PDA

View Full Version : Dutch say no to European constitution



doc_bean
06-01-2005, 22:02
63 % of them at least, more then France ~:handball:

Lazul
06-01-2005, 22:06
no big suprise. :bow:

kiwitt
06-01-2005, 22:48
I heard that the recent 10 country expansion was a factor in this, bercause they didn't get a vote in this, nor joining the Euro and probably a number of other reforms and changes. When the people finally got the vote on EU direction, they voted against it.

Proletariat
06-01-2005, 22:50
They did what?!

PanzerJaeger
06-01-2005, 23:06
Congratulations Dutch memebers - another job well done. Power to the people. ~:cheers:

A.Saturnus
06-01-2005, 23:18
Congratulations Dutch memebers - another job well done. Power to the people. ~:cheers:

Just to which people, that is the question...

Duke Malcolm
06-01-2005, 23:23
Whoopie! The contchy will soon be dead and buried. And if the constitution fails, the EU shall follow...

Power to the Dutch people, of course...

doc_bean
06-01-2005, 23:56
The EU won't fall, but I'm pretty glad they voted it down, this means the EU can't ignore the 'no' vote from France as easily, and they'll have to seriously rethink what they are doing.

kiwitt
06-02-2005, 00:08
... and they'll have to seriously rethink what they are doing.

They pass a "law" in the EU Parliment, requiring only National MPs to vote to pass the bill in the local country instituting the constitution, so the people can be bypassed.

Proletariat
06-02-2005, 00:10
This continent seems to make some lousy Federalists.

Don Corleone
06-02-2005, 02:34
Apparently, their leaders aren't going to let that slow them down. Question though, if a National Assembly or 2 vote it down, will the 'EU at any cost' change the rules again, so that only pro-EU voters can vote on it?

As I've said, in principal I think the EU is a great idea. But with Constitutions, the devil is in the details. I don't think you're going to get any kind of lasting support for federalization if you continue to strip people's rights away and disenfranchise them as voters. It plays to the fears of the people and confirms the worst doom & gloom predictions made by the naysayers.

Take the time to address the concerns of the French & the Dutch, fix the Constitution so people can understand it, and then move forward. Shoving it down people's throats will leave a really bad taste. ~:grouphug:

LittleGrizzly
06-02-2005, 02:39
will the 'EU at any cost' change the rules again, so that only pro-EU voters can vote on it?

you mean only in countrys where it would pass a referendum, or only allowing voters which would vote yes ?

if 2nd how ?

Kaiser of Arabia
06-02-2005, 02:45
w00tage

Byzantine Prince
06-02-2005, 02:57
if 2nd how ?
I think the EU can push for a re-vote. They have done that before with Ireland and it worked.

LittleGrizzly
06-02-2005, 03:01
I think the EU can push for a re-vote. They have done that before with Ireland and it worked.

with that quote i meant how would they only get pro-eu'ers voting ?

Productivity
06-02-2005, 03:22
Yay for ignorance and scare tactics. Pathetic really.

Kaiser of Arabia
06-02-2005, 03:43
I think the EU can push for a re-vote. They have done that before with Ireland and it worked.

with that quote i meant how would they only get pro-eu'ers voting ?
How'd the Nazi's win their 1 legit election? Big scary guys outside of polling places saying "Vote for _____"
No I'm not comparing the EU to the Nazi's, but it's basic scare tactics.

LittleGrizzly
06-02-2005, 03:51
How'd the Nazi's win their 1 legit election? Big scary guys outside of polling places saying "Vote for _____"
No I'm not comparing the EU to the Nazi's, but it's basic scare tactics.

well i see that backfiring spectularly on any goverment that tried it.

Byzantine Prince
06-02-2005, 03:54
It's that countries government that does that scare tactics, it's the EU itself. If a nation is not up for what they offer they make hard to resist by adding new things to proposal. Sort of an offer you can't refuse situation.

LittleGrizzly
06-02-2005, 03:59
It's that countries government that does that scare tactics, it's the EU itself. If a nation is not up for what they offer they make hard to resist by adding new things to proposal. Sort of an offer you can't refuse situation.

bribery, well the problem if your just bribing the no voting nations, the politicians of yes nations won't agree, the people of yes nations would get annoyed at it, so you've got to bribe everyone equally, which would involve raising taxes to pay for that.

Al Khalifah
06-02-2005, 09:23
A major factor in the Dutch no vote was also the fact that they are a net contributor to the European Union, depsite the fact that they have little political voice within it now.
The expansion has left the dutch with (I believe) 31 MEPs and there is a strong belief that with so many new member states, that the Netherlands is a big loser in terms of the population to MEPs gap and especially the economy size to MEPs gap. They feel that the voice of such a small nation no longer matters in such a large union and so they are perhaps not getting good value for money.

Xiahou
06-02-2005, 09:27
will the 'EU at any cost' change the rules again, so that only pro-EU voters can vote on it?

you mean only in countrys where it would pass a referendum, or only allowing voters which would vote yes ?

if 2nd how ?Someone correct me, but isnt there already a provision that if even just 20 members approve it, they can still force it on the remainder? I seem to remember reading something about that.

doc_bean
06-02-2005, 09:36
I doubt it, almost everything needs to be decided by unanimity in the EU. Especially something like this. I also thing a EU constitution would require amending the constitution of certain individual nations, which some can't do without holding a (binding) referendum.


Besides, if the net contributors decide they don't want something, I don't think the rest can do much about it.

InsaneApache
06-02-2005, 09:41
Someone correct me, but isnt there already a provision that if even just 20 members approve it, they can still force it on the remainder? I seem to remember reading something about that.

Yes this is true....it is in the constitution. So you may have the scenario of countries voting not to adopt the const. but then having to because 20 of the others did. Personally I think it wont happen....after all one of the countries is France and we all know how upset they can get.

It's a dead duck. With the UK still to vote, with a very good probability that this could be OUR chance to screw Bliar properly. IMHO the no in the UK would be higher than the Dutch..possibly in the mid to high 70%...

English assassin
06-02-2005, 09:52
A major factor in the Dutch no vote was also the fact that they are a net contributor to the European Union, depsite the fact that they have little political voice within it now.
The expansion has left the dutch with (I believe) 31 MEPs and there is a strong belief that with so many new member states, that the Netherlands is a big loser in terms of the population to MEPs gap and especially the economy size to MEPs gap. They feel that the voice of such a small nation no longer matters in such a large union and so they are perhaps not getting good value for money.

If that was correct then we do have a problem. The french appear to have voted no in part because they don't like a fundamental aspect even of a common market, never mind a political union, namely free movement of goods and services and the right of establishment (viz the Polish plumber). Thats not easy to fix. If the Dutch really have voted no because they are small, well, that seems like another rather intractable problem. (Maybe they could cobble together a small nations club? Seriously.)

I suspect some of this may be personalities though. The guiding lights of the EU certainly do seem to have a "Stuff the people, we have a vision" style of operating and they don't even seem to bother hiding it any more. The cheif factotum of the constitution, d'Estaing, seems from what little I understand of his french political career to be wholly unfit for any public life (taking diamonds from Bokassa wtf?), our appointee to the Commission, Mandleson, has managed the almost unprecedented feat of being forced to resign from the British cabinet not once but twice, and so on. And no one even seems to CARE about the level of fraud let alone be doing anything to stop it.

If Europe was not run by this bunch of crooks and charletans, but by competent politicians who listened to the people, it would be a very different story IMHO.

doc_bean
06-02-2005, 09:57
Yes this is true....it is in the constitution.

A law can't be applied until it is accepted, and for ti to get accepted it needs to be ratified everywhere ~D

Or you sure this rule refered to the constitution itself ?

doc_bean
06-02-2005, 09:59
If Europe was not run by this bunch of crooks and charletans, but by competent politicians who listened to the people, it would be a very different story IMHO.

A big problem is that other countries can't really refuse a countries candidate, so a lot of countries seem to just send the people they want to get rid of ~:eek:

Al Khalifah
06-02-2005, 10:02
Its just another sad example of modern democracy that its the repeating case of "well we've been elected now so forget what you think until the next general election." These 'visionaries' are happy just to stream roller over popular opinion by using the same amount of fear-tactics and scaremongering that the nay-sayers offer. Many of the aspects of the constitution seemed to me to be trying to give an even bigger engine to this steamroller process by reducing the rights of 'rogue' nations to resist the will of the collective. At least in national government you can remove the government if you don't like them after 4 or 5 years. With the proposed EU system you cannot do this.

bmolsson
06-02-2005, 11:19
This shows the immaturity among the European voters. Only in banana republics you vote with your stomache......

Voigtkampf
06-02-2005, 12:59
This shows the immaturity among the European voters. Only in banana republics you vote with your stomache......

Wrong, m8, all voters all over the world vote with their stomach/wallet. And west-Europeans wallets (if not stomachs) have been very much emptied since the EU and Euro. I heard a French woman saying on TV “before Euro, I had money, now my pockets are constantly empty”. In Germany, the situation is virtually the same, they have even nicknamed the Euro in Teuro (teuer=expensive, sounds very similar to pronunciation of Euro), and all of my relatives and friends living there have began complaining drastically about how expensive everything became in last few years while wages cannot keep up with it.

Basically, when you have the two strongest countries in EU where the vast majority of population will say that their life’s quality has diminished significantly since introduction of Euro and that they have in no visible way profited from the EU, then you know that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark. EU, that is.

Btw, I find it peculiar how the same people here disrespect the decision of the majority in this case whilst preaching how it must be respected when they talk about some decisions they favor personally. Mine, hypocrisy reigns supreme ones again, I guess.

Idaho
06-02-2005, 13:06
Hopefully this is the death knell for a non-democratic beauraucratic vision of a federal europe.

I am generally in favour of a federal europe united under a common constitution - like the US. However not created as a legalistic, complicated mess like this. If it isn't simple enough to vote on, it's too complicated to be feasable.

Al Khalifah
06-02-2005, 14:48
Btw, I find it peculiar how the same people here disrespect the decision of the majority in this case whilst preaching how it must be respected when they talk about some decisions they favor personally. Mine, hypocrisy reigns supreme ones again, I guess.
A democrat is just an autocrat whom the people support the majority of the time.

KukriKhan
06-02-2005, 15:05
Someone correct me, but isnt there already a provision that if even just 20 members approve it, they can still force it on the remainder? I seem to remember reading something about that.

There is (confusing) language in the later articles under Title IX, Union Membership, that talk about 72% unanimity being required for some things. Someone might interpret that as meaning 20 yes, 5 no = EU Constitution is approved. Those 'no' voters/countries might dispute that.

doc_bean
06-02-2005, 15:21
Now no one believes this constitution will ever pass, they're probably going to make a smaller constitution. In the mean they'll just work out the non-controversial issues in treaties like they always did.

Al Khalifah
06-02-2005, 15:43
There is (confusing) language in the later articles under Title IX, Union Membership, that talk about 72% unanimity being required for some things. Someone might interpret that as meaning 20 yes, 5 no = EU Constitution is approved. Those 'no' voters/countries might dispute that.
I thought this constitution required a unanimous acceptance in order to be enforceable. The article you refer to I believe states that the issue could be forced through, on the grounds that with a sufficient popular majority, nations not consenting can always leave the union if they feel that strongly.
The 72% unanimity refers to weighted majorities, so Malta for example is not worth the same as France. France's rejection would carry quite considerable weight under such a system, the Netherlands less so. A UK rejection, with one other nation, should be enough to give a sufficient no vote to block the constitution however it is legislated.

Duke Malcolm
06-02-2005, 16:19
Now no one believes this constitution will ever pass, they're probably going to make a smaller constitution. In the mean they'll just work out the non-controversial issues in treaties like they always did.

Hopefully it can be reduced from a book to a mere pamphlet, so it can be handed out at local libraries, Post Offices, et cetera, and allow the voters to be educated on the issue and prove the pro-EU fools (who blame rejection on the "mis-guided electorate" not knowing what the constitution is about) wrong by still voting no...

Proletariat
06-02-2005, 16:59
Its just another sad example of modern democracy that its the repeating case of "well we've been elected now so forget what you think until the next general election." These 'visionaries' are happy just to stream roller over popular opinion by using the same amount of fear-tactics and scaremongering that the nay-sayers offer. Many of the aspects of the constitution seemed to me to be trying to give an even bigger engine to this steamroller process by reducing the rights of 'rogue' nations to resist the will of the collective. At least in national government you can remove the government if you don't like them after 4 or 5 years. With the proposed EU system you cannot do this.


We get the other extreme in the US. Officials elected because we think they're strong and have good principles, and then they tergiversate with every single poll in every single media outlet.

King Henry V
06-02-2005, 17:48
Those 'no' voters/countries might dispute that.

The only people able to do that are the governemnts who, er, support the constitution.

