It's hard not to become a Euro sceptic

[Andres]

Euro MPs vote 1,500-euro monthly raise for office expenses. (http://msn.finance.com.my/index.php/rss/4683372)


Lawmakers in the 736-member European Parliament voted Thursday to give themselves an extra 1,500 euros each per month for staff and office expenses, a decision the Greens slammed as "wrong-headed" in a time of austerity.

The decision will increase the overall parliament budget by almost 13.25 million euros this year.

Greens budgetary spokeswoman Helga Truepel said lawmakers were "clearly out of touch with fiscal realities" and said the "irresponsible vote sends completely the wrong signal" to cash-strapped people across the continent.

The decision was backed by Euro MPs from the left and the right of the European political spectrum.

European Union institutions have been locked in a losing battle with the bloc's 27 member states, which successfully chopped in half a planned increase for 2011 under pressure from British Prime Minister David Cameron.

The states are also pushing for inflation-only increases over the remainder of the decade, with huge cuts sought in operating expenses for the EU's myriad institutions in the 2012 budget, affecting trips, meetings and research regularly criticised by eurosceptics for ploughing millions into securing commonsense conclusions.

EU administrative costs for 2011 are expected to hit 8.3 billion euros, or 5.7 percent of a total budget running to 126.5 billion euros.

European Parliament MPs are paid 7,956.87 euros gross per month, with another 19,709 euros already set aside before the increase for staff and other office expenses.

The parliament meanwhile said it "should" restrict its own budget in 2012, entering a "consolidation phase" with no increase in 2012 beyond inflation.

"We must not exceed inflation... We would like a savings budget," said Portuguese conservative Jose Manuel Fernandes, who is leading parliament preparations for its 2012 sums.

It's not like their current wages were something to complain about, hm?

So, that's the signal our European MP's are giving to the general public.

Good to know that the part of my tax money that goes to Europe is being well spent.

:thumbsdown:

[Fragony]

FASCIST!

Why is there doubt, in your heart

(and ot well yeah)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yeah, well....MEPs need a salary and they need to have a staff. This itself is not a problem. Their expenses are in line with the European standard. Slightly lower than the costs of British or Italian parliamentarians, slightly higher than those of Sweden or France.

It is of questionable timing to increase expenses in the current austere climate. That's just a pr disaster. Frankly telling of the autism of the European Parliament.
Then again, these increases have been in the pipeline for almost a decade. The Lisbon Treaty increases the tasks and responsibilities of the European Parliament, thus there was always going to be an increase in expenses and facilities. These had to be delayed in order for the Lisbon Treaty to be ratified and implemented.



Europe should cut costs of the EP. Not so by any wages of MEPs, but by ending the monthly exodus to Strasbourg, by decreasing the amount of MEPs, and by limiting the amount of languages spoken. Working languages ought to be reduced to just one. Obviously, French, the language of Bruxelles. The EP is in favour of forcing the unemployed to search for jobs abroad, expecting them to simply aquire the foreign language of the country of the job on offer. Obviously, the MEPs will want to set the right example. Their being on the whole very well qualified, it should be no problem for them to do what they would have an unemployed fifty year old steel worker do.



Good to know that the part of my tax money that goes to Europe is being well spent.

:thumbsdown:Technically, it is not your tax money at all. It is everybody else's tax money. This is because the money will be spend in Brussels, on Brussels offices, taxis, hotels, staff. Belgium is gaining financially from this, and Andres' taxes will go down because of it.

Once more it is shown that the EU is nothing but a covert pan-European power grab by our Belgae overlords. :idea2:

[InsaneApache]

Give it up Louis. You know it's time to turn to the dark side. :disguise:

[Furunculus]

"Re: It's hard not to become a Euro sceptic"

really? i have never found it to be much of s struggle.

[Brenus]

Well, I see nothing strange in raising their salaries…

The actual European Union is built on a fraud is lead by Conserva-thieves (US)/Liberals (EU) that are keen to use taxpayers’ money for their own good. All the recommendations issued by this body are in favour of taking money from the poor to give to the rich.
From selling national enterprises built by ours ancestors (with their money) to the “market” (read: their friends, relatives and families), restraining the democratic right of the population (when it is not denying it as for the Treaty of Lisbon) to the obligation for the states to borrow money on the “market” (read: the Private Banks, yes, the same that were bailed out with the taxpayers’ money) at a rate fixed by a office controlled by the banks, all is done to sell Europeans to the market.
And the most funny things is the Banksters will borrow the money from the European Central Bank at around 0 % and impose a rate up to 14 % based on their evaluation of the country economy and, of course, policies

Few examples:
The un-elected body (the Commission) will first see if the budget of each nation matches with the Stability Pact. If not if will be automatic penalties. The fact is Finances are not in the EC’s field of action but are still the Countries’ prerogatives. But hey, who cares?
To impose the automatism of the penalties (this is too openly not democratic) they want to introduce a “rule of inverse majority”. All right, if 2/3 of the assembly doesn’t vote against the sanctions will be imposed.
Simple: In casual language if 2/3 of the Parliament doesn’t oppose a law, the law is passed…
That is a new democracy marching for you…

Europe can yet decide to put penalties on Countries if they don’t follow the rules imposed by the European Central Bank (28/10/2010 directive)…
So, if an elected Government want to increase the minimum wage and the Director of the European Central Bank decides it is against the “rules”, poof, penalties fall upon it.
And this even if the country’s economy is in good health. It is a matter of rules.
Of course, the un-elected Commission will decide who break the rules, following vague “guide lines” or “economical indicators” whatever it means.

