It gets worse: German minister advocates European presidency
Ian Geldard
Vision of US-style president stirs up Europe debate
John Hooper in Berlin
The Guardian
Friday July 7, 2000
Germany's foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, who electrified the Europe
debate with a landmark speech earlier this year, yesterday outlined a
vision of the continent's future that will appal Eurosceptics and risks
undermining a tentative understanding emerging between Berlin, Paris
and London.
Mr Fischer said he favoured an elected president of Europe with the
power to choose his or her cabinet. He implicitly rejected a European
government formed from national administrations.
"What one does not want is a weak president...a figurehead," he told
the constitutional affairs committee of the European parliament in
Strasbourg.
He suggested that the president of Europe could be chosen by means of
electoral colleges of the sort that existed in the US and with the
broad support of the majority of member states. As for the single
currency, Mr Fischer called it the "first step to a federation".
His remarks created a new headache for Tony Blair who last week sent
out a stream of positive signals on Europe and announced a keynote
speech in the autumn to define Britain's position.
From now on, any move by the prime minister towards closer ties with
the European Union risks being portrayed by his opponents as a step
towards putting Britain at the mercy of a single, mighty European
overlord.
In his earlier speech, on May 12, Mr Fischer appeared to build a bridge
to those such as President Jacques Chirac in France and Mr Blair in
Britain who are either ideologically unwilling or politically unable to
consider a federal Europe. He said he shared the view that "nation
states are realities that cannot simply be erased".
"The existing concept of a federal European state replacing the old
nation states and their democracies as the new sovereign
power...ignores the established realities in Europe," he said. Last
month, Mr Chirac responded by endorsing a "United Europe of States",
rather than a "United States of Europe". A few days later, on a visit
to the German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, whose officials had earlier
endorsed Mr Fischer's vision, Mr Blair called on the British to see
Europe as an opportunity rather than a conspiracy.
Yesterday, Mr Fischer again stressed the importance of the existing
states. "The basic constitutional axis will be relations between the
nations and Europe," he said. But he made it a lot more difficult for
non-federalists to discuss, let alone endorse, his vision.
The ministers in his proposed cabinet, though chosen by the president
of Europe, would need to win the confidence of a new, two-chamber
European parliament which would have strong links to the member states.
Mr Fischer said there was no conflict between his ideas and the EU's
short-term objective of agreeing a new treaty in Nice, where EU leaders
are due to meet in December.
Mr Schröder's officials have called for a further round of inter-
governmental talks in the EU to discuss "big issues" of the sort raised
by the foreign minister. They foresee it starting as soon as national
parliaments have ratified the treaty expected to be signed in Nice.
That would put the "big issues" on the table some time between 2003 and
2005. But Mr Fischer yesterday stepped up the pace. "We will have to
embark on this discussion very soon after 2002 and take decisions,
because otherwise Europe is heading for a major crisis in our view," he
said.
Top of the agenda would be the form of a constitution to define the
division of powers between Europe's regions, nations and its proposed
federal institutions.
--
Ian Geldard
London, England
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Stephen Cooper
>
> Vision of US-style president stirs up Europe debate
So what's there to complaining about. One of the main problem with the EU
is the democratic deficit at its heart. What he seems to be suggesting is
a way to correct the deficit , and replace an un-elected president of the
commission, with an elected president. This president would then appoint
the rest of the commission, with its members being ratified by the EP and
the national governments before taking office.
We can quibble about the methods of election etc but the basic suggestion
is the right way to go, you can only remove a democratic deficit by being
more democratic. What better way is there than replacing a body without a
mandate, with a body having an electoral manadate from all the peoples of
the EU.
Steve Cooper
igeldard
>Ian Geldard wrote:
>So what's there to complaining about. One of the main problem
with the EU
>is the democratic deficit at its heart. What he seems to be
suggesting is
>a way to correct the deficit , and replace an un-elected
president of the
>commission, with an elected president.
Because this would be a further step towards creating a truly
European government, a United States of Europe. That's exactly
what British eurosceptics are opposed to, and what even many
British European federalists even try to deny is the intention.
--
Ian Geldard
London, England
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Andreas Prucha
<8k4fvi$hf5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>Mr Fischer said he favoured an elected president of Europe with the
>power to choose his or her cabinet. He implicitly rejected a European
>government formed from national administrations.
Great. This would lead to more democracy in Europe.
Andreas
igeldard
>Great. This would lead to more democracy in Europe.
Shit. This would lead to a United States of Europe.
Andreas Prucha
<1354caa0...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com>:
>pru...@helicon.co.at (Andreas Prucha) wrote:
>
>>Great. This would lead to more democracy in Europe.
>
>Shit. This would lead to a United States of Europe.
Yep. Exactly. That's what I'd like to see.
Andreas
jdc
> >Mr Fischer said he favoured an elected president of Europe with the
> >power to choose his or her cabinet. He implicitly rejected a European
> >government formed from national administrations.
>
> Great. This would lead to more democracy in Europe.
Yeah, I especially like the idea of having to choose people I can't
communicate with directly to head my governing executive.
Like, meaningful democracy, man.
jdcxxx
Stephen Cooper
>
> pru...@helicon.co.at (Andreas Prucha) wrote:
>
> >Great. This would lead to more democracy in Europe.
>
You Euro-sceptics can't have it both ways. Either stop
complaining about the democratic deficit within the EU
or stop complaining when a Europhile propose a way out
of the same democratic deficit. You can't have it both
ways either there is a democratic deficit that need to
be addressed or there isn't. If there is then the only
way to deminish the deficit is make those parts of the
EU which are un-elected into elected bodies, just what
Mr Fischer is proposing.