Meneldil
06-02-2005, 18:37
Why people just don't want to understand the simple fact that this so called "Constitution" is a "Treaty" ?
The reason it's that big is that it countains text from all the previous treaties (most of them have been edited). If you can't understand the previous treaties, then yes, you can't understand the Constitution.

I wonder why they decided to call it a Constitution, as none would have said anything if they only called it "Rome treaty #2" or something like that (though I think the "no" might bring some good to EU).

As for the Euro, yes, it made a lot of things more expensive (but we get cheaper oil and imported goods), and it will be that way as long as the euro bank is independant from any kind of power, and likely as long as the Commission won't be elected in a more democratic way.

Btw, none really know what will happen once all countries have accepted/rejected the treaty. There's a statement that more or less means "If more than 20 countries accept the treaty, we'll see what we'll have to do".

Mount Suribachi
06-02-2005, 19:29
The guiding lights of the EU certainly do seem to have a "Stuff the people, we have a vision" style of operating and they don't even seem to bother hiding it any more. The cheif factotum of the constitution, d'Estaing, seems from what little I understand of his french political career to be wholly unfit for any public life (taking diamonds from Bokassa wtf?), our appointee to the Commission, Mandleson, has managed the almost unprecedented feat of being forced to resign from the British cabinet not once but twice, and so on. And no one even seems to CARE about the level of fraud let alone be doing anything to stop it.

If Europe was not run by this bunch of crooks and charletans, but by competent politicians who listened to the people, it would be a very different story IMHO.

Absolutely spot on mate :bow:

What I find interest is that here in the backroom most of the Europeans are against the constitution and/or have problems with the fundementals of the way the EU is today. Now, I expect the likes of myself, EA and Shadeswolf to be full of anti-EU ranting, but when folks like Idaho (btw how are the twins?) say things like


Hopefully this is the death knell for a non-democratic beauraucratic vision of a federal europe

that tells me everything. The people of Europe are speaking, and they're "saying we don't want to be dragged into an undemocratic EU superstate."

Of course, knowing the way the people who run the EU work, they'll reissue the treaty, but take away annoying clauses like "must be ratified by ALL members" and replace it with "must be ratified by a MAJORITY of members". They'll probly also make it voted on in the relevent parliaments, rather than those nasty referendums. ~:(

The Wizard
06-02-2005, 20:19
I heard that the recent 10 country expansion was a factor in this, bercause they didn't get a vote in this, nor joining the Euro and probably a number of other reforms and changes. When the people finally got the vote on EU direction, they voted against it.

Ha! Our dumbass people are hypocrite. While loudly and entirely ignorantly making use of all the benifits the EU has, they complain about not having influence and not being asked about things decided upon fifty years ago.

Too high what!? Contribution!? Fools, you've been paying that without thinking about it once ever since you got your own household...

The masses are simply too stupid to let them decide anything.



~Wiz

A.Saturnus
06-02-2005, 23:23
Of course, knowing the way the people who run the EU work, they'll reissue the treaty, but take away annoying clauses like "must be ratified by ALL members" and replace it with "must be ratified by a MAJORITY of members". They'll probly also make it voted on in the relevent parliaments, rather than those nasty referendums.

I seem to recall that that is how democracy works in all Western countries except Switzerland.
"Power to the people", but to which people? To the Dutch, I got an answer. Ok, 16 million Dutchmen obviously count as much as 80 million Germans. What some don't seem to realize is that the EU won't go away without the Constitution, it will only not become more democratic. These referenda are a not entirely democratic way to stop the EU from becoming more democratic. Well done indeed!

Voigtkampf
06-03-2005, 07:14
I seem to recall that that is how democracy works in all Western countries except Switzerland.
"Power to the people", but to which people? To the Dutch, I got an answer. Ok, 16 million Dutchmen obviously count as much as 80 million Germans.

With all due respect, I believe that the voices of 16 million of Dutchmen should weigh more than the voices of 80 million Germans, at least in Dutchistan. Don’t you?



What some don't seem to realize is that the EU won't go away without the Constitution..

Why not? ~:confused:


... it will only not become more democratic. These referenda are a not entirely democratic way to stop the EU from becoming more democratic. Well done indeed!

In my experience, the western European countries are as democratic as they possibly can get. Respectfully, Sat, democracy does not emerge in offices of bureaucrats.

And at the end, I must once again respectfully disagree; referendum is one of the basic and the most principal pillars of democracy. People’s choice. What does, in your opinion, has more “democratic” weight than a referendum of a nation?

bmolsson
06-03-2005, 09:15
Wrong, m8, all voters all over the world vote with their stomach/wallet. And west-Europeans wallets (if not stomachs) have been very much emptied since the EU and Euro. I heard a French woman saying on TV “before Euro, I had money, now my pockets are constantly empty”. In Germany, the situation is virtually the same, they have even nicknamed the Euro in Teuro (teuer=expensive, sounds very similar to pronunciation of Euro), and all of my relatives and friends living there have began complaining drastically about how expensive everything became in last few years while wages cannot keep up with it.


I have yet to see any figures on that Euro made the cost of living higher in Europe.



Basically, when you have the two strongest countries in EU where the vast majority of population will say that their life’s quality has diminished significantly since introduction of Euro and that they have in no visible way profited from the EU, then you know that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark. EU, that is.


State of Denmark doesn't use Euro and I recall they complain rather loud on less purchase power as well. Same thing in Sweden. And Norway that is not even in EU.



Btw, I find it peculiar how the same people here disrespect the decision of the majority in this case whilst preaching how it must be respected when they talk about some decisions they favor personally. Mine, hypocrisy reigns supreme ones again, I guess.


Hypocrisy is when you use one issue to give back on a bad government you elected your self in the first place. If you read the argument given for the loss as well as the argument against the consitution by the no side, you will see what I mean.
If there are something wrong with the constitution, the country in question should come back with suggested amendments in the review phase. That is normally how democracies works. If France and Holland intended to do a popular vote on this, why not do it BEFORE all the work was done to create one. They have wasted all other Europeans money for their lack of responsibility in their last parlament election. Hypocrasy in deed......

bmolsson
06-03-2005, 09:21
And at the end, I must once again respectfully disagree; referendum is one of the basic and the most principal pillars of democracy. People’s choice. What does, in your opinion, has more “democratic” weight than a referendum of a nation?

Not as long as it is used to piss off politicians you don't like. The basic pillars in democracy is education and responsibility, which doesn't seem to be present in Europe these days....

doc_bean
06-03-2005, 09:51
Responsibility ? How can the common citizen feel any responsibility towards the EU if his/her opinion was never asked about it before ?

What happens in Europe isn't even an issue in the elections here. Nobody informed us why we should vote for a certain party in Europe, they just expect that we'll vote for the same parties as the one we chose for the federal government. So you walk into the boot, and suddenly notice that you can vote for the European parliament too.

It would be nice if they actually informed as about what happens there, and campaigned their stand. That we would feel a bit more responsible towards what happens in Europe.

English assassin
06-03-2005, 11:18
there is something rotten in the state of Denmark

was a quote from Hamlet I believe.

Interestingly this thread seems to be polarising between those who think the people should do what the elite tell them, and those who think the elite should implement the wishes of the people.

Now I bow to no one in my view that the people are indeed, en masse, stupid, self interested, vicious, hypocritical and a great many other thigns beside (although individually I find they are mostly not so bad). But the debate over where political power originates was surely over a century ago? It originates in the people.

If the elite are indeed so elite then it is part of their job, as political leaders, to explain to the people why it is that we should follow their vision. Indeed, explaining in simple terms complicated political concepts is a key skill. If the current leaders do not have it then the fault lies with them not with the people.

A.Saturnus
06-03-2005, 14:49
With all due respect, I believe that the voices of 16 million of Dutchmen should weigh more than the voices of 80 million Germans, at least in Dutchistan. Don’t you?

The point is that this way, the Dutch can decide things for the rest of Europe. Do you think the citizens of Hackensack, New Jersey should have the right to veto the US Constitution?


Why not?

It's just not gonna happen. This wasn't a referendum about "do you want the EU or not", but "do you want a constitution".



In my experience, the western European countries are as democratic as they possibly can get. Respectfully, Sat, democracy does not emerge in offices of bureaucrats.

But the EU isn't. The Council of Ministers has too much influence right now. That means the small member states have an influence that is unproportional to their population.


And at the end, I must once again respectfully disagree; referendum is one of the basic and the most principal pillars of democracy. People’s choice. What does, in your opinion, has more “democratic” weight than a referendum of a nation?

A referendum is a pillar of democracy only if it is done right. Every vote has to mean the same. If the Netherlands have the option to veto the will of the rest of Europe, that's not democratic. Remember that 49% of the population of Europe have already agreed to the Constitution. But I agree with you, the best would be a referendum. One for all Europe and not just the Dutch.

Nelson
06-03-2005, 15:55
Do you think the citizens of Hackensack, New Jersey should have the right to veto the US Constitution?



Actually, the good citizens of Hackensack had their say in 1789. New Jersey didn’t have to ratify the Constitution but it did and that was that.

Once you decide to “form a more perfect union”, there is no going back.

IIRC, New York dragged its feet on ratification and was warned about tariffs if they would remain a foreign nation.

doc_bean
06-03-2005, 21:11
But the EU isn't. The Council of Ministers has too much influence right now. That means the small member states have an influence that is unproportional to their population.


This system isn't that much different from the way the US senate is organized.

The problem is the undemocratic 'election' of the commission imho.

And 5% of the US population can block any constitutional amendment if they happen to live in the right state.

Democracy is not the tyranny of the majority, the rights of the individual nations need to be respected.

A.Saturnus
06-03-2005, 22:17
This system isn't that much different from the way the US senate is organized.
So what?
The problem is the undemocratic 'election' of the commission imho.
Is the executive branch elected in the Netherlands?
And 5% of the US population can block any constitutional amendment if they happen to live in the right state.
Again, so what? Though, I'm not sure that is correct, can a single state veto the Congress in that?
Democracy is not the tyranny of the majority, the rights of the individual nations need to be respected.
Nations do not have rights, only people.

doc_bean
06-03-2005, 22:27
I'm not sure I like your form of democracy, I don't think 1 man 1 vote can be applied on the scale of the EU (or US).

Otherwise you'll just create structural poverty.

EDIT it to add:

13 states are needed to block a constitutional amendment, the 13 smallest states have a total population around 14.5 million, the US has a population of about 300 million, considering not everyone has to vote against (or vote for the legislator that votes against) significantly less than 5% of the population is needed to block an amendment.

The Dutch parliament appoints the executive I think, this isn't the same as the commission though, the commission gets appointed by the appointed government, far less direct. Besides, in an election you vote for the party you want to see rule, not just the one you want to see in parliament, so you indirectly (but clearly) decide on the executive.

A.Saturnus
06-03-2005, 22:43
You're Belgian and I'm German, so I guess we have our reasons.

doc_bean
06-03-2005, 22:48
Germany is a federalist country too isn't it ?

PS I made some additions to my post above to address your other points.

bmolsson
06-04-2005, 06:11
How can the common citizen feel any responsibility towards the EU if his/her opinion was never asked about it before ?


So you claim that Holland was not a democracy when it entered the union ?



What happens in Europe isn't even an issue in the elections here. Nobody informed us why we should vote for a certain party in Europe, they just expect that we'll vote for the same parties as the one we chose for the federal government. So you walk into the boot, and suddenly notice that you can vote for the European parliament too.


So what you are saying is that the democratic process in Holland doesn't work ? It seems like some of the voters don't realise that the war is over....



It would be nice if they actually informed as about what happens there, and campaigned their stand. That we would feel a bit more responsible towards what happens in Europe.


In a democracy the voters have a responsibility to inform them selves, just as when it comes to laws. You can come after you carried the drugs through customs and say that you didn't know, can you ??

Voigtkampf
06-04-2005, 11:21
I have yet to see any figures on that Euro made the cost of living higher in Europe.

It should suffice to make some general inquiries in, say, France and Germany. I for one haven’t heard anyone saying that he has it better in the EU now.


State of Denmark doesn't use Euro and I recall they complain rather loud on less purchase power as well. Same thing in Sweden. And Norway that is not even in EU.


Compare that to the drop of power of purchase in France and Germany, the main motors of EU, and you’ll get a better picture.



Not as long as it is used to piss off politicians you don't like. The basic pillars in democracy is education and responsibility, which doesn't seem to be present in Europe these days....

Plain wrong. Nowhere is the education or responsibility defined as the pillar or necessary parts of democracy. You wouldn’t want to force your view on the majority, now, would you?


there is something rotten in the state of Denmark

was a quote from Hamlet I believe.

Quite right. I recall saying it once in public, and there was this girl that turned around and said “funny, and I thought Denmark is quite wealthy”. ~D



The point is that this way, the Dutch can decide things for the rest of Europe. Do you think the citizens of Hackensack, New Jersey should have the right to veto the US Constitution?