So, de facto, the Conserva-thieve (US)/Liberal (EU) Europe is enforcing rules to prevent more progressive/left Governments to act on their proposals. It is a constant effort to dismantle and destroy the Social Right and Protection gained by the past generations under the pretext of “modernisation” and “realism” and “market laws”.
They disguised this return to the 19th Century under new vocabulary. “Self employed” for daily workers, “Big Society” for no more Protection from the State for the weak and the poor etc.
Their favourite tactic is to change the words meaning.
The “rigidities” are always what protects the workers, pensioners and employees. This just follows blindly the IFM policies, policies that never ever work but are still the Conserva-thieves (US)/ Liberals (EU)’s economical Bible.
To get money when you lose your job will become an allowance to push people to find a job (basically guys, if you loose your job and don’t find one, it is because you are a lazy scrounger) and linked to your effort to find one or a formation. Forgetting of course that you paid for this “right” when you were working…
And, of course, Hedge Funds will become the rules for Pension, as they are so efficient to make money and disappear.
All this good money out of the “Private” sector, so close, so tempting and still so far, out of reach… The “democratic” Europe has to do something about it and give he money to its legitimate owners, the Rich.

I was, and still, a Pro-European. I still believe in a democratic Europe. But, with the imposition against the will of countries (in which 2 of the founders of the EU – France and Holland) of the European Constitution camouflaged in the Lisbon Treaty, the EU is going of the road of a soft fascist state where all opposition to the rules imposed by an economical model will be banned by “laws”.

[Andres]

Yeah, well....MEPs need a salary and they need to have a staff. This itself is not a problem.

Oh, they need staff? And what are those legions of European Civil Servants for?? To play with their thumbs while the poor MEPs use their own money to hire people who actually work?

Civil Servants who, btw and completely aside because it's of course "populism", don't have to pay taxes in my country but pay some joke of a Eurotax instead.


Their expenses are in line with the European standard. Slightly lower than the costs of British or Italian parliamentarians, slightly higher than those of Sweden or France.

I don't know about Parliamentarians abroad, but those in Belgium, and we have legions of those (all coming from with nepotism infested political families, or should we just call a spade a spade an call them the new Belgian nobility and, why not, abolish this so called democracy and make seats in Belgian parliaments (all 5 (or is it 6 or 7?)) hereditary; also absenteism gallore in our Parliaments!), get extraordinary wages, at least by the standards of the common taxpayer (maybe not in comparison with other highly paid nitwits). 20 years in Belgian Parliament is also considered to be a full career and gives them the right to get a full pension, which is about 3 or 4times the max pension of a common employee. Not to mention all others bonuses and benefits these clowns get. But I digress, it's not about Belgian robber gangs here.

So, no, Louis, European MEPs getting similar salaries and gifts as other shameless grabbers of taxmoney is not exactly a justification in my book.


It is of questionable timing to increase expenses in the current austere climate. That's just a pr disaster.

Questionable timing? You sound like an old school CVP member now. "Questionable timing"? What's next? "They should look into it and address the issue" and then form a Commission?

It's not "questionable timing"; it's spitting and slapping in the face of the common man who pays his taxes and at the same time showing him the middlefinger and laughing in his face.


Frankly telling of the autism of the European Parliament.

Autism? It's not autism. They know very well what they're doing.

It's a level of arrogance that makes you wonder if the electric chair is punishment enough for them.


Then again, these increases have been in the pipeline for almost a decade. The Lisbon Treaty increases the tasks and responsibilities of the European Parliament, thus there was always going to be an increase in expenses and facilities. These had to be delayed in order for the Lisbon Treaty to be ratified and implemented.

Oh yeah, the treaty they used to sneakily impose a constitution the general public doesn't want. The general public being those same taxpayers that are now being spit at by their representatives.



Europe should cut costs of the EP. Not so by any wages of MEPs, but by ending the monthly exodus to Strasbourg, by decreasing the amount of MEPs, and by limiting the amount of languages spoken. Working languages ought to be reduced to just one.

Oh no, we're not going to cut in the wages of MEPs. Oh no, the idea alone!!! Just like all politicians, they tell the people that they'll have to do extra efforts to get the EU out of the crisis, but of course, our benevolent politicians won't do a bit of effort themselves. What horrible thoughts! A politician cutting in his own salary! Who do those petty taxpayers think they are.

In France, they used to chop off the heads of the classes who thought like that.



Obviously, French, the language of Bruxelles.

Thnx for the cheap provocation. English will do. And if it really has to be the language of Bruxelles, then you'll have to learn Arabic.



Technically, it is not your tax money at all. It is everybody else's tax money. This is because the money will be spend in Brussels, on Brussels offices, taxis, hotels, staff. Belgium is gaining financially from this, and Andres' taxes will go down because of it.

And housing prices in the region where Andres wants to live reach the sky, because of civil servants who don't have to pay the same taxes as Andres and the taxes they pay, don't even go to the country that is so kind to have them as guests.

:thumbsdown:


Once more it is shown that the EU is nothing but a covert pan-European power grab by our Belgae overlords. :idea2:

Europe should stop seeing Belgium as an example.

[InsaneApache]

I was, and still, a Pro-European. I still believe in a democratic Europe. But, with the imposition against the will of countries (in which 2 of the founders of the EU – France and Holland) of the European Constitution camouflaged in the Lisbon Treaty, the EU is going of the road of a soft fascist state where all opposition to the rules imposed by an economical model will be banned by “laws”.

I too used to be committed to the EEC but then it changed. To the EC. Then it changed again. To the EU. That's not what we signed up for. Give it time and everyone who doesn't work for the bastards will hate them and all their works....

[HoreTore]

Pocket change.

I don't care at all.

[InsaneApache]

Pocket change.

I don't care at all.

I wonder why? :laugh4:

[HoreTore]

I wonder why? :laugh4:

Because the sum is so tiny its completely irrelevant. Like whining over an EU MP not picking up a 50-cent coin he lost.

[InsaneApache]

Oh and I was thinking it was because you don't have to pay towards it! :laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh and I was thinking it was because you don't have to pay towards it! :laugh4:Europe provides such stellar regulation and beneficial services, that even non-members Switzerland and Norway pay substantial contributions.

HT does pay towards this, even if Norway is not an EU member. Taxation without representation, as it were.


