The guiding philosophy behind the EU

Jason Henderson

One of the links on that site, this one[^], is absolutely outstanding.

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

KaRl

The firsts paragraphs (in small font) made me close to stop the reading. The same old cliché of french imperialism. I spited my anger and continued. With the historical presentation, I was happy to see I shared the views of the Author. In fact, I agreed till the sentence placing European decadence during American occupation. IMO the European decadence began in August 1914, and reached its climax in may 1945. After that, the analisys went wild, and I mainly disagreed till the end. First, the author forget the specific case of France, who gave itself the nuclear weapon in the 60's to conquer its political independance. Once this done, France went out the organized command of NATO, the supreme symbol of its independance towards the US. Supreme offence, it asked the US troops to go away, thank you. In 1966, it made the same rumble than the one we can see in the anglo-sawon media in these days. Next, the author also forget the Germano-French answer to the risk of a new German adventure. France, realizing as the other allied that the main problem of this century was a militarized Germany, had the chance to find with Adenauer and De Gaulle two leaders willing to link our countries to resolve the problem, without a spirit of domination, but with good wills from both side. And it worked. Enemies during 2 WW, the two countries were now the "motor" of European Integration, pushing to a closer and closer integration. Quiet every new steps were made because of the common will of France of Germany. This integration had several targets: 1) Prevent another European war. 2) Enhance the economy with the creation of an open market. France added a third in its mind, give to Europe a political power to counterbalance (and not oppose, as often deformed) the US and the USSR superpowers. Now, the two first points are secured. The integration of Eastern Europe promises a peaceful future. The economies are integrated, having even adopted a unique currency through the continent. The € was created to counterbalance the $ on the financial market, and give a new financial power to Europe. It sounds IMO also logical it tries to do the same on the political scene. The problem is we don't all agree on the third point. Some are really happy to be dominated lead by the US. Others disagree. That's the main reason of the current fracture, some pushing to move to an european federation, and the others pushing too, but on the brakes. Why should we be happy to be the second, now that USSR collapsed, and not t

KaRl

I also often, even mostly, agreed with this excellent article. "Most Europeans believe that it was the transformation of European politics, the deliberate abandonment and rejection of centuries of machtpolitik, that in the end made possible the "new order" I'm not one of these, IMO the ruins of WWII made it possible. I also think we european need a strong military power, because ideals can't be defended by words only, and it's not to the US to do the job alone. We can't protest when US use powers and whine about them when we need help.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Domenic [Geekn] wrote: What do you see as the purpose of the EU? If you're just saying to be economically united, what's this deal with a constitution then? Eventually, it's supposed to become something pretty close to the US. I think. One currency, union laws and state laws, military defence forces, etc. Those who don't want the union (there are such people, unfortunately IMO) claim that the EU is the succession of the Third Reich. I think that's silly as the Reich was built on fascistic views, while the union is built on democratic views. In Sweden it's mostly communists and "green commies" who want out of the union. The absurdity of it is, from what I hear, that the leftwing in the rest of europe is pro-EU. I'm pro-EU in all respects. Domenic [Geekn] wrote: Why don't you get to elect EU leaders? You get to vote for them indirectly I believe. In Sweden, the elected government gets to chose who is to be a delegate/member of the EU parliament. I'm not sure, but I think this is also the case in the other member countries. There's no real reason for a direct election unless we reform our political system to something similar to what you guys have in the US. If I could decide, I'd make Europe a country just like USA and the member countries would be states very much like your states. But I doubt that would ever happen. Even if we ignore the languages, there are still way too many differences between the european countries. -- Shine like a mirror reflecting, like the sun shines. Something that comes from above, when all that remains falls below.

Mike Gaskey

KaЯl wrote: and wich would carry also the French dream of Universal Rights of Man and Citizen. It would seem that the French dream is relatively unconcerned about the opinions of the "common" man. Highlighted by the information starting at the 'Signs of Fatigue and 'Elite-led Gradualism' subheadings. http://www.techcentralstation.be/2051/wrapper.jsp?PID=2051-100&CID=2051-022103N[^] KaЯl wrote: IMO, the Europe I see is not a tool to amplify french influence a statement somewhat contrary to this opinion: http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-021903B[^] Mike

KaRl

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: In Sweden, the elected government gets to chose who is to be a delegate/member of the EU parliament. I'm not sure, but I think this is also the case in the other member countries Here we directly elect our representants to the European Parliament.The problem is the weakness of this Parliament, it has few powers. I sometimes think we should have the same system than in the US, adding a Senate where States would be equally represented. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: But I doubt that would ever happen I doubt also it would happen before centuries between 30 european nations. But I hope it could be with a smaller core of nations.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Mike Gaskey wrote: _http://www.techcentralstation.be/2051/wrapper.jsp?PID=2051-100&CID=2051-022103N\[^\]_ Once removed the conservative flamatory crap, the article is right.The more and more we were in the Union (6, 9, 10, 12 now 15, tomorrow 24, or 27), the more and more the willing was diluted. That's also why some of the founding countries are reluctant to integrate eastern countries, fearing it will get worse. IMO, the simili-constitution they're trying to prepare will never be adopted by the people: too many compromises, not clear enough. Mike Gaskey wrote: _http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-021903B\[^\]_ On the contrary, this article is pure BS. The author is highly deforming Chirac's words to make his point. He just wants to fuel the fire, he doesn't deserve any regard for that.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Lost User

Actually, I'd rather you didn't discuss the EU. This is so the US doesn't realise what has happened until after its too late :laugh: The tigress is here :-D

Jorgen Sigvardsson

KaЯl wrote: But I hope it could be with a smaller core of nations. Be careful here. This is where the elite countries start making decisions for other countries. That'll just bring us closer to war. If we're going to have a common government, all states must be given the same opportunity. I really like the US congress. I think that's a fairly fair way to divide the power between the states. -- Shine like a mirror reflecting, like the sun shines. Something that comes from above, when all that remains falls below.