You diminish the value of Denmark with that comment; it is not a small town, it is a complete and functional state. Besides, US constitution is already passed, the EU is not. If a state or its people decides not to participate in creation of EU constitution or be it’s subject, that is their own free, democratic choice.



What some don't seem to realize is that the EU won't go away without the Constitution..


Why not?



It's just not gonna happen. This wasn't a referendum about "do you want the EU or not", but "do you want a constitution".

But what did you then mean with “won’t go away”? As in “won’t go away until it has a constitution”? It sounded like that. Of course, EU will not go away because the French and Dutch people decide against EU constitution. After all EU was devised by the governments and influential reigning consortia of the Old continent, not by people of those countries.


But the EU isn't. The Council of Ministers has too much influence right now. That means the small member states have an influence that is unproportional to their population.

Only in situations like this. Quite the contrary, while no one can really get away with punishing Germany or France, the main contributors of the EU, punishing of the smaller countries for the exact same trespasses is almost an everyday practice.


A referendum is a pillar of democracy only if it is done right. Every vote has to mean the same. If the Netherlands have the option to veto the will of the rest of Europe, that's not democratic.
There is no way you can have a “wrong” done referendum, unless you cheat when counting voices, or otherwise harass the voters. You want it or not, that’s it, you vote and case closed. And I will once again disagree, veto is very much democratic, and sometimes the only way for the outnumbered to resist the majority. One of the basic mechanisms of democratic control against oppression of the minorities.

Also, Denmark has not yet surrendered its independence to EU, becoming a rather irrelevant part of it. Complaining that they don’t want to subdue to the power of majority is…dangerous.


Nations do not have rights, only people.

Another dangerous comment. Meaning, once the Dutch are in, they have no choice but to submit to the majority of the EU? Where did the sovereignty of Denmark go?

Building upon that premises, I have a nice example for you; admit a country into EU, outvote it on every issue you want and turn it into, say, a nuclear waste dump. After all, what is the power of few million Dutch compared with the overwhelming majority of the EU… Who are they to block that democratically made decision?

bmolsson
06-04-2005, 13:35
It should suffice to make some general inquiries in, say, France and Germany. I for one haven’t heard anyone saying that he has it better in the EU now.


I have heard several. Of course most of them corporate executives and not the lefties against globalisation and prosperity....



Compare that to the drop of power of purchase in France and Germany, the main motors of EU, and you’ll get a better picture.


I don't believe that there has been any significant drop in purchase power in neither Germany or France.




Plain wrong. Nowhere is the education or responsibility defined as the pillar or necessary parts of democracy. You wouldn’t want to force your view on the majority, now, would you?


No, I don't want to force anything on them, but I do require that anyone that has an opinion that impacts on my life have a clue what he is talking about. Do you think that is to much to ask ?

A.Saturnus
06-04-2005, 14:40
13 states are needed to block a constitutional amendment, the 13 smallest states have a total population around 14.5 million, the US has a population of about 300 million, considering not everyone has to vote against (or vote for the legislator that votes against) significantly less than 5% of the population is needed to block an amendment.


But what you describe is outraguously unlikely, while the Netherlands vetoing a European decision is very much conceivable. Besides the Netherlands have even much than 5% of the European population. So it's even worse than the worst case possible in the US.


The Dutch parliament appoints the executive I think, this isn't the same as the commission though, the commission gets appointed by the appointed government, far less direct. Besides, in an election you vote for the party you want to see rule, not just the one you want to see in parliament, so you indirectly (but clearly) decide on the executive.

The Dutch parliament appoints only the head of government, who will then appoint the cabinet. Usually it's a party decision who is to be minister. The European parliament has the option to reject the appointed Commission, an option the Dutch parliament has not. The system is different, but hardly less democratic.

Voigtkampf
06-04-2005, 14:52
I have heard several. Of course most of them corporate executives and not the lefties against globalisation and prosperity....

ROFLMAO… First time I am being held for a leftist! ~D~D~D

Actually, I’m bloody capitalists and exploiter of the workers class, and a pro-globaliser, so I can exploit even those from further away for less money and more working hours! :evil: I’m not only corporate executive, I’m freakin’ corporate owner! ~D

But you are right, only people like me enjoy this; all of my relatives and friends that happen to be “normal” people, working as mechanics, nurses, architects or plain salesmen are too stupid to see where the prosperity actually goes. Damn buggers! ~D You tell ‘em, bro! ~D~D~D



I don't believe that there has been any significant drop in purchase power in neither Germany or France.

Oh, I guess that's settled then...


No, I don't want to force anything on them, but I do require that anyone that has an opinion that impacts on my life have a clue what he is talking about. Do you think that is to much to ask ?

Isn’t what you are really saying “they should first look what’s best for me, and only then what’s best for them?” ~:handball:

A.Saturnus
06-04-2005, 15:21
You diminish the value of Denmark with that comment; it is not a small town, it is a complete and functional state. Besides, US constitution is already passed, the EU is not. If a state or its people decides not to participate in creation of EU constitution or be it’s subject, that is their own free, democratic choice.

My hometown is a complete and and functional small town. Denmark has certainly had the democratic choice NOT to join the EU. But I don't see why 5 and half million people should have the right to stop 450 million to have a constitution. If they have, that's not democracy.


Only in situations like this. Quite the contrary, while no one can really get away with punishing Germany or France, the main contributors of the EU, punishing of the smaller countries for the exact same trespasses is almost an everyday practice.

In that I agree with you. Both countries should be punished. But it is not so that the EU couldn't do it. They are only reluctant to do it.


There is no way you can have a “wrong” done referendum, unless you cheat when counting voices, or otherwise harass the voters. You want it or not, that’s it, you vote and case closed. And I will once again disagree, veto is very much democratic, and sometimes the only way for the outnumbered to resist the majority. One of the basic mechanisms of democratic control against oppression of the minorities.

Who's being oppressed?? Look, my hometown has 30000 inhabitants. If they could veto German decisions, that would hardly be democratic. Yes, sometimes a minority must have the option to stop a majority, but that doesn't mean they can decide as much as the majority. You'll notice that no group of 5 million Germans has any right to veto EU decisions.


Another dangerous comment. Meaning, once the Dutch are in, they have no choice but to submit to the majority of the EU? Where did the sovereignty of Denmark go?


To the Netherlands, it seems. Seriously, when Denmark became part of the EU, they agreed to submit part of their sovereignity to the EU. Ok, I grant you that to submit to a constitution it requires more of their sovereignity, than the EU has now. But that is a legalistic argument, it has nothing to do with democracy. There are 5 million Danes. If we assume that 1 in a hundred people in the EU is goth, we have almost as much goths in the EU as Danes. Now, where is the sovereignity of goths? Where's their right to veto EU decisions?

I accept it as a fact that the Danes have the option to hold a referendum about the Constitution and not ratify it if a majority is against. But I don't have to like it.


Building upon that premises, I have a nice example for you; admit a country into EU, outvote it on every issue you want and turn it into, say, a nuclear waste dump. After all, what is the power of few million Dutch compared with the overwhelming majority of the EU… Who are they to block that democratically made decision?

The EU can't make such a decision if it violates rights of individual Dutch, or Danes or whoever. A good part of the Netherlands is in privat possesion and there are probably other legal bindings for the creation of nuclear waste dumps. If the EU wants to create a nuclear waste dump in the town I live, I don't think I should have the option to veto it. After all, most people don't want nuclear waste dumps in their neighbourhoods for some reason and we have to build them somewhere. Of course, the EU has to take care that my health is not in danger.


But what did you then mean with “won’t go away”? As in “won’t go away until it has a constitution”? It sounded like that.

What I meant was the EU will not go away with or without a constitution and it's better for the people if there is a constitution. Especially for those who voted against it.

doc_bean
06-04-2005, 15:25
So you claim that Holland was not a democracy when it entered the union ?


I claim the people had very little choice, do you understand the coalition and party system as it is employed in most of Europe ?
If the big party leaders want something, it happens, there is not much the people can do against it. And Europe has brought out the worst kind of ambitious politicians.




So what you are saying is that the democratic process in Holland doesn't work ? It seems like some of the voters don't realise that the war is over....


Every democratic system has its downsides.
In a party system you don't vote for individuals (as much), you vote on general issues, do you want a liberal or a socialist government ? The way that that liberalism/socialism is worked out is mostly up to the politicians, and if they really screw up, they won't get elected again.

The EU is becoming more and more a national issue, but in an election it's still of secondary importance.



But what you describe is outraguously unlikely,

I'd like to see someone try to pass an amendment that dismisses the electoral college and makes a 1 person 1 vote rule then. Or an amendment that makes the amount of senators a state delivers proportional to the amount of people living there.
They'll surely block it.


The Dutch parliament appoints only the head of government, who will then appoint the cabinet.

They have a one party executive ?

A.Saturnus
06-04-2005, 20:36
I'd like to see someone try to pass an amendment that dismisses the electoral college and makes a 1 person 1 vote rule then. Or an amendment that makes the amount of senators a state delivers proportional to the amount of people living there.
They'll surely block it.

Of course. No one likes it if power is taken away from him. But I don't know what's the relevance of it.
You see, in Germany it's like this: the Bundestag is elected directly. Number of seats is representative of population that vote for a party. The Bundesrat has representatives from the states, number of seats is representative of the governments of the states. But larger states have more seats. It's not a 1 person 1 vote rule, but 5% are not enough for anyone to veto. The Bundestag is the more important of the chambers. I find that to be a good structure.


They have a one party executive ?

Well no, I guess the executive has members from every party of the ruling coalition. But I was wrong anyway. It's not the head of government who appoints the ministers but the monarch. The head of government himself is appointed by the monarch, thus the parliament appoints no one. But I assume the monarch has to appoint the leader of the winning party. I don't know what's the point, though.

doc_bean
06-04-2005, 20:55
Of course. No one likes it if power is taken away from him. But I don't know what's the relevance of it.

It's relevant on two points:

1) the EU isn't the only democratic system that allows a veto by a small minority

2) no one likes power taken away from them. The Dutch (and the French) feel that this is happening with the EU



Well no, I guess the executive has members from every party of the ruling coalition. But I was wrong anyway. It's not the head of government who appoints the ministers but the monarch. The head of government himself is appointed by the monarch, thus the parliament appoints no one. But I assume the monarch has to appoint the leader of the winning party. I don't know what's the point, though.

We have the same system as far as I can tell, the monarch's role is purely ceremonial. Parliament has (in theory) enough power to 'force' a government to resign, if they don't have the support of the majority anymore, so it are the parties that decide on the executive, in making a coalition deal.

bmolsson
06-05-2005, 03:59
Oh, I guess that's settled then...


Pretty much.... ~:)



Isn’t what you are really saying “they should first look what’s best for me, and only then what’s best for them?” ~:handball:


Not at all. For guy's like you and me, EU doesn't really matter. On the other hand it does matter for the people that doesn't have money, connections and international experience. For these people a single currency, free right to move and a large federation actually gives them more prosperity in the long run.

bmolsson
06-05-2005, 04:07
I claim the people had very little choice, do you understand the coalition and party system as it is employed in most of Europe ?
If the big party leaders want something, it happens, there is not much the people can do against it. And Europe has brought out the worst kind of ambitious politicians.


Well, seems to me that the dutchs failed in democratize their monarchy. Since one of the basic demands to be accepted as a nation is to have a fully democratic system, I can't see how Holland succeeded to enter the union in the first place. It appears to me to be a technocracy rather than a democracy......



Every democratic system has its downsides.
In a party system you don't vote for individuals (as much), you vote on general issues, do you want a liberal or a socialist government ? The way that that liberalism/socialism is worked out is mostly up to the politicians, and if they really screw up, they won't get elected again.


And who introduced that system in Holland ??



The EU is becoming more and more a national issue, but in an election it's still of secondary importance.


I can't see the logic of this.

Voigtkampf
06-05-2005, 08:50
GAH, Dutch and Danes... :embarassed: Mix them up all the time... Niederländer und Dänen… ~;) omg... :book:

But, seriously, this is what it comes down (I won’t quoting parts of your statements); they made a decision you feel to be undemocratic and having much greater influence on your life than you believe they should have right upon.

But, you made an interesting comment; "it may be legalistic, but it is not democratic". Democracy, as it is today, has almost nothing in common with Athens’s democracy, and its rules and regulations are fixed in constitutions and law books all over the world. There are always mechanisms that prevent the majority to force decisions on minority. Additional factor here is that we are talking about a sovereign country.

Five million Germans have not as much impact as five million Danes. You compare internal percentage of voices in one country with a complete vote of another sovereign country. Äpfel und Birnen. ~;)

So, you may like it or not, it may appear undemocratic or not, it may appear as if they have too much influence on you and the rest of EU, but in the end, it was their legal and democratic right and you can’t change nothing about that fact. Just like an amateur can make a judgment upon someone’s psychiatric condition, that doesn’t mean he stands correct with that judgment. Same here, though you have your opinion and consider this undemocratic, it is very much democratic indeed, and legal.

