In fact, at this moment, a united Europe may represent the last significant hope for Western liberal democracy.
Past Europe, the superpowers are USA, Russia, China...
Past Europe, the superpowers are USA, Russia, China...
All the people in the controlling bodies (well at least the places that should be voted for. Voting for judges etc. is madness) in EU are appointed by the member nations (either by vote or appointed)
European Council: Heads of state of the member nations (president chosen by vote within)
European Commission: One member appointed by each country (so usually someone from the ruling coalition within each country). Sworn to represent the benefits of EU as a whole and not single countries. President proposed by the Council and voted on by the Parliament
European Parliament: Members chosen by vote from each country. President (speaker) voted within.
So both executive and legislative levels are voted in or representatives of a democratically chosen government. Looks like democracy to me.
And still that only applies to handling "a financial crisis" by giving aid to member state(s) and needs qualified majority (85% in this case so 24 out of 28 votes in both the Council and Commission). Basically how the Council has been setup is that you usually need a unanimous or 20 out of 28 votes to get anything done.
Those votes are only necessary for things like new member additions (which are indeed mostly what the council is for). I think this requires a mere majority, which presumably is equivalent to having a majority in the commission in practice.
But even if it were true, and the only power they have is to fund or defund member states' governments ... that's not a real limitation to their power.
And lastly, if all the power is in the hands of the executive, as it is in Europe, that does not constitute a modern democratic state.
Since the previous election, the Council does not pick the candidate itself. Rather it automatically proposes the Presidential candidate of the party that won the European Parliament elections. And each party selects their candidate before the election, and they also campaign and have debates.
The elections for EU Parliament are not taken seriously in most countries and have had extremely low turnout, by now it is full of right wing idiots from various countries.
You conveniently left out the various side channels that don't even formally exist as European institutions, such as the Troika that decided on the fate of Greece, or the regular meetings of the finance ministers of the Euro Zone, which have had tremendous influence on the fiscal politics of smaller member states. Not to mention the various measures to deal with the Euro crisis by the ECB with the approval of a few large member nations, that cleverly bypassed and sidestepped many treaties and the additional European financial institutions that were created.
For example the current Finnish representative is Jyrki Katainen who is the previous prime minister and his party (Kokoomus) is still a member in the ruling coalition. Even though he probably isn't the most liked person anymore (his prime minister era didn't go that well) he is still well liked within his own party and they probably traded some minister seat for getting him into the Commission. Shit is politics like always but I wouldn't go as far as say that the EU is undemocratic.
Also the ability to speak English isn't that important in EU level. All the big EU institutions are in Luxembourg or Brussels which pretty much makes French and German the main languages. Still there is plenty of translators available when needed.
If Germany wants to keep sending Günther Oettinger as their Commissioner then the only people you can blame are Merkel and her party. Again democracy. If it matters to you make it a point in your elections. I know most people don't as in my experience most people don't have a clue how the EU works. Many of my friends think the Commissioners are just appointed by some elite instead of being each country sending their own just like the head of state is in the Council. Still you can't call a system undemocratic just because people choose not to engage in the process.
However, having said this, governance is actually quite good. In my opinion, EU central powers actually correct many of the blunders that national politicians do. Not that it couldn't be better, but one must acknowledge EU institutions are net positive, and not bad at all. Europe is much much better with the EU than with disparate national governments
What are you referring to specifically, the Marshall Plan? Because that would be quite a conspiracy theory. A Federalist Union in Europe was conceived of by an Italian named Altiero Spinelli.
The Marshall Plan was signed in 1948 and the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993.
https://www.brugesgroup.com/media-centre/papers/8-papers/803...
Iceland, with its 300'000 citizen? Or the EU, with 500'000'000 citizen, a GDP of 17 trillion?
The only way to police corporations is by having a state that is more powerful than them. And with corporations going multinational, superpowers are necessary.
A little hyperbolic, but true if you add a ton of caveats.
In the UK people have been subjected to a 25-year barrage of anti-EU sentiment from the tabloid press, that's frequently misleading or outright untrue. For example, the (entirely fabricated) front-page headline that the EU wanted to ban all bent bananas, and more recently that the EU wanted to ban bananas from being sold in bunches of more than 2 or 3. Retractions are published in small print on page 27.
Are you saying that 120.000 refugees in 24 countries is mass migration in the EU?
Sweden alone has gotten 100,000 applications.
So, you're admitting that you were wrong in your first claim
> 1.1 is definitely mass immigration
You have a very strange definition of mass.
> it's for the people of EU countries decide what they want.
Yes, because of that we have institutions in the EU.
> It's very obvious people don't want it, and they didn't elect the people who are making these decisions for them.
Yes, they did. Do you know how the EU works and how the institutions are elected or formed?
You can try all day convince me others about your "liberal" (since it's U.S based community, I use this stupid term) ideas and how you're right, I'm not, but the fact is people on independent EU states don't agree with you and in the end of the day that is what matters. That is why the EU project is about to be destroyed because so-called liberals deny problems and never listens to other side's arguments. Instead of improving and changing things, hard break up is the only way and this is what is happening.
It's time to pop out from your bubble.
You're stretching the truth past breaking point here. Firstly, Oletros, said "elected or formed", so you're misrepresenting what was said and then arguing against that misrepresentation. Secondly, the Parliament is democratically elected, the Council consists of heads of state (also democratic), and the Commission is appointed by democratically elected member governments (so also democratic).
> You can try all day convince me...
Ah, so after having your 'alternative facts' challenged you're adopting the fingers-in-ears-la-la-la-la-I-cant-hear-you defence. Bravo. Bravo.
> It's time to pop out from your bubble.
The strongest support for Brexit came from comparatively isolated communities with little or no immigration. Cities, where people are exposed to a variety of cultures, tended to vote Remain. It seems pretty clear which group is better described as living in a bubble.
