Org Mobile Site
Thread: EU profiler.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Thats Declan Ganleys one man show party , Libertas .
SF was my nearest on europe , if you took a line from Kukris centre point at about 320 deg its where it hits the ege of his range
Ah, so Libertas is Ganley's vanity party. A couple excerpts for the Wikipedia article on him:Thats Declan Ganleys one man show party , Libertas .
SF was my nearest on europe , if you took a line from Kukris centre point at about 320 deg its where it hits the ege of his range
Originally Posted by :
... and said that Europe needs a constitution of no more than 25 pages which needs to be upfront and honest in what it sets out to achieve, and that all of Europe must be given a vote on it.
That seems reasonable, and democratic to me. But then, I'm not a European.... and said that Europe needs a constitution of no more than 25 pages which needs to be upfront and honest in what it sets out to achieve, and that all of Europe must be given a vote on it.
Originally Posted by :
Many Galwegians do not agree with his decision that he is now Irish and wish he would go back to England and stop embarrassing their county and country by pretending he is from there.
Many Galwegians do not agree with his decision that he is now Irish and wish he would go back to England and stop embarrassing their county and country by pretending he is from there.
He seems to have a bit of trouble satisfying several financial disclosure requirements for his supposedly "grassroots" party.
Good Luck Irishers & Europeans. It'll work out eventually. A simpler document, garnering at least two-thirds "Yeas" across your continent could work out to your benefit.
I played as a Brit. Aside from the "law and order" section, I match the Conservative party almost exactly.
Alright here are my results (Putting myself down as a dirty, dirty Pom):
LibDems are my closest party in terms of the EU integration, but in terms of domestic policy it is The Greens. Overally it is 59.8% Greens and 56.7% LibDems.
My nearest party in Europe are the Iniciativa per Catalunya Verds (Initiative for Catalonia Greens), followed by teh Portuguese Humanist Party and then other various Socialist and Communist parties.
LibDems are my closest party in terms of the EU integration, but in terms of domestic policy it is The Greens. Overally it is 59.8% Greens and 56.7% LibDems.
My nearest party in Europe are the Iniciativa per Catalunya Verds (Initiative for Catalonia Greens), followed by teh Portuguese Humanist Party and then other various Socialist and Communist parties.
Between the Green Party and the Tories. Will likely vote LD though, despite their pro-Euro policies.
72.8% match for the Lib Dems and Greens - with the Lib Dems being the party they suggest I am nearest to - funnily enough voted for them last time, won't this time because of their increasingly nasty comments about the EU.
Originally Posted by JAG:
72.8% match for the Lib Dems and Greens - with the Lib Dems being the party they suggest I am nearest to - funnily enough voted for them last time, won't this time because of their increasingly nasty comments about the EU.
I thought you were a card carrying member of the Labour Party? 72.8% match for the Lib Dems and Greens - with the Lib Dems being the party they suggest I am nearest to - funnily enough voted for them last time, won't this time because of their increasingly nasty comments about the EU.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
I thought you were a card carrying member of the Labour Party?
I am.. But for the last EU elections I voted for the Lib Dems. I thought you were a card carrying member of the Labour Party?
Guess I could get into trouble for that, but it was a protest vote coupled with the Lib Dems actually representing my views on the EU far more than Labour.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
Good Luck Irishers & Europeans. It'll work out eventually. A simpler document, garnering at least two-thirds "Yeas" across your continent could work out to your benefit.
Me, I oppose a EU constitution.Originally Posted by :
... and said that Europe needs a constitution of no more than 25 pages which needs to be upfront and honest in what it sets out to achieve, and that all of Europe must be given a vote on it.
That seems reasonable, and democratic to me. But then, I'm not a European.... and said that Europe needs a constitution of no more than 25 pages which needs to be upfront and honest in what it sets out to achieve, and that all of Europe must be given a vote on it.
Good Luck Irishers & Europeans. It'll work out eventually. A simpler document, garnering at least two-thirds "Yeas" across your continent could work out to your benefit.
The EU is not a federation. It is not a confederation. It is, in fact, not a state of any form. A constitution would be a mistake.
The EU has a number of treaties, allowing it to function as a supranational institution. What the EU needed - and still desperately needs! - is a codification of these treaties into a coherent, functioning whole. This is what Lisbon is about. This is what the 'constitution' should've been about in the first place. What went wrong, is that they put Valéry Giscard d’Estaing in charge of overseeing the codification of the European Treaties. This put him into too tempting a position. He decided to grasp this opportunity to immortality, and renamed his codification work a 'constitution'. This, he hoped, would guarantee him a position as 'Founding Father' for posterity.
Alas, the word constitution set ablaze the Eurosceptic movement. The end result is that they make any re-working of the existing treaties impossible, thinking that they are fighting a constitution, while in reality, they are preventing the cleaning up of unworkable aspects of the EU. Ironically, much of which would solve some of the main problems of the EU in the first place.
As for a referendum. I'd prefer not. Treaties are the work of compromise, of intricate negotiations between 27 independent states. Hence there can be no workable national referenda. There can be no Europe-wide referendum in the first place, for two obvious reasons: the sovereignity of smaller states like Ireland and Danmark would be brutalised by the large states. And secondly, the EU must respect that national constitutions do not allow for a referendum. (For a prime example: Germany).