Steve Cooper
PS: A proposal many euro-sceptics said would never be
made. They argued the EU was un-democratic and would
always remain that they, because the PTB's wanted it
that way. How wrong could they be.
Mark Croucher
Stephen Cooper wrote:
> Ian Geldard wrote:
> >
> > Vision of US-style president stirs up Europe debate
>
> So what's there to complaining about. One of the main problem with the EU
> is the democratic deficit at its heart. What he seems to be suggesting is
> a way to correct the deficit , and replace an un-elected president of the
> commission, with an elected president. This president would then appoint
> the rest of the commission, with its members being ratified by the EP and
> the national governments before taking office.
OK. Hands up all those who can afford 360,000,000 election leaflets (in 11
different official languages) and election broadcasts on some 450 TV
stations.
Oh dear, there don't seem to be many hands up......
How does having a 1/360,000,000 th say in who is the EU President resolve the
democratic deficit?
Oh yes, you can make 2.778 x 10^-7 % difference......:-)
>
--
rgds
Mark
mc...@freenetname.co.uk/ma...@dvservices.co.uk
"On whatever side we regard the history of Europe, we shall perceive it to be
a tissue of crimes, follies and misfortunes"
Oliver Goldsmith, 1728-1774, The Citizen of the World.
Mark Croucher
Stephen Cooper wrote:
> igeldard wrote:
> >
> > pru...@helicon.co.at (Andreas Prucha) wrote:
> >
> > >Great. This would lead to more democracy in Europe.
> >
> > Shit. This would lead to a United States of Europe.
> > --
>
> You Euro-sceptics can't have it both ways. Either stop
> complaining about the democratic deficit within the EU
> or stop complaining when a Europhile propose a way out
> of the same democratic deficit. You can't have it both
> ways either there is a democratic deficit that need to
> be addressed or there isn't. If there is then the only
> way to deminish the deficit is make those parts of the
> EU which are un-elected into elected bodies, just what
> Mr Fischer is proposing.
Oh, come on. Who could afford to stand for EU president, ignoring the
fact that unless they were an amazing polyglot they would not speak the
same language as most of their electorate.
Would you vote for a political party whose leader, as prime minister of
GB, could speak only Gaelic?
Even ignoring that, your vote would count, on a percentage basis, for
2.778x10^-7%, or 0.00000002778% of the outcome, as opposed to about
0.09% for local elections and 0.002% for parliamentary elections; how
removed from parliament do you feel?
Surely the cause of the democratic deficit is the amount which you are
removed from government, or the proportion to which you can influence
events by your vote. At parish level, this is about 1000 electors per
councillor, at national parliament some 60,000 per MP, at MEP some
600,000 and at the proposed EU Presidency, 360,000,000. Hardly
representative politics, even if there was some hope of an independant
candidate having sufficient cash to finance a campaign to cover so many
voters in a meaningful sense. Then again, you could run the risk of a
German candidate, as the most populous EU country, being elected
continually on the strength of a purely national vote......say 60% of 88
million
>
>
> Steve Cooper
>
> PS: A proposal many euro-sceptics said would never be
> made. They argued the EU was un-democratic and would
> always remain that they, because the PTB's wanted it
> that way. How wrong could they be.
I hardly think it makes it more democratic in a meaningful sense......
Stephen Cooper
>
> Stephen Cooper wrote:
>
> > igeldard wrote:
> > >
> > > pru...@helicon.co.at (Andreas Prucha) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Great. This would lead to more democracy in Europe.
> > >
> > > Shit. This would lead to a United States of Europe.
> > > --
> >
> > You Euro-sceptics can't have it both ways. Either stop
> > complaining about the democratic deficit within the EU
> > or stop complaining when a Europhile propose a way out
> > of the same democratic deficit. You can't have it both
> > ways either there is a democratic deficit that need to
> > be addressed or there isn't. If there is then the only
> > way to deminish the deficit is make those parts of the
> > EU which are un-elected into elected bodies, just what
> > Mr Fischer is proposing.
>
> Oh, come on. Who could afford to stand for EU president, ignoring the
> fact that unless they were an amazing polyglot they would not speak the
> same language as most of their electorate.
How many people can afford to run a campaign in the UK to try and
win a general election. The odd multi-millionaire and the political
parties. The same would apply for any presidential campaign, only
here it would be the political groupings like the Socialist Group
who would campaign. The national parties running the campaigns in
their own areas, but for a common agreed candidate. Who knows we
might even get election financing, once someone could show they'd
a reasonable level of support.
>
> Would you vote for a political party whose leader, as prime minister of
> GB, could speak only Gaelic?
Simple answer, Yes. The fact that I couldn't understand them
directly, only through interpreters would not dissuade me. I
tend to vote on policies not personality. Now if they only
printed the election literature etc. in Gaelic that would be
a little different. But they don't look at all the effort the
parties go to get party literature in a language the voter
can understand.
>
> Even ignoring that, your vote would count, on a percentage basis, for
> 2.778x10^-7%, or 0.00000002778% of the outcome, as opposed to about
> 0.09% for local elections and 0.002% for parliamentary elections; how
> removed from parliament do you feel?
