Print

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

[Loud Whispers]

Also, you are aware that the EU is an extremely neoliberal organisation which exists among other things to protect "European" trade interests abroad, which invariable involves exploiting and stepping on African and Asian countries a la neocolonialism, right? The EU is not the kind of thing you want to support if you want a clear conscience.

There's nothing more post-colonial than creating a new age of european world hegemony m8
do u even progress
_{This is sarcastic btw. In this world that we live in, can't take it for granted that the sarcasm is clear}

[smjjames]

Maybe something better would be something like what Italy has with the upper Senate or something that is made of mostly non-political people to act as advisors. They'd be people like Nobel prize winners, well known philosophers, scientists, economists, etc from the various EU member nations.

The thing is that when you go 'supranational', there isn't any sort of equivalent 'suprastate/province' thing for the political portion of government in any nation that I know of where one person represents a bunch of states/provinces/political regions together as a subset of the whole 'nation'. There's something like that for the Judicary branch, so, I get the concept.

Because, I assume, EU=Bad™.

I just posted why.

Also, you are aware that the EU is an extremely neoliberal organisation which exists among other things to protect "European" trade interests abroad, which invariable involves exploiting and stepping on African and Asian countries a la neocolonialism, right? The EU is not the kind of thing you want to support if you want a clear conscience.

Not to mention that the whole government and beurauacracy sounds like it was inefficiently designed by a committee that wanted total soveriegnity among it's founders and member states while acting as if part of a supranation.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But scriver, don't you see that the EU is the head of a new civilized and rational world order, and who's natural ally China will be able to break the American imperialist hegemony?

[Sheb]

Well, yeah, it would give slightly less of an advantage to smaller countries in the EU parliament, but gosh, calm down scriver. We're talking of less than 10% of the seats. I mean, the discussion of how it would turn out and how it would (or wouldn't) change the balance of power within the EU is an interesting one, but that's a discussion that we can't have if you answer to that by "Well, democracy is over, we might as well elect Hitler God-Chancellor of Yurop".

So if you're willing to act reasonably, I'll be glad to discuss this in more details. Otherwise, I'll also (although sadly less) be glad to answer with equally ridiculous over the top claims in the opposite direction, and we can wallow in our own shit while LW laugh like the reincarnation of Nyarlatothep.

[Egan_BW]

Because, I assume, EU=Bad™.

I just posted why.

Also, you are aware that the EU is an extremely neoliberal organisation which exists among other things to protect "European" trade interests abroad, which invariable involves exploiting and stepping on African and Asian countries a la neocolonialism, right? The EU is not the kind of thing you want to support if you want a clear conscience.

Are you going to start having a real discussion now, rather than "democracy is dead"? Sorry, no-can-do, I'm a clueless american who can only quip.

Also that reply you put up while I was being snarky, and I'm not going to throw out a perfectly good quip just because it's no longer relevant.

[WealthyRadish]

I think there are two main points to consider with a hypothetical EU-wide district:

1) The effect it has on the power of the EU as a state relative to its member governments
2) The effect on the distribution of power between the member states relative to each other

Spoiler: My very american opinion (click to show/hide)

How it actually spins out depends hugely on how the election rules are written. However, whatever the electoral system for the seats ends up being, I think with regard to the first point it's certainly a move towards centralization of both the EU as a state and a centralization of its politics. Any party or candidate that succeeds in an EU-wide election would benefit from very broad appeal that concerns the EU as a whole; I suspect these seats will be filled typically by groups who are chiefly divided by either having stated aims that strongly oppose EU centralization or those who state strong support for EU policies and centralization. This may sound like it could go either way, pushing the EU towards either centralization or decentralization depending on the results, but I think it's key to understand that by filling these seats through an EU-wide election, that in itself will have a centralizing effect, because it'll reward the groups that are better able to campaign internationally on EU-wide politics and create a vested interest among those elected at the very least to preserve their own position. Even if the EU district ends up at first being dominated by nationalist populists trying to dismantle the EU, I doubt those people elected would ever seek to destroy their own seats, for instance, and their international campaigning would only bring politics towards greater EU-wide homogenization. Essentially, it shifts the conversation itself more towards the EU and away from the member states.

