Is the EU sacrificing democracy?

[Helen of Annoy]

16 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

So what? You are talking about a single person. Even if every person in a EU country demanded something, if it was against your over lords, it isn't going to happen. The will of the people can be done when you actually elect your leaders, and there is no authority above them.

I didn't lose anything.

What over lords? 

Is any minister in my government my over lord according to you? Not according to me. I'm chronically dissatisfied with my governments, but they are there and they are like that because I put them there, together with my countrymen, and the b****** in power is a b****** because we all are, on average. 

Are your federal (federal, mind you, EU is not there yet and might never be to the real federal extent) institutions over lords to you? Do you feel animosity towards anything federal in your own country? 

I'm asking because I'm trying to understand why you believe there's something especially undemocratic or menacing or what in the EU.   

 

3 hours ago, stevewinn said:

 

Obviously the politics in Croatia is different to ours - if Helen thinks the two are the same, but then Croatian political system is full of corruption so is more in line with the EU.

Obviously, you have no courage or honesty to admit openly that your politics is corrupt too. 

Yes, there's outrageous corruption in Croatia. Being a member of EU can only help us deal with that scourge. 

And yes, there's corruption in the EU too. It cost my country a portion of territory, among other things. Is that a reason to drop the whole thing? No, that's a reason to be more active. To vote for people who will do something, instead of just enjoying the sinecure.  

[keithisco]

20 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

So what? You are talking about a single person. Even if every person in a EU country demanded something, if it was against your over lords, it isn't going to happen. The will of the people can be done when you actually elect your leaders, and there is no authority above them.

I didn't lose anything.

As I mentioned earlier- Qualified Majority Voting can TOTALLY  ignore whole nations that do not agree with a proposal:

Quote

 

When the Council votes on a proposal by the Commission or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, a qualified majority is reached if two conditions are met:

1. 55% of member states vote in favour - in practice this means 16 out of 28

2. the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population

This procedure is also known as the 'double majority' rule.

Source:

 

,,,and this is increasingly being used:

Quote

 

The 'standard' voting method in the Council

Qualified majority is the most widely used voting method in the Council. 

It's used when the Council takes decisions during the ordinary legislative procedure, also known as co-decision. About 80% of all EU legislation  is adopted with this procedure.

Source:

 

 

[Unusual Tournament]

On 06/06/2018 at 8:36 AM, preacherman76 said:

So what? You are talking about a single person. Even if every person in a EU country demanded something, if it was against your over lords, it isn't going to happen. The will of the people can be done when you actually elect your leaders, and there is no authority above them.

I didn't lose anything.

That’s no right since it’s the national governments that have the real power and the EU parliament a forum voice. Speaking of electing leaders... Helen and others could also argue that no one has elected the Queen and the House of Lords either?  

I think the EU citizens have more rights than those outside it. 

[keithisco]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

That’s no right since it’s the national governments that have the real power and the EU parliament a forum voice. Speaking of electing leaders... Helen and others could also argue that no one has elected the Queen and the House of Lords either?  

I think the EU citizens have more rights than those outside it. 

I refer you to my Post #29 where I have laid out precisely, using EU's own resources,how impotent, individual Nations actually are and can simply be treated as Vassals whilst the majority nations trample over any concerns they may have and vote into Law anything that does permit a Veto. The Visegrad nations voted against the EU Commission plans for dispersing migrants yet still it was passed and are now facing internal sanctions from the Commission. Oh yes, EU Citizens have individual rights, nations however have no right to refuse enacting a Law that has been passed without their consent or agreement. 

Typically only an ill-informed person would try to insinuate that HM Queen Elizabeth II or the House of Lords can initiate legislation, that is entirely within the See of the elected House of Commons. Please familiarise yourself with UK Constitutional Imperatives because it makes you look foolish, which I am sure you are not.     

[Helen of Annoy]

Visegrad group are Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia. By not at all weird coincidence, they all have 'populist' demagogues, often in cordial relations with Putin, who would invent refugees if they weren't there. In fact, with the exception of Hungary, refugees are imaginary - or marginal at worst - problem in other Visegrad countries.    

EU tolerance and full sovereignty of its members can be seen from this example too. 

I'd say that this example also shows we could use a little more consensus and a little less Russian trolling.   

 

[kartikg]

If the citizens are dumb and cannot see the big picture democracy should be sacrificed for time being, until sanity restored. NOT implying about Europe but democracy in general. 