*fingers around in Andres' wallet, checking for lose change*

[InsaneApache]

That's great. Didn't know that. What a brilliant Ponzi scheme. I wonder who thought that one up, pure genius.

[HoreTore]

Oh and I was thinking it was because you don't have to pay towards it! :laugh4:

What Louis said.

We pay the EU money, and the EU trades with us like we were a member. We also adopt all the rules, regulations and standardizations the EU comes up with, mostly because a tiny export country like us craves standardization.

[Louis VI the Fat]

That's great. Didn't know that. What a brilliant Ponzi scheme. I wonder who thought that one up, pure genius.Why, Norway and Switzerland did, of course. The EU is so benefitial to members that even non-members want to share in it. Have you got any idea how valuable European legislation and regulation is to Norway? Most of what is decided in Brussels is adopted instantly in Oslo. I say we ought to get a good deal more contribution form Norway than we are currently receiving. Although on the upside, we get to decide Norwegian policy in this manner. An oversees colony, as it were.



*checks legal possibilities to tax the piggy bank of Andres jr. *

[Furunculus]

Few examples:
The un-elected body (the Commission) will first see if the budget of each nation matches with the Stability Pact. If not if will be automatic penalties. The fact is Finances are not in the EC’s field of action but are still the Countries’ prerogatives. But hey, who cares?
To impose the automatism of the penalties (this is too openly not democratic) they want to introduce a “rule of inverse majority”. All right, if 2/3 of the assembly doesn’t vote against the sanctions will be imposed.
Simple: In casual language if 2/3 of the Parliament doesn’t oppose a law, the law is passed…
That is a new democracy marching for you…

I was, and still, a Pro-European. I still believe in a democratic Europe. But, with the imposition against the will of countries (in which 2 of the founders of the EU – France and Holland) of the European Constitution camouflaged in the Lisbon Treaty, the EU is going of the road of a soft fascist state where all opposition to the rules imposed by an economical model will be banned by “laws”.

welcome to the EU, a kratos that can never be legitimate because there is no unified demos whose collective will it can represent, an entity whose only possible response to its impossible task is to create glorious fudges that represent the will of no-one and then seek to make itself ever more remote from the people it claims to represent to shield itself from their fury.

[Louis VI the Fat]

welcome to the EU, a kratos that can never be legitimate because there is no unified demos whose collective will it can represent, an entity whose only possible response to its impossible task is to create glorious fudges that represent the will of no-one and then seek to make itself ever more remote from the people it claims to represent to shield itself from their fury.No, there is no collective will indeed. This is not some democratic deficit, but the very object, the very rationale for democracy. There is no collective wil because we are not North Korea. European democracy is made up of individuals. We are all different, with competing, sometimes conflicting and sometimes conversing wishes.

Outside of the ant colony and communist propaganda there is no 'unified will of the people'. See, to me, that is totalitarianism, the wish for a state that represents some imaginary unified will of a people. Give me liberal democracy and individuality any day, and bless the EU for spreading and protecting it across this cursed continent.



*doublechecks Andres' pockets for any remaining coins*

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well at least this week the EU is acused of fascism (Andres, Frags), instead of the more common communism. With some luck it'll be the 'European Islamofascist Union' next week, although I'm really hoping for 'mEUssolini Syndicalist Union'.


And all that for the EP voting to implement extra funds for staff to cope with the expanded workload the Lisbon Treaty put on the EP.



Well, I see nothing strange in raising their salaries… They didn't. The staff got a raise in salaries, not MEPs. You know, the people working for 2000 euros a month. They get a wage increase.



*steals the favourite toy of Andres jr*

[InsaneApache]

There was I thinking that communism and fascism were two cheeks of the same arse. One picks on everyone, equally; whilst t'other like to pick and choose a bit more.

A bit like Woolworths.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, there is no collective will indeed. This is not some democratic deficit, but the very object, the very rationale for democracy. There is no collective wil because we are not North Korea. European democracy is made up of individuals. We are all different, with competing, sometimes conflicting and sometimes conversing wishes.

Outside of the ant colony and communist propaganda there is no 'unified will of the people'. See, to me, that is totalitarianism, the wish for a state that represents some imaginary unified will of a people. Give me liberal democracy and individuality any day, and bless the EU for spreading and protecting it across this cursed continent.



*doublechecks Andres' pockets for any remaining coins*

Nonsense and you know it. Any functional Polis must be homogemous in outlook and aspiration in order to be effective, in a democratic system minorities are automatically oppressed - so you all have to be (mostly) the same for it to work.

The EU oblisously isn't a democracy because the majority (nominally Eurosceptic) is being oppressed.

As it isn't a dictatorship it must be an oligarchy with a democratic sop.

ergo, it is the Roman Republic.

Ave Res Publica!

[Louis VI the Fat]

in a democratic system minorities are automatically oppressed No. No, the measure of democracy, it's true worth, is that in a democracy no minority is oppressed. Democracy means the exact opposite of its common definition: democracy is not majority rule, but minority rights. The entire point of clumsy, cumbersome democracy is that the voices of all are heard, that no majority can trample any minority, that even a minority consisting of one sibngle person still enjoys rights.



As it isn't a dictatorship it must be an oligarchy with a democratic sop.

ergo, it is the Roman Republic.As I am not a bird I must be a frog.

A frog is green. The Amazon rainforest is green. Ergo, I am the Amazon rainforest.




*increases taxes to hire the extra staff needed to cope with the extra workload of this increased taxation*

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No. No, the measure of democracy, it's true worth, is that in a democracy no minority is oppressed. Democracy means the exact opposite of its common definition: democracy is not majority rule, but minority rights. The entire point of clumsy, cumbersome democracy is that the voices of all are heard, that no majority can trample any minority, that even a minority consisting of one sibngle person still enjoys rights.

