn't have so many ramifications.


I agree sucssesive governments (at least in the UK) should shoulder substantial blame.

 

[kyser_soze]

Maastricht went further and deeper into national sovreignty that this amending treaty will and we didn't have a referendum on that, so why the big fuss about this? Because it's vaguely linked to the EU Constitution project that was rejected by the Danes and would have been by the UK as being 'too centralist and statist', and WAS rejected by the French for being 'too Anglo Saxon'.

Europe used to really excise me but I really cannot be arsed about it anymore - it's technocratic, is based on the French government model from the 1950s, indeed like the UN it's based on the THINKING of the 1950s - and the needs of the 50s (hence the CAP - when looking at that it's worth remembering that there was a famine on Mainland Europe immediately after WW2 that was equivalent to Africa in the 70s)

BUT...it's kept Western Europe (mainly) peaceful for 50 years, has been responsible for levels of well being and security for most of Europes citizens for that time...could be worse. Could be the USA.

 

[butchersapron]

Maastricht went further and deeper into national sovreignty that this amending treaty will and we didn't have a referendum on that, so why the big fuss about this? Because it's vaguely linked to the EU Constitution project that was rejected by the Danes and would have been by the UK as being 'too centralist and statist', and WAS rejected by the French for being 'too Anglo Saxon'.

can you spot the gap in your logic here? Because someothing was done undemocratically in the past is not a good enough reason for us to continue operating In the same manner evermore. It surely means the exact opposite.

 

[CyberRose]

Did you get to vote on whether to go to war in Iraq? Do you get to vote on what level of tax is set each year? You you get to vote on whether we should have a death penalty or not?

No doubt you would like to vote on everything but then the EU is just another policy area and not one that should be singled out for attack on it's own.

As for voting on everything, well that would be a major mistake. All you would be doing is giving power to the media or the rich corporations the left claim to be against.

You want a referendum on everything to be decided upon by Sun and Daily Mail readers (or more specifically the editors of these papers and the rich companies that would no doubt pay them to take a certain position beneficial to the rich)?

Well if that's what you call democracy then you can keep it

 

[butchersapron]

Did you get to vote on whether to go to war in Iraq? Do you get to vote on what level of tax is set each year? You you get to vote on whether we should have a death penalty or not?

No doubt you would like to vote on everything but then the EU is just another policy area and not one that should be singled out for attack on it's own.

As for voting on everything, well that would be a major mistake. All you would be doing is giving power to the media or the rich corporations the left claim to be against.

You want a referendum on everything to be decided upon by Sun and Daily Mail readers (or more specifically the editors of these papers and the rich companies that would no doubt pay them to take a certain position beneficial to the rich)?

Well if that's what you call democracy then you can keep it

And here we have it laid bare. Who do you think has the power now you clod.

I think people that are subject to something have the absolute right to vote on it. You don't. Fine. Argue for an elected dictatorship or something. This is what happens when you try and steamroller favoured outcomes through with no consideration for paticipative or democratic processes. An arse demanding that things be done his way because they're best, they just are, now shut up, shut up shut up!

 

[gosub]

RE Kyser: Wanted one for Maastricht (hence RP involvement) would argue Nice was as deep and needed one, that is after all where a common defense policy was put on the table (that has retrospectively been keeping the peace for 50 years).

Even after winning civil war US federalists awarded more power to their states than EU member states have

 

[CyberRose]

And here we have it laid bare. Who do you think has the power now you clod.

I think people that are subject to something have the absolute right to vote on it. You don't. Fine. Argue for an elected dictatorship or something. This is what happens when you try and steamroller favoured outcomes through with no consideration for paticipative or democratic processes. An arse demanding that things be done his way because they're best, they just are, now shut up, shut up shut up!

And what effect would your beliefs have on, for example, the plight of asylum seekers in the UK?

They'd all be booted out of the country wouldn't they?

I'm sorry but there is only so far I'm willing to accept democracy and the "brand" we have now works fine for me...I think too much democracy would be disasterous...

 

[butchersapron]

Right, now i'm against workers rights and in favour of booting asylum seekers out. This from a supporter of the bosses EU that has introduced a series of measures that have justifiably been called fortress europe, and that are designed explicitly to keep out immgrants of whatever stripe or use them for short term labour with no benifits then chuck them out.