Very little different. Look at the effect of my vote of getting
the party, P.M., I want compared to the EU president I might want
60 Million/ 360 Million very little real difference. At the last
election I'd rather have had Ashdown as P.M., but he's not and I
had little expectation he would be. But that does not distance
me from Westminster. Just because I can't have the P.M. I wanted
does not mean having Tony as P.M. is undemocratic
>
> Surely the cause of the democratic deficit is the amount which you are
> removed from government, or the proportion to which you can influence
> events by your vote. At parish level, this is about 1000 electors per
> councillor, at national parliament some 60,000 per MP, at MEP some
> 600,000 and at the proposed EU Presidency, 360,000,000.
But that's the whole point about subsiduarity to bring decisions
as close to people as possible. But there are decision that have
to be taken at the levels of county, the nation, and the EU. I'd
rather have those decision taken by an elected official than an
unelected bureaucrat.
> Hardly
> representative politics, even if there was some hope of an independant
> candidate having sufficient cash to finance a campaign to cover so many
> voters in a meaningful sense. Then again, you could run the risk of a
> German candidate, as the most populous EU country, being elected
> continually on the strength of a purely national vote......say 60% of 88
> million
>
People vote more on party lines than national. Can you see a
UK labour voter voting for a UK conservative over say a Dutch
socialist candidate, or the other way around. I don't know any
who would. But even if they did so, any presidential election
would in all probability not use FPTP, but some variant of AV.,
where no national candidate could win on just the votes of
there own country.
> >
> >
> > Steve Cooper
> >
> > PS: A proposal many euro-sceptics said would never be
> > made. They argued the EU was un-democratic and would
> > always remain that they, because the PTB's wanted it
> > that way. How wrong could they be.
>
> I hardly think it makes it more democratic in a meaningful sense......
As meaningful as any other democratization. Was Russia's move
to an elected president in a multi-party system really no more
democratic than what preceded it (in a meaningful sense).
Just because the EU president might not be the guy Mark
Croucher or Steve Cooper voted for does not mean they don't
represent the majority. That's what democracy is all about, the
majority get it there own way, you just have to make sure the
system are in place to protect the minorities from abuse, and
those the EU has in bucketful's, and more coming all the time.
Steve Cooper
Mark Croucher
Stephen Cooper wrote:
> snip
> > Oh, come on. Who could afford to stand for EU president, ignoring the
> > fact that unless they were an amazing polyglot they would not speak the
> > same language as most of their electorate.
>
> How many people can afford to run a campaign in the UK to try and
> win a general election. The odd multi-millionaire and the political
> parties. The same would apply for any presidential campaign, only
> here it would be the political groupings like the Socialist Group
> who would campaign. The national parties running the campaigns in
> their own areas, but for a common agreed candidate. Who knows we
> might even get election financing, once someone could show they'd
> a reasonable level of support.
The fact that no-one but a priveleged few can afford to stand is of very great
concern, especially as we only pay lip service to the idea of representative
democracy. Elective oligarchy is more like it.
I suspect you'd get electoral financing right up until Jorge Haider wanted to
stand, or some other non-PC candidate. EU decides who is worthy?
>
>
> >
> > Would you vote for a political party whose leader, as prime minister of
> > GB, could speak only Gaelic?
>
> Simple answer, Yes. The fact that I couldn't understand them
> directly, only through interpreters would not dissuade me. I
> tend to vote on policies not personality. Now if they only
> printed the election literature etc. in Gaelic that would be
> a little different. But they don't look at all the effort the
> parties go to get party literature in a language the voter
> can understand.
You might, but would the French? The Germans? I suspect probably not. Apart
from that, how do you propose a manifesto could be constructed to cover both
Greece and Germany that had any meaningful content?
>
>
> >
> > Even ignoring that, your vote would count, on a percentage basis, for
> > 2.778x10^-7%, or 0.00000002778% of the outcome, as opposed to about
> > 0.09% for local elections and 0.002% for parliamentary elections; how
> > removed from parliament do you feel?
>
> Very little different. Look at the effect of my vote of getting
> the party, P.M., I want compared to the EU president I might want
> 60 Million/ 360 Million very little real difference. At the last
> election I'd rather have had Ashdown as P.M., but he's not and I
> had little expectation he would be. But that does not distance
> me from Westminster. Just because I can't have the P.M. I wanted
> does not mean having Tony as P.M. is undemocratic
Yes, but you weren't voting specifically for the PM, rather for a candidate
who may or may not have belonged to a political party, however much President
Blair may have wished otherwise...
>
>
> >
> > Surely the cause of the democratic deficit is the amount which you are
> > removed from government, or the proportion to which you can influence
> > events by your vote. At parish level, this is about 1000 electors per
> > councillor, at national parliament some 60,000 per MP, at MEP some
> > 600,000 and at the proposed EU Presidency, 360,000,000.
>
> But that's the whole point about subsiduarity to bring decisions
> as close to people as possible. But there are decision that have
> to be taken at the levels of county, the nation, and the EU. I'd
> rather have those decision taken by an elected official than an
> unelected bureaucrat.
Sorry, but I don't understand how being 1/360,000,000 of the electorate brings
me closer to an EU president. At the moment, the President is appointed by the
15 member governments who are elected; in other words, if I voted Labour, my
voice in electing the EU president now is 40,000,000 (UK electorate) * 0.45
(%age supporting Labour) * 15 EU countries = 1/270,000,000. It is currently
*more* democratic now as a ratio of electors to office by that reasoning.
>
>
> > Hardly
> > representative politics, even if there was some hope of an independant
> > candidate having sufficient cash to finance a campaign to cover so many
> > voters in a meaningful sense. Then again, you could run the risk of a
> > German candidate, as the most populous EU country, being elected
> > continually on the strength of a purely national vote......say 60% of 88
> > million
> >
>
> People vote more on party lines than national. Can you see a
> UK labour voter voting for a UK conservative over say a Dutch
> socialist candidate, or the other way around. I don't know any
> who would. But even if they did so, any presidential election
> would in all probability not use FPTP, but some variant of AV.,
> where no national candidate could win on just the votes of
> there own country.