No, that would be French Republicanism, and it would be great if that system worked. Democracy is rule of the people by majority vote, it's what Switzerland has, which is why Switzerland banned minarets almost by accident.



As I am not a bird I must be a frog.

A frog is green. The Amazon rainforest is green. Ergo, I am the Amazon rainforest.

The EU is an oligarchy ruled by a distant elite who consider themselves to be above the Plebs and not truly answerable to them; but because they fear the mob we have assemblies and mock-tribunes.

Sounds pretty Roman to me - pretty sure the Senate never signed off on the Emperor's accounts either.




*increases taxes to hire the extra staff needed to cope with the extra workload of this increased taxation*

[Furunculus]

No, that would be French Republicanism, and it would be great if that system worked. Democracy is rule of the people by majority vote, it's what Switzerland has, which is why Switzerland banned minarets almost by accident.

The EU is an oligarchy ruled by a distant elite who consider themselves to be above the Plebs and not truly answerable to them; but because they fear the mob we have assemblies and mock-tribunes.

Sounds pretty Roman to me - pretty sure the Senate never signed off on the Emperor's accounts either.

maybe louis would find himself better served by a roman republic in france, for failing to represent the will of the majority is causing Marine le-Pen's party to poll higher than either Sarkozy's bunch or the main socialist grouping.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8364812/Marine-Le-Pen-would-beat-Nicolas-Sarkozy-in-presidential-election.html

[Andres]

No, there is no collective will indeed. This is not some democratic deficit, but the very object, the very rationale for democracy. There is no collective wil because we are not North Korea. European democracy is made up of individuals. We are all different, with competing, sometimes conflicting and sometimes conversing wishes.

Outside of the ant colony and communist propaganda there is no 'unified will of the people'. See, to me, that is totalitarianism, the wish for a state that represents some imaginary unified will of a people. Give me liberal democracy and individuality any day, and bless the EU for spreading and protecting it across this cursed continent.


Oh, cut the patronising rhetoric already.

In the countries that were coureagous enough to organise a referendum, the population said no to the European constitution. I think you know very well what the result in most other countries would have been, had they organised a referendum.

Now, you may not like that idea and it may very well be your opinion that the masses are stupid, but normally, in a democracy, when the population says "no", their representatives should respect that (even if the population says "no" for the sole reason they don't trust their politicians and not so much for what the constitution is about an sich). Which they didn't.

You can throw all your rhetoric at us for weeks, but it won't change the fact that something as fundamental as a constitution was imposed on a population that either wasn't even consulted or, if they were consulted, said no. And this is 2011. And we're talking about existing democracies that run fine, not some newly found country, so it was perfectly possible to consult them and everything would be just fine if the answer would have been "no" and if that answer had been respected.


Well at least this week the EU is acused of fascism (Andres, Frags), instead of the more common communism. With some luck it'll be the 'European Islamofascist Union' next week, although I'm really hoping for 'mEUssolini Syndicalist Union'.

Can you quote the post in which I called the EU a fascist organisation, please?

If we're not going to have an honest debate, then I'm out of here. Please, don't mischaracterize me.

Besides, if that's the best you've got, then you're probably wrong ~;)

I fail to see why the EU should be above all criticism and why the slightest criticism puts me automatically in the camp of "anti-EU". I'm not against the EU per se, but you won't see me cheering for excesses by politicians, not even if it are members of your holy EU.

And if there is reason for criticism, then I will out my criticism. If this were some game we're discussing, I'd call you "fanboy".

If you love the EU and if you want your EU to stay and to be heatlhy to a certain degree, then constantly criticising and whining is what you need to do, not worshipping.


And all that for the EP voting to implement extra funds for staff to cope with the expanded workload the Lisbon Treaty put on the EP.

The Lisbon Treaty that imposed a constitution that the population doesn't want. But that's something you conveniently ignore, of course.

And then you conveniently ignored the question "what are the legions of European Civil Servants for?"


They didn't. The staff got a raise in salaries, not MEPs. You know, the people working for 2000 euros a month. They get a wage increase.

Yes, non elected people who don't have to pass tests or exams to prove their competences. Now, that in itself might be acceptable in a private company (allthough I strongly dislikes fils/filles-à-papas), if it weren't for the fact that they're paid with taxmoney. Nepotism and taxmoney is not a combination I like.




*steals the favourite toy of Andres jr*

I have a sharp axe in my cellar :mean:

[Louis VI the Fat]

If this were some game we're discussing, I'd call you "fanboy". Non! It is me who has taken a dispassionate, objective opinion about the EU, and it is all of you who act on impulse. :smug:

Me, I have explored the need for a raise in staff expenses, the timing, the pr results. Much of the rest of the thread is just general anti-EU blahblah copy-pasted from last week's into this week's 'evil EU' thread.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No, that would be French Republicanism, and it would be great if that system worked. Democracy is rule of the people by majority vote, it's what Switzerland has, which is why Switzerland banned minarets almost by accident.No, majority vote is majority vote. Democracy means more than that, it means majority vote, the rule of law, human rights, (right to) equal participation of all.

The bit about Switzerland vs France is not well informed.

[HoreTore]

Majority vote? What? How does "rule of the people" mean "rule of 51% of the people"?

No, Democracy is not a tyranny of the majority. Democracy means that the country is ruled by 100% of the country. Does it mean that we all hsve to agree all the time? No, but everyone has to be able to live by the decisions being made.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, majority vote is majority vote. Democracy means more than that, it means majority vote, the rule of law, human rights, (right to) equal participation of all.

The bit about Switzerland vs France is not well informed.

Democracy means rule by the people. Switxerland is a democracy, and this is why a lot of decisions are made by referendum, this can result in something happening simply because of majority feeling - i.e. banning minarets.

France has an aggressively asserted state conciousness which everyone is expected to conform to (this from the perspective of an Anglo-Saxon, naturally). They are not the same. Britain is different again, as a Constitutional/Feudal Monarchy we look to the Queen to protect our rights and cling to the hope she actually will with white knuckles.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Louis and PVC, you are both half-right IMO. Modern liberal democracy is a mix of majority rule and minority rights. The latter exists to curb the excesses of the former.

