The use of a simple majority will be applied to many more policy areas than before.
The Eurosenators will be able to make decisions in more policy areas as well.
The new legal text recuperates 95% of the material covered by the constitution that was never ratified (voted down by the French a few years ago).
The President and The High Representative are the two (2) new executives of the EU.
There are many other critical aspects of the new institutional reforms of the EU, just implemented yesterday.
This is outstanding news and it's a matter of time before this has a far reaching and positive impact internationally. Everyone around the world stands to benefit from this enormous step forward, including the United States.
This is outstanding news and it's a matter of time before this has a far reaching and positive impact internationally. Everyone around the world stands to benefit from this enormous step forward, including the United States.
Edward
i have to respectfully disagree.
the EU is a step away from democracy.
Ireland voted against the EU the first time. one would think that would be enough. the proposition was re-marketed and the Irish people were asked to vote again.
via the EU, people all over Europe will be having legally binding decisions made for them by administrators far away that they never elected or voted for.
Valley Oak
12-01-2009, 09:49 AM
Regarding Ireland, yes, it's true that the EU uses psychologically arm twisting tactics by coming back and asking the same citizenry of a given nation to vote a second time if they reject a huge reform such as this one. I strongly support the EU so I support this tactic.
But at the same time, what's so wrong about asking twice? Look at the same-sex marriage issue here in the U.S. Same-sex marriage is going to keep coming back to the ballot until it's finally approved, even by the most homophobic states. This annoys the shit out of the American Right Wing because they just want the 'faggots' to shut the fuck up and quit and be stereotypical pansies. "We already turned you down more than once so stop knocking on my door" is the message that Yes on 8 voters in California are sending out.
So I disagree with you on this point because if the cause is good, such as same-sex marriage or expansion of the EU, then it is more than justifiable to bring the question back to the same public that rejected it in the first place. And bring it back a 3rd, a 4th, and a 5th. (The Right Wing in California does this all the time by bringing back the same, dead issue of parental notification for abortion for minors every two years. The SOBs never stop because they have very, very deep pockets). If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
Also, I challenge the notion that there is something wrong or unethical in bringing back the same question. Saying 'No' or 'Yes' once, or even twice should not have to be the final say. If there is a good enough argument for this position (don't ask the same question twice), then there should be a law against it. But there is not and I would be opposed to it.
Another example is that anti-marijuana people in California (who USED to be the majority) were always bitterly against bringing back to the state ballot another decriminalization initiative because "Californians already voted 'No' back in the 70s." Well, guess what, generations change and if we had not had yet another California initiative on the ballot in 1996, then we would NOT have prescription marijuana today.
Democracy is not always as simple as majority rule; it is much more than that. A court has the obligation to contradict popular will and protect minorities' rights, such as in "Loving v. Virginia," where the US Supreme Court overruled Virginia State law, which prohibited whites and blacks from getting married. Democracy is often a tricky thing, always open for debate and a different set of values, depending on the time in history, the circumstances, the generation of people in question, the economy, the money, the competing interest groups (not always monied, btw, like African-Americans), etc, etc, etc.
The same scenario of bringing back the same issue happened with the Danish people in 1990s when there was yet another, aggressive expansion of the EU. The Danes turned it down with 53% of their vote, I believe. When the EU brought the same question back to the Danes, just 10 months later, the citizens of that country nearly reversed the voting numbers. So? The Danes changed their minds, then. Were they under psychological pressure to do so? Probably, but if they had been determined not to do so then it would have gone down in flames like the EU constitution did when the French killed it.
What happened? Essentially, the same policy areas that desperately needed to be covered came back again in a different form because the problems were monumental. These pressing issues of too much bureaucracy, slowness, inefficiency, lack of democracy, etc, were grinding the EU almost to a halt. Something had to be done and the supermajority of Europeans had already voted in favor of the drastic changes.
The more I revisit the issue of bringing back an already voted on policy question, the more I support the right to do so. It has never been illegal, only questionable, especially by those who don't want to budge on the theme in question. In California, voters keep voting down the stupid parental notice initiatives. And that's never going to change, no matter how much money the Religious Right throws away at the issue. Let them; I like the idea of seeing the reactionaries go bankrupt.
