Text 7334, 150 rader
Skriven 2010-04-27 13:22:08 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
   Kommentar till text 7324 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Question about democracy
================================
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe on Tuesday April 27 2010 at 10:40:

MV>>> You do not seem to have much faith in elected representatives.

RB>> Now you finally understand me ;-)))

MV> I still do not understand why you want to "help" others adopt a system
MV> that you yourself have no faith in...

Who said I wanted to "help" anyone do anything? Anyway, I have no faith in
elected representatives of _any_ nationality. Don't think that only applies to
the States. There are some who are better (more honest, concientious, dedicated
to the public good) than others, but when the party says "vote this way or
that", they have to vote that way, too.

The constitution in Germany says representatives are only responsible to their
own conciences, but that's not the way things work in practice.

RB>> [The EU "Constitution"]

MV>>> That one failed because of clumsy presentation.

RB>> No, because the populations who were allowed a say in the matter
RB>> rejected such a mess out of hand.

MV> You do not know what you are talking about. *I* know why it failed
MV> here. I live here, you do not.

Who cares? The Dutch voted _against_ the so-called "constitution", since they
were given a choice and didn't have it rammed down their throats by the
politicians, as in most of the other EU countries. We can now spend weeks and
months arguing about _why_ that was so. I'm sure the politicians did. But in
the end, the result was that everything got changed, the word "constitution"
was dropped and either the populations were not allowed to vote at all, or were
called to vote on the matter again and again until the politicians got the
answer they wanted.

MV>>> The next one was adopted.

RB>> After most of the populations were excluded from participation and
RB>> those who could not be were pressured into voting in favor.

MV> How do you "pressure" the voters into voting "in favor"?

Easy. Just tell them that the EU will go to pot if they don't vote in favor,
that their economy will stagnate, that everyone will become poorer - and then
maybe get a few good rock bands to endorse the "yes" vote. And then keep
sending the population to the ballot boxes until you get the result you want.
That's just normal politics, Michiel.

RB>> In Ireland, the rule was "we'll keep the people voting on the issue
RB>> until we get the result we want". Great little "democracy".

MV> No, the second time they explained it better and then the voters saw
MV> the light.

;-) Your explanation. Believe what you want.

MV>>> We already HAVE the situation that the EU overrules national law.
MV>>> Think about the EU court.

RB>> No, at least not in Germany.

MV> That is what you think.

Nope. That's what I _know_. Don't forget, I live here [tm MV].

RB>> The EU court can override decisions of the German supreme court, but
RB>> not those of the constitutional court.

MV> Says who? As I wrote, the dust has not settled yet. We will see how it
MV> will work out in the end.

Michiel, regardless of what you may think, there are _still_ national
constitutions in force in the EU and they _still_ apply within the invidivual
countries. Once you get into inter-EU matters, you can cite EU regulations, but
within a member country, the law of the land is still the law of the land. Why
otherwise would the EU want EU Directives implemented in local law?

RB>> I personally think any attempt to do so would result in chaos, at
RB>> least in Germany.

MV> You are not representative for the German people.

No, but I know how they think, in contrast to you.

RB>> Ever hear of the "gray panthers"? ;-)

MV> No. I only know the Pink Panthers. :-)

You aren't old enough, then. Wait a few years.

MV>>> I think it will be EASIER in Europe than in the US. We do not have
MV>>> that almost pathological aversion against government.

RB>> Speak for yourself.

MV> Obviously, the "we" did not include you.

Or quite a number of millions in addition. Why pick on me just because I don't
fit in your "kowtow to authority" mold?

MV> As has been pointed out many times, your attitude is not typical for a
MV> European or German. You were raised in the USA and that shows in your
MV> attitude.

Apparently I'll never live that down. The Americans think I'm a Euro, and the
Euros think I'm an American. Heads I lose, tails you win. Still, read my
sentence immediately above yours again. And consider even your own country.

RB>> And of course, it's also a moot question whether that's an advantage
RB>> or a disadvantage.

MV> I say that typical Amercian aversion against government - that you
MV> show too - is a liability.

Note the sentence above "kowtow to authority"? A good public resistance to
government and sensitivity to bad government is an advantage in my eyes, not a
disadvantage - except to prospective dictators.

MV>>> We accept that government and the things that come with it - for
MV>>> example taxes - are a necessary evil. Plus that we have a long
MV>>> history of living with compromise.

RB>> The last sentence is surely true, although European history doesn't
RB>> always reflect it, but the docile acceptence of authority you seem to
RB>> imply...

MV> Those are your words. It is a long leap from "almost pathological
MV> aversion against government" to "docile acceptance of authority".

Are't you confusing me with someone else?

RB>> ... is not universal in the EU - not even in Germany, the home of
RB>> docile acceptance of authority.

MV> Never said it was.

No, I did. I know the people.

MV> But "we" are not saddled with that typical American allergy against
MV> government.

"You", not "we". Or is there no opposition to the government in NL? From what I
read, there appears to be plenty - some of it pretty violent.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)