Print

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

[scriver]

I don't want Sweden to "reign supreme", I want Swedes to have the biggest say over what laws govern Swedes.

Maybe a new constitution needs to be written up which can be voted on by either the respective parliaments of each country or voted on as a whole by each countries population? *shrug emoticon*

Like the Lisbon Treaty ten years ago, where they just kept forcing new referendums over and over again until they got the result they wanted?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So are you principally anti-EU or alter-EU? I have a hard time telling, since your arguments are typically directed at the procedural faults of the existing EU government.

[smjjames]

I don't want Sweden to "reign supreme", I want Swedes to have the biggest say over what laws govern Swedes.

Isn't that what the veto power is for?

As MSH said, it's hard to tell whether you're anti-EU (as in Sweexit, no EU at all) or 'change the way the EU government works'.

[Toady One]

The dreaded day has come!  Report in the EU thread!  I don't understand anything!  But somebody told somebody to fuck off!  Don't do that!

[redwallzyl]

Such is the paradox of federalism. You can gain in some ways, but only if you sacrifice massively in others. It's hard to see in advance what will fall into each category, and it's not static either.

Its probably the inevitable next stage of development for most places to form some kind of super-national confederation. then of course those make the component parts of a overarching world parliament. I think people have a tendency to thing of this as as making those confederations states but that will never happen. The idea isn't a world united states but a world where international things are handled internationally and more local things are handled by the nest step down and so on. people need to recognize the inevitable and work to shape it in a good way not cling to a rosy view of abstract sovereignty. so what I'm saying is make the EU good don't tear it down people you are only hurting yourselves. start working together god dammit because there's no other way and the state system cant last forever.

[Baffler]

Such is the paradox of federalism. You can gain in some ways, but only if you sacrifice massively in others. It's hard to see in advance what will fall into each category, and it's not static either.

Its probably the inevitable next stage of development for most places to form some kind of super-national confederation. then of course those make the component parts of a overarching world parliament. I think people have a tendency to thing of this as as making those confederations states but that will never happen. The idea isn't a world united states but a world where international things are handled internationally and more local things are handled by the nest step down and so on. people need to recognize the inevitable and work to shape it in a good way not cling to a rosy view of abstract sovereignty. so what I'm saying is make the EU good don't tear it down people you are only hurting yourselves. start working together god dammit because there's no other way and the state system cant last forever.

We shouldn't forget that the EU started off as a free trade agreement and a means of regulating the coal and steel industries, and 'would never' get to the point where an EU army or common tax policy were seriously considered. Yet here we are. What I'll say is inevitable is federal bodies gradually taking on more power for themselves at the expense of local governments. They may genuinely believe that it's for the greater good, or the leadership may just be frustrated with what they see as a pointless obstacle, but either way they're usually successful in turning the resources of the rest of the federation inward when met with resistance and the EU has been no exception.

[Loud Whispers]

The dreaded day has come!  Report in the EU thread!  I don't understand anything!  But somebody told somebody to fuck off!  Don't do that!

Thanks Toady!

Sweden is a place where people feels a bond and accountability to their fellow Swedes. You know, basic solidarity. There exist no bond between Frenchmen and German and the Swedish people, they don't give a flying fuck about us, our ways, or our interests. That is the difference between the sheep and the wolves.

If it's any consolation I'm against Sweden imploding itself despite feeling little solidarity with or understanding of Sweden

Its probably the inevitable next stage of development for most places to form some kind of super-national confederation.

lad if you want people to sacrifice their countries, states and countrymen for the sake of globalist pensions you're best giving reasons that don't start with "it's probably inevitable lol".

Look at how I see it; people are not good arbiters of what is inevitable, any more than the liberals or communists who were convinced that their worldviews would inevitably conquer the world. So if we then take the words of people who have a direct stake in dismantling your country that it is true, the dismantling is inevitable therefore we should help them dismantle our country, we're ignoring likewise that an inevitable destination does not preclude choosing how we get there or what form it takes. Blind obedience to the EU because you imagine the EU as this destiny is nothing short of dangerous.

then of course those make the component parts of a overarching world parliament. I think people have a tendency to thing of this as as making those confederations states but that will never happen. The idea isn't a world united states but a world where international things are handled internationally and more local things are handled by the nest step down and so on.

If the idea isn't a world united states but a world where international things are handled internationally, why are you supporting a federal continental-state instead of multilateral relations between nations? If you truly don't want a world united states, why then is your first step to create a united states of europe? These are self-contradicting objectives.

people need to recognize the inevitable and work to shape it in a good way not cling to a rosy view of abstract sovereignty.