Edward
i have to respectfully disagree.
the EU is a step away from democracy.
Ireland voted against the EU the first time. one would think that would be enough. the proposition was re-marketed and the Irish people were asked to vote again.
via the EU, people all over Europe will be having legally binding decisions made for them by administrators far away that they never elected or voted for.
Valley Oak
12-01-2009, 10:37 AM
Regarding the other point you make, "people all over Europe will be having legally binding decisions made for them by administrators far away that they never elected or voted for," this simply isn't true.
In contrast to the other question (bringing back the same referendum to force a people to vote again), this assertion is completely untrue.
Why? Because the citizens "all over Europe" elect their representatives from their respective countries to represent them. Do their representatives' genetic blueprint somehow undergo some metamorphosis like the hulk because they move to Brussels, Belgium? I don't think so.
Each European country that is a member of the EU has a proportional representation of each political party within their own country representing them in Brussels (and Brussels is not the only location, by the way. There are other significant administrative centers strewn about the continent, precisely to reduce the kind of sentiment you are expressing).
For example, take Spain as just one, random member nation. Spanish voters go to the polls to vote for their representatives in the European parliament, just like in all the other countries. If you are a conservative, then you vote for your political party, in this case, it would be the Partido Popular (the Spanish conservative party). If you are a Socialist (the party governing Spain at the moment and who legalized same-sex marriage, by the way), then you would vote for the Spanish Socialist's candidates to represent you in that "far away" parliament.
Incidentally, the European continent is approximately the same size as the US, maybe even smaller. So you could say the same thing about Californians sending their senators and representatives to that "far away" place in Washington, D.C.
So all citizens all over Europe (or rather from the EU member nations) are represented by their choice of political party. Representatives are not picked by the EU or even by the respective governments of each country, they are elected by the people of every nation and also by the ideological preferences, as if it were a national election.
Distance is irrelevant unless you want to ignore the Internet or the fact that Washington, D.C. is further away from most Americans than Brussels is from most Europeans.
And the bit about "...administrators..that they never elected or voted for," is a mind-boggling untruth that clearly demonstrates the typical lack of knowledge Americans have for most things foreign (we have a notoriously well founded and well-known reputation for this condition, we Americans).
Regarding "legally binding;" what's the problem here??? When YOU shake hands with someone or sign a contract with them don't you expect them (and yourself) to honor it??? (And get an attorney to sue if they don't) When our senators and representatives in Washington hammer out hard won legislation, don't you expect the rule of law to respect those Congressional votes? How could any country in the world, including the US, ever hope to even have a country if they can't even govern it??? Because you can't administrate a nation with a "government" if the "legally binding" agreements are just wet paper no one respects.
And "made for them?" Well, I think I've already answered that. Our democratically senators and representatives not only the federal government, but Sacramento, Sonoma County, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, etc, make decisions for us all the time. Are you an anarchist? Do you want absolute people's democracy where everyone votes on a street light every time? Would you have time to work and have a family? (This is actually a separate discussion because this may not be such a bad idea).
Going back to the first part of your post that I responded to, regarding revisiting legislation that a nation already voted on. This "recidivism politics" (let's call it that) is more a matter of value that you and I can disagree upon. That's something completely different from having the facts all wrong.
Furthermore, experiment with putting your notion on its head and try saying to yourself that what is very undemocratic is precisely the fact that a very small number of citizens in one country can hold hostage the rest of that nation by filibustering the democratic process. Because that is the end result of the French, Danish, and Irish killing desperately needed policy that affects almost a HALF BILLION people who live within the EU. How many people live in Ireland? And not everyone in Ireland voted against the expansion of the EU the first time around.
But again, we are probably disagreeing on values, much like the abortion debate: you're either pro-choice or anti-choice.
Thank you for hearing me out,
Edward
i have to respectfully disagree.
the EU is a step away from democracy.
Ireland voted against the EU the first time. one would think that would be enough. the proposition was re-marketed and the Irish people were asked to vote again.
via the EU, people all over Europe will be having legally binding decisions made for them by administrators far away that they never elected or voted for.