So it's not some idealistically pure system ala what HoreTore wants (which is impossible, 100% of people with conflicting interests cannot all rule a country :inquisitive:), but it works fairly well.

[HoreTore]

So it's not some idealistically pure system ala what HoreTore wants (which is impossible, 100% of people with conflicting interests cannot all rule a country :inquisitive:), but it works fairly well.

Congratulations on a complete failure to read posts. I suggest you reread the last two sentences.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Majority vote? What? How does "rule of the people" mean "rule of 51% of the people"?

No, Democracy is not a tyranny of the majority. Democracy means that the country is ruled by 100% of the country. Does it mean that we all hsve to agree all the time? No, but everyone has to be able to live by the decisions being made.Exactly. For example, one would hardly speak of a democracy of when the 51% majority votes to genocide the remaining 49%.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Congratulations on a complete failure to read posts. I suggest you reread the last two sentences.

It's not my fault you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. Plus your ideas are still divorced from reality, at different times some of the cleavages in society have been too big to just smooth over, whether ethnic, class, or whatever.

The reality is that a state functions best when it has a relatively homogenous population. I think its funny to see a Frenchman like Louis arguing otherwise, given the roots of republicanism with Rousseau, when he thought France at his time was far too big and diverse to function as a republic. Of course, over the centuries with centralisation etc this has changed, and IMO now the nation states of western Europe are the natural level at which the state should exist.

Anyway, the problem with democracy is that is fails to represent the nation as a whole. It almost always represents a single class, or prioritieses one ethnic group or religion or whatever over another. Given that minority rights in democracies only exist to prevent an outright tyranny of the majority, minorities will never be ideally represented in an a democracy. They will have basic rights, but they won't have a real voice.

One classic example of this today, especially in Britain, is what you see with the white working-class. Democratic institutions completely fail to represent them, because the growing middle class suffocate their voice in a democratic system. IMO we need a more direct way to represent their interests, screw democracy. If you don't like that, just remember that the vote is not really valuable in itself, it is simply a means to an end - representation. If democracy fails to deliver that, it's not serving its purpose.

IMO corporatism is the best solution, kind of going back to the three estates idea - reserve a certain number of seats for groups that would otherwise not be represented in a democratic system. Say 40% of the population are working-class, and 60% middle-class... in a democracy, the middle-classes get 100% control of the government. If they have a majority they can do what they like (besides the basic rights given to minorities). The working-class have their rights but no voice, no power in government.

The only solution is power-sharing, with the interests of all the nation being represented regardless of whether or not they are a minority. Give each an equal voice. Every individual citizens should have the same voice in the government, instead of it being reserved to one interest group just because it is composed of more individuals.

This should be complemented by the fact that the nation should be the natural level for economic life. It is very much connected with the political sphere, since all democracy does is preserve the dominance of the international capitalist elite. People might complain about basing the market on national borders, but at the end of the day they do the same with the political sphere, and all good lefties will appreciate the two have to be connected for a succesful economy. :wink: Certainly, I support a strong welfare state.

In short, national socialism ftw.

I think that this post might just somehow evoke a Godwin. But no Vuk, I do not support that German political movement from the mid 20th century.

[HoreTore]

Contradict? Nonsense.

Democracy means rule of the people, and that means the people, which is all of them. But does "rule" mean that you get your way in everything? Of course it doesn't! But what it does mean is that the decisions being made has to be decisions that we can all live by - which excludes stuff like genocide, slavry, etc.

And for your information, this is the way Europe is currently governed. European governments simply will not make decisions that some of its population groups cannot live with. We do not decide to kill each other. We do not outlaw or heavily oppress groups in our population like we have done in the past. While we heavily disagree with policy all the time, we have not put ourselves where parts of the population cannot live by the decisions made.

In fact, should a European government do such a thing, its democracy would instantly crumble, to be replaced by either a fascist dictatorship of the oppressor, or the revoluton of the oppressed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Contradict? Nonsense.

Democracy means rule of the people, and that means the people, which is all of them. But does "rule" mean that you get your way in everything? Of course it doesn't! But what it does mean is that the decisions being made has to be decisions that we can all live by - which excludes stuff like genocide, slavry, etc.

And for your information, this is the way Europe is currently governed. European governments simply will not make decisions that some of its population groups cannot live with. We do not decide to kill each other. We do not outlaw or heavily oppress groups in our population like we have done in the past. While we heavily disagree with policy all the time, we have not put ourselves where parts of the population cannot live by the decisions made.

In fact, should a European government do such a thing, its democracy would instantly crumble, to be replaced by either a fascist dictatorship of the oppressor, or the revoluton of the oppressed.

That's utter nonsense, the Athenians were doing slavery and genocide ALL THE TIME.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Contradict? Nonsense.

Democracy means rule of the people, and that means the people, which is all of them. But does "rule" mean that you get your way in everything? Of course it doesn't! But what it does mean is that the decisions being made has to be decisions that we can all live by - which excludes stuff like genocide, slavry, etc.

Oh, I believe very much in the rule of the people. The problem is democracy doesn't deliver that. It gives us the rule of the biggest interest group.

As I said, if you have a mini-democracy where three guys are working-class, and four middle-class, then the four-middle class guys call all the shots based on the fact that there is one more of them. 4 of the 7 guys have all the influence. This is not the rule of all the people.

So as I said, the solution is to give representation not based on individual votes, but on group interests. Give the 3 working-class guys equal power in the government as the four middle-class guys have. It's not democratic, but it is IMO a much fairer system.


And for your information, this is the way Europe is currently governed. European governments simply will not make decisions that some of its population groups cannot live with. We do not decide to kill each other. We do not outlaw or heavily oppress groups in our population like we have done in the past. While we heavily disagree with policy all the time, we have not put ourselves where parts of the population cannot live by the decisions made.