I begin to see, I think. What is sought (or what you propose) is NOT a United States of Europe, ala the USA, nor a Confederation ala Canada - in fact, such seemingly copy-cat imitations rub Europeans the wrong way, and work against unity - but more like the idealized (but never realized) Union of Socialist Republics. A UIESR (union of independent european socialist republics), so to speak.
I agree, a continent-wide referendum would be unwieldy and unfair. Maybe nation-wide referenda with each current nation having equal weight?
Anyway, the way forward: scrap Lisbon, and start over, or try to fix broken Lisbon; in your opinion?
I agree, a continent-wide referendum would be unwieldy and unfair. Maybe nation-wide referenda with each current nation having equal weight?
Anyway, the way forward: scrap Lisbon, and start over, or try to fix broken Lisbon; in your opinion?
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
Anyway, the way forward: scrap Lisbon, and start over, or try to fix broken Lisbon; in your opinion?
Anyway, the way forward: scrap Lisbon, and start over, or try to fix broken Lisbon; in your opinion?
'Lisbon' is a reasonable treaty. It is pretty much the existing treaties polished up, with new provisions to deal with the doubling in size of the EU. It is up to internal Irish politics to see what will happen to it. (And the Czechs)
If it is rejected, we shall have to learn to live with a useless EU for the foreseeable future.
'Useless' not in the meaning of 'small, impotent EU' that Eurosceptics dream of, but useless as 'this current incompetent, unwielding mess that just shoves money around'. The EU is not legally equipped to deal with its own dysfunctioning. And this dysfunctioning is the very reason why it can't reform itself into a functioning, democrtatically controlled institution. Oh well...
Originally Posted by :
the idealized (but never realized) Union of Socialist Republics. A UIESR (union of independent european socialist republics), so to speak.
I object to the description of the EU in terminology such as 'idealised Union of Socialist Republics'. I realise that you do not refer to the actual USSR, but to the propaganda version of it, that of happy independent states. But even so, semantics is important. They shape people's perception of reality. And the other way around - is it entirely coincidental that you verbally associated the EU with the USSR?the idealized (but never realized) Union of Socialist Republics. A UIESR (union of independent european socialist republics), so to speak.
The EU is a supranational organisation of independent, mature democratic states. Indeed, it is one of the main engines behind the spread of democracy in Europe over the past half a century.
In favour of more US States Rights or not, one does not call the US federation an 'idealized Fourth Reich'. For or against, one doesn't speak of NAFTA as the US 'seeking Lebensraum'. Pro-independence or not, one does not call Alaska's joining of the Union a few decades ago an 'idealized Anschluss'.
Please do not fall for the trappings of the more hysterical anti-EU crowd. One can be vehemently opposed to the EU and still avoid recourse to their terminology. Terminology, that is at once sinister and infantile.
Likewise, one can disagree with the course of the US foreign policy of recent years, and still remain well clear of describing America as a fascist monster, or the 'Great Satan'.
I sustain your objection. I intended no insult to the EU or its people, but such was the apparent result. Sorry. 
To be clear: I was/am searching for a govornmental model or models from the past to imagine what an ideal European Union would look like. Most of Europe's nations are Socialist to one degree or another (and I assert no objection to that), so I tried to wrap my hands around the ideas of " a supranational organisation of independent, mature democratic states", and better understand the implications of your use of the words: mature, independent and democratic.
I sense those words mean something different to you than they do to me.
To be clear: I was/am searching for a govornmental model or models from the past to imagine what an ideal European Union would look like. Most of Europe's nations are Socialist to one degree or another (and I assert no objection to that), so I tried to wrap my hands around the ideas of " a supranational organisation of independent, mature democratic states", and better understand the implications of your use of the words: mature, independent and democratic.
I sense those words mean something different to you than they do to me.
we don't all agree with Louis.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
I intended no insult to the EU
Most of Europe's nations are Socialist to one degree or another
You don't need to aplogize, Kukri. I know what you meant. I objected to political semantics. For another example, just to be more of a pest and further make your life miserable, there are precisely zero socialist EU members. The EU prevents membership of 'socialist' states.I intended no insult to the EU
Most of Europe's nations are Socialist to one degree or another
Semantics indeed. But semantics are important. They shape people's perception of reality.
Originally Posted by furunculus:
we don't all agree with Louis.
Unlike Kukri, you, however, do owe me an apology for this. The nerve!1! we don't all agree with Louis.
I don't agree with you either. Although I find you a fully agreeable chap. 
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
You don't need to aplogize, Kukri. I know what you meant. I objected to political semantics. For another example, just to be more of a pest and further make your life miserable, there are precisely zero socialist EU members. The EU prevents membership of 'socialist' states.
Semantics indeed. But semantics are important. They shape people's perception of reality.
Oh, I see. There is hyper-sensitivity to the term "socialist" because of previous bad experience with people who called themselves soviet socialists, and national socialists. Correct? So we have to call it something else.You don't need to aplogize, Kukri. I know what you meant. I objected to political semantics. For another example, just to be more of a pest and further make your life miserable, there are precisely zero socialist EU members. The EU prevents membership of 'socialist' states.
Semantics indeed. But semantics are important. They shape people's perception of reality.
"Mature Democratic" leaves a lot to the imagination, but I see where you're going with it, implying a more nuanced evolution over time of democracy. But it doesn't make a snappy acronym.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
I intended no insult to the EU or its people, but such was the apparent result. Sorry.
It wasn't insulting. Some of us happen to agree with you.I intended no insult to the EU or its people, but such was the apparent result. Sorry.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO