Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Iduno]

I apologize for not understanding; does your country achieve better interest rates than the EU? Will it receive less than it puts in or something? Are you against higher spending in general or specifically on this as a principle? IIRC Europe faced decisions the last recession and chose austerity, and in addition to the gains made by some political parties I mentioned above which seemed to be worrisome at the time to the Euro public, also took longer to climb out of the recession, though it has been many years and my memory likely deceives me in ways due to that as well as my general ignorances of the details of this proposal and European politics.

As with all things, people are worried that EU money comes with strings attached; for example majority of Italians would go apeshit at the EU if forced to accept austerity measures in exchange for bailout money

As they should. Austerity is always designed to benefit the people in power at the expense of the poor.

[da_nang]

The Finnish Parliament has voted to approve of the Corona fund with a mere margin of two votes: 134-57.

Two voted blank, six weren't present.

FFS, stop chaining us all irrevocably.

[Loud Whispers]

Well that's gonna be another temporary EU measure which will last in perpetuity

[MorleyDev]

I mean, an explicit part of the founding idea of the EEC was to "preserve peace and liberty and to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe", basically be a stepping stone towards the union of European countries. Joining it was signing up to that vision.

Heck, even Winston Churchill himself went as far as to call for the formation of the United States of Europe after WW2.

My main critique of the EU has been that since the UK and more Nordic countries joined they've been moving away from that goal (which I think a good one) towards a more awkward middle ground of deliberately keeping themselves short of being federated. Would be nice for it to become like, the actual point of the EU to be a stepping stone in forming the USofE.

[scriver]

Fuck no, I like democracy.

[MorleyDev]

Because any country bigger than the UK or composed of federated states isn't a democracy? Or should we also seek to return to the traditional kingdoms of the UK and bring back Mercia and Wessex? Heck, flowing power from Westminister into those state-level regions and making the UK an explicit federation arguably wouldn't be a bad thing.

How is a United States of Europe in itself undemocractic? If the disagreement is how to structure it, that's a different issue. Part of explicitly federating would be deciding where the State vs Federal power lines get drawn afterall. If anything, making it explicitly federated would require drawing those lines into a constitution a lot and so help prevent the flow of more federal power than what constitution specifies away from the member states.

You may dislike that the current structure of the EU puts the Commission as nominated by State Representative's and then confirmed by People's Representatives, who then propose legislation that is then confirmed by People's Representatives, rather than directly from People's Representatives. But to be a member of the EU you have to be a democracy, so it's still People's Representatives via the State, so it's still a democratic system. It just puts nationally elected State above regionally elected People, which is probably a necessity when you're deliberately trying to avoid being an outright federation.

So yeah, I've never got the "EU is not democratic" argument. "I don't like the form of democracy it uses" is a valid one sure, but if anything I think a lot of that comes from them structured to avoid being federated from the start.

If the USA changed so that rather than having a President elected by country-wide election the position was voted on by the chamber of each State, who was decided by majority control of that state, that would still be a democratic system. And if it's not, pull on that thread and it becomes pretty clear the only thing that could be counted as democracy is Direct Democracy in which all citizens can both propose and vote on legislature and...that wouldn't work for populations above a dozen or so.

I mean, long term I think countries should declare "United States of Earth" as an end-goal for the UN. But I reckon as a species we either will form a federated elective from all nations or die in nuclear fire, and I'd like to avoid the latter. But maybe that's for the "unpopular opinions" thread. (That doesn't mean I think we should do it now, just that part of evaluating decisions should be "Does it take us closer to this ideal that we hold?" and if the answer is "no" that's a mark against that course of action that needs to be overcome by both the short-term benefits whilst ensuring future repealability)

[scriver]

Democracies only function when they're close to the people. They need fraternity between the citizens and answerability from the leadership, and the further the government moves from the people, the less of that you have. Without this you end up with an unfunctional or unjust democracy, making the entire point of democracy void.

For example, if Sweden were to join a hypothetical USE, we would lose all ability to govern ourselves. At that point "democracy" would be identical to dictatorship to us. All the power to rule us would in the hands of complete strangers who do not know nor care about any of us, our customs, culture, or history. Why should we be governed by the whims, customs, and opinion of people from a completely different part of the world?

Or should we also seek to return to the traditional kingdoms of the UK and bring back Mercia and Wessex?

I'd start by granting Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Man independence, then separate England into north, south, and London.

I mean, long term I think countries should declare "United States of Earth" as an end-goal for the UN.

Why? Whose rules is it going to follow? That just seems like an imperialists wet dream to me.

[voliol]

Democracies only function when they're close to the people. They need fraternity between the citizens and answerability from the leadership, and the further the government moves from the people, the less of that you have. Without this you end up with an unfunctional or unjust democracy, making the entire point of democracy void.

For example, if Sweden were to join a hypothetical USE, we would lose all ability to govern ourselves. At that point "democracy" would be identical to dictatorship to us. All the power to rule us would in the hands of complete strangers who do not know nor care about any of us, our customs, culture, or history. Why should we be governed by the whims, customs, and opinion of people from a completely different part of the world?

You're bringing up good points, and I mostly agree, but also no. "all ability to govern ourself" is an hyperbole and you know that. You should also know that all people have some things in common. With Europe it's things like "people who use this water to fish" and "people who utilize the europe-wide highways" and "people who have human rights", so the EU (and theoretical USE) can be of use when discussing those.

