But to be honest, we all know the EU President was not the best candidate.

But to be honest, we all know the EU President was not the best candidate.

 

I've heard that he has the charisma of a rat and comes from a non-country.

Renamed the title of the thread so that it's a bit more relevant now the election is over :thumbsup:

Renamed the title of the thread so that it's a bit more relevant now the election is over :thumbsup:

 

But given how the discussion remaining is about the results of the election and its resulting promises on policy is it not still about the election?

But to be honest, we all know the EU President was not the best candidate.

 

I've heard that he has the charisma of a rat and comes from a non-country.

 

His policy is pragmatic, intelligent, is economical economically (which we need because of massive overspending throughout all of Europe currently). He's got an arena where he can make himself a name because noone saw him as a "threat" to their figures as prime ministers and presidents, although he has a lot of power. He's a politician for the politics by the looks of it, not as a personal ego-boost or to be the center of attention, but cause he's smart.

 

It'll be interesting to see what the Economist writes of him in their next article about him, that's always an interesting perspective.

But to be honest, we all know the EU President was not the best candidate.

 

I've heard that he has the charisma of a rat and comes from a non-country.

 

His policy is pragmatic, intelligent, is economical economically (which we need because of massive overspending throughout all of Europe currently). He's got an arena where he can make himself a name because noone saw him as a "threat" to their figures as prime ministers and presidents, although he has a lot of power. He's a politician for the politics by the looks of it, not as a personal ego-boost or to be the center of attention, but cause he's smart.

 

It'll be interesting to see what the Economist writes of him in their next article about him, that's always an interesting perspective.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY

 

Worth a few laughs.

 

(By the way, I was making a joke in my post. I wasn't being serious because I know next to nothing about the guy.)

Well this is what happens when you mess with Van Rumpoy:

 

 

Don't worry nodody died...this time :wink:

Renamed the title of the thread so that it's a bit more relevant now the election is over :thumbsup:

 

But given how the discussion remaining is about the results of the election and its resulting promises on policy is it not still about the election?

Well, kind of, but there's nothing wrong with it being a general politics discussion thread now :) I think there's often not enough discussion on UK politics here :)

Well this is what happens when you mess with Van Rumpoy:

 

 

Don't worry nodody died...this time :wink:

 

LMAO.

 

Maybe that guy from the UKIP had a point. Maybe Van Rumpoy is secretly a dictatorial assassin. :razz:

 

He's missing his villain-esque black eye patch, though.

You have to admit though, he has been appointed because he is seen as weak. Sorry, but even though I may not fully want to be in the EU, I am in it and want a strong leader to lead us, not him. I really dislike how it wasn't the people who voted to elect the EU president even though he holds a fairly large amount of power and a respectful position.

You have to admit though, he has been appointed because he is seen as weak. Sorry, but even though I may not fully want to be in the EU, I am in it and want a strong leader to lead us, not him. I really dislike how it wasn't the people who voted to elect the EU president even though he holds a fairly large amount of power and a respectful position.

 

If you look at policy, rather than personality, he's stood up to country leaders time and time again in the interest of Europe as a whole. the politicians of europe "misunderestimated" him based on his introvert and uncharismatic personality. I can't think of a stronger candidate in terms of policy, which is what matters to you and me. Personality is only part of media appearances and leader to leader discussions. political bartering, organization, focus and compromise are his strenghts.

 

I'd much rather have someone qualified than someone popular, which is what we'd get with a popular vote. In europe as a whole, who could we all relate to, someone spanish, german, swedish? I think celebrity politicans would be much over-represented.

You have to admit though, he has been appointed because he is seen as weak. Sorry, but even though I may not fully want to be in the EU, I am in it and want a strong leader to lead us, not him. I really dislike how it wasn't the people who voted to elect the EU president even though he holds a fairly large amount of power and a respectful position.

 

If you look at policy, rather than personality, he's stood up to country leaders time and time again in the interest of Europe as a whole. the politicians of europe "misunderestimated" him based on his introvert and uncharismatic personality. I can't think of a stronger candidate in terms of policy, which is what matters to you and me. Personality is only part of media appearances and leader to leader discussions. political bartering, organization, focus and compromise are his strenghts.

 

I'd much rather have someone qualified than someone popular, which is what we'd get with a popular vote. In europe as a whole, who could we all relate to, someone spanish, german, swedish? I think celebrity politicans would be much over-represented.

 

Do you really think that anyone has the right to hold that kind of position over so many radically different countries, people, and cultures? It's frankly repulsive.

You have to admit though, he has been appointed because he is seen as weak. Sorry, but even though I may not fully want to be in the EU, I am in it and want a strong leader to lead us, not him. I really dislike how it wasn't the people who voted to elect the EU president even though he holds a fairly large amount of power and a respectful position.