Was good to cross swords once again, Sat. ~;) :duel:


Originally Posted by voigtkampf
Oh, I guess that's settled then...



Pretty much.... ~:)

But only in your mind, my very young padawan. ~D



Not at all. For guy's like you and me, EU doesn't really matter. On the other hand it does matter for the people that doesn't have money, connections and international experience. For these people a single currency, free right to move and a large federation actually gives them more prosperity in the long run.

Yehaaaa, you go tell 'em! :cowboy: Where were you before the vote!?! ~D

bmolsson
06-05-2005, 09:20
it is very much democratic indeed, and legal.


Does referendum in Holland actually have any political significance. I know in Sweden it's only and "advice" to the government, meaning it means [nothing]. I believe it's the same in France......

doc_bean
06-05-2005, 14:15
Does referendum in Holland actually have any political significance. I know in Sweden it's only and "advice" to the government, meaning it means ...... I believe it's the same in France......

It was advisory, but the government has declared that they would act as if it were binding. I believe in france referenda are binding.


Well, seems to me that the dutchs failed in democratize their monarchy. Since one of the basic demands to be accepted as a nation is to have a fully democratic system, I can't see how Holland succeeded to enter the union in the first place. It appears to me to be a technocracy rather than a democracy......

This can be said about most European systems, most don't differ much from the Dutch one afaik (Britain being the exception, since they use a 'winner takes all' principle', the biggest party gets to appoint the executive)


I can't see the logic of this.

One party says: we're going to lower taxes, but we're going to be part of the EU !

Second party says: We're a bunch of racist bigots, and we don't want the EU !

Who would you vote for ?

All the main parties (except the lovable fascist one mentioned above) want to join the EU, or at least their leaders do. So you have a choice, vote for a party that sells 'Mein Kampf' at their gatherings, vote for a party no one has heard of and doesn't stand a chance, vote for a major party and accept the EU.

A.Saturnus
06-05-2005, 16:15
1) the EU isn't the only democratic system that allows a veto by a small minority
2) no one likes power taken away from them. The Dutch (and the French) feel that this is happening with the EU

1) But as I said, even the worst case in the US is less extreme than EU normality.
2) That may be a causal explanation, but not a justification.


We have the same system as far as I can tell, the monarch's role is purely ceremonial. Parliament has (in theory) enough power to 'force' a government to resign, if they don't have the support of the majority anymore, so it are the parties that decide on the executive, in making a coalition deal.

Then I really can't see why you think the Commission is undemocratic.


All the main parties (except the lovable fascist one mentioned above) want to join the EU, or at least their leaders do. So you have a choice, vote for a party that sells 'Mein Kampf' at their gatherings, vote for a party no one has heard of and doesn't stand a chance, vote for a major party and accept the EU.

You could start your own party.


Five million Germans have not as much impact as five million Danes. You compare internal percentage of voices in one country with a complete vote of another sovereign country. Äpfel und Birnen.


That's where I disagree. It's not different things. That "inside" you speak of is only a burocratic construct. It is the individual that matters. And 5 million Germans should matter just as much as 5 million Danes. If 5 million Danes have more influence just because they call themselves Danes, that's not democratic.

"There is no such thing as society." - Margeret Thatcher


So, you may like it or not, it may appear undemocratic or not, it may appear as if they have too much influence on you and the rest of EU, but in the end, it was their legal and democratic right and you can’t change nothing about that fact. Just like an amateur can make a judgment upon someone’s psychiatric condition, that doesn’t mean he stands correct with that judgment. Same here, though you have your opinion and consider this undemocratic, it is very much democratic indeed, and legal.

And we both now that there will be a Constitution in the end even if the Dutchies use the whole of the Danish sovereignity against it ~;)
The EU is here to stay and it will be as it has to be. And it will be democratic and legal.

doc_bean
06-05-2005, 17:09
1) But as I said, even the worst case in the US is less extreme than EU normality.
2) That may be a causal explanation, but not a justification.


The US is one country, the EU has 25, there is a big difference in the amount of power we have given to the 'higher government' (federal/confederal).

Each 'people' is sovereign in its own country, you can't and shouldn't be able to force your views on another country, no matter how big your country is.

In your form of democracy, we'd all be doing with the Chinese say, after all, there are more of them than there are of us !



Then I really can't see why you think the Commission is undemocratic.

I don't like the party system much either. But, the party system is second order, we elect the people who elect. With the commission, we elect the people who elect the government that appoints the member of the commission. That's a step to far in my book.

Now, the structure of the commission does have its benefits, it is (essentially) a technocratic system, and it works very well for 'technical issues'. Things like the common market. However, if you want to turn the EU into a powerful political actor, I think there is a need for more democracy.




You could start your own party.

Haven't got the money, haven't got the experience, haven't got the connections, haven't got the voters ~D



That's where I disagree. It's not different things. That "inside" you speak of is only a burocratic construct. It is the individual that matters. And 5 million Germans should matter just as much as 5 million Danes. If 5 million Danes have more influence just because they call themselves Danes, that's not democratic.

You seem to have a very specific view of what democracy should be.

Like I said, 5 million Danes can decided what they want for Denmark, they don't have to answer to the other European countries, as long as they respect the treaties.

You don't seem to understand the basic concepts of federalism or confederalism. Actually, I'm pretty sure you do, you just don't like it very much ~D



And we both now that there will be a Constitution in the end even if the Dutchies use the whole of the Danish sovereignity against it ~;)
The EU is here to stay and it will be as it has to be. And it will be democratic and legal.

Taking away the sovereignty of people over their own country, against their will doesn't sound very democratic to me.

Voigtkampf
06-05-2005, 17:49
I see KukriKhan did some editing here, I would love to know the reason why… :stare:


That's where I disagree. It's not different things. That "inside" you speak of is only a burocratic construct.

I don’t find a sovereign country to be a mere "burocratic" construction. I find EU to be that, and very much so.


It is the individual that matters. And 5 million Germans should matter just as much as 5 million Danes.

In Europe, perhaps. Not in Denmark. But the key word is should. Your opinion, Sat, but not the reality. Should?


If 5 million Danes have more influence just because they call themselves Danes, that's not democratic.

They are not simply calling themselves Danes; they are a nation, living in their own, sovereign country. They don’t want EU constitution; their free choice. It is incorrect for you to be disdainful of them only because they made a choice for themselves, even if that choice affects you. Damn, when I see who the idiots around me vote in offices, I should hold a grudge against almost everyone alive! But I don’t say it’s undemocratic.


"There is no such thing as society." - Margeret Thatcher

"Doh..." Homer Simpson. ~:handball:

A.Saturnus
06-05-2005, 22:03
Each 'people' is sovereign in its own country, you can't and shouldn't be able to force your views on another country, no matter how big your country is.

Why not? That's what democracy is about in the end. The minority has to accept the will of the majority, except when its rights are infringed. In a worldwide democracy - which we will have one day far far in the future - the Chinese will of course have more influence. That is how it should be.
For you and Voigtkampf, nations seem to be very important. They seem to have rights of themselves. But they shouldn't. When I said the "inside" is just a burocratic construct, I'm meaning all countries are that. There are 5.5 million Danes and 80 million Germans because history has drawn some arbitrary lines on a map. But these constructs are not what is ultimately important. Not Germany is important, nor Denmark, nor Europe. Nor is it the culture or the political system associated with them. The people are what is important. And only the people. Humans are where any value is derived from. Countries are only valueable because they have a meaning for humans. Belgium or Flanders is meaningful to you as is Germany to me, but that shouldn't stop us seeing ourselves as part of the same group. It shouldn't devide us politically. I'm German, I'm a man, I'm an atheist, I'm white, I'm a psychologist and I'm a metalhead, but that any of these things has any political relevance is an unfortunate accident of history. This is what we have to overcome. This is what the EU is about.
Now, I'm all for letting the Danes decide their business themselves. But this is our all business, it's European business. If the people of Europe decide that they don't want what I want, ok, I will accept that readily. But then the people of Europe should decide as people of Europe whether they want that or not. It is not right when the people of Denmark can make decisions in the place of the people of Europe.

BDC
06-05-2005, 22:11
Why not? That's what democracy is about in the end. The minority has to accept the will of the majority, except when its rights are infringed. In a worldwide democracy - which we will have one day far far in the future - the Chinese will of course have more influence. That is how it should be.
For you and Voigtkampf, nations seem to be very important

And that's why most the world will never accept a democracy on that scale. What would be the point? You'd instantly lose democracy as whoever can control China and India would win everything.

doc_bean
06-05-2005, 22:50
The one man one vote system only works on a limited scale, because the needs of people differ so greatly depending on where they live. This is why federalism and 'third level government' is so popular these days.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for Europe as a federal state. But I believe that each people should be able to protect their cultural identity, this won't work if it is just one person - one vote.
We also have to face reality, Europe isn't one country, not by far, and the Danes do get to decide what they want to do, because that is what has been written in the constitution. Incidently, it isn't just the Danes blocking the constitution, it's also the French, the Dutch, maybe the Luxembourghs and most likely the Brittish. That's a whole bunch of people. So don't act as if it's just one nation spoiling the plans.

bmolsson
06-06-2005, 03:42
It was advisory, but the government has declared that they would act as if it were binding. I believe in france referenda are binding.


I believe that is wrong. If the dutch people think differently than the parlament majority, a new election should be called for and not a referendum on a single question.



This can be said about most European systems, most don't differ much from the Dutch one afaik (Britain being the exception, since they use a 'winner takes all' principle', the biggest party gets to appoint the executive)


If so, very serious. It's time for Bush to invade and free the oppressed Europeans...... ~D



One party says: we're going to lower taxes, but we're going to be part of the EU !

Second party says: We're a bunch of racist bigots, and we don't want the EU !

Who would you vote for ?


Nono of them. I would start a new party immediately.



All the main parties (except the lovable fascist one mentioned above) want to join the EU, or at least their leaders do. So you have a choice, vote for a party that sells 'Mein Kampf' at their gatherings, vote for a party no one has heard of and doesn't stand a chance, vote for a major party and accept the EU.


This is BS. Any citizen can start a new party if nothing fits. If you decide to accept a party, you get it all. The logic you present has absolutely nothing to do with a democratic system. If there was only one party to chose, I would understand, but you can start a party tomorrow if you like..... And in fact it is your duty as a democratic citizen to do so.....

Papewaio
06-06-2005, 09:15
Why not base it on the Commonwealth of Australia model (it lacks the population, has a closer cultural tie, but it is roughly the same size as Europe)...


Australia has a bicameral federal Parliament, comprising a Senate (the upper house) with 76 Senators, and a House of Representatives (the lower house) with 150 Members. Members of the lower house are elected on a population basis from single-member constituencies, known technically as 'divisions' but more commonly as 'electorates' or 'seats'. The more populous the state, the more members it will have in the House of Representatives. There is a minimum of 5 members for each state. In the Senate, each state regardless of population is represented by twelve Senators, and each mainland territory by two. Elections for both chambers are held every three years, usually with only one half of the Senate being eligible for re-election, as the Senators have overlapping terms of six years each. The government is formed in the lower house, and the leader of the majority party or coalition in the House of Representatives is the Prime Minister.

So full members (countries) of the EU could have twelve Senators while the new members could have two Senators until they become fully intergrated.


Each of these states, except Queensland, have their own bicameral parliaments. Queensland and the two territories have unicameral parliaments. The lower house is known as the Legislative Assembly (House of Assembly in South Australia and Tasmania) and the upper house the Legislative Council. The head of government in each state and territory is called the Premier and Chief Minister respectively. The states each have a Governor, the Northern Territory an Administrator and in the ACT the Governor-General acts equivalently. The state and territory parliaments have powers to raise revenue from taxes and to legislate on a wide variety of matters. Notably the states and territories of Australia have their own law enforcement agencies and courts and regulate education within their borders.

You end up with a 3 tiered government system.

Federal > State > Local (and yes in NSW you can get fined for not turning up to all 3 including local council elections... you just need to turn up, you don't have to vote... but for some strange reason because you have to turn up you tend to vote and because you are going to vote you tend to read up about it...)

doc_bean
06-06-2005, 10:16
I believe that is wrong. If the dutch people think differently than the parlament majority, a new election should be called for and not a referendum on a single question.

I don't agree. They called the referendum because they knew the people were in doubt about the constitution, while they were sure (and probably rightly so) that it was a good thing. If they hadn't held the referendum, they could have done whatever they want, now they accept the will of the people.

Like I said, Europe is rarely a big issue in elections, which is (partly) why their is such a gap between what the public thinks of Europe and what the politicians think.

There are a few exceptions, the UK has UKIP (UK independence party) and the Danes also have some people in the EU parliament that got elected because they don't like the EU ( :dizzy2: ). Maybe more Eurofocused parties will appear with time in the other countries.