[keithisco]

5 hours ago, kartikg said:

If the citizens are dumb and cannot see the big picture democracy should be sacrificed for time being, until sanity restored. NOT implying about Europe but democracy in general. 

This is precisely what the EU does...Only the Commission can see "The Big Picture" as far as they are concerned, hence the ever increasing use of Qualified Majority Voting to maintain "awkward states" in servitude.

I think you need to qualify "Dumb" because that is a value-judgement often employed by narcissistic and elitist folk pushing an agenda that seriously devalues certain "classes" of Citizens. We have all seen the vile and disgusting verbal attacks against anybody over the age of 60 (who actually exercised their democratic right to vote) in the Referendum would they, and I include myself in this, DUMB??

[Unusual Tournament]

On 6/8/2018 at 7:32 AM, keithisco said:

I refer you to my Post #29 where I have laid out precisely, using EU's own resources,how impotent, individual Nations actually are and can simply be treated as Vassals whilst the majority nations trample over any concerns they may have and vote into Law anything that does permit a Veto. The Visegrad nations voted against the EU Commission plans for dispersing migrants yet still it was passed and are now facing internal sanctions from the Commission. Oh yes, EU Citizens have individual rights, nations however have no right to refuse enacting a Law that has been passed without their consent or agreement. 

Typically only an ill-informed person would try to insinuate that HM Queen Elizabeth II or the House of Lords can initiate legislation, that is entirely within the See of the elected House of Commons. Please familiarise yourself with UK Constitutional Imperatives because it makes you look foolish, which I am sure you are not.     

oh rubbish! as if the EU is some insidious cabal hell bent on promoting servitude to some undemocratic ideal. the power rests with the individual countries and as we can see from the UK nothing stops the from leaving at any time. 

without the queens approval no law legislated can become law unless she approves. 

the house of lords review and amends bills. 

seems to me very undemocratic. 

[Unusual Tournament]

10 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Visegrad group are Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia. By not at all weird coincidence, they all have 'populist' demagogues, often in cordial relations with Putin, who would invent refugees if they weren't there. In fact, with the exception of Hungary, refugees are imaginary - or marginal at worst - problem in other Visegrad countries.    

EU tolerance and full sovereignty of its members can be seen from this example too. 

I'd say that this example also shows we could use a little more consensus and a little less Russian trolling.   

 

hey Helen. generally i must say that I'm nor surprised the Visegrad grouping is so troublesome to EU agenda's since they share much in common with Russia. its no secret that Russia has infiltrated EU countries to move their agenda forward. like you i think that the migrant crises is highly overrated and too emotionally charged to be taken seriously. maybe the Russians are looking for closer ties to the EU and this is there way of showing Berlin and Paris that there is a price to excluding Russia from direct trade. 

[GlitterRose]

It's all a game that's being played on the world right now.

Divide and conquer.

It's an old game, but apparently, no one is wiser. 

Best to stay united and be strong so that dictators and kleptocrats can't rule the literal world. 

But who the heck's gonna listen to lowly me? 

[GlitterRose]

Maybe if I name it something nifty like...the New World Order...

someone might sit up and take notice.

Nah, that's already been used. 

It was brilliant to do that so that when it actually came along people wouldn't believe it.

[+and-then]

On 5/31/2018 at 10:35 AM, L.A.T.1961 said:

The migration situation is one example.

I'm convinced that what we're seeing unfold in Europe is not the consequence of poor management.  The Europeans that ruled (and fought) 70+ years ago have succumbed to their own victory.  One nation after another bred a couple of generations that were too selfish to be bothered with the time and expense of child-rearing.  Demographic death is a certainty now unless these countries replace native populations with young, healthy migrants.  They seem clueless or complicit in the knowledge that this will mean the end of the historic culture and values they purport to cherish.  The same is happening in the U.S., just at a much slower pace.  As to "sacrificing democracy" I wasn't aware that the EU was in any real way a truly representative form of government.  Aren't the guys and gals that meet in Brussels an appointed lot that do not have to stand for election?

[Helen of Annoy]

27 minutes ago, and then said:

I'm convinced that what we're seeing unfold in Europe is not the consequence of poor management.  The Europeans that ruled (and fought) 70+ years ago have succumbed to their own victory.  One nation after another bred a couple of generations that were too selfish to be bothered with the time and expense of child-rearing.  Demographic death is a certainty now unless these countries replace native populations with young, healthy migrants.  They seem clueless or complicit in the knowledge that this will mean the end of the historic culture and values they purport to cherish.  The same is happening in the U.S., just at a much slower pace.  As to "sacrificing democracy" I wasn't aware that the EU was in any real way a truly representative form of government.  Aren't the guys and gals that meet in Brussels an appointed lot that do not have to stand for election?