Can you see a French NF voter supporting anyone who isn't French?
As regards PR, 88,000,000 Germans is a lot to overcome if they started banging
a nationalist drum....
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve Cooper
> > >
> > > PS: A proposal many euro-sceptics said would never be
> > > made. They argued the EU was un-democratic and would
> > > always remain that they, because the PTB's wanted it
> > > that way. How wrong could they be.
> >
> > I hardly think it makes it more democratic in a meaningful sense......
>
> As meaningful as any other democratization. Was Russia's move
> to an elected president in a multi-party system really no more
> democratic than what preceded it (in a meaningful sense).
> Just because the EU president might not be the guy Mark
> Croucher or Steve Cooper voted for does not mean they don't
> represent the majority. That's what democracy is all about, the
> majority get it there own way, you just have to make sure the
> system are in place to protect the minorities from abuse, and
> those the EU has in bucketful's, and more coming all the time.
>
> Steve Cooper
--
Richard Gregory
>
> igeldard wrote:
> >
> > pru...@helicon.co.at (Andreas Prucha) wrote:
> >
> > >Great. This would lead to more democracy in Europe.
> >
> > Shit. This would lead to a United States of Europe.
> > --
>
> You Euro-sceptics can't have it both ways. Either stop
> complaining about the democratic deficit within the EU
> or stop complaining when a Europhile propose a way out
> of the same democratic deficit. You can't have it both
> ways either there is a democratic deficit that need to
> be addressed or there isn't. If there is then the only
> way to deminish the deficit is make those parts of the
> EU which are un-elected into elected bodies, just what
> Mr Fischer is proposing.
Quite untrue. You could disband the whole thing and return
to the democracies of the member states. If "democracies
never declare war on each other", one of the key reasons for
the EU's existance is gone. Unless the democracies don't
truest themselves to remain that way.
Stephen Cooper
>
> Stephen Cooper wrote:
>
> > snip
> > > Oh, come on. Who could afford to stand for EU president, ignoring the
> > > fact that unless they were an amazing polyglot they would not speak the
> > > same language as most of their electorate.
> >
> > How many people can afford to run a campaign in the UK to try and
> > win a general election. The odd multi-millionaire and the political
> > parties. The same would apply for any presidential campaign, only
> > here it would be the political groupings like the Socialist Group
> > who would campaign. The national parties running the campaigns in
> > their own areas, but for a common agreed candidate. Who knows we
> > might even get election financing, once someone could show they'd
> > a reasonable level of support.
>
> The fact that no-one but a priveleged few can afford to stand is of very great
> concern, especially as we only pay lip service to the idea of representative
> democracy. Elective oligarchy is more like it.
Only a privileged few can afford to run an independent national campaign,
but that could only be solved by introducing electoral financing, which
would not only open the poll's but would have stopped most of the recent
political scandals. But until we do the route for the ordinary person is
to join a political party and pursued its members that your the person
to back. If you don't like the existing parties then get out there and
find like minded people and start your own, its been done in the past
Greens, UKIP. If you can't find anyone to help you what hope would you
have of getting elected.
> I suspect you'd get electoral financing right up until Jorge Haider wanted to
> stand, or some other non-PC candidate. EU decides who is worthy?
You can suspect all you want, but as we don't even have electoral finance
is a bit of a moot point. But I'm sure if Mr Haider wanted to stand as a
candidate for the EU presidency, he'd find enough like minded people to
back his campaign.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Would you vote for a political party whose leader, as prime minister of
> > > GB, could speak only Gaelic?
> >
> > Simple answer, Yes. The fact that I couldn't understand them
> > directly, only through interpreters would not dissuade me. I
> > tend to vote on policies not personality. Now if they only
> > printed the election literature etc. in Gaelic that would be
> > a little different. But they don't look at all the effort the
> > parties go to get party literature in a language the voter
> > can understand.
>
> You might, but would the French? The Germans? I suspect probably not. Apart
> from that, how do you propose a manifesto could be constructed to cover both
> Greece and Germany that had any meaningful content?
You really do have a poor image of other Europeans. What makes you
think they'd be any less likely to back a candidate that didn't
speak there own language than me or any one else.
As for manifesto, the election is for a EU president, I'd guess
the manifesto would cover EU wide issues like free trade, EU
regulations, EU expansion etc., etc. I don't remember seeing that
many local issues is the manifesto's of the national parties in
a general election, do you?
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Even ignoring that, your vote would count, on a percentage basis, for
> > > 2.778x10^-7%, or 0.00000002778% of the outcome, as opposed to about
> > > 0.09% for local elections and 0.002% for parliamentary elections; how
> > > removed from parliament do you feel?
> >
> > Very little different. Look at the effect of my vote of getting
> > the party, P.M., I want compared to the EU president I might want
> > 60 Million/ 360 Million very little real difference. At the last
> > election I'd rather have had Ashdown as P.M., but he's not and I
> > had little expectation he would be. But that does not distance
> > me from Westminster. Just because I can't have the P.M. I wanted
> > does not mean having Tony as P.M. is undemocratic
>
> Yes, but you weren't voting specifically for the PM, rather for a candidate
> who may or may not have belonged to a political party, however much President
> Blair may have wished otherwise...