This is BS. Any citizen can start a new party if nothing fits. If you decide to accept a party, you get it all. The logic you present has absolutely nothing to do with a democratic system. If there was only one party to chose, I would understand, but you can start a party tomorrow if you like..... And in fact it is your duty as a democratic citizen to do so.....

It is incredibly hard to create a successful party. Only one truly new party has been able to achieve some success in the last then years, that's a party funded by a millionaire with mostly his own money. Several other small parties have appeared for one election, only one had relative success (Ageing with dignity), all other 'new' parties are just small fractions separated from bigger ones, they can have small successes at times.

Note that a 'success' for such a party means they can get maybe 5% of the votes. The big parties usually get 20-30%. So the only way a small party can matter is if it is needed to form a majority with two or three bigger parties. Even then their power is limited.
The government controls the country, parliament has little actual power (due to the way the majority coalition works), new parties have a very small chance of making an impact.

Believe me, a lot of people try, there are 5-7 parties that actually matter, there are about 30 you can vote for in an average election.

bmolsson
06-06-2005, 11:19
Like I said, Europe is rarely a big issue in elections, which is (partly) why their is such a gap between what the public thinks of Europe and what the politicians think.


Well, the responsibility for this is 100% on the public voters. They can't blame that on anyone else than themselves. Or they can claim that their nation is not longer a democracy....... Which they actually have done.... ~;)



It is incredibly hard to create a successful party. Only one truly new party has been able to achieve some success in the last then years, that's a party funded by a millionaire with mostly his own money. Several other small parties have appeared for one election, only one had relative success (Ageing with dignity), all other 'new' parties are just small fractions separated from bigger ones, they can have small successes at times.

Note that a 'success' for such a party means they can get maybe 5% of the votes. The big parties usually get 20-30%. So the only way a small party can matter is if it is needed to form a majority with two or three bigger parties. Even then their power is limited.
The government controls the country, parliament has little actual power (due to the way the majority coalition works), new parties have a very small chance of making an impact.

Believe me, a lot of people try, there are 5-7 parties that actually matter, there are about 30 you can vote for in an average election.


If it's to hard to make a new party, in fact so hard so that people can't find something to vote on without having to go against your own conviction, then it's not a democracy anymore and something is seriously wrong with the system.
Having to use referendum in a parlamentarian society is really a clear signal that the system is disfunctional. France and Holland are countries that have lost the contact with democracy.

Voigtkampf
06-06-2005, 16:08
Why not? That's what democracy is about in the end. The minority has to accept the will of the majority, except when its rights are infringed. (VK's accent)In a worldwide democracy - which we will have one day far far in the future - the Chinese will of course have more influence. That is how it should be.

God forbid a world where my fate will be determined by Chinese government. With all due respect for Chinese members of the board here, I doubt that they would be thrilled to be controlled by any other nation of the world other then their own.

And nop, this is exactly how it should not be.


For you and Voigtkampf, nations seem to be very important. They seem to have rights of themselves.

Nations are large groups of people bound by common history, traditions, cultural values and often religion, world views and the taste for similar beverages. Nation has its rights because it is comprised out of people, not because it is an abstract term.


But they shouldn't.

I disagree. They should.


When I said the "inside" is just a burocratic construct, I'm meaning all countries are that.

Too reduce a nation and a state it creates to a mere bunch of burocratic bounding is as incorrect and ill-advised as it is radical.


There are 5.5 million Danes and 80 million Germans because history has drawn some arbitrary lines on a map.

Another radically simplistic and incorrect presentation of what nations really are. You think if EU draws a better border, the differences between Danes and Germans will disappear? Between Japanese and Chinese as well? India and Pakistan will embrace each other?


But these constructs are not what is ultimately important. Not Germany is important, nor Denmark, nor Europe. Nor is it the culture or the political system associated with them. The people are what is important. And only the people. Humans are where any value is derived from. Countries are only valueable because they have a meaning for humans. Belgium or Flanders is meaningful to you as is Germany to me, but that shouldn't stop us seeing ourselves as part of the same group.

I guess we are all members of species homo-sapiens, aka humans. Good. Part of the same group? Yes. Do we need all to be same because of that. No. Not only “no”, as in negative, but also “no” as in impossible.


It shouldn't devide us politically.

But it does and it always will.


I'm German, I'm a man, I'm an atheist, I'm white, I'm a psychologist and I'm a metalhead, but that any of these things has any political relevance is an unfortunate accident of history.

Out of your six criteria only two apply to me (male Caucasian). I’m not even listening heavy metal any more, I went for jazz and blues, even though I played an el. guitar, had long hair and spent my teenage time in that very same ambient you talk about. More things divide us than bring us together. Why do you believe that it is necessary for people so different (or far more different) to come and live by the same rules?


This is what we have to overcome.

Why should we overcome that at all?


This is what the EU is about.

EU is about a common market. Don't believe that? Try to count from the first treaty onwards, naming them, and see what this all is about. It begins with coal, and ends with… Third great world market. Why idealizing this?


Now, I'm all for letting the Danes decide their business themselves. But this is our all business, it's European business. If the people of Europe decide that they don't want what I want, ok, I will accept that readily. But then the people of Europe should decide as people of Europe whether they want that or not. It is not right when the people of Denmark can make decisions in the place of the people of Europe.

Before that can happen, there must be no other people in EU but Europeans; no Danes and no Germans. Seems that some of the people disagree to be completly swallowed by a vast, anonymous and shapeless design called European Union.

In Europe, after centuries of merciless mutual wars and extensive slaughter, old animosities are only skin deep buried. Like CCCP was held together by military and fear, so is the EU held together by economy and market interests.

After all, why should EU have a constitution at all?

KukriKhan
06-06-2005, 16:25
"I see KukriKhan did some editing here, I would love to know the reason why" - voigtkampf

Merely a helping hand, cleaning up the nastier words - not changing anyone's meaning or intent. Sorry if it looked heavy-handed.

To the topic: I have no standing to take a position on European unity. I will, however, observe that the thing lacking in this drive to unity is a common enemy (or the perception of one), the very thing that has previously spawned unions in America and eastern Europe.

My outsider's opinion is: Whether unity comes now or later, or at all, is less important than the fact that it is being discussed, not fought over, or miltarily forced down european throats. In the end, if some political and administrative unity comes about, through plebisite, that would seem to be a good thing. Canada's example of multi-cultural Confederation might better apply than US Federalism.

A.Saturnus
06-06-2005, 16:25
The one man one vote system only works on a limited scale, because the needs of people differ so greatly depending on where they live. This is why federalism and 'third level government' is so popular these days.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for Europe as a federal state. But I believe that each people should be able to protect their cultural identity, this won't work if it is just one person - one vote.
We also have to face reality, Europe isn't one country, not by far, and the Danes do get to decide what they want to do, because that is what has been written in the constitution. Incidently, it isn't just the Danes blocking the constitution, it's also the French, the Dutch, maybe the Luxembourghs and most likely the Brittish. That's a whole bunch of people. So don't act as if it's just one nation spoiling the plans.

That's of course true. But it is clear that the majority of member states would accept the constitution. The best would be an all-European referendum. I'm willing to accept the result however it is.

doc_bean
06-06-2005, 16:44
That's of course true. But it is clear that the majority of member states would accept the constitution. The best would be an all-European referendum. I'm willing to accept the result however it is.

Last time we held a referendum in Belgium, it was nearly the end of our country. It was about keeping the monarchy (after WWII), the Wallons almost all voted for, the Flemish mostly voted against (although opinions varied more iirc). In a state or confederacy where different people live in different places, you can surely expect that certain groups will vote very differently from other groups. The minority will always end up feeling like the decision was forced upon them, especially if they are concentrated in just a few countries.

In short, a European referendum is a good idea, but it would never work. Interestingly, such a referendum was exactly what the people who drew up the constitution originally proposed.

It would have been interesting though, I think new Europe would have voted for it, and old Europe (mostly) against. This surely wouldn't have been good for further relations between the countries.


bmolsson, I said every democracy has its problems, if you ever want to be president of the US (provided you can) you'd better have access to a lot of money too. Same actually goes for congressmen these days.

That's why I think referenda are democratic, it's the voice of the people in its purest form. Switzerland has a form of government were referenda are common, and they seem to be doing alright.

A.Saturnus
06-06-2005, 16:56
God forbid a world where my fate will be determined by Chinese government. With all due respect for Chinese members of the board here, I doubt that they would be thrilled to be controlled by any other nation of the world other then their own.

And nop, this is exactly how it should not be.

You don't understand, there won't be another nation. Just one nation for all. The Chinese won't rule you any different than your neighbours do it now.


Nations are large groups of people bound by common history, traditions, cultural values and often religion, world views and the taste for similar beverages. Nation has its rights because it is comprised out of people, not because it is an abstract term.

I claim that the differences within every nation are greater than those between. That makes there boundaries arbitrary.


I disagree. They should.

Why?


Another radically simplistic and incorrect presentation of what nations really are. You think if EU draws a better border, the differences between Danes and Germans will disappear? Between Japanese and Chinese as well? India and Pakistan will embrace each other?

Yes, in the end they will. There is no animosity nor hate that cannot be overcome. The EU will not draw a necessary better border, but a bigger one. It will unite those within. It is only a step to the ultimate goal: unity of mankind and peace on earth.


I guess we are all members of species homo-sapiens, aka humans. Good. Part of the same group? Yes. Do we need all to be same because of that. No. Not only “no”, as in negative, but also “no” as in impossible.

We do not need to be the same. We can live together in diversity. The only thing necessary for that is that we realize that cultural differences need not seperate us more than the choice of the clothes we wear.


But it does and it always will.

If people are like you, yes. If people are like me, no. All we have to do is to make them more like me than you. At least in this aspect. ~:)


Why should we overcome that at all?

Because, if we don't, it will kill us. Like so many before.


EU is about a common market. Don't believe that? Try to count from the first treaty onwards, naming them, and see what this all is about. It begins with coal, and ends with… Third great world market. Why idealizing this?

You're mistaken. The common market was a tool to generate peace. The idea of the EU was born between Adenauer and DeGaulle when they realized that interdependence is necessary to prevent future escalations. Kohl, undoublty one of the greatest supporters of the EU, has explicitely stated that the aim is to prevent war. The EU never was only about a common market, it was idealized from the beginning.


Before that can happen, there must be no other people in EU but Europeans; no Danes and no Germans. Seems that some of the people disagree to be completly swallowed by a vast, anonymous and shapeless design called European Union.

Not so. I'm Bavarian and German, both concepts carry their own cultural weight. Why should it not be possible to be European as well? Unity in diversity is possible.


In Europe, after centuries of merciless mutual wars and extensive slaughter, old animosities are only skin deep buried.

The media lets it appear so sometimes, but nothing could be further from the truth. As a German I live in a country my ancestors attacked twice in the last 100 years, but I have never, not once experienced any animosity. Nor have I experienced it with the French, Polish or Italian I met. We're one big happy family ~:grouphug:



After all, why should EU have a constitution at all?

It helps to bind us together.

bmolsson
06-07-2005, 03:10
bmolsson, I said every democracy has its problems, if you ever want to be president of the US (provided you can) you'd better have access to a lot of money too. Same actually goes for congressmen these days.


I have never claimed US to be a democracy..... ~;)



That's why I think referenda are democratic, it's the voice of the people in its purest form. Switzerland has a form of government were referenda are common, and they seem to be doing alright.


The Swiss are what they are due to tax regulation in the neighbouring countries and the fact they where not involved in the WWII. Their referendum democracy is nowadays more a problem than an asset.
You have earlier mentioned on the impact of money, in a referendum democracy it requires more money to get an issue through than in a representative system. I think we have to agree that we disagree...... ~:grouphug:

Voigtkampf
06-07-2005, 09:16
You don't understand, there won't be another nation. Just one nation for all.

And which nation would that be? European? Chinese? What would define that nation? That we are humans?


The Chinese won't rule you any different than your neighbours do it now.

Currently, heaven thanks, my country's neighbors do not decide who will govern my country, what party will have majority in the parliament, what content the national TV will have and where will my tax money end up.

Chinese don’t rule me no different then my neighbors do now. In a world’s democracy, they would have the saying, much more then they do now.


I claim that the differences within every nation are greater than those between. That makes there boundaries arbitrary.


Every nation has cultural subgroups, various different minorities living within its borders. I know that I am listening jazz, working in the construction business and like Total War. That makes me different from any of my friends I know, but that doesn’t make me have more in common with a Chinese that also listens jazz, works in construction business and like Total War then with any of my neighbors. Vice-versa applies as well. This is my claim, and I have made a simple example, but one you can never deny. You can at least try.



Why?

Because nations are the expression of the people comprising them. Their history, culture and religion. Their traditions and their way of life. No one should oppress his/hers groups vision on how should another group/nation should live, develop and behave. My opinion of what freedom should be. You are actually proposing a worldwide dictatorship of proletariat.