There is nothing "alternative" about my facts.
France will be next. Good luck telling the vast majority of the native population (because they are going to to be the ones voting for Le Pen) is racist. Your words have no meaning. Poland, eastern Europe doesn't want mass immigration from Muslims countries either. Look at what is happening it Czech Republic, Slovakia. The whole EU deal reminds them too much Soviet Union. The last "liberal" people are mass media, journalists, and Silicon Valley bubble that ignores what is happening around other people.
I've just explained how your comment stretched the truth to breaking point. You're welcome to continue denying it, instead of actually defending your position.
> There is nothing "alternative" about my facts.
These are some of the claims you've made that are verifiably and undeniably wrong.
1) Your claim to speak for "the people" is untrue, because in fact your opinions are only shared by some portion of a slim majority.
2) Your claim that "1.1 million people and since we have free movement in Schengen, it affects everyone" is nonsense, because (a) only a miniscule portion of those refugees will leave their country of asylum (where they have food and lodging) and travel to where they have nothing, and (b) the UK isn't even in the Schengen zone. Notably Germany's economy is doing very well having taken in 1.1 million refugees.
3) Your claim that EU institutions aren't democratically formed is obviously nonsense. You might not like the way they're structured, and fair enough, there are issues, but they most certainly are formed democratically... a mixture of direct & representitive formation.
4) Your claim that there's nothing racist about wanting to reduce immigration is clearly untrue. UKIP is disproportionately racist, according to YouGov data.
This is where you deflect from the fact that you're peddling falshoods by saying that "the UK voted to leave and that's that" and walk off in a huff.
Taking into account that I'm an Spanish living in Spain in a town with almost 30% of foreign population and that I have always voted leftist parties and I think that Merkel has been one of the worst leaders in the EU in decades it is clear that you not only don't know how the EU works but you have a very strange way to put labels on people and what the people in the EU thinks.
Your comment about "you can say racist all you want but that doesn't change the fact." says a lot
Well, it may be about immigration but your bureaucracy point is precisely about bananas. The EU has been positioned by the UK media as being a pointless bureaucracy that obsesses about how bent bananas are... which is a huge charicature.
There are undoubtedly bureaucratic aspects to the EU but speaking in broad generalisations isn't useful.. they need to be discussed on a case by case basis.
> It's mainly about mass immigration.
Again, immigration is broadly speaking a problem because of a lack of investment in infrastructure. The immigration itself is a net benefit.
The UK economy is stronger with immigrants than without. Outside the EU the UK will actually require increased immigration to grow, rather than decreased.
[Edit: missed a point...]
>* People want nation states, no one voted for mass immigration. You can say racist all you want but that doesn't change the fact.*
What makes you so confident in speaking for what "people want"?
Clearly at least 48% of referendum voters disagree with you; saying "people want" when you're talking about a razor-thin majority (after a campaign packed with proven lies) seems like a huge overstatement.
Even amongst the 52% there are different groups. Some voted for soverignty, some because of fear of immigration, some out of anger against the political system, and some because they're just racist... for example YouGov polls measured that UKIP have double the national average of people who self-identify as having racist opinions, and that ~50% of UKIP voters support repatriation of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, which is a policy even the BNP dropped. I don't think you should hold any illusions about who the racist vote is allied with, so you should be very careful how you speak and think about immigration to avoid finding yourself standing on the wrong side of that line.
The people don't see the country stronger with mass immigration, only socialists and maybe big businesses do. I'm confident speaking about it because UK voted out. What's there to discuss?
Well no, it depends why you want it, doesn't it. There are racist reasons to want increased immigration controls and non-racist reasons to want it.
> You can't convince me with your blind agenda everyone is racist.
I didn't say everyone is racist, did I. I have no idea what a "blind agenda" is, but I'm not the one misrepresenting what's been said, so it seems less likely I'm the one peddling an agenda.
> Neither do I have to be careful. Why?
Because if you're not careful about the way you discuss immigration people might mistake your motivations as being racist. I assumed that wouldn't be desirable, your choice though obviously.
> The people don't see the country stronger with mass immigration, only socialists and maybe big businesses do.
So socialists aren't "the people". Ooookay, that's an interesting distinction.
To be honest though, "the people" you describe are wrong... you and I will have front-row seats as multi-nationals threaten to leave the UK and we have to drop corporation tax to encourage some of them to stay, as banks in the City of London lose their EU trading passports and leave for Paris, as the immigrant doctors and nurses propping up our under-invested NHS stop coming. A weak pound making imports much more expensive, causing inflation and increasing poverty. Increased tarrifs on 44% of our exports (the amount that goes to the EU) also sounds great... plenty of businesses will go bankrupt over that, meaning increased unemployment, reduced tax revenues, cuts to public services (or increased nation debt).
That'll all be fun. Loving how this stronger UK that "the people" see is sounding.
> I'm confident speaking about it because UK voted out.
52%, who were lied to during the campaign, some of whom would vote differently now. Some of whom have since died, and been replaced by young remain voters. Yes "the UK" voted to leave, just, but if you claim to speak for "the people" then you're clearly wrong.
> What's there to discuss?
Everything? For a start it looks like Scotland is as likely as not to leave the UK because of Brexit. Well done for that. End of a 300 year era.
Personally I'm doing what I can to stop Brexit, because it's insane.
it seems that for the OP anyone that is not a right wing person it is not a person.
I like his comment in Spanish when I said that I vote left: "less fight and more baths"
this is very true for a lot of right wing radicals independent of the country. it makes it easy for them to dismiss or in the extreme even kill other people because they're dehumanized and so any moral obligations that would normally be held against others just aren't. i'm quite sure muslim terrorist think exactly the same way.