For the umpteenth time, each EU member has EU elections. Each member democratically elects EU representatives.

The EU officials aren't directly elected, just like officials of national governments aren't directly elected. Presidents mostly are directly elected (unlike in the US, where citizens elect electoral college, not the president), but EU has no president. Or queen, for that matter.

   

[+and-then]

6 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Each member democratically elects EU representatives.

Please explain this to me.  Are you saying that each member state elects EU representatives and if the answer is yes, but the citizens do not vote for these representatives then who is it that "elects"?  Do you see the source of my confusion?  If member states have elected representatives make the decision, are these appointments for a specific duration and is there a mechanism to recall or impeachment a representative that is not voting in line with the wishes of their country?

[Helen of Annoy]

4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

hey Helen. generally i must say that I'm nor surprised the Visegrad grouping is so troublesome to EU agenda's since they share much in common with Russia. its no secret that Russia has infiltrated EU countries to move their agenda forward. like you i think that the migrant crises is highly overrated and too emotionally charged to be taken seriously. maybe the Russians are looking for closer ties to the EU and this is there way of showing Berlin and Paris that there is a price to excluding Russia from direct trade. 

It was realistic to expect numerous little wannabe tough-guys will try emulating Putin. There's also that quite real Russian support for any movement that is in any way damaging to the unity of the EU (divide and charge more for the gas) and integrity of the US (destroy the remaining superpower from within).

The are countless possible ways in which EU-Russia relations will go. Personally, I don't as much expect as I do hope for a birth of an alliance instead of deepening the conflict. (Just to clarify: don't expect in it my lifetime, but Russia naturally belongs with the rest of us in Europe. Unless we manage to exterminate ourselves, we will be together one day.)

Trump, of course, makes it all much harder than would be - he wants Russia back into G7 while there are freaking sanctions in place. And sanctions are there because Russian irresponsible expansionism must be controlled. Etc. 

Still I believe Berlin and Paris are perfectly aware and capable of introducing the fine balance needed in relations with Russia.          

[Helen of Annoy]

2 minutes ago, and then said:

Please explain this to me.  Are you saying that each member state elects EU representatives and if the answer is yes, but the citizens do not vote for these representatives then who is it that "elects"?  Do you see the source of my confusion?  If member states have elected representatives make the decision, are these appointments for a specific duration and is there a mechanism to recall or impeachment a representative that is not voting in line with the wishes of their country?

We elect our representatives, each nation elects representatives to national parliaments in national elections and EU representatives in EU elections that are held separate in each member country. 

National representatives form national governments, appoint various institutions, EU representatives do the same for the EU institutions. 

There's no separate direct election process when my new prime-minister appoints a new minister for any ministry, so why would you want one for the EU counterpart? 

 

If you're talking about Donald Tusk, who does what sane and intelligent politician and an European would do, against extreme (more accurate word would be bizarre) right demagogue desires, just say so.

No, there's no mechanism that would recall democratically elected EU representative if it happens that his country has contracted the bizarre-right disease.       

[Helen of Annoy]

I have real life to do now, in case someone wants to waste more time with me - you are not ignored, I'll be back  

[bee]

5 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

oh rubbish! as if the EU is some insidious cabal hell bent on promoting servitude to some undemocratic ideal. the power rests with the individual countries and as we can see from the UK nothing stops the from leaving at any time. 

As if....... but some 'insidious cabal' could be waiting in the wings - the bigger the organization the bigger the opportunities for
corruption and totalitarian take over ---- softly softly catchy monkey - or a sudden development like ---- oh I don't know....
engineering military conflict with Russia maybe - and emergency rules come into play where '''''rights''''' are suspended for
''''the common good'''''' then never go back again...

the checks and balances of sovereign nations (however imperfect their democracy) is a sensible precaution against totalitarian take over - IMO

oh and.... we haven't ACTUALLY left yet..... it seems to be such a complicated affair that it's taking YEARS .... and if we had adopted the
Euro it would probably have been even more of a difficult process....