Ask the average guy in street who they were voting for, a why they
wont be voting the same way next time. Very few voters vote for an
M.P as a person, most vote because he's the X party candidate, and
most of these vote for party X because Y is the leader. I don't say
I agree with the way they vote, that's why I've always been a bit
of an STV supporter. I don't care so much that its more proportional,
what I do care about is that the electorate get to make a choice,
they have to choose between several party X candidates as to who they
prefer. People might then start taking a bit more notice of the type
of person they were voting for as an MP.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Surely the cause of the democratic deficit is the amount which you are
> > > removed from government, or the proportion to which you can influence
> > > events by your vote. At parish level, this is about 1000 electors per
> > > councillor, at national parliament some 60,000 per MP, at MEP some
> > > 600,000 and at the proposed EU Presidency, 360,000,000.
> >
> > But that's the whole point about subsiduarity to bring decisions
> > as close to people as possible. But there are decision that have
> > to be taken at the levels of county, the nation, and the EU. I'd
> > rather have those decision taken by an elected official than an
> > unelected bureaucrat.
>
> Sorry, but I don't understand how being 1/360,000,000 of the electorate brings
> me closer to an EU president. At the moment, the President is appointed by the
> 15 member governments who are elected; in other words, if I voted Labour, my
> voice in electing the EU president now is 40,000,000 (UK electorate) * 0.45
> (%age supporting Labour) * 15 EU countries = 1/270,000,000. It is currently
> *more* democratic now as a ratio of electors to office by that reasoning.
>
and if you didn't vote labour, your voice in choosing the president of
the commission is zero, infinitely smaller than 1/360,000,000. So as I
didn't vote labour, my influence is increased infinitely with a directly
elected president. So we reduce the influence of 45% of the electorate
by 25% but increase the influence of the remaining 55% by infinity. I
think I've won the math argument.
PS: Isn't 360 Million the population of the EU, the number of registered
voters is probably no more than 270 Million , now where have I seen
that number.
> >
> >
> > > Hardly
> > > representative politics, even if there was some hope of an independant
> > > candidate having sufficient cash to finance a campaign to cover so many
> > > voters in a meaningful sense. Then again, you could run the risk of a
> > > German candidate, as the most populous EU country, being elected
> > > continually on the strength of a purely national vote......say 60% of 88
> > > million
> > >
> >
> > People vote more on party lines than national. Can you see a
> > UK labour voter voting for a UK conservative over say a Dutch
> > socialist candidate, or the other way around. I don't know any
> > who would. But even if they did so, any presidential election
> > would in all probability not use FPTP, but some variant of AV.,
> > where no national candidate could win on just the votes of
> > there own country.
>
> Can you see a French NF voter supporting anyone who isn't French?
It would be up to them, there might be a British BNP candidate, or
they might vote for an agreed candidate put forward by the various
Euro-sceptic parties in the EU. The choice to vote is theirs, if
they want to waste it, so be it. But most people will, they may vote
for the NF first, but most people will continue down the list if
for no other reason that to vote against the candidate they least
want.
>
> As regards PR, 88,000,000 Germans is a lot to overcome if they started banging
> a nationalist drum....
There you go again, what make you believe the germans or anyone
other nation of the EU is going to vote on nationalistic lines.
Yes nationalism does play a part, but are you really telling me
that a UKIP voter would vote for a British labour candidate over
a french euro-sceptic. They might prefer, and vote their first
preferance to a British euro-sceptic candidate if there was one,
but their second would probably go to the french candidate.
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Steve Cooper
> > > >
> > > > PS: A proposal many euro-sceptics said would never be
> > > > made. They argued the EU was un-democratic and would
> > > > always remain that they, because the PTB's wanted it
> > > > that way. How wrong could they be.
> > >
> > > I hardly think it makes it more democratic in a meaningful sense......
> >
> > As meaningful as any other democratization. Was Russia's move
> > to an elected president in a multi-party system really no more
> > democratic than what preceded it (in a meaningful sense).
> > Just because the EU president might not be the guy Mark
> > Croucher or Steve Cooper voted for does not mean they don't
> > represent the majority. That's what democracy is all about, the
> > majority get it there own way, you just have to make sure the
> > system are in place to protect the minorities from abuse, and
> > those the EU has in bucketful's, and more coming all the time.
> >
> > Steve Cooper
>
Steve Cooper
Mark Croucher
Stephen Cooper wrote:
>
> >
> > The fact that no-one but a priveleged few can afford to stand is of very great
> > concern, especially as we only pay lip service to the idea of representative
> > democracy. Elective oligarchy is more like it.
>
> Only a privileged few can afford to run an independent national campaign,
> but that could only be solved by introducing electoral financing, which
> would not only open the poll's but would have stopped most of the recent
> political scandals. But until we do the route for the ordinary person is
> to join a political party and pursued its members that your the person
> to back. If you don't like the existing parties then get out there and
> find like minded people and start your own, its been done in the past
> Greens, UKIP. If you can't find anyone to help you what hope would you
> have of getting elected.
It depends on how you view it. It could be argued that the constant fall in
educational standards, the depoliticisation of the population, the centralisation of
ownership among the mass (and local) media have all created a society where the
truth is in imminent danger of falling by the wayside, and where the ability of most
to understand political issues through independant sources of information is
minimalised. The advent of mass communications has made this, surprisingly, more,
rather than less likely to happen. I would suggest that the argument concerning the
Euro itself is a victim of this; no real addressing of either the economic or
political issues involved in the long term, but an endless repitition of soundbites
designed to expound the theory of the day. If you had a revolutionary new view on
economics and/or politics, how much difference do you think you could make, how much
headway against the politico-corparatist centre?