Yes, in the end they will.

I’m surly a greater fan of Star Trek then you, but this is too utopian for me none the less. If you disregard the recent outbreak of hostilities in China towards Japan, fine, but I remember how uneasy I felt, thinking that with a greater reason, war would not be an excluded option. North Korea shooting ballistic missiles over Japan. China probing the Japanese coastguard with their U-boats. India and Pakistan fighting over Kashmir, and at the verge of nuclear conflict for a long time. Recently there was a thread stating how many wars are being led at the moment, worldwide. Excuse me, but it doesn’t seem that we are anywhere near that Utopia you seem to expect to appear very soon.


There is no animosity nor hate that cannot be overcome.

It seems, for example, in the case of the recent China/Japan conflict that hate easily erupts when no one expects it. Much easier then it should.


The EU will not draw a necessary better border, but a bigger one.

I agree with you. Bigger, but not better.


It will unite those within.

Under that premise, Rome should have united the entire Europe a long time ago.


It is only a step to the ultimate goal: unity of mankind and peace on earth.

And whose agenda is that? Of a romantic poet or the EU? USA? China?

No, wait…Roddenberry ~;)

For someone who is a self-defined “metalhead”, you sound too much like John Lennon! He sang of peace too, and got shot.


We do not need to be the same.

But apperently we must vote the same?


We can live together in diversity.

We already live in diversity.


The only thing necessary for that is that we realize that cultural differences need not seperate us more than the choice of the clothes we wear.

I reckon there is a great difference between thousands of years of, say, development of the Chinese society and country and Benetton, but if you want to believe otherwise, I can’t help.

In more plain words; the nature of a nation and its culture is not proportional in its importance to clothes style.


If people are like you, yes. If people are like me, no. All we have to do is to make them more like me than you. At least in this aspect. ~:)


Wow, Sat, that went under the belt. You are the good guy and I am the bad one. Well, I can live with that. :cowboy:

I don’t want to sound defensive, but the truth is; I’m only the messenger. I don’t give a rat’s ass about any of this. The EU is greater then me, the world affairs are greater than me. I just adapt in a world I try to survive in. I never bent out of shape when there are any votes; I predict the results, prepare myself for new conditions, consider my options and make my moves. If I come to you and say that this will never work, that doesn’t mean I don’t want it to work. I just call ‘em as I see ‘em, as Clyde Bruckman would say.

But the interesting thing is that you are already announcing the necessity of changing people’s opinions while at the same time disputing the mere possibility of non-unitary world perception.


Because, if we don't, it will kill us. Like so many before.

It is more certainly that people will rebel against having to throw away what makes them unique for the sake of some global purposes. That will kill us.

Instead of denying our differences, we must learn to tolerate each others unique features and profit from them. That is the way to peace.


You're mistaken. The common market was a tool to generate peace.

You should have been a poet or a writer, Sat, and no psychiatrist, and I don’t mean it in an offensive way. Or is objectivity something that a psychiatrist must not take notice of?

Common market is a tool to generate money. :book:




The idea of the EU was born between Adenauer and DeGaulle when they realized that interdependence is necessary to prevent future escalations. Kohl, undoublty one of the greatest supporters of the EU, has explicitely stated that the aim is to prevent war. The EU never was only about a common market, it was idealized from the beginning.

Hence, the first of the EU treaties was about coal. Logically. I buy that as little as I’d buy the hypothesis that dealing with oil in Iraq is not about oil, but about establishing peace in that region.


Not so. I'm Bavarian and German, both concepts carry their own cultural weight. Why should it not be possible to be European as well? Unity in diversity is possible.

I agree… That is why I don’t need nor want a "global democracy".


The media lets it appear so sometimes, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Burned Japanese cars and shuttered windows, demolished Japanese shops in China… Media let it appear so? Ahm, good…


As a German I live in a country my ancestors attacked twice in the last 100 years, but I have never, not once experienced any animosity. Nor have I experienced it with the French, Polish or Italian I met.

While I lived in Germany I have heard hundreds of stories of German scholars and students and their interaction with their French “counterparts:, most of them described it negatively. The French would not, for instance, ever even try to learn any German, and most often they would not want to speak English, even if they knew English. All conversations would have to be lead in French. More than once, the Germans would be described as Nazis as soon any heated debate would come up. Too bad they never met the same people you’ve met.



We're one big happy family ~:grouphug:

It helps to bind us together.(The EU constitution)

And you make the impression with the comment above that you are all one big, happy family that doesn’t need any further binding. :stare:

Fragony
06-07-2005, 09:55
Just to which people, that is the question...

The normal ones. When you look at the best newspapers only Trouw and NRC had a slightly bigger yes camp. Now these are hardly the people you meant I hope?

doc_bean
06-07-2005, 10:04
A.Saturnus, a superstate does not guarantee peace, the UK is a single state, look at what's happing in Northern Ireland, Spain has long since been a single state, look at what is happening with the Basques. Looking beyond Europe, take the Kurds, who are fighting in Turkey and Iraq in hopes of establishing their own country.

Every 'superstate' so far has failed, except the US. The US is very different from previous superstates though, because the people don't (or to a lesser extent) identify with the place where they live.

I'm very sceptical about a superstate, although I do believe that it could work for Europe, and that in time, it will. However, as I have said before, the people need to feel European. If non-Europeans asked where we are from, we should say Europe, (unless it's blatantly obvious of course). Americans identify with the US, that's why it works, as long as we aren't waving the European flag, the superstate will be an artificial construct, and we're better off without it.

Fragony
06-07-2005, 10:18
Rousseau is right,




Of the Social Compact

I suppose men to have reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state. That primitive condition can then subsist no longer; and the human race would perish unless it changed its manner of existence.

But, as men cannot engender new forces, but only unite and direct existing ones, they have no other means of preserving themselves than the formation, by aggregation, of a sum of forces great enough to overcome the resistance. These they have to bring into play by means of a single motive power, and cause to act in concert.

This sum of forces can arise only where several persons come together: but, as the force and liberty of each man are the chief instruments of his self-preservation, how can he pledge them without harming his own interests, and neglecting the care he owes to himself? This difficulty, in its bearing on my present subject, may be stated in the following terms:

"The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before." This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution.

The clauses of this contract are so determined by the nature of the act that the slightest modification would make them vain and ineffective; so that, although they have perhaps never been formally set forth, they are everywhere the same and everywhere tacitly admitted and recognized, until, on the violation of the social compact, each regains his original rights and resumes his natural liberty, while losing the conventional liberty in favor of which he renounced it.

These clauses, properly understood, may be reduced to one — the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community; for, in the first place, as each gives himself absolutely, the conditions are the same for all; and, this being so, no one has any interest in making them burdensome to others.

Moreover, the alienation being without reserve, the union is as perfect as it can be, and no associate has anything more to demand: for, if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.

Finally, each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody; and as there is no associate over whom he does not acquire the same right as he yields others over himself, he gains an equivalent for everything he loses, and an increase of force for the preservation of what he has.

If then we discard from the social compact what is not of its essence, we shall find that it reduces itself to the following terms:

"Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole."

At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive. Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State. But these terms are often confused and taken one for another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are being used with precision.

The Sovereign

This formula shows us that the act of association comprises a mutual undertaking between the public and the individuals, and that each individual, in making a contract, as we may say, with himself, is bound in a double capacity; as a member of the Sovereign he is bound to the individuals, and as a member of the State to the Sovereign. But the maxim of civil right, that no one is bound by undertakings made to himself, does not apply in this case; for there is a great difference between incurring an obligation to yourself and incurring one to a whole of which you form a part.

Attention must further be called to the fact that public deliberation, while competent to bind all the subjects to the Sovereign, because of the two different capacities in which each of them may be regarded, cannot, for the opposite reason, bind the Sovereign to itself; and that it is consequently against the nature of the body politic for the Sovereign to impose on itself a law which it cannot infringe. Being able to regard itself in only one capacity, it is in the position of an individual who makes a contract with himself; and this makes it clear that there neither is nor can be any kind of fundamental law binding on the body of the people — not even the social contract itself. This does not mean that the body politic cannot enter into undertakings with others, provided the contract is not infringed by them; for in relation to what is external to it, it becomes a simple being, an individual.

But the body politic or the Sovereign, drawing its being wholly from the sanctity of the contract, can never bind itself, even to an outsider, to do anything derogatory to the original act, for instance, to alienate any part of itself, or to submit to another Sovereign. Violation of the act by which it exists would be self-annihilation; and that which is itself nothing can create nothing.

As soon as this multitude is so united in one body, it is impossible to offend against one of the members without attacking the body, and still more to offend against the body without the members resenting it. Duty and interest therefore equally oblige the two contracting parties to give each other help; and the same men should seek to combine, in their double capacity, all the advantages dependent upon that capacity.

Again, the Sovereign, being formed wholly of the individuals who compose it, neither has nor can have any interest contrary to theirs; and consequently the sovereign power need give no guarantee to its subjects, because it is impossible for the body to wish to hurt all its members. We shall also see later on that it cannot hurt any in particular. The Sovereign, merely by virtue of what it is, is always what it should be.

This, however, is not the case with the relation of the subjects to the Sovereign, which, despite the common interest, would have no security that they would fulfill their undertakings, unless it found means to assure itself of their fidelity.

In fact, each individual, as a man, may have a particular will contrary or dissimilar to the general will which he has as a citizen. His particular interest may speak to him quite differently from the common interest: his absolute and naturally independent existence may make him look upon what he owes to the common cause as a gratuitous contribution, the loss of which will do less harm to others than the payment of it is burdensome to himself; and, regarding the moral person which constitutes the State as a persona ficta, because not a man, he may wish to enjoy the rights of citizenship without being ready to fulfill the duties of a subject. The continuance of such an injustice could not but prove the undoing of the body politic.

In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimizes civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuses.

The Civil State

The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked. Then only, when the voice of duty takes the place of physical impulses and right of appetite, does man, who so far had considered only himself, find that he is forced to act on different principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations. Although, in this state, he deprives himself of some advantages which he got from nature, he gains in return others so great, his faculties are so stimulated and developed, his ideas so extended, his feelings so ennobled, and his whole soul so uplifted, that, did not the abuses of this new condition often degrade him below that which he left, he would be bound to bless continually the happy moment which took him from it for ever, and, instead of a stupid and unimaginative animal, made him an intelligent being and a man.

A.Saturnus
06-07-2005, 19:56
And which nation would that be? European? Chinese? What would define that nation? That we are humans?
Yes.

Chinese don’t rule me no different then my neighbors do now. In a world’s democracy, they would have the saying, much more then they do now.
Your neighbours are not citizens of the nation you live in? They don't have a right to vote?

Every nation has cultural subgroups, various different minorities living within its borders. I know that I am listening jazz, working in the construction business and like Total War. That makes me different from any of my friends I know, but that doesn’t make me have more in common with a Chinese that also listens jazz, works in construction business and like Total War then with any of my neighbors. Vice-versa applies as well. This is my claim, and I have made a simple example, but one you can never deny. You can at least try.
I have no intention to do so. You don't need to be the same as your neighbours to live in peace with them in one nation. You don't need to be like the Chinese to live with them either. I never advocated homogenity.

Because nations are the expression of the people comprising them. Their history, culture and religion. Their traditions and their way of life. No one should oppress his/hers groups vision on how should another group/nation should live, develop and behave. My opinion of what freedom should be. You are actually proposing a worldwide dictatorship of proletariat.
~:confused: What I propose is a democracy on world wide scale. If that is a dictatorship of the proletariat, then you have to conclude that all western nations are Marxist.

I’m surly a greater fan of Star Trek then you, but this is too utopian for me none the less. If you disregard the recent outbreak of hostilities in China towards Japan, fine, but I remember how uneasy I felt, thinking that with a greater reason, war would not be an excluded option. North Korea shooting ballistic missiles over Japan. China probing the Japanese coastguard with their U-boats. India and Pakistan fighting over Kashmir, and at the verge of nuclear conflict for a long time. Recently there was a thread stating how many wars are being led at the moment, worldwide. Excuse me, but it doesn’t seem that we are anywhere near that Utopia you seem to expect to appear very soon.
Where did I say it will appear very soon. All I say is that we should long for the world to be like in Star Trek and try to make it so. And you disagree.

It seems, for example, in the case of the recent China/Japan conflict that hate easily erupts when no one expects it. Much easier then it should.
Unfortunately they didn't have Adenauer and De Gaulle.

Under that premise, Rome should have united the entire Europe a long time ago.
Rome conquered with the sword. That's the difference.

For someone who is a self-defined “metalhead”, you sound too much like John Lennon! He sang of peace too, and got shot.
Let me sing of peace too, when I get shot. That would be a good death.

But apperently we must vote the same?
You're laying words in my mouth. I have made clear that I have no problem with people voting as they want, only with the way these votes are counted.