 

If you look at policy, rather than personality, he's stood up to country leaders time and time again in the interest of Europe as a whole. the politicians of europe "misunderestimated" him based on his introvert and uncharismatic personality. I can't think of a stronger candidate in terms of policy, which is what matters to you and me. Personality is only part of media appearances and leader to leader discussions. political bartering, organization, focus and compromise are his strenghts.

 

I'd much rather have someone qualified than someone popular, which is what we'd get with a popular vote. In europe as a whole, who could we all relate to, someone spanish, german, swedish? I think celebrity politicans would be much over-represented.

 

Do you really think that anyone has the right to hold that kind of position over so many radically different countries, people, and cultures? It's frankly repulsive.

 

well, India have a ruler, USA have a single ruler. the powers are limited in the case of the EU.

 

Europe is as diverse as any of those countries. India has double the population of the EU. What makes European culture or people superior in any way giving the need for many leadres? Sorry, that attitude stirkes me as very etnocentric in all the wrong ways.

 

Europe needs a figurehead, a person as a metonomy for the whole political system. That's the role of the monarch in a monarchial democracy; that's the role of a president in a republic. you won't argue the Queen is uneccessary as the official representative of Britain?

The main problem i have is that I did not have a chance to vote for him. It's the same as having Obama elected only by Senators and not by the people.

You have to admit though, he has been appointed because he is seen as weak. Sorry, but even though I may not fully want to be in the EU, I am in it and want a strong leader to lead us, not him. I really dislike how it wasn't the people who voted to elect the EU president even though he holds a fairly large amount of power and a respectful position.

 

If you look at policy, rather than personality, he's stood up to country leaders time and time again in the interest of Europe as a whole. the politicians of europe "misunderestimated" him based on his introvert and uncharismatic personality. I can't think of a stronger candidate in terms of policy, which is what matters to you and me. Personality is only part of media appearances and leader to leader discussions. political bartering, organization, focus and compromise are his strenghts.

 

I'd much rather have someone qualified than someone popular, which is what we'd get with a popular vote. In europe as a whole, who could we all relate to, someone spanish, german, swedish? I think celebrity politicans would be much over-represented.

 

Do you really think that anyone has the right to hold that kind of position over so many radically different countries, people, and cultures? It's frankly repulsive.

 

well, India have a ruler, USA have a single ruler. the powers are limited in the case of the EU.

 

Europe is as diverse as any of those countries. India has double the population of the EU. What makes European culture or people superior in any way giving the need for many leadres? Sorry, that attitude stirkes me as very etnocentric in all the wrong ways.

 

Europe needs a figurehead, a person as a metonomy for the whole political system. That's the role of the monarch in a monarchial democracy; that's the role of a president in a republic. you won't argue the Queen is uneccessary as the official representative of Britain?

 

What the hell are you on about? Besides, "European culture" is radically different because of all the different ethnic groups that live on that small continent.

 

This has nothing to do with what we've been discussing. Europe is comprised of SEVERAL nations. The United States and India are both countries. Of course a country would need a bloody figure head.

 

Europe is NOT a country.

 

well, India have a ruler, USA have a single ruler. the powers are limited in the case of the EU.

 

Europe is as diverse as any of those countries. India has double the population of the EU. What makes European culture or people superior in any way giving the need for many leadres? Sorry, that attitude stirkes me as very etnocentric in all the wrong ways.

 

Europe needs a figurehead, a person as a metonomy for the whole political system. That's the role of the monarch in a monarchial democracy; that's the role of a president in a republic. you won't argue the Queen is uneccessary as the official representative of Britain?

 

What the hell are you on about? Besides, "European culture" is radically different because of all the different ethnic groups that live on that small continent.

 

This has nothing to do with what we've been discussing. Europe is comprised of SEVERAL nations. The United States and India are both countries. Of course a country would need a bloody figure head.

 

Europe is NOT a country.

sorry, that's just wrong. In india there are 29 languages with more than a million speakers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers_in_India

More than one million speakers

The 2001 census recorded 29 individual languages as having more than 1 million native speakers (0.1% of total population).

grouping the whole of india as one nationality or culture is just like the infamous american grouping the whole of Europe as one culture.

 

to compare, futher highlighting the clarity of this issue: there are only 23 official languages in the EU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_European_Union

 

the EU isn't a political union similar to the US?

-the EU has a common constitution

-the EU has common laws overriding national laws automatically

-the EU court of justice ovverrides national supreme courts

-the EU court of human rights ovverrides national supreme courts

-taxes are paid to the EU

-workig permits for the EU as a whole

-a limitation of custom barriers

-the Schengen deal ensures free travel without passports internally in large parts of the EU

 

Now doesn't that resemble the federal system of the USA or UAE?

 

I think you are bigoted in your view that Europe is something "special". I know it's a scary thing that the EU limits the soverignity of your country, but that's the truth. having a single representative is only natural. Are you, in the common policies of th EU on many areas, wanting to send a host of ministers to discuss with a single representative of let's say China? That marginalizes the effect you can have.

seperate post for seperate issue:

 

The main problem i have is that I did not have a chance to vote for him. It's the same as having Obama elected only by Senators and not by the people.