As I said already, there are two elements to liberal democracies - majority rule and minority rights. All minority rights do is curb the excesses of the majority rule element, to prevent genocide etc. It still does not mean the minorities have a real voice in government. It will always be impossible for them to based on the fact that they are a minority, and democracy is based in part of majority rule. It's that simple. :shrug:


That's utter nonsense, the Athenians were doing slavery and genocide ALL THE TIME.

In fairness, we are talking about modern liberal democracies. The mob rule you are talking of is precisely why Aristotle labelled democracy as one of the bad forms of government. Some people today scoff at him for saying that, they don't realise he was talking about a much purer form of democracy than the liberal democracy we mean today.

And this thread is about modern liberal democracies. They are not tyrannies of the majority as you are suggesting, nor are they purely about minority rights as Louis argued. You are both obviously extremists. :tongue: The reality is it is a mix of both.

[Furunculus]

the wonderful european arrest warrant is doing sterling work convincing the people of britain that 'harmonised' governance is a great idea:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8378204/Greek-justice-is-no-justice-for-the-Briton-left-in-limbo.html

[rory_20_uk]

So anyone could be summoned to, say, Bulgaria to go through their "courts" with no evidence ever produced?

Oh, the joys...

On a completely unrelated subject I'm more pleased than ever that I'm planning to become an expatriate as soon as I get a suitable job somewhere in the GCC. Yes, they have arbitrary rubber stamped justice that wouldn't stand up in the UK... but then so do we effectively.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

That Whore of Babylon, the instrument of Catholic oppression, the EU, has issued a DIKTAT that all European children must bow five times a day to a crucifix.


Won't somebody stop this madness? I want a referendum now!! I have never agreed to this. I signed up for a single European superstate that supresses capitalism, national sovereignty and freedom of conscience. Not to a European Theocratic Union.


Now look at the latest madness, another fatwa issued by the court of the ETU, the ECHR, to be imposed by that other instrument of Brussels, the UN security Council. Berlusconi is now magna pater Europae. The small nations have been crushed, made minnows to the Catholic supermajority.

:furious3:



EU rules school crucifixes do not breach human rights

Displaying crucifixes in schools in Italy does not breach the rights of non-Catholic families, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
The court ruled there was no evidence that a crucifix hung in a classroom would influence pupils.
The ruling overturned a previous decision made in November 2009, which angered the Roman Catholic country.
Friday's decision was welcomed by Italy's foreign minister as a win for European "popular sentiment".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12791082

[InsaneApache]

The Pope u'll be chuffed to bits.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That Whore of Babylon, the instrument of Catholic oppression, the EU, has issued a DIKTAT that all European children must bow five times a day to a crucifix.


Won't somebody stop this madness? I want a referendum now!! I have never agreed to this. I signed up for a single European superstate that supresses capitalism, national sovereignty and freedom of conscience. Not to a European Theocratic Union.


Now look at the latest madness, another fatwa issued by the court of the ETU, the ECHR, to be imposed by that other instrument of Brussels, the UN security Council. Berlusconi is now magna pater Europae. The small nations have been crushed, made minnows to the Catholic supermajority.

:furious3:

Two things:

1. This is a removal of a restriction previously imposed by the Court which was deeply unpopular in Italy and elsewere.

2. By all means, have a referendum and EU. I fully support your right to self-determination, and that of your fellow Frenchmen.

[HoreTore]

A cross has absolutely no place in a classroom whatsoever.

It is indeed a shame that the EU is unable to protect the rights of the italian civilian population, but the blame is first and foremost with the wretched leadership in Italy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A cross has absolutely no place in a classroom whatsoever.

Why?

It's just an image, and Italian crucifixes are often esepecially beautiful. Even a an atheist like yourself should be able to appreciate the potence of an image of suffering and sacrifice.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hmmm.....

It, erm, it was parody. I guess the standards of my posts lately have dropped so much I have become indistinguishable from silly parody.

*worries :embarassed: *

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmmm.....

It, erm, it was parody. I guess the standards of my posts lately have dropped so much I have become indistinguishable from silly parody.

*worries :embarassed: *

You were trying to make a point though, yes?

Torygraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8391092/Crucifixes-can-be-displayed-in-EU-schools.html

I can't speak for others, but I personally have trouble telling when you are being inflamatory for emphasis, and when just being silly.

[HoreTore]

Why?

It's just an image, and Italian crucifixes are often esepecially beautiful. Even a an atheist like yourself should be able to appreciate the potence of an image of suffering and sacrifice.

The logo of the Labour party is quite nice too, a red rose, but I still don't want it anywhere near my classroom.

Do I really have to explain why, or is it self-evident?

[rory_20_uk]

Why?

It's just an image, and Italian crucifixes are often esepecially beautiful. Even a an atheist like yourself should be able to appreciate the potence of an image of suffering and sacrifice.

I fail to see the need to have images of torture displayed on classrooms for small children. What next, the potence of someone being skinned alive or perhaps having their hands cut off?

There are many more beautiful images in the world.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The logo of the Labour party is quite nice too, a red rose, but I still don't want it anywhere near my classroom.

Do I really have to explain why, or is it self-evident?

Political Parties are not religions or creeds. So your comparison falls flat. On the other hand, if you want to put photgraphs of great communist theorists on the walls - I see no problem with at.


I fail to see the need to have images of torture displayed on classrooms for small children. What next, the potence of someone being skinned alive or perhaps having their hands cut off?

There are many more beautiful images in the world.

~:smoking:

That's a reasonable point to raise, but I don't think it's valid. The image is not an incitement to torture, and children (and adults) are far too insulated from the reality of the world outside a largely sanitised urban buble.

[lars573]

It's not my fault you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. Plus your ideas are still divorced from reality, at different times some of the cleavages in society have been too big to just smooth over, whether ethnic, class, or whatever.