Okey dokey. This is the EU writ very small here on this forum.

 

[CyberRose]

Right, now i'm against workers rights and in favour of booting asylum seekers out. This from a supporter of the bosses EU that has introduced a series of measures that have justifiably been called fortress europe, and that are designed explicitly to keep out immgrants of whatever stripe or use them for short term labour with no benifits then chuck them out.

Okey dokey. This is the EU writ very small here on this forum.

Very drole

You want the public to get a vote on everything right?

My point is, you place too much faith in the public arriving at the same conclusion as you

My point about asylum seekers is that they are very unpopular and if we had a referendum on what to do with them, as you want, then the British would vote to boot them out of the country

 

[butchersapron]

The outcome isn't the bloody point.

Like what the EU is trying to do you mean?

 

[CyberRose]

The outcome isn't the bloody point.

Brilliant! You don't care what the outcome of your views will be, it's just the principle right??

Like what the EU is trying to do you mean?

Doing on what?

 

[butchersapron]

Brilliant! You don't care what the outcome of your views will be, it's just the principle right??

Of course i care about the outcome - i'm just not arrogant enough to try and impose my own favoured outcome without any democratic or particpant input. Which seems to be your way. You're making the EU look very daft and authoritarian here btw.

Doing on what?

You're heard of fortress europe right?

 

[butchersapron]

Here's an excellent collection of documents and analysis that the more democratic posters on this thread might find of some use/interest;

http://www.statewatch.org/

 

[DrRingDing]

I'd vote yes just to piss off little englanders.

 

[CyberRose]

Of course i care about the outcome - i'm just not arrogant enough to try and impose my own favoured outcome without any democratic or particpant input. Which seems to be your way. You're making the EU look very daft and authoritarian here btw.

Sorry but this debate no longer concerns the EU. It concerns how you think policy should be implemented versus how I think it should be implemented. You think citizens should have a direct say over every minute aspect of policy. I think that's a dangerous position to take and think that parliamentary democracy, for all it's admitted faults, at least provides a safeguard against the problems associated with the kind of demcracy you propose.

The EU is as democratic as most governments/political organisations, but if you don't think most governments/political organisations are democratic enough then you obviously won't think the EU is will you? But that doesn't make it specially "authoritarian", only in your opinion (as the majority of the population either happily participate in parliamentary democracy or do nothing to oppose it)

You're heard of fortress europe right?

Do you consider Fortress Europe to be a good or bad thing? I'm guessing you'd think it was a bad thing, but I'm also thinking the people of Europe (or at least the people of this country if we were discussing a "Fortress UK") would be in favour of it (due to whatever hyped up reasons intended to play on their fears and prejudices) and would vote accordingly in your democratic system

 

[butchersapron]

Sorry but this debate no longer concerns the EU. It concerns how you think policy should be implemented versus how I think it should be implemented. You think citizens should have a direct say over every minute aspect of policy. I think that's a dangerous position to take and think that parliamentary democracy, for all it's admitted faults, at least provides a safeguard against the problems associated with the kind of demcracy you propose.

The EU is as democratic as most governments/political organisations, but if you don't think most governments/political organisations are democratic enough then you obviously won't think the EU is will you? But that doesn't make it specially "authoritarian", only in your opinion (as the majority of the population either happily participate in parliamentary democracy or do nothing to oppose it)

Of course it concerns the EU - or are we just talking text book stuff here (international relations degree i bet). The EU is exactly what we are talking about. It concerns the concerete attempts by supra-national bodies already run by the rich and powerful to arrogate ever more powers to themselves without any substantial consultation beyond labelling those who oppose this build up of these powers as racists or against workers rights or asylum seekers. This is your postion in real-life 3-d action. This is the EU. A bosses tool with useful-idiots like you buying their PR. The people aren't buying it though so you get frustrated and argue that they're incompetent and so shouldn't have a say. It's laughable it really is.