Wow, Sat, that went under the belt. You are the good guy and I am the bad one. Well, I can live with that.
Sorry for stating the obvious ~;)
No, I know you're not the enemy, but if too many people believe it's not possible, like you, then it is not possible. I don't think you're the bad guy, you're just not as good is I am :saint:

It is more certainly that people will rebel against having to throw away what makes them unique for the sake of some global purposes. That will kill us.
Nobody should throw away what makes them unique.

You should have been a poet or a writer, Sat, and no psychiatrist, and I don’t mean it in an offensive way. Or is objectivity something that a psychiatrist must not take notice of?
Thank you, however that should be followed by a contentfull argument and not a sematic one. BTW, I'm not really a psychatrist.

Hence, the first of the EU treaties was about coal. Logically. I buy that as little as I’d buy the hypothesis that dealing with oil in Iraq is not about oil, but about establishing peace in that region.
So you say Kohl was lying? Maybe, but that wouldn't mean there wasn't idealization. Only not an honest one.

Burned Japanese cars and shuttered windows, demolished Japanese shops in China… Media let it appear so? Ahm, good…
We were talking about Europe. Asia comes later.

While I lived in Germany I have heard hundreds of stories of German scholars and students and their interaction with their French “counterparts:, most of them described it negatively. The French would not, for instance, ever even try to learn any German, and most often they would not want to speak English, even if they knew English. All conversations would have to be lead in French. More than once, the Germans would be described as Nazis as soon any heated debate would come up. Too bad they never met the same people you’ve met.
Maybe they have, but those stories are usually deemed less... entertaining.

And you make the impression with the comment above that you are all one big, happy family that doesn’t need any further binding.
Even happy families must take precautions.

A.Saturnus
06-07-2005, 20:03
Every 'superstate' so far has failed, except the US. The US is very different from previous superstates though, because the people don't (or to a lesser extent) identify with the place where they live.

Not so. Germany is also a "superstate". 1848 it was seperated like Europe. To unite it to one nation was deemed impossible by many. I agree that a superstate is by no means a garantee for peace though. It would be dangerous to think so.


The normal ones. When you look at the best newspapers only Trouw and NRC had a slightly bigger yes camp. Now these are hardly the people you meant I hope?

What if the "unnormal" ones outnumber the "normal" ones in Europe?


Rousseau is right,

Is that before or after he went mad?

bmolsson
06-08-2005, 03:38
Common market is a tool to generate money. :book:



Actually trade and commerce is the single most efficient force through history to create peace. Regardless if the participants of it have the intension or not to achieve peace...... ~:)

Voigtkampf
06-08-2005, 20:06
And which nation would that be? European? Chinese? What would define that nation? That we are humans?
Yes.

Yes to all five questions? ~:confused:

Human is a species, not a nation. We are already a species. I’m curious what that global nation would be like?


Chinese don’t rule me no different then my neighbors do now. In a world’s democracy, they would have the saying, much more then they do now.
Your neighbours are not citizens of the nation you live in? They don't have a right to vote?

I assumed you mean neighboring countries. I can’t believe you can make a statement that a Chinese would rule me no different than my first neighbor. How easily you sweep aside the cultural gaps between nations and people. :no:


Every nation has cultural subgroups, various different minorities living within its borders. I know that I am listening jazz, working in the construction business and like Total War. That makes me different from any of my friends I know, but that doesn’t make me have more in common with a Chinese that also listens jazz, works in construction business and like Total War then with any of my neighbors. Vice-versa applies as well. This is my claim, and I have made a simple example, but one you can never deny. You can at least try.
I have no intention to do so. You don't need to be the same as your neighbours to live in peace with them in one nation. You don't need to be like the Chinese to live with them either. I never advocated homogenity.

But you said


I claim that the differences within every nation are greater than those between.

And I disproved it with my statement. I never said a word about you propagating homogeneity. Oh, wait… Isn’t actually the main reason of your grief the fact that there was no homogeneity in the matter of EU constitution? ~:confused:

Basically, you can be whatever you want, you only need to vote the same way everyone else does. Ah, I get it now.


Because nations are the expression of the people comprising them. Their history, culture and religion. Their traditions and their way of life. No one should oppress his/hers groups vision on how should another group/nation should live, develop and behave. My opinion of what freedom should be. You are actually proposing a worldwide dictatorship of proletariat.
~:confused: What I propose is a democracy on world wide scale. If that is a dictatorship of the proletariat, then you have to conclude that all western nations are Marxist.

In that global democracy the mass of, say, Chinese would vote the most of the world’s parliament and redirect most of the, say, US and Japanese taxes on building up the China instead of other countries. Who would stop them in that? In a democracy, executive government appointed by representatives elected by the majority of the voters rules. Ergo, the dictatorship of the proletariat in democratic disguise.

This, or very similar, is how your world wide democracy would work. Before you reply with a simple “no” or “I disagree”, study the facts and the mechanisms of the democracy. Mind you, with this transfer of tax money to build up China instead of US or Japan in this fictional hypothesis, they wouldn’t even hurt anyone’s human rights.


I’m surly a greater fan of Star Trek then you, but this is too utopian for me none the less. If you disregard the recent outbreak of hostilities in China towards Japan, fine, but I remember how uneasy I felt, thinking that with a greater reason, war would not be an excluded option. North Korea shooting ballistic missiles over Japan. China probing the Japanese coastguard with their U-boats. India and Pakistan fighting over Kashmir, and at the verge of nuclear conflict for a long time. Recently there was a thread stating how many wars are being led at the moment, worldwide. Excuse me, but it doesn’t seem that we are anywhere near that Utopia you seem to expect to appear very soon.
Where did I say it will appear very soon. All I say is that we should long for the world to be like in Star Trek and try to make it so. And you disagree.

Of course, in the end, you’ve said… Even Yoda can’t see that far in the future! ~D


You say we should long for that world.

You give directives; I don’t. I never said “do not long for that”. You say try to make it.

You don’t ask anyone whether they want it or not. You boldly assume you know it best, for all the people.

And this is where we go apart. I say let each man and woman make their own decisions, even if we don’t like them or think they are wrong. :bow: That is freedom.

I, on the other hand, I’m not half as pretentious. I never said “you should not”.

I only disagree on the wisdom of such course of action. In plain words, for me it is just another version of hippies and summer of love. One big orgy, after which you sober up, take a job as a teacher and realize you are suddenly on “the other side”, and the world hasn’t changed a bit.



It seems, for example, in the case of the recent China/Japan conflict that hate easily erupts when no one expects it. Much easier then it should.
Unfortunately they didn't have Adenauer and De Gaulle.

No one has them any more. They are dead. So, we are royally… Ladies and gentlemen, Utopia has been delayed for indefinite time…


Under that premise, Rome should have united the entire Europe a long time ago.
Rome conquered with the sword. That's the difference.

Your premise is “once inside a border, it will unite those within”. That condition was given in Roman Empire, and it never united those within.

Also, more then once Rome has conquered with bribery and promises of a better future rather than with a sword.

The difference between Rome and EU is that the latter conquers not by the sword, but by the money.

Or you think all of the east European countries want to get into EU because of …love? Including Turkey?



For someone who is a self-defined “metalhead”, you sound too much like John Lennon! He sang of peace too, and got shot.
Let me sing of peace too, when I get shot. That would be a good death.

Truly poetic… You obviously miss the point; your poetry won’t help you against the gun.

I will, for one, speak softly and smile and carry a big frikin’ gun. Good deaths beyond that point will definitely not be mine.

Closing your eyes before the reality won’t make it go away.



But apperently we must vote the same?
You're laying words in my mouth. I have made clear that I have no problem with people voting as they want, only with the way these votes are counted.

As far as I know, no irregularities with the counting of the voices were reported… :book: So, wherein lies your problem then?


Wow, Sat, that went under the belt. You are the good guy and I am the bad one. Well, I can live with that. :cowboy:
Sorry for stating the obvious ~;)
No, I know you're not the enemy, but if too many people believe it's not possible, like you, then it is not possible. I don't think you're the bad guy, you're just not as good is I am :saint:

Or not just as…romantically disillusioned as you? ~;)


It is more certainly that people will rebel against having to throw away what makes them unique for the sake of some global purposes. That will kill us.
Nobody should throw away what makes them unique.

Then Germans, French and Chinese shouldn’t throw their nations and countries away, because that is something that makes them significantly who they are. :bow: So, at the end, we do agree. ~;)


You should have been a poet or a writer, Sat, and no psychiatrist, and I don’t mean it in an offensive way. Or is objectivity something that a psychiatrist must not take notice of?
Thank you, however that should be followed by a contentfull argument and not a sematic one. BTW, I'm not really a psychatrist.

You stated


You're mistaken. The common market was a tool to generate peace.

My reply was “contentful”; making the claim that common market generates peace is as laughably false as it is romantically idealized. Each market has primarily economical purposes, and you don’t need college education to realize that. I sometimes fail to see how you are able to stay fully earnest while stating something so logically and objectively distorted that makes me wonder if you ever take one second to think about the contortions you undertake to support your case.

You are studying psychiatry, so I took myself the liberty to raise you somewhat in ranks before you actually have that title.


Hence, the first of the EU treaties was about coal. Logically. I buy that as little as I’d buy the hypothesis that dealing with oil in Iraq is not about oil, but about establishing peace in that region.
So you say Kohl was lying? Maybe, but that wouldn't mean there wasn't idealization. Only not an honest one.

Now you are putting words in mouth. Kohl was making EU propaganda, that’s all. The first EU treaty, IIRC, was signed between Germany and France, and it didn’t carry the title in the lines of “Common Declaration on the Human Rights of Europeans” but it was rather a treaty on how to improve the coal extraction/trade processes. When I sign a contract with someone, I know that I might become friends with that person (I mostly do), but I never lose from my sight that we are communicating in the first line because of our economical interests, and not because we love each other so. That line of objectivity you obviously miss, and Kohl & co of politicus corpus ignore for purposes of propaganda.


Burned Japanese cars and shuttered windows, demolished Japanese shops in China… Media let it appear so? Ahm, good…
We were talking about Europe. Asia comes later.

Ok then… Bomb explosions in Spain (ETA) and North Ireland (IRA)? Neo-Nazi protests in Germany? See, we can talk Europe too…


While I lived in Germany I have heard hundreds of stories of German scholars and students and their interaction with their French “counterparts:, most of them described it negatively. The French would not, for instance, ever even try to learn any German, and most often they would not want to speak English, even if they knew English. All conversations would have to be lead in French. More than once, the Germans would be described as Nazis as soon any heated debate would come up. Too bad they never met the same people you’ve met.
Maybe they have, but those stories are usually deemed less... entertaining.

And maybe they haven’t. At all. Or maybe the bad stories simply…outweighed the good ones?


And you make the impression with the comment above that you are all one big, happy family that doesn’t need any further binding.
Even happy families must take precautions.

You don’t tend to fix anything that is not broken.

A.Saturnus
06-09-2005, 22:47
These posts get a bit long, we should focus on the important parts. So sorry that I don't reply to everything. If you think something needs addressing, restate it.


And I disproved it with my statement. I never said a word about you propagating homogeneity. Oh, wait… Isn’t actually the main reason of your grief the fact that there was no homogeneity in the matter of EU constitution?

No it isn't (see above and below). And you didn't disprove anything. That a Chinese who shares some qualities with you isn't necessarily more similar to you doesn't mean there aren't people in your national group that differ from you more than that Chinese. There are Americans that differ from each other more than the average American from the average Chinese. Similarly, it is a fact that the genetic diversity within ethnic groups is higher than those between them, but that doesn't mean that a person from another ethnic group needs to be surprisingly similar to you. Of course, the differences we speak about are harder to quantify than genetic ones. If you insist that nationality alone counts as such big a difference that other properties have no chance to equal it out...


Basically, you can be whatever you want, you only need to vote the same way everyone else does. Ah, I get it now.

No, you obviously don't. For the third time, no I don't insist that anyone votes the same. Everyone can vote what he or she wants. I have no problem with that, honestly.



In that global democracy the mass of, say, Chinese would vote the most of the world’s parliament and redirect most of the, say, US and Japanese taxes on building up the China instead of other countries. Who would stop them in that? In a democracy, executive government appointed by representatives elected by the majority of the voters rules. Ergo, the dictatorship of the proletariat in democratic disguise.

Are you claiming that this happens in every democracy? Do the Californians use the taxpayer to build up California? In the EU, the country with the highest population finances the whole thing! I think you will find that in most democracies, the majority do not draw all money to them. I see no reason why what you describe should happen.


You don’t ask anyone whether they want it or not. You boldly assume you know it best, for all the people.

Again, entirely not what I said. Or rather, that's pretty much exactly the opposite of what I said. On page three:

If the people of Europe decide that they don't want what I want, ok, I will accept that readily.