Vote Tooting Peoples Front:-)
>
>
> > I suspect you'd get electoral financing right up until Jorge Haider wanted to
> > stand, or some other non-PC candidate. EU decides who is worthy?
>
> You can suspect all you want, but as we don't even have electoral finance
> is a bit of a moot point. But I'm sure if Mr Haider wanted to stand as a
> candidate for the EU presidency, he'd find enough like minded people to
> back his campaign.
You're right, of course, but the general rubbishing of his parties policies is not
constructive. Now, I run the risk here of being mis-interpreted, but say it was the
BNP. The current way of dealing with extremist parties is to rubbish everything they
say, to find ways to deny them party political broadcasts, to ship in huge amounts
of non-local anti BNP support to smother the whole argument. While the policies of
the BNP *are* disgusting generally, it does not necessarily mean that the issues
they raise should be ignored, and yet that is what happens. When did this country
last have a genuine, open debate on the direction our society takes on the road to
multi-culturalism? On immigration? On religion? The fact is that the concerns the
BNP raised in Tower Hamlets a few years back were genuine concerns for the local
residents, but no-one actually bothered to address them, merely to suppress them,
and in the process miss the opportunity to educate the BNPs supporters, not all of
whom were skinhead fascists.
Now although that is a purely local case to the UK, the general direction of the EU,
and its attitude to the government of Austria, hardly bodes well for general open
discussion within the EU, or for the increasing suppression of non-centrist views.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Would you vote for a political party whose leader, as prime minister of
> > > > GB, could speak only Gaelic?
> > >
> > > Simple answer, Yes. The fact that I couldn't understand them
> > > directly, only through interpreters would not dissuade me. I
> > > tend to vote on policies not personality. Now if they only
> > > printed the election literature etc. in Gaelic that would be
> > > a little different. But they don't look at all the effort the
> > > parties go to get party literature in a language the voter
> > > can understand.
> >
> > You might, but would the French? The Germans? I suspect probably not. Apart
> > from that, how do you propose a manifesto could be constructed to cover both
> > Greece and Germany that had any meaningful content?
>
> You really do have a poor image of other Europeans. What makes you
> think they'd be any less likely to back a candidate that didn't
> speak there own language than me or any one else.
Reality. They struggle in Belgium on the basis of the cultural differences between
Walloons & Flems, in Ireland on religion, in Spain between Basque and general
Spanish culture. The Scots want devolution, Wales has its own parliament, etc etc.
If we can't agree on these things within a relatively limited population, what hope
is there of avoiding the dis-enfanchisement of increasing numbers of cultural
minorities? Worse, what hope is there of electing an EU president who can satisfy
all of these cultural aspirations?
>
>
> As for manifesto, the election is for a EU president, I'd guess
> the manifesto would cover EU wide issues like free trade, EU
> regulations, EU expansion etc., etc. I don't remember seeing that
> many local issues is the manifesto's of the national parties in
> a general election, do you?
No, but we have difficulty holding the population of the United Kingdom together on
the basis of manifestos which cover 60,000,000 people. How much is that going to be
multiplied by when you cover not just 6 times the number of people, but a
geo-political entity that stretches from the Balkans to the Artic circle? What is
currently a national issue would become a local one w.r.t. the EU.
> snipped for brevity; its getting a bit long....
>
> > > > Surely the cause of the democratic deficit is the amount which you are
> > > > removed from government, or the proportion to which you can influence
> > > > events by your vote. At parish level, this is about 1000 electors per
> > > > councillor, at national parliament some 60,000 per MP, at MEP some
> > > > 600,000 and at the proposed EU Presidency, 360,000,000.
> > >
> > > But that's the whole point about subsiduarity to bring decisions
> > > as close to people as possible. But there are decision that have
> > > to be taken at the levels of county, the nation, and the EU. I'd
> > > rather have those decision taken by an elected official than an
> > > unelected bureaucrat.
> >
> > Sorry, but I don't understand how being 1/360,000,000 of the electorate brings
> > me closer to an EU president. At the moment, the President is appointed by the
> > 15 member governments who are elected; in other words, if I voted Labour, my
> > voice in electing the EU president now is 40,000,000 (UK electorate) * 0.45
> > (%age supporting Labour) * 15 EU countries = 1/270,000,000. It is currently
> > *more* democratic now as a ratio of electors to office by that reasoning.
> >
>
> and if you didn't vote labour, your voice in choosing the president of
> the commission is zero, infinitely smaller than 1/360,000,000. So as I
> didn't vote labour, my influence is increased infinitely with a directly
> elected president. So we reduce the influence of 45% of the electorate
> by 25% but increase the influence of the remaining 55% by infinity. I
> think I've won the math argument.
Not really; your representation if you didn't vote labour is 0, exactly the same as
if you had voted for the losing candidate in an EU presidency election.
>
>
> PS: Isn't 360 Million the population of the EU, the number of registered
> voters is probably no more than 270 Million , now where have I seen
> that number.
:-)
>
>
>
> > > People vote more on party lines than national. Can you see a
> > > UK labour voter voting for a UK conservative over say a Dutch
> > > socialist candidate, or the other way around. I don't know any
> > > who would. But even if they did so, any presidential election
> > > would in all probability not use FPTP, but some variant of AV.,
> > > where no national candidate could win on just the votes of
> > > there own country.
> >
> > Can you see a French NF voter supporting anyone who isn't French?