[Maximum Spin]

You should also know that all people have some things in common.

Endless experience has proven this a rank falsehood.

[voliol]

You should also know that all people have some things in common.

Endless experience has proven this a rank falsehood.

Some things don't need to be many, I'm talking about e.g. "all people need to eat", and "all people need clean water", and "all people need to not be worked to death". Human necessities, basically. If you accept that these exist you can have federal organs ensuring member states do provide these needs.

[scriver]

You're bringing up good points, and I mostly agree, but also no. "all ability to govern ourself" is an hyperbole and you know that.

No, it isn't. Not to any extent that matters.

You should also know that all people have some things in common. With Europe it's things like "people who use this water to fish" and "people who utilize the europe-wide highways" and "people who have human rights", so the EU (and theoretical USE) can be of use when discussing those.

And, with Europe, things that isn't are things like the all man's right, the principle of openness, or abortion rights.

As for fishing and things like it, it isn't a matter for us Swedes or Finns who fishes in the Mediterranean, and it's no matter for France or the UK what fishing is done in the Baltic. Moving the discussion to the table of the EU simply gives the populaces less influence and favours corporations and lobbyists.

It's like when the EU banned snuff -- it should have been a matter only for the countries whose custom it is to use it. Yet the entire business was banned by countries to whom it had no bearing on. Right now here in Sweden we have the EU trying to force us into allowing poisonous mines in our ground water catchments. What do continentals care about what happens to our drinking water? Why should anyone be able to make decisions about our drinking water than us, the ones who drink it?

[MorleyDev]

Moving resource access conflict resolution to the EU also creates a platform for reconciling differences between member states that doesn't involve armed conflict. Which is kinda the point, a major reasoning behind the EEC and EU was to provide such a platform to prevent another Europe-wide War after we'd already had two of them one right after each other (and lots of smaller ones before-hand, Europe hasn't been this peaceful since Pax Romana).

Which is kinda the thing, smaller independent nations (democracies or not) will eventually go to war with their neighbours. A cross-nationally backed platform that can make rulings based on common law and wider elective representation acts as a significant barrier to that. A trade collective that makes all those nations interdependent on each other helps too.

(Also if we split the UK into regions north/south/london would be better done as bringing a modified form of the Heptarchy, the midlands are also culturally distinct from the North and South afterall. But if they were independent countries with closed borders and military...well, I'd not put good odds on them staying peaceful for more than a generation post-split).

[martinuzz]

Following a verdict by the EU court last week, which forces Poland to shut down a brown coal mine for not meeting EU standards, the Czech republic now asked the EU court in Luxembourg to fine Poland with 5 million euros per day that the mine isn't shut down yet.

For now, Poland refuses to comply with the verdict. More than 3% of it's national electricity net depends on the mine, as well as 60000-80000 jobs.

[Loud Whispers]

Begun, the sausage wars have

(Also if we split the UK into regions north/south/london would be better done as bringing a modified form of the Heptarchy, the midlands are also culturally distinct from the North and South afterall. But if they were independent countries with closed borders and military...well, I'd not put good odds on them staying peaceful for more than a generation post-split).

It'd leave us well vulnerable to invasion by the Danes. Or the Dutch. Not too bad all things considered

[scriver]

Moving resource access conflict resolution to the EU also creates a platform for reconciling differences between member states that doesn't involve armed conflict. Which is kinda the point, a major reasoning behind the EEC and EU was to provide such a platform to prevent another Europe-wide War after we'd already had two of them one right after each other (and lots of smaller ones before-hand, Europe hasn't been this peaceful since Pax Romana).

Which is kinda the thing, smaller independent nations (democracies or not) will eventually go to war with their neighbours. A cross-nationally backed platform that can make rulings based on common law and wider elective representation acts as a significant barrier to that. A trade collective that makes all those nations interdependent on each other helps too.

I must have missed this post when it was posted, so here is my answer:

The entire "it leads to peace" argument is nonsense, as proven by the fact that EU countries have not gone to war with non-EU European countries either. Sweden has been at peace for 200 years, the majority of those without the EU. Sweden and Denmark has the world record in most amount of wars between nations. If we can stop waging wars, then so can other people. I would say that the peace post-WW2 comes down more to a change in diplomatical and governmental attitude than the economical agreements, and that most of Europe's countries economical interests since then lie in the non-European world.

In a USE, any conflict worth going to war over would still exist, it would just enable the wolves -- France and Germany -- to steamroll opposition with legalities and bureaucracy. Conflicts arise because one part wants to force a second part to give them something they want. Removing people's ability to defend themselves from having things taken from them is not a good thing just because of a shallow "but look no war" viewpoint.

Furthermore, an USE would only lead to a more powerful country, and it is powerful countries that are the most likely to start and wage wars. The USA is once again the perfect example of why an USE would be terrible. It doesn't lead to peace. It leads to constant war.

And lastly, fuck the Romans. They were a bunch of genocidal imperialist oppressors and should not be idealised or aimed to imitate. The Roman Empire was peaceful because they had emptied vast amounts of land of people by enslaving and killing their inhabitants and because every single person living in it was under threat of being killed. Peace at the point of a speartip is not peace. "Pax Romana" is the perfect example of why "peace always the best" is a superficial view, actually. It is the view of the capitalist, the oppressor, and the one who gets to lord over others.