[/QUOTE]Do you consider Fortress Europe to be a good or bad thing? I'm guessing you'd think it was a bad thing, but I'm also thinking the people of Europe (or at least the people of this country if we were discussing a "Fortress UK") would be in favour of it (due to whatever hyped up reasons intended to play on their fears and prejudices) and would vote accordingly in your democratic system[/QUOTE]

That's a question of policy - and hypocrisy. If you let the people have a say they'll do this so they should not have a say - only us elevated special people, however your favoured model is already doing it. SO where the hell does that leave you other than floundering?

 

[goneforlunch]

How is the EU "barely democratic"?

That debate about the EU and democracy, and the EU and other issues, has already been had on the Urban link I gave you earlier, but we can have it all again if you're still confused. You claimed that the UK enjoys "many benefits" from the EU. How? The few that I can think of in no way compensate for the losses.

 

[CyberRose]

Of course it concerns the EU - or are we just talking text book stuff here (international relations degree i bet). The EU is exactly what we are talking about. It concerns the concerete attempts by supra-national bodies already run by the rich and powerful to arrogate ever more powers to themselves without any substantial consultation beyond labelling those who oppose this build up of these powers as racists or against workers rights or asylum seekers. This is your postion in real-life 3-d action. This is the EU. A bosses tool with useful-idiots like you buying their PR. The people aren't buying it though so you get frustrated and argue that they're incompetent and so shouldn't have a say. It's laughable it really is.

But the same arguments will apply to all policy, and not just EU policy, so it is not a specific argument against the EU, it is an argument against parliamentary democracy.

And yes I do think a lot of people are anti-EU because of xenophobia (look at all the links UKIP has with the BNP), but not you, you're arguing from a left-wing position, so I don't think you're opposed to the EU because you are a racist or against worker's rights.

That's a question of policy - and hypocrisy. If you let the people have a say they'll do this so they should not have a say - only us elevated special people, however your favoured model is already doing it. SO where the hell does that leave you other than floundering?

But you must have opinions on how policy is implemented right? What if you believed they were for the good but you thought everyone else would be manipulated into voting a different way? If we had referendums on everything, I honestly believe you would open the door to dictatorship by the media and corporations to a far greater extent than exists in our current system...

 

[CyberRose]

That debate about the EU and democracy, and the EU and other issues, has already been had on the Urban link I gave you earlier, but we can have it all again if you're still confused. You claimed that the UK enjoys "many benefits" from the EU. How? The few that I can think of in no way compensate for the losses.

I'm not confused, but thank you for your concern

I don't think there's much point going back over the issues in that thread as neither of us will say anything different to what was posted there and we will fail to agree

 

[gosub]

But the same arguments will apply to all policy, and not just EU policy, so it is not a specific argument against the EU, it is an argument against parliamentary democracy.

...

Glad to see you have retreated from elected governments but was thinking about it anyway, Maastrict and the Constitutional treaty will have been signed by Prime Minster's who were in the job without leading their party during an election

 

[CyberRose]

Glad to see you have retreated from elected governments but was thinking about it anyway, Maastrict and the Constitutional treaty will have been signed by Prime Minster's who were in the job without leading their party during an election

Not sure I follow you?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

And yes I do think a lot of people are anti-EU because of xenophobia (look at all the links UKIP has with the BNP)

I know that there are links between the UKIP and the BNP, but UKIP was not started as some kind of sanitised version of the BNP. his founder was Alan Sked, a lecturer at the LSE, rather unlikely for a fashist. Searchlight, themselves, emphasised at the time. he did leave eventually because of its change of direction.

 

[CyberRose]

Can I just point out as my previous comments may have been misleading as to what type of political system I believe in...

I am against policy decisions being taken by referendums, but I am not against any kind of democracy!

I think that direct democracy (or more specifically referendums on national policy areas, maybe I could be swayed to the notion of direct democracy on more localised issues) would be open to abuse from the media and the corporations that would inevitably back them (just look at the "job destroying" Charter of Fundamental Rights!)

I think parliamentary democracy, not without its many admitted flaws, is the best way to implement policy. It allows for policy to be implemented that may not be popular, but where experts etc deem necessary. Pluralism also means that interest groups can have a major influence over policy, and I think this is the area people with whatever views on policy issues should concentrate, rather than call for referendums.