>
> It would be up to them, there might be a British BNP candidate, or
> they might vote for an agreed candidate put forward by the various
> Euro-sceptic parties in the EU. The choice to vote is theirs, if
> they want to waste it, so be it. But most people will, they may vote
> for the NF first, but most people will continue down the list if
> for no other reason that to vote against the candidate they least
> want.
You (and I) don't know if people would vote more on party lines than national, as
there is no history or statistics on which to base the supposition. I agree that
tactical voting is perhaps a distinct possibility, but is this to be lauded? Should
we not devise a system which elects excellence rather than the fourth or fifth least
bad candidate?
>
>
> >
> > As regards PR, 88,000,000 Germans is a lot to overcome if they started banging
> > a nationalist drum....
>
> There you go again, what make you believe the germans or anyone
> other nation of the EU is going to vote on nationalistic lines.
> Yes nationalism does play a part, but are you really telling me
> that a UKIP voter would vote for a British labour candidate over
> a french euro-sceptic.
I can't really say, but I think you underestimate the strength of national feeling
in pan-national elections. Most people are proud of their national origins,
regardless of where they come from. Even Italians:-)
Stephen Cooper
I have to agree with much of what you've said here, and I think
its probably the one area where both pro, and anti, EU/EMU camps
can agree. But we can't make people read the foolscap's, or make
them watch the few late night & Sunday lunchtime programmes that
still do politics. I am reminded of one line from a TV program I
caught this week "West Wing", the line being that its the people
who turn up who get to decide. If you don't get involved, if you
don't join in the political debate, you can't really complain if
the politicians don't do what you want. You may loose the debate
but like voting if you don't do it you've got no chance of being
heard.
>
> >
> >
> > > I suspect you'd get electoral financing right up until Jorge Haider wanted to
> > > stand, or some other non-PC candidate. EU decides who is worthy?
> >
> > You can suspect all you want, but as we don't even have electoral finance
> > is a bit of a moot point. But I'm sure if Mr Haider wanted to stand as a
> > candidate for the EU presidency, he'd find enough like minded people to
> > back his campaign.
>
> You're right, of course, but the general rubbishing of his parties policies is not
> constructive. Now, I run the risk here of being mis-interpreted, but say it was the
> BNP. The current way of dealing with extremist parties is to rubbish everything they
> say, to find ways to deny them party political broadcasts, to ship in huge amounts
> of non-local anti BNP support to smother the whole argument. While the policies of
> the BNP *are* disgusting generally, it does not necessarily mean that the issues
> they raise should be ignored, and yet that is what happens. When did this country
> last have a genuine, open debate on the direction our society takes on the road to
> multi-culturalism? On immigration? On religion? The fact is that the concerns the
> BNP raised in Tower Hamlets a few years back were genuine concerns for the local
> residents, but no-one actually bothered to address them, merely to suppress them,
> and in the process miss the opportunity to educate the BNPs supporters, not all of
> whom were skinhead fascists.
I find the arguments here a little inconsistent, how can bringing in
supporters from outside to campaign against the BNP and its policies
be ignoring the argument. I have to say I'm not one of these people who
believe all arguments are equally valid, and that campaigns should be
fought on the so called level playing field. That's to say the BNP were
free to bring in supporters to argue on their side. The fact that they
didn't have the supporters to bring in, is their problem. If the BNP
had really been vocalizing the concerns of the electorate, no matter
how many people the opposition had banging on door steps, they would
have won the election. It's not as if the opposition flooded the ward
with new voters to smother the votes of the actual residents.
>
> Now although that is a purely local case to the UK, the general direction of the EU,
> and its attitude to the government of Austria, hardly bodes well for general open
> discussion within the EU, or for the increasing suppression of non-centrist views.
>
The same applies, if Jorge Heider can get the supports to help him
argue his case, he will be heard. All the EU politicians are doing
is what British MP's would do if ever a BNP MP was elected, that is
they are refusing to friendly relations with them. They have not
taken away the vote of the Austrians in the EU committee's or done
anything like that. They just refuse to meet the Austrian ministers
in bi-lateral meetings. If a BNP MP was elected it would not mean
Westminster would adopt BNP policies, just as if a Green or UKIP
MP was ever elected. THEy could argue there causes, and might be
able to get others to support individual idea's, bit it does not
mean their view have to be taken account of. That's democracy it
is rule by the majority, its not perfect but its the best system
we've come up with. Now if you want to argue we should have some
sort of PR in elections to ensure a broader range of views are
represented in the parliaments, then I'll back you all the way.
But so would most of the parties in the EU, its only here in the
UK we insist on having an electoral system that reduces the
number of voices in parliament, and argue this is a good thing.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Would you vote for a political party whose leader, as prime minister of
> > > > > GB, could speak only Gaelic?
> > > >
> > > > Simple answer, Yes. The fact that I couldn't understand them
> > > > directly, only through interpreters would not dissuade me. I
> > > > tend to vote on policies not personality. Now if they only
> > > > printed the election literature etc. in Gaelic that would be
> > > > a little different. But they don't look at all the effort the
> > > > parties go to get party literature in a language the voter
> > > > can understand.
> > >
> > > You might, but would the French? The Germans? I suspect probably not. Apart
> > > from that, how do you propose a manifesto could be constructed to cover both
> > > Greece and Germany that had any meaningful content?
> >
> > You really do have a poor image of other Europeans. What makes you
> > think they'd be any less likely to back a candidate that didn't
> > speak there own language than me or any one else.