Then Germans, French and Chinese shouldn’t throw their nations and countries away, because that is something that makes them significantly who they are. So, at the end, we do agree.

No, look when Bavaria became part of Germany, the Bavarians didn't stop being Bavarians. They still have that cultural identity. You don't stop being what you are because your country becomes part of a bigger administrative body. I'm all for federalism.


My reply was “contentful”; making the claim that common market generates peace is as laughably false as it is romantically idealized. Each market has primarily economical purposes, and you don’t need college education to realize that. I sometimes fail to see how you are able to stay fully earnest while stating something so logically and objectively distorted that makes me wonder if you ever take one second to think about the contortions you undertake to support your case.

It was not a contentful argument. Saying that my position is false, romatically idealized, "objectively distorted" and ridiculous is an opinion, not an argument. The first treaty was about coal, but that's irrelevant. A market has primarily economical purposes for those who participate in that market. That includes neither Kohl, Adenauer, De Gaulle nor me. Those who create that market may have entirely different motives.
Some of the most important figures in the European Integration have stated that the main intent of it is to create peace. Ok, you don't have to believe them, but that to say that there's no idealization is evidently false.


You are studying psychiatry, so I took myself the liberty to raise you somewhat in ranks before you actually have that title.

No, I don't. I study psychology.


Truly poetic… You obviously miss the point; your poetry won’t help you against the gun.

It already does...


As far as I know, no irregularities with the counting of the voices were reported… So, wherein lies your problem then?

Wait, I'll draw you a picture.

bmolsson
06-10-2005, 03:31
Then Germans, French and Chinese shouldn’t throw their nations and countries away, because that is something that makes them significantly who they are. :bow:


I do believe the Mongolians will disagree on that...... ~D

Voigtkampf
06-10-2005, 15:12
Honestly, Sat, I like you, and you know that, so this is nothing personal, but looking at your replies I had to laugh and stare in wonder, than laugh again. :laugh4: Well, even if I drew some bad blood, my day was complete. ~;)

You pull it off to say one thing and deny having it said it the very next post. You twist everything out of place, and keep twisting it again. You never question your position, do you? A friendly advice - do it sometimes. Not for mine, but for your own sake.

I also agree that the posts length got out of hand; I focused on everything you said and haven’t picked only the spots I felt I could easily confront.


There are Americans that differ from each other more than the average American from the average Chinese.

Probably. But it should be obvious that those are a extreme minority. Name a hypothetical example where an American differs so much from another American and I will beat it to ground easily by instantly counting dozen examples which that American has in common with all of the Americans and not with any Chinese.


I claim that the differences within every nation are greater than those between.

This was your initial statement; prove it if you can. I have never heard any scientist or a scholar of any profession saying something like this. I’m curious upon what conclusions, other then your own whimsical beliefs, you base this statement on.


Similarly, it is a fact that the genetic diversity within ethnic groups is higher than those between them, but that doesn't mean that a person from another ethnic group needs to be surprisingly similar to you.

So, Bavarians are genetically more similar to a Chinese then to, say, people from Westphalia? I suppose you have a research to back that up ready to be linked to? I would be interested in that research very much.


Of course, the differences we speak about are harder to quantify than genetic ones. If you insist that nationality alone counts as such big a difference that other properties have no chance to equal it out...

Nationality is a sum of traits that a certain group of people posses, not a single trait. Together, those traits (culture, tradition, religion) outweigh the similarities between various groups of people. Or do you think that our, say, favor for the same music type outweighs ethic, moral and cultural specifics within a group? If you do, then there is no point of debating.


For the third time, no I don't insist that anyone votes the same. Everyone can vote what he or she wants. I have no problem with that, honestly.

But you did bend out of shape and began posting here exactly because you didn’t like how a certain country and nation voted, haven’t you? I won’t quote your posts, it suffices to scroll up.


Are you claiming that this happens in every democracy?

Yes.


Do the Californians use the taxpayer to build up California?

Of course. But let us take another example, France for instance (I’m not well familiar with the US tax system). Money of the French taxpayers is used in France for the need of the French people. Or are Italians perhaps paying for the , say, French public services, French police and firefighters?


In the EU, the country with the highest population finances the whole thing!

EU is a union of countries, and not one country (at least not yet) and the working functions of a single country, like your global country would be, do not apply.


I think you will find that in most democracies, the majority do not draw all money to them. I see no reason why what you describe should happen.
I think you will find that in most of democracies…Hell, in ALL of them, there is a nation behind that specific democracy. That nation has interests. Take away the states, but Chinese will still remain Chinese, French will remain French et cetera. Those nations will still have interests, and orientate on their standards, principals, morals and perceptions on how life should be.

The government that is being created by those voted into parliament draws all money wherever it wants. Hence, the majority has the saying. Unlike a nation state, you would have well established groups (nations) within a global community voting for their own representatives that will direct the flow of money to their groups.

If you cannot comprehend the reasoning behind it, I can’t help you, but if you do not agree, show me a mechanism that would stop, say, Chinese in that hypothetical global democracy of yours to direct all the money they want for their own services, rebuilding of the countries infrastructure and alike while cutting severely or completely that flow of funds towards the countries they wouldn’t like?



Again, entirely not what I said. Or rather, that's pretty much exactly the opposite of what I said.



You say we should long for that world.

You give directives; I don’t. I never said “do not long for that”. You say try to make it.

You don’t ask anyone whether they want it or not. You boldly assume you know it best, for all the people.



Again, entirely not what I said. Or rather, that's pretty much exactly the opposite of what I said.

Post made on 06-07-2005, 18:56, number 89 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=804881&postcount=89)


All I say is that we should long for the world to be like in Star Trek and try to make it so.

Au contraire, mon ami. It is exactly what you said.

Now, how could I expect to have a reasonable debate with you if you are doing contortions that would shame the best Asian circus artists? ~D If you can honestly say “I didn’t say that at all” where all we need is to back up a page and prove you wrong, then it should be obvious that no reason will ever work with you.


The first treaty was about coal, but that's irrelevant.

:stunned:


A market has primarily economical purposes for those who participate in that market.That includes neither Kohl, Adenauer, De Gaulle nor me.

Considering in how many boards of gargantuan ~;) conglomerations they and their party buddies were, your analysis is quite naïve.


Those who create that market may have entirely different motives.

May. But that is mere speculation on your part. It cannot be proved. Market serves economical purposes. Everything else is secondary. Claiming that a market primarily serves to generate peace (which is, btw, already there!) is the gross example of idealization on work, to put it mildly.


Some of the most important figures in the European Integration have stated that the main intent of it is to create peace.

As I already said, there was peace already. If they want to generate peace, let them accept Chechnya into EU as well. I don't see that happening, though.


Ok, you don't have to believe them, but that to say that there's no idealization is evidently false.

:stunned:

There is too much idealization; where did I say anything else? Idealizing the common market as a “tool of peace”? Imho, there is way too much idealization, but unfortunately for the EU founding fathers, less and less of it within the EU population.



Truly poetic… You obviously miss the point; your poetry won’t help you against the gun.



It already does...

:stunned:

Tell me, when was the last time you overwhelmed an armed attacker by quoting poetry?



You're laying words in my mouth. I have made clear that I have no problem with people voting as they want, only with the way these votes are counted.



As far as I know, no irregularities with the counting of the voices were reported… So, wherein lies your problem then?



Wait, I'll draw you a picture.

Good. Your drawing is hopefully better than your argumentation. ~D

A.Saturnus
06-13-2005, 16:37
Sorry for the late answer, but I was half-way through yesterday when my PC crashed. In addition I had an exam today so it took all a bit longer. Now, the first draft had quite a number of puns and digs and lots of sarcasm. But this time I decided to leave that all aside and just stay to the point. I think the discussion will profit from that.


You never question your position, do you? A friendly advice - do it sometimes. Not for mine, but for your own sake.

Thank you for the advice but I question my position regularly. I'm willing to discuss every point in detail. Now, of course, this is politics, though arguments will not have the same level of rigour that is attainable for philosophical or scientific discussions. That is why I'm less enthusiast about discussiong politics.


So, Bavarians are genetically more similar to a Chinese then to, say, people from Westphalia? I suppose you have a research to back that up ready to be linked to? I would be interested in that research very much.

No, that is not what I'm implying. You're comparing averages while I'm talking about variances. Bavarians are more equal to Westphalians than to Chinese because all genetic differences except ethnic group are evened out. The point is rather that it would be possible to group the same people into categories that that have less variance while containing Caucasian and Chinese. A straight forward example would by Caucasian&Chinese men vs. Caucasian&Chinese women. You will find some more elaboration on the issue here: race (http://www.newsreel.org/guides/race/whatdiff.htm)
For ethnic groups this is a well established scienetific fact, for nationality it is a claim on my side and I admit I cannot prove it. However, everyone with a background in intercultural psychology should aknowledge that it's not an absurd claim. The difficulty if it is of course the quantification.



Nationality is a sum of traits that a certain group of people posses, not a single trait. Together, those traits (culture, tradition, religion) outweigh the similarities between various groups of people. Or do you think that our, say, favor for the same music type outweighs ethic, moral and cultural specifics within a group? If you do, then there is no point of debating.

This is not correct. Nationality is not the sum of traits. It is not even a trait. It is an external person characteristic. To be a sub of nationality the traits (BTW, non of which is a trait in the narrow definition of the term) you speak of would have to be invariant within and variant between nationality. This is obviously not the case.


But you did bend out of shape and began posting here exactly because you didn’t like how a certain country and nation voted, haven’t you? I won’t quote your posts, it suffices to scroll up.

Of course, I'm not happy that the Dutch have voted against what I consider preferable. But should I have said that they don't have the right to decide as they want, place do quote.


I think you will find that in most of democracies…Hell, in ALL of them, there is a nation behind that specific democracy. That nation has interests. Take away the states, but Chinese will still remain Chinese, French will remain French et cetera. Those nations will still have interests, and orientate on their standards, principals, morals and perceptions on how life should be.

How is that different from regions within a nation? Since you claim that the part with the highest population draws money to itself in every democracy, I would like to see evidence. The state in Germany with the highest population is Nordrhein-Westfalen. As far as I know, it is one of the states that gives more to other states than it receives. That seems to contradict your thesis.
Concerning your question how something like it could be prevented, the answer is by a democratic decision. In a global democracy, the Chinese will not have an absolute majority. The rest of the world can - as a block - easily overrule the Chinese.

Now, concerning the perceived contradiction in what I said.


All I say is that we should long for the world to be like in Star Trek and try to make it so.

If the people of Europe decide that they don't want what I want, ok, I will accept that readily.

You claim that these two sentences contradict each other?? Sorry, but I cannot follow you. The first sentence states what is the desirable direction to me, the second states that I wouldn't force it on anyone. That seems entirely consistent to me. Therefore I must insist that your claim "You don’t ask anyone whether they want it or not. You boldly assume you know it best, for all the people. is incorrect.
Are these other "twists" I am supposed to have made like that?


There is too much idealization; where did I say anything else? Idealizing the common market as a “tool of peace”? Imho, there is way too much idealization, but unfortunately for the EU founding fathers, less and less of it within the EU population.


Ah, here I misunderstood you, it seems. Sorry. You said why idealize?. I have taken that as a question why I am idealizing something that has not been idealized before.
Well, obviously I disagree with you that there's too much idealization but that's of course a matter of opinion. I do not think though that one can say that the peace was already there. The proces of European Integration began shortly after the war and since then we have the longest period of peace in Western Europe since about thousand years. Of course, the Cold War undoubtly played a major role in that but in other parts of the world the proces is not so far (China/Japan). That is no proof of course, but with the limited validity of sociohistoric data, we can say that European Integration was very succesful.



Tell me, when was the last time you overwhelmed an armed attacker by quoting poetry?

Just last week. Some mugger with a knife wanted to rob me. I recited Umbra Vitae by Georg Heym and he broke down crying. Just kidding. No, of course I meant that metaphorically. It would take too long to explain and I'm not sure you would understand.


As far as I know, no irregularities with the counting of the voices were reported… So, wherein lies your problem then?

Ok, this is my complain:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v478/Saturnus/election.jpg

You see that there are the same amounts of black and red dots in every square. Let every dot be a vote for the red or black party. It does now depend how we separate the votes for counting. In the square left above we have five districts and to get the final results we count who won most districts. Black wins in four of them while red only in one. So black wins in total. In the square left below, we have rather a different result. Red wins two districts out of three and black only one. So red wins. In the square right, there are no districts, all votes are counted apart. Since black has 12 votes to red's 10, black wins. So different ways to count the votes yield different results. We can ask us which way of counting is the most democratic. It would appear to me that the method right is the best. What I was complaining about in this thread, is that the decision about the Constitution is very much different from that.

bmolsson
06-14-2005, 05:03
So different ways to count the votes yield different results. We can ask us which way of counting is the most democratic.


That explains why so many politicians today actually get elected, despite the flaws..... ~D