With the second point, which I think is what scriver was mostly calling attention to, how the power ends up distributed between smaller and larger member states seems mostly unknowable until the election rules are set. I think the larger states will have clear disproportionate influence under most circumstances however, even if the rules ended up being geared towards proportionality. The political groups from the larger states will not only have the obvious natural advantage among voters of their nationality, but also more potential for international recognition and a platform that has already refined the strategy of vague unideological appeals necessary to win over large districts.

[Loud Whispers]

Well, yeah, it would give slightly less of an advantage to smaller countries in the EU parliament, but gosh, calm down scriver. We're talking of less than 10% of the seats. I mean, the discussion of how it would turn out and how it would (or wouldn't) change the balance of power within the EU is an interesting one, but that's a discussion that we can't have if you answer to that by "Well, democracy is over, we might as well elect Hitler God-Chancellor of Yurop".
So if you're willing to act reasonably, I'll be glad to discuss this in more details. Otherwise, I'll also (although sadly less) be glad to answer with equally ridiculous over the top claims in the opposite direction, and we can wallow in our own shit while LW laugh like the reincarnation of Nyarlatothep.

Absolutely c h a o s h

[scriver]

Well, yeah, it would give slightly less of an advantage to smaller countries in the EU parliament, but gosh, calm down scriver. We're talking of less than 10% of the seats. I mean, the discussion of how it would turn out and how it would (or wouldn't) change the balance of power within the EU is an interesting one, but that's a discussion that we can't have if you answer to that by "Well, democracy is over, we might as well elect Hitler God-Chancellor of Yurop".

So if you're willing to act reasonably, I'll be glad to discuss this in more details. Otherwise, I'll also (although sadly less) be glad to answer with equally ridiculous over the top claims in the opposite direction, and we can wallow in our own shit while LW laugh like the reincarnation of Nyarlatothep.

All in all it's just another brick in the wall

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Wait, scriver - how is adding more direct democracy the end of democracy? I get that the EU is hardly the best supranational organization, but that doesn't mean that this supranational-representative thing is anti-democratic.

[smjjames]

Wait, scriver - how is adding more direct democracy the end of democracy? I get that the EU is hardly the best supranational organization, but that doesn't mean that this supranational-representative thing is anti-democratic.

Because it'd potentially be the beginning of the end of the full sovereignity that the EU nations enjoy. Unless they go for an UN type structure.

[scriver]

Wait, scriver - how is adding more direct democracy the end of democracy? I get that the EU is hardly the best supranational organization, but that doesn't mean that this supranational-representative thing is anti-democratic.

Fifty thousand Englishmen and five hundred Algonquians vote on how to divide the land. The Algonquians have to move away.

[smjjames]

Does the EU have one house or two houses of parliament? Or maybe better distribution of MEPs? The American equivalent of the five biggest actors having almost half the vote would be like California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois making up almost half of the House of Representatives. Except they don't, they take up about 37%, bit over a third.

Perhaps major reform is simply needed to balance out things. Of course though, the big states won't want to lose their collective almost half of parliament.

[ChairmanPoo]

My perception is that it's much more a North vs South problem (namely, the former shafting the latter)  than big countries vs small ones. 

Of course, if you are in the south AND  small, you get doubly shafted. Hence the situation in Greece

[scriver]

Which I think is a funny view because the countries in the North is the ones paying for the whole Eu project yet are completely powerless over EU policy and financing.

[smjjames]

More West vs East than North vs South.

It still comes down to "Why should <politician from x country> represent us when they in fact, don't?" or some variant of that because the member states still think of themselves as independent states contributing to a community project than states with limited autonomy that are part of a greater whole. Aside from the original 13 colonies and the period where we were still figuring out how to do things, the only states which were ever a nation in their own right are Hawaii (Polynesian kingdom) and Texas. California had a federal thing really briefly while waiting for statehood, but not sure if that counts.

Which I think is a funny view because the countries in the North is the ones paying for the whole Eu project yet are completely powerless over EU policy and financing.

I thought Germany and France are the financial engines of the whole thing?