The reality is that a state functions best when it has a relatively homogenous population. I think its funny to see a Frenchman like Louis arguing otherwise, given the roots of republicanism with Rousseau, when he thought France at his time was far too big and diverse to function as a republic. Of course, over the centuries with centralisation etc this has changed, and IMO now the nation states of western Europe are the natural level at which the state should exist.

Anyway, the problem with democracy is that is fails to represent the nation as a whole. It almost always represents a single class, or prioritieses one ethnic group or religion or whatever over another. Given that minority rights in democracies only exist to prevent an outright tyranny of the majority, minorities will never be ideally represented in an a democracy. They will have basic rights, but they won't have a real voice. And our last two Viceroy's have been

One classic example of this today, especially in Britain, is what you see with the white working-class. Democratic institutions completely fail to represent them, because the growing middle class suffocate their voice in a democratic system. IMO we need a more direct way to represent their interests, screw democracy. If you don't like that, just remember that the vote is not really valuable in itself, it is simply a means to an end - representation. If democracy fails to deliver that, it's not serving its purpose.

IMO corporatism is the best solution, kind of going back to the three estates idea - reserve a certain number of seats for groups that would otherwise not be represented in a democratic system. Say 40% of the population are working-class, and 60% middle-class... in a democracy, the middle-classes get 100% control of the government. If they have a majority they can do what they like (besides the basic rights given to minorities). The working-class have their rights but no voice, no power in government.

The only solution is power-sharing, with the interests of all the nation being represented regardless of whether or not they are a minority. Give each an equal voice. Every individual citizens should have the same voice in the government, instead of it being reserved to one interest group just because it is composed of more individuals.

This should be complemented by the fact that the nation should be the natural level for economic life. It is very much connected with the political sphere, since all democracy does is preserve the dominance of the international capitalist elite. People might complain about basing the market on national borders, but at the end of the day they do the same with the political sphere, and all good lefties will appreciate the two have to be connected for a succesful economy. :wink: Certainly, I support a strong welfare state.

In short, national socialism ftw.

I think that this post might just somehow evoke a Godwin. But no Vuk, I do not support that German political movement from the mid 20th century.
Bollocks. Such backward 20th century ideas. Eruo egocentrism at it's finest. Just because that might be true in Britain/Scotland or even some other western European nations doesn't make it true everywhere. Look at Canada, a nation who's form of representative democratic government is copied nearly verbatim from the British model. Yet we have an entire federal party (Bloc Québécois* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Québécois)) dedicated to the representation of the interests of our largest ethnic minority, French catholics of Quebec. I mention Quebec specifically as there are populations of French Catholics outside Quebec in Canada. And even if you move outside the French popualtion of Canada there are MP's of most ethnic backgrounds you could find in Canada. Elected to represent ridings, in some cases, that cover ethnic communities of large cities. Or in other cases happened to be the person who chose to run in that riding. Perhaps because they were from that area. Our two previous Viceroy's were Haitian and Chinese immigrants .



* A party that I have a problem with only because of it's stated goal of destroying the country.

[HoreTore]

Political parties are not religions, no, but I see absolutely no reason why religion should be treated any different to any political party.

And come on, we all know what would happen if Labour mandated that a picture of Marx or Lenin should hang in every classroom. And no, that's not something I want in my classroom either.

In fact, everything unrelated to learning should be banned from my classroom.

[lars573]

Religion can be used as an indicator of cultural values. But I did note French first, as that does represent a cultural divide. Not as huge as some like to think though

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Political parties are not religions, no, but I see absolutely no reason why religion should be treated any different to any political party.

And come on, we all know what would happen if Labour mandated that a picture of Marx or Lenin should hang in every classroom. And no, that's not something I want in my classroom either.

In fact, everything unrelated to learning should be banned from my classroom.

Well, that's consistant. However, most people in Britian aren't Communists, like Marx, but most people in Italy are Roman Catholics.

So, it's a bit different.

[HoreTore]

Well, that's consistant. However, most people in Britian aren't Communists, like Marx, but most people in Italy are Roman Catholics.

So, it's a bit different.

Most people in Norway are social democrats, but I don't think we should hang either the labour party logo or pictures of labour leaders in classrooms because of that. Do you?

[InsaneApache]

Obrigado Portugal!

Next up Spain.

I'll give the Euro five months.

[rory_20_uk]

The Euro will hang on in there. What form it takes is a more interesting question.

~:smoking:

[Tellos Athenaios]

This isn't the Inevitable Euro Default thread which so far had to default on its promise of imminent doom before Christmas. (Or something like that.)

[gaelic cowboy]

This isn't the Inevitable Euro Default thread which so far had to default on its promise of imminent doom before Christmas. (Or something like that.)

Thats because they had to change the rules on the bailouts like I said they would or face default, thats what the meetings in europe are all about this week.

Oh and another thing the new rules will force default or as they will call it "burden sharing" after 2013.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Bollocks. Such backward 20th century ideas. Eruo egocentrism at it's finest. Just because that might be true in Britain/Scotland or even some other western European nations doesn't make it true everywhere. Look at Canada, a nation who's form of representative democratic government is copied nearly verbatim from the British model. Yet we have an entire federal party (Bloc Québécois* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Québécois)) dedicated to the representation of the interests of our largest ethnic minority, French catholics of Quebec. I mention Quebec specifically as there are populations of French Catholics outside Quebec in Canada. And even if you move outside the French popualtion of Canada there are MP's of most ethnic backgrounds you could find in Canada. Elected to represent ridings, in some cases, that cover ethnic communities of large cities. Or in other cases happened to be the person who chose to run in that riding. Perhaps because they were from that area. Our two previous Viceroy's were Haitian and Chinese immigrants.

Wow, Trudeau would be proud. Remember how he hated nationalism so much that he thought he would be clever and create a new civic identity for all Canadians so that they would live together and not become separatists.

Of course, it turned into a new sort of pan-Canadian nationalism.

