«

[Doubler]

Our gloriously democratic leaders decided they could vote for us, didn't you hear?

Well the basic idea of a system where representatives are democraticly selected, IS that they can vote for you...

[PrejudiceSucks]

Originally posted by Triton+Jun 5 2005, 12:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Triton @ Jun 5 2005, 12:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Stroggy@Jun 4 2005, 06:02 PM
The assumption that a United Europe would bring political balance is, however,* completely absurd since a united europe would grow even more dependant upon the NATO (the proposed constitution says so) and by becoming more dependant of the NATO Europe would become more dependant of the US.

Considering that America has been Europe's little stooge from the end of WWII until Vietnam became a scandal (not everyone realises that America went to Vietnam because France wanted us to), Europe would probably make the USA protect it and fight its battles for them. Just think--they'll try to talk us into attacking ourselves in Europe's name.

On that note, why would Europe want to attack USA anyway? The only bad thing about USA is the government. [/b][/quote]
Perhaps we'd attack the USA due to their flagrant disregard for foreign life. That and their reasoning for not lifting the arms ban is totally pretentious and sounds a LOT like the U2 crisis of the time, in a kind of :

USA : Don't sell them arms, they'll fight back against us 'capitalist pig-dogs'

EU : Ermm... why? They're totally neutral... maybe they just want to defend themselves...

USA : But look what they did to Taiwan!

EU : What? You mean 'what have they done to our precious colony?'

USA : We don't stand for colonies!

EU : Ah right. So it's a puppet government then?

USA : No. Why would that happen ever? And would we do a thing like that?

EU : Maybe to protect your own arms trade to China that you've merely been trying to hide?

USA : Oh crap. Foiled again!

[Tulac]

The whole concept of EU is too bureocratic, it either needs a strong reform, or it'll break up... (heh, even before Croatia joins it)

[PrejudiceSucks]

True, true.

It's a shame about that, as the EU could have been a big force in the world, but sadly, much like the League of Nations, it's not very powerful and takes too long to make inneffective decisions sadly.

[Doubler]

takes too long to make inneffective decisions sadly

The sad, sad price of democracy...

[PrejudiceSucks]

Aye.

I demand proportional representation in the UK!

[Stroggy]

Originally posted by Doubler@Jun 5 2005, 10:49 AM

Well the basic idea of a system where representatives are democraticly selected, IS that they can vote for you...

true, but they are also expected to know what they vote for.
In this case most if not all ministers didn't have the clue. One even had the audacity to admit she hadn't read it and that she'll maybe read it during the vacation (after the vote)

Unlike in other countries that had a referendum, the content of the constitution was hardly discussed here in Belgium, we jsut had to know that it was "good for us"
In this case I think the politicians just took what was good for them... as always.

It was agonizing to see how the television interviewed people on the street and a lot of them had no idea about the EU constitution while others said things like "I agree to the constitution because saying no would be a fascist thing to do" wow, a radiant aura of intelligence. When the news does talk about the constituion they always invite some professor in pol. sciences to talk about it and all he says is that the educated elite vote yes while the nationalistic european version of rednecks vote no.

And if it is so natural for the government to make the choice for the people, why did two of the most important EU-members decide to hold a referendum (in the netherlands the referendum was not even binding, the government wanted to see what the people thought of it)

And lets not get into the "elected representatives" because, here in Belgium, if those elected would actually be in control, the extreme right would have been leading the government two years ago instead of still being in the opposition (up until now the government has curtailed the ectreme right's rise to power by forming last-minute alliances before the elections to get more seats and creating not-quite-so-democratic bans... ofcoarse all this only strengthens the extreme right)

[Doubler]

And if it is so natural for the government to make the choice for the people, why did two of the most important EU-members decide to hold a referendum (in the netherlands the referendum was not even binding, the government wanted to see what the people thought of it)

In the Netherlands, the way I see it, it was just following the flow.
Politics here have 'popularized' in the last few years. The people seem to want to feel involved. The result is a regrettable ammount of false reasoning and populism. Many people have no feel for what is best for a country or it's people; many only know what is best for their individual self.

I would like to hold a referendum once about lowering the taxes to 0%, and see what the people think of such an obviously flawed idea LOL

But anyway, I don't know how the situation is like in Belgium, so I guess you propably have a point. I don't know.

[Stroggy]

Originally posted by Doubler@Jun 5 2005, 12:23 PM
many only know what is best for their individual self.

...as opposed to politicians?

[Doubler]

When the voters voted the way they should, yes.
But I'm not that inclined to think of democracy as a good system. It's terribly unwieldy and doesn't really work at all. Only for smaller countries can it ever function even in the smallest sense.
It does, however, hold a malevolent despotism at bay, as that it prevents anarchism.