- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,468
- Reaction score
- 1,575
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
In short words, can someone explain to me the major consequences of this vote?
Despotism advances a little further.
In short words, can someone explain to me the major consequences of this vote?
what don't you understand in the principle of solidarity? Furthermore, it's not just Bulgaria or Poland that are benefiting from EU fundings, it's also Wales
what don't you understand in the principle of solidarity?
I have no problem with the principle, I just can't understand how a grown up person can believe in it with regard to EU and its internal colonies.
Despotism advances a little further.
I'm a distributist; a follower of Catholic social teaching. We invented the term subsidiarity and the EU certainly does not understand it. It shows no respect for the lowest social grouping possible making the decisions. It shows little appreciation for decentralism and in fact is itself against he very idea of subsidiarity as it is not only mostly unnecessary but profoundly dangerous, due to its size and centralism, to genuine decentralism and subsidiarity.
This vote is a sorty state of affairs but at least we eurosceptics can take comfort in the fact that the fiasco over the EU constitution/Lisbon treaty has shown what the EUroplot really is and that Ireland represents very little as the bastards let no one else vote on the piece of rabid despotism and treason dressed up as a treaty.
That is the exact opposite of what you've just said.
Before the Lisbon treaty, the Parliament had limited powers. The Commission had a lot of power, each state (Luxemburg or Germany) have the same power (one vote each)
With the progress of the European Integration, the Parliament has got more and more power, which is very democratic since the votes are weighed according to the population of each member state.
With the Lisbon treaty, 80% of the laws will be co-decided by the Parliament, where UK has got 73 votes while so-called "insignificant" countries like Belgium or Sweden get 22 votes and Germany 96.
EP seats: Constitutional committee approves proposal
But i wouldnt exactly see governments making laws through consolation with each other and the european parliament as democracy. Democracy would be a situation in which governments make decisions laws in consoltation with their respective people not with each other.
Why do laws have to be made on such a high level anyway?
Alot of the powers promised to the autonomous communities in spain are now being taken over by the european union so i dont belive subsidiarity is a principle those running the european union ascribe to.
What are you talking about?
-> Is it about the EU Parliament? It is elected by the whole European Union, so it is legitimate that it makes laws for everyone. Now you may ask "is it legitimate that polish or german eurodeputees vote for a law that's gonna affect UK", and I think that the answer is "yes": it's exactly like democracy at the state level (where people from England can vote a decision that's gonna affect Wales or Scotland)
-> The role of National Parliaments? Don't misunderstand, their role would be to check if the EU law is well applied by their national governments. The French parliament isn't gonna vote a decision that will be applied in UK.
You don't make rules about global finance, trade agreements or terrorism at the local level. Bournemouth isn't gonna send diplomats at the rounds of Doha, and Dorchester isn't gonna send people in order to negociate in international conferences about terrorism.
bear in mind that the "competences" of the EU are usually "shared", not "exclusive". Only some points are ruled collectively, most of the stuff is actually decided at a much lower level
I was talking about the european commission. The european parliament cant do anything except make joint decisions with the european commission, and thats excluding the 20% of decisions that the european commission will still be able to legislate on by its self.
Most of the laws the european union makes have little to do with international finance. Laws governing how many hours we can work or how we label our fire extinguishers are examples of this.
Even if it was just the european parliament making the decisions i still wouldnt be happy with it. What would be the sence of those who have never visted a country writing its legislation? MEPS from northern ireland have no knowledge of the situation on the ground in poland so have no place voting on laws that effect it, the same principle applies visa versa.
If your talking about how europe is represented internationally then i dont see how domestic legislation has anything to do with this.
As regards doha etc what would be so bad about each country representing itself?
Before the Lisbon treaty, the Commission had much more power. You should be happy about the growing role of the Parliament! Oh, and "co-decision" means that the Parliament can veto the decision!
Is there a particular way to label fire extinguishers in Wessex? Is that really what some people call their "culture"?!
As for working hours...is there a real difference between your parliament taking this decision, or a wider parliament?
It's not just the Eurodeputees who make the laws. Before each law, thousands of people from all over Europe study the situation (on average it takes 2 years) and take into account the opinion of people from all over Europe, then it's voted by deputees coming from all over Europe.
I guess the real factor that makes the eurodeputees approve or disapprove EU legislation is political (liberals vs socialists...), not the nationality (Brits vs French...).
it's not just about international representation. If we want to fight crime better, our polices have to cooperate. If we want to make trade agreements with China without being screwed, we have to cooperate.
You still may have the impression that UK or France still count at the international level, but that is less and less true. What can France alone do against China (not just militarily, but also politically)? What can Poland do against Russia, if Medvedev decides that he triples the price of gaz? We have to cooperate if we want to be relevant!
OK the fire extinguishers may seam like a pretty obscure example but I think they illustrate a wider principle so allow me to elaborate. In the past all fire extinguishers in the UK were colour coded so this meant that those using them would instantly know which fire extinguisher to use depending on the type of material that was on fire. Now however all fire extinguishers across the E.U will be homogenized and use a system of small labels which will be difficult to use in a panic if your used to the previous system. Thus we,re paying billions of pounds a year for the european union to make us less safe.
I brought it up because its an example of the E.U legislating on issues that would be better handeld on a national level. If the E.U endorses the principle of subsidiarity why is this even within their remit? This law was made by people who had no understanding of what those following it actually needed because they where so far removed from their lives.
This again calls into question whether it is particually sensibile for people in Northern Ireland to govern people in Poland.
Im all for cooperating on issues like crime and maybe even trade agreements (though when it comes to trade agreements it tends to be the E.U screwing other parts of the world than visa versa)
Though when it comes to foriegn policy there have always been issues with accountability even on a national level (i can elaborate on this). Im not aware of any european foriegn policy decision having ever been swayed by public opionion. In fact its difficult for public opionion to change european policy on anything given that there is no europe-wide civil society, and there probably never will be unless we all learn Esperanto
Ultimatly the the issue for me is that in the absence of this civil society decissions will be made in the absence of any kind of accountabilty.
This is unlikely to mean they are made in the interest of the majority of those they govern, on the contrary they will simply be made in the interests of the rich and powerful
in response to a daft statement.