You can try to be tolerant and inclusive but you will always find that nations do not in fact function best as multicultural havens, but as solid and homogenous entities.

[HoreTore]

I present the worlds largest democracy: India.

India is not only gargantuan, it is also so multicultural its absurd. There are no less than five major religions there(plus a ton of smaller ones), the worlds five biggest I might add, but the are also so many different ethnic groups its silly.

And yet, it is both a stable and functional democracy, as well as experiencing huge economic growth. But how is such a huge country so stable? Its not through the terror China uses against its 95% Han population, but rather through equal representation in government. All the major groups, ethnic and religious, is represented. In fact, if India was to do the opposite, and let one group run the show, the country would've been disolved within weeks.

India, who was a splintered colony just over half a century ago, looks set to be one of the worlds next superpowers. And it will be a democratic and multicultural superpower.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I present the worlds largest democracy: India.

India is not only gargantuan, it is also so multicultural its absurd. There are no less than five major religions there(plus a ton of smaller ones), the worlds five biggest I might add, but the are also so many different ethnic groups its silly.

And yet, it is both a stable and functional democracy, as well as experiencing huge economic growth. But how is such a huge country so stable? Its not through the terror China uses against its 95% Han population, but rather through equal representation in government. All the major groups, ethnic and religious, is represented. In fact, if India was to do the opposite, and let one group run the show, the country would've been disolved within weeks.

India, who was a splintered colony just over half a century ago, looks set to be one of the worlds next superpowers. And it will be a democratic and multicultural superpower.

I raise your stable multicultural utopia with Jammu/Kashmir and throw in a Golden Temple.

[Strike For The South]

I present the worlds largest democracy: India.

India is not only gargantuan, it is also so multicultural its absurd. There are no less than five major religions there(plus a ton of smaller ones), the worlds five biggest I might add, but the are also so many different ethnic groups its silly.

And yet, it is both a stable and functional democracy, as well as experiencing huge economic growth. But how is such a huge country so stable? Its not through the terror China uses against its 95% Han population, but rather through equal representation in government. All the major groups, ethnic and religious, is represented. In fact, if India was to do the opposite, and let one group run the show, the country would've been disolved within weeks.

India, who was a splintered colony just over half a century ago, looks set to be one of the worlds next superpowers. And it will be a democratic and multicultural superpower.

You neglect the fact many regions of India couldn't make a go of it on their own

Not true for the EU, in fact most EU countries would be better off

[Louis VI the Fat]

Examples of succesful multicultural states of enormous size are Italy, Germany, the UK.

150 years ago nobody spoke Italian, the only pan-Germanic law was Roman Law, and the UK had more time zones than Russia. Yet the impossible happened, massive countries of sixty million evolved.



The strenght and dynamism of Europe has always been the tension between diversity and unity. Full unity will be the death of Europe, we'll become the China of old, stagnant and dormant. Too much competition and we become the Europe of the first half of the 20th century, of the Dark ages.
Indeed, the very definition of Europe requires a common culture, with supernational structures, over a fragmented political landscape. It has been like that since the birth of Europe fifteen centuries ago.

[HoreTore]

You neglect the fact many regions of India couldn't make a go of it on their own

Not true for the EU, in fact most EU countries would be better off

I see you buy into the anti-EU propaganda...

[Strike For The South]

Examples of succesful multicultural states of enormous size are Italy, Germany, the UK.

150 years ago nobody spoke Italian, the only pan-Germanic law was Roman Law, and the UK had more time zones than Russia. Yet the impossible happened, massive countries of sixty million evolved.



The strenght and dynamism of Europe has always been the tension between diversity and unity. Full unity will be the death of Europe, we'll become the China of old, stagnant and dormant. Too much competition and we become the Europe of the first half of the 20th century, of the Dark ages.
Indeed, the very definition of Europe requires a common culture, with supernational structures, over a fragmented political landscape. It has been like that since the birth of Europe fifteen centuries ago.

These countries all became stronger, the Eu is hurting countries

[Louis VI the Fat]

These countries all became stronger, the Eu is hurting countriesThat's what mediumpowers such as China and the US tell themselves to cope with being second rank.

[gaelic cowboy]

delete

[Subotan]

The reality is that a state functions best when it has a relatively homogenous population. I think its funny to see a Frenchman like Louis arguing otherwise, given the roots of republicanism with Rousseau, when he thought France at his time was far too big and diverse to function as a republic. Of course, over the centuries with centralisation etc this has changed, and IMO now the nation states of western Europe are the natural level at which the state should exist.

And yet the state can be a great homogeniser. The modern period has seen the centralisation of both states and populations, and there is no reason to assume that this process will not continue.* What is the "natural level", and why are we at it right now?


Anyway, the problem with democracy is that is fails to represent the nation as a whole. It almost always represents a single class, or prioritieses one ethnic group or religion or whatever over another. Given that minority rights in democracies only exist to prevent an outright tyranny of the majority, minorities will never be ideally represented in an a democracy. They will have basic rights, but they won't have a real voice.

You are describing a dysfunctional democracy, and probably one without adequate constitutional protections.


One classic example of this today, especially in Britain, is what you see with the white working-class. Democratic institutions completely fail to represent them, because the growing middle class suffocate their voice in a democratic system. IMO we need a more direct way to represent their interests, screw democracy. If you don't like that, just remember that the vote is not really valuable in itself, it is simply a means to an end - representation. If democracy fails to deliver that, it's not serving its purpose.
Or, it's simply the levelling out of political power, with the erosion of the immense privilege** white working class men have enjoyed in this country throughout the 20th Century.

* Of course, political devolution may occur, e.g. UK, France, (hopefully not) Italy etc., but rather the centralisation of population and the erosion of regional differences.

**By privilege, I do not mean economic privilege such as wealth or living standards, but the privilege of political power as a group. And yes, I'm still a socialist.


That's what mediumpowers such as China and the US tell themselves to cope with being second rank.

nice