Daniel Ferguson

in the not-so-distant future Actually, I was thinking more of the not-so-distant past.

"Don't stand in the shadow of my hammer", Tabula Rasa, by Covenant

Mike Gaskey

KaЯl wrote: On the contrary, this article is pure BS. The author is highly deforming Chirac's words to make his point. He just wants to fuel the fire, he doesn't deserve any regard for that. are you sure that this "BS" is only the opinion of the author? http://www.adn.com/24hour/iraq/story/771671p-5550397c.html[^] Mike

Chris Losinger

you get my 5. -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Fractals

ColinDavies

Domenic [Geekn] wrote: Why don't you get to elect EU leaders? Domenic, the Euro Parliament members are ALL elected by constituents. However in the US the President is not elected by people but by the electoral colleges. And this varies from state to state how the division is implemented. Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Lol! :laugh: -- Shine like a mirror reflecting, like the sun shines. Something that comes from above, when all that remains falls below.

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

Definitely. :) Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

Trollslayer wrote: Actually, I'd rather you didn't discuss the EU. This is so the US doesn't realise what has happened until after its too late I like it! :laugh: Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

KaRl

Is Sweden a centralized or a federal state?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Mike Gaskey

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I really like the US congress. I think that's a fairly fair way to divide the power between the states. Since no one has responded, I will. You are correct in thinking that our approach is fair. As you probably know, there are two components to the US Congress. These are the House and the Senate. Representatives elected to the house stand for re-election every two years. The idea here is that the Representatives reflect the "will of the people" which can be mercurial, changing in a fairly short amount of time. Senators are elected for six year terms. Roughly a 3rd of the Senate stands for re-election every two years (terms are staggered). The number of Representative "seats", the number of representatives that can be elected from a given state, are determined every 10 years through a nation wide census. The number of Senate "seats" is fixed at two per state. Money related legislation is initiated through the House of Representatives - the concept being that the members of the House are closer to the "will of the people" because of the need to stand for election every two years. The over all arrangement provides a governing body that represents the current will of the people (House) balanced by a longer term view (Senate) who will tend to act in the interest of the country overall versus the state from which they were elected (the view, of course, changes as an election nears). The arrangement for the House of Representatives also recognizes that large states (population)should have a larger representation on many issues. The arrangement for the Senate keeps the large states from being dominant, since to become law, a new law must pass both legislative bodies. With the limited exposure that I have had to the EU concepts and processes, it would appear that EU member states will be governed by something more closely akin to an aristocracy that is dominated by two or three countries. It is difficult for me to see why a nation would yield it's soverignty and identity when it is not to be treated as an equal. Mike

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Thanks for the rundown on how your government works. Some parts are still in the grey. But I will learn more in due time. I am planning on emigrating to the US. Eventhough I don't see eye to eye with your current president and his administration, I feel that the US is a country which I'd like to live in. Can't be sure though until I'm actually there, so I'll keep my Swedish citizenship until I'm sure. :) With any luck I might have my green card this spring. *holding thumbs* Mike Gaskey wrote: It is difficult for me to see why a nation would yield it's soverignty and identity when it is not to be treated as an equal. Exactly. Why should we (the smaller countries) bend over for Germany, France and England? Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike these countries. However, I'm sure we have different interests, and therefore we should have equals saying in many decisions since it may radically change our way of life. I can't say that I'm an expert on how the EU works today, but I know how I want it to work should we ever turn into one big nation. Your government model appears to be an ideal for such a large nation. One thing that bothers me a little though, is the presedent election. IIRC, the president who gets the most votes is not necessarily the one who gets elected. But I guess that's ok, since your type of government is branched into three different administrations. Presedential, congress and judicial, right? Do you feel that "trinity" works out ok? Or have you found any flaws in it which you'd like to correct? -- we dance to the sound of sirens and we watch genocide to relax we dance to the sound of sirens we are the heroes of self-deception

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Judicially no. Politically yes. Our laws are the same all over the state, but we have local communal governments which sets taxes etc independently. Basically, the structure is like this:

Regering & Riksdag/State government & Parliament

Runs the show together with the rest of the parliament. However, a majority government or coalition gets to decide pretty much everything. We do have different semi politically independent institutions that checks that everything the government behaves according to the book. Hearings are done whenever there is a suspicion of decisions which are clearly against our "constitution". The parliament is a single chamber one by the way.

Landsting/Provincial government

Our country is divided into smaller parts, called Landsting. I guess you could call them provinces. These smaller elected governments basically run the wellfare programs. They also tax us, but those taxes are marginal. Some say these provincial governments are just a wast of money and efficiency. I tend to agree a little. To me it seems they only cost money. Hearing about a Landsting having money left at the end of the year is something you don't hear too often.

:)Kommun/Communal government

Landsting are broken down into smaller parts. Typically, a larger city gets to represent a commune. Smaller towns and villages are often grouped together with nearby larger cities. The communal governments are those who gets most of the taxes. They implement the wellfare as required by Landsting. They also fund the schools, transportation, libraries etc. Basically, they only implement laws and regulations as stipulated by the Regering and Landsting.

Constitutional laws are changed by the government. The laws can only be changed if they are in favor for two (or is it three?) consecutive mandate periods. A mandate period is four years. Other laws are made/changed by the parliament in cooperation with our "law institution". And on top of all that is EU. :) -- we dance to the sound of sirens and we watch genocide to relax we dance to the sound of sirens we are the heroes of self-deception