>
> Reality. They struggle in Belgium on the basis of the cultural differences between
> Walloons & Flems, in Ireland on religion, in Spain between Basque and general
> Spanish culture. The Scots want devolution, Wales has its own parliament, etc etc.
> If we can't agree on these things within a relatively limited population, what hope
> is there of avoiding the dis-enfanchisement of increasing numbers of cultural
> minorities? Worse, what hope is there of electing an EU president who can satisfy
> all of these cultural aspirations?
But an EU president, elected or appointed as at present, is not there
to satisfy the cultural differences. You're right no individual can
represent all the different cultures of the EU, just like no PM can
represent the different cultures of the UK, and no major can represent
the cultural difference in London. But there again their not there to
represent cultures, but to do a job. The major is there to run the
London wide services in the best interest of the people on London,
the PM is there to run the national services in the best interests
of the people of the UK, and the same goes for an EU president. So
long as the various levels run the right services there is no problem,
these only arise when the upper levels centralize too much at the
wrong level. That's why the Scots and Welsh assemblies were formed,
and why I believe we need regional assemblies. I'd even agree that
there are a few areas of responsibility that have gone to far by going
to the EU. But there are a hell of a lot more inappropriate areas of
responsibility at Westminster than there are in Brussels.
>
> >
> >
> > As for manifesto, the election is for a EU president, I'd guess
> > the manifesto would cover EU wide issues like free trade, EU
> > regulations, EU expansion etc., etc. I don't remember seeing that
> > many local issues is the manifesto's of the national parties in
> > a general election, do you?
>
> No, but we have difficulty holding the population of the United Kingdom together on
> the basis of manifestos which cover 60,000,000 people. How much is that going to be
> multiplied by when you cover not just 6 times the number of people, but a
> geo-political entity that stretches from the Balkans to the Artic circle? What is
> currently a national issue would become a local one w.r.t. the EU.
So what, it should be dealt with by the national governments. The EU is
there to cover EU wide issues, like the single market. A manifest for
the various presidents would be arguing what sort of single market they
foresaw, regulated/deregulated or even its dismantling. These aren't
national issues, but issues that the people of the EU should decide.
If that's the criteria, then the influence of your vote in an EU
presidential election drops to as low as 1 in 135 Million + 1 as that's
all its takes to get elected, and the other 135 Million -1 voters
don't count. Twice the influence of just voting labour. But that's
not really the point. As it stands the view of 55% of the UK population
and similar for the rest of the EU are ignored when selecting the
current EU president. I would prefer a president who knows he has to
keep 50% + 1 of the EU people happy, to one who knows he just has to
keep 15 politicians happy, and I can't believe you really believe
otherwise. THe only real argument that the anti-EU/EMU camp have with
the idea of an elected president is that it just might make the EU
a bit more palatable to the people, and they'd loose one of their
better arguments against the EU.
>
> >
> >
> > PS: Isn't 360 Million the population of the EU, the number of registered
> > voters is probably no more than 270 Million , now where have I seen
> > that number.
>
> :-)
So even accepting your argument the average labour voter is
no worse off. Has no less influence. Plus we can add in the
influence of all the non-labour voters to help selected the
EU president.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > People vote more on party lines than national. Can you see a
> > > > UK labour voter voting for a UK conservative over say a Dutch
> > > > socialist candidate, or the other way around. I don't know any
> > > > who would. But even if they did so, any presidential election
> > > > would in all probability not use FPTP, but some variant of AV.,
> > > > where no national candidate could win on just the votes of
> > > > there own country.
> > >
> > > Can you see a French NF voter supporting anyone who isn't French?
> >
> > It would be up to them, there might be a British BNP candidate, or
> > they might vote for an agreed candidate put forward by the various
> > Euro-sceptic parties in the EU. The choice to vote is theirs, if
> > they want to waste it, so be it. But most people will, they may vote
> > for the NF first, but most people will continue down the list if
> > for no other reason that to vote against the candidate they least
> > want.
>
> You (and I) don't know if people would vote more on party lines than national, as
> there is no history or statistics on which to base the supposition. I agree that
> tactical voting is perhaps a distinct possibility, but is this to be lauded? Should
> we not devise a system which elects excellence rather than the fourth or fifth least
> bad candidate?
People have never voted for the best candidate, but the most popular.
But even so AV does not elect the nth best/popular candidate, the
candidate aren't knocked out from the top. The eventual candidate is
almost certainly going to have been though to be the best candidate
by a large proportion of the electorate, and to have been though to
be better than their rival by much of the rest.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > As regards PR, 88,000,000 Germans is a lot to overcome if they started banging
> > > a nationalist drum....
> >
> > There you go again, what make you believe the germans or anyone
> > other nation of the EU is going to vote on nationalistic lines.
> > Yes nationalism does play a part, but are you really telling me
> > that a UKIP voter would vote for a British labour candidate over
> > a french euro-sceptic.
>
> I can't really say, but I think you underestimate the strength of national feeling
> in pan-national elections. Most people are proud of their national origins,
> regardless of where they come from. Even Italians:-)
> --
Being proud of where you come from does not make you more
or less likely to vote for a candidate of your own nation.
The UK is a perfect example of this, there is no indication
at all that Welsh / Scots or English voters are more likely
to vote for a party if they have a Welsh, Scots or English
leader. Even during the rise of nationalism in Wales and in
Scotland, the effect on voters choice of the non nationalist
party has remained independent of the nationality of the
leader of these parties.
Yes people do take a pride in their nationality, there is no
reason they shouldn't. But would you vote for Tony Blair to
be EU president, would you be proud is Tony was EU president
I know I wouldn't
Steve Cooper