Sovereignty is the supremacy of your own countrymen over your own country; sacrificing that very real potency in order to become the subject of a foreign bureaucracy makes little sense to me, as not only have you no way to shape the developing bureaucracy, you have now then also lost much of your own ability to shape your own country's future. The countries of europe have lost control of their borders, currency, laws, trade, regulations, resources, their flags secondary, their sovereigns subjects, unable to represent themselves internationally or within Europe, their foreign policies either dictated by another or in defiance of another, to surrender yet more powers with no choice of refusal even when their peoples oppose surrender - must they lose their armed forces and states too in the vain name of ambition? How can a single citizen of any European nation compare the influence they have over their local politics to the sheer disparity in political and economic resources available to the EU elite & their attendant lobbyists, advisors and employers?

so what I'm saying is make the EU good don't tear it down people you are only hurting yourselves. start working together god dammit because there's no other way and the state system cant last forever.

protip: cooperation and union are not the same things

[martinuzz]

The dreaded day has come!  Report in the EU thread!  I don't understand anything!  But somebody told somebody to fuck off!  Don't do that!

Please don't forget to keep it friendly and polite folks.

Also, really? Was this the first report in the EU thread ever? Former incident aside, I'm proud of y'all.

[Sheb]

We shouldn't forget that the EU started off as a free trade agreement and a means of regulating the coal and steel industries, and 'would never' get to the point where an EU army or common tax policy were seriously considered. Yet here we are. What I'll say is inevitable is federal bodies gradually taking on more power for themselves at the expense of local governments. They may genuinely believe that it's for the greater good, or the leadership may just be frustrated with what they see as a pointless obstacle, but either way they're usually successful in turning the resources of the rest of the federation inward when met with resistance and the EU has been no exception.

You had fairly strong political support for a political federation ("united state of Europe") from day one. In some ways, it seems those ideas were more poular then than now, a Federal Europe was very much in the post-war Zeitgeist. I mean, even during the War there was an official proposal to merge France and the UK into a single country. In addition, the "ever closer union" has been a thing since the 1983 Solemn Declaration of the European Union, 10 years even before the Single Market. Pretending the political union was snuck in is historical revisionism.


Now, to make things clearer to our Americans reader, we actually have something approaching a "Upper House" in the European Council (not to be mixed with the Council of the European Union, or worse, the Council of Europe. Isn't  Europe fun? :p ). The European Council is made of the relevant minister from each of the government (so if it's an agricultural rule, it'll be the agriculture ministers and so on) and they also vote on EU law. In addition, for a lot of matter (migration, EU taxation, new country joining the  EU, EU citizenship and some others) the council vote need to be unanimous, so every country got a veto.

In addition to that, seats in the European Parliament are also skewed so that smaller states get a higher share than their population alone would warrant, with a mimum of 6 seats each (out of 750). So Malta acount for 0.8% of seats but 0.08% of the population, while Germany account for 15.97 percent of the population but 12.8% of seats. (The cutting point is between Poland (38 millions inhabitants) and Romania (19 millions inhabitant): the bigger six countries are underrepresented, the bottom 22 are overrepresented). Now, here I disagree with Helgoland in that I think that when looking at the raw "number of votes per seat", he ignores other aspect of the power dynamic. Basically, no one is going to ignore the Germans, even if their vote is individually worth less than that of the Maltese. In that sense, the German electorate is more powerful than the number alone suggest. On the other hand, if seat were attributed proportionally, would EU party even bother to campaign in Malta?

[MonkeyHead]

EU = Peaceful meta-imperialism. *shrug*

[ChairmanPoo]

I find it funny that Scriver keeps complaining about the discrimination of Sweden when northern and centroEuropean countries consistently act in block in their own interest, regardless of size.  As a south European I very much feel like a second class citizen, and that's without even getting into the Greek mess and the attitude from people (even here!) In the north. I've often seen posts here in which people express the feeling that 'suits them right'.  Even though in no small measure this mess was cooked by the same supranational actors that are imposing austerity across Europe. Even though austerity measures are clearly not working (did you know that they needed another bailout recently? Turns out shaking them down for cash is not ideal for economic growth).   Nevermind that Greek citizens are actually dying because the cuts are crushing the Greek healthcare system. And you talk to me about sheeps and wolves?  Seriously, Sweeden doesn't have the short end of the stick by any measure.


You don't have the short end of the stick with immigration, either. Mass waves of immigrants from Africa have been arriving at Southern European countries for decades, now all of a sudden everyone are losing their minds about this, one way or the other. It seems to me that it's just that up there you didn't care as long as it was someone else's problem.

[scriver]

I don't want Sweden to "reign supreme", I want Swedes to have the biggest say over what laws govern Swedes.

Isn't that what the veto power is for?

As MSH said, it's hard to tell whether you're anti-EU (as in Sweexit, no EU at all) or 'change the way the EU government works'.

So are you principally anti-EU or alter-EU? I have a hard time telling, since your arguments are typically directed at the procedural faults of the existing EU government.

I don't understand the difference. There is only one EU and I don't like the direction it's taken. If you're asking him if I would be of course to any other, hypothetical EU, then of course not. But that would be hypothetical.

If you're asking me whether I think the EU should disband or just change, then I think the latter. But there is no political will to make that change happen in Europe.

[Helgoland]

So what change would you propose? Would the EU still be recognizable to the untrained eye afterwards?

[smjjames]

Possibly reform in how MEPs are chosen and allocated out? His primary gripe seems to be representation.

If the EU is attempting to use the US as a model for federalization, the starting point is and was completely different. The solutions you find might not look the same way as ours did.

[Helgoland]

I sure hope so