 

[danydandan]

55 minutes ago, and then said:

Please explain this to me.  Are you saying that each member state elects EU representatives and if the answer is yes, but the citizens do not vote for these representatives then who is it that "elects"?  Do you see the source of my confusion?  If member states have elected representatives make the decision, are these appointments for a specific duration and is there a mechanism to recall or impeachment a representative that is not voting in line with the wishes of their country?

MEPs are elected, Elections to the European Parliament take place every five years by universal adult suffrage. 751 MEPs are elected to the European Parliament, which has been directly elected since 1979. No other EU institution is directly elected, with the Council of the European Union and the European Council being only indirectly legitimated through national elections. While Europarties have the right to campaign EU-wide for the European elections, campaigns still take place through national election campaigns, advertising national delegates from national parties.

However the indirectly elected positions are still elected people in there countries if that makes sense. No one can just walk into a position without being elected by their people's.

[keithisco]

10 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

oh rubbish! as if the EU is some insidious cabal hell bent on promoting servitude to some undemocratic ideal. the power rests with the individual countries and as we can see from the UK nothing stops the from leaving at any time. 

without the queens approval no law legislated can become law unless she approves. 

the house of lords review and amends bills. 

seems to me very undemocratic. 

"Oh rubbish"? Is that seriously your best riposte you can come up with. Lacking any detail that opposes my statements?  Simply sying "the power rests with the individual countries" is blatantly not true as I showed you using the EU' own information-straight from the Horse's Mouth isnt it?, no more clarity needed on that point.

You have not looked at the Constitutional Procedures for the UK either have you?? It is not the "Queen's Approval" that is required, just a Signature, if that is not forthcoming (it has NEVER been refused by the way!) then their are Political Instruments available to circumvent that possibility and enact the Law IMMEDIATELY anyway. Again your total lack of knowledge of UK Political Governance is embarrassing (to yourself)  The House of Lords is simple a Review Body, and can SUGGEST Amendments to any Bill, they cannot enact ANY amendments because they do not have that power. The House of Commons is the ONLY body that can, Amend, and Pass legislation. The most power that the HoL has is in delaying Bills. You really are foolish in not acquainting yourself with Procedural Mores in the UK because your pronouncements actually do make you foolish

[keithisco]

4 hours ago, danydandan said:

MEPs are elected, Elections to the European Parliament take place every five years by universal adult suffrage. 751 MEPs are elected to the European Parliament, which has been directly elected since 1979. No other EU institution is directly elected, with the Council of the European Union and the European Council being only indirectly legitimated through national elections. While Europarties have the right to campaign EU-wide for the European elections, campaigns still take place through national election campaigns, advertising national delegates from national parties.

However the indirectly elected positions are still elected people in there countries if that makes sense. No one can just walk into a position without being elected by their people's.

I would agree with that, but it is often postulated that Martin Selmayr holds the real Power in The EU because he sets the Agenda, and he was appointed by Juncker

[Helen of Annoy]

I think it's dawning on me why some Brits are convinced EU must be hiding some unelected ruling class somewhere. They keep projecting their own archaisms on the EU. But the EU wasn't made in the UK image. 

[stevewinn]

14 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

I think it's dawning on me why some Brits are convinced EU must be hiding some unelected ruling class somewhere. They keep projecting their own archaisms on the EU. But the EU wasn't made in the UK image. 

you forgot to add a Russian link.

[Helen of Annoy]

8 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

you forgot to add a Russian link.

I'm in good mood today so I didn't want to embarrass you more than it's absolutely necessary. 

But if you insist, the lost empire was your weak spot Russians recognized and used against you. They promised you alliance in toppling that pesky EU, and you probably didn't even ask for half a Poland, since it's already over there at your place, working for living, while you're posting overtime. 

Not that they have no financial tools to make you receptive for their desires. Imagine they take their money to be laundered elsewhere.  

[AnchorSteam]

5 hours ago, keithisco said:

You have not looked at the Constitutional Procedures for the UK either have you?? It is not the "Queen's Approval" that is required, just a Signature, if that is not forthcoming (it has NEVER been refused by the way!) then their are Political Instruments available to circumvent that possibility and enact the Law IMMEDIATELY anyway. ....

Well well, that's interesting, if true.

I had assumed that the Royals had one actual function that could do their country some good; namely as a Fail-Safe that could kick in at the last moment to save the country from something really ugly, or force a change in the heads of the government. 

 

So, if not, they are basically good for nothing in the literal sense, eh?