 

looking at the voter participation in the last set of elections for representation in the EU parliament (under 40% i believe), parties such as the infamous swedish "pirate party" of thepiratebay gained significant voter represenatiation. It's hard enought to get people to vote in their local national elections, the deciding voters are always the large percentage of voters who don't vote.

 

how in the world are you going to get people to vote for representatives they don't see on the news every day, who comes from a different country? the general voter within the EU knows very little of the history about the candidates they are to vote for, they know little about the groupings within the EU parliament, or how the proceedings evern work.

 

the bane of democracy is laziness, and lack of participation. Those features epitomize the EU elections in their current form. It's therefore better that you vote for your national represenattives who then barter on your behalf. That's what represenattive democracy is all about anyway: delegating your voice to a representative who represents acts in the people's interest, because everyone simply cannot spend so much time to understands the issues at hand. that's why everyone is always encouraged to vote based on ideology and not personality alone.

 

direct elections for EU ministers simply won't function. They will have no legitimate mandate due to voter apathy. This is also a futher argument for PR.

I didn't say India was a single nationality. I stated that it was a single country.

I didn't say India was a single nationality. I stated that it was a single country.

 

His point was that you're just using semantics to get around the fact that Europe is exactly like the US in terms of region and federalism. It's akin to the US because in the US, there are 50 states with one single entity joining them all together. That's what the EU is; a swath of nations joined under one flag. He used India because it's certainly not a monolithic country, but they still have one single entity representing them; the argument that Europe is too diverse doesn't cut it. So why is it different?

I didn't say India was a single nationality. I stated that it was a single country.

 

His point was that you're just using semantics to get around the fact that Europe is exactly like the US in terms of region and federalism. It's akin to the US because in the US, there are 50 states with one single entity joining them all together. That's what the EU is; a swath of nations joined under one flag. He used India because it's certainly not a monolithic country, but they still have one single entity representing them; the argument that Europe is too diverse doesn't cut it. So why is it different?

 

exactly. the EU is a system of federated states. what's different with that and the US (examples in previous post of major similarities)?

 

in cases of "nationality" i provided the India example, as it's easy to argue the US is a much more homogenous culture than the EU, in terms of languages and cultural unity.

Sorry for not replying.

Immigration is coming from the 'free' EU problem, this is causing too much immigration - all partys (apart from UKIP) are adamant about staying in the EU and every part seems to have a similar policy ([bleep] yeh, do nothing). Immigration from the EU is a problem but not so much is immigration from other places (as its smaller).

I didn't say India was a single nationality. I stated that it was a single country.

 

His point was that you're just using semantics to get around the fact that Europe is exactly like the US in terms of region and federalism. It's akin to the US because in the US, there are 50 states with one single entity joining them all together. That's what the EU is; a swath of nations joined under one flag. He used India because it's certainly not a monolithic country, but they still have one single entity representing them; the argument that Europe is too diverse doesn't cut it. So why is it different?

 

exactly. the EU is a system of federated states. what's different with that and the US (examples in previous post of major similarities)?

 

in cases of "nationality" i provided the India example, as it's easy to argue the US is a much more homogenous culture than the EU, in terms of languages and cultural unity.

 

Can I ask for clarification on how you are using "federal" here? If you are using it in its technical sense (as its used to describe the US) then I can tell you now you are completely wrong; the EU is not, has never been, and never will be a united states of Europe. I agree its a group of nations, but in a radically different sense then any other example of politics the world has seen.

exactly. the EU is a system of federated states. what's different with that and the US (examples in previous post of major similarities)?

 

The difference is that, in the United States, each individual state is pretty much a non-country. They have very few rights and answer almost entirely to the Federal government. If they tried to secede, the Federal government would declare war on them.

 

The EU, on the other hand, consists of several SOVEREIGN nation-states that have the right to self-determination and can withdraw at will. Each constituent nation-state has much more freedom than a constituent state of the United States of America.

 

That's what the difference is. The EU is more of an association of nation-states that seeks to make another European war impossible, and it is there in order to ensure that Europe can survive in a post-colonial world. The United States is a close association of states that have very few rights and cannot withdraw if they wanted to. The United States is an empire whereas the European Union is not.

exactly. the EU is a system of federated states. what's different with that and the US (examples in previous post of major similarities)?

 

The difference is that, in the United States, each individual state is pretty much a non-country. They have very few rights and answer almost entirely to the Federal government. If they tried to secede, the Federal government would declare war on them.

 

The EU, on the other hand, consists of several SOVEREIGN nation-states that have the right to self-determination and can withdraw at will. Each constituent nation-state has much more freedom than a constituent state of the United States of America.

 

That's what the difference is. The EU is more of an association of nation-states that seeks to make another European war impossible, and it is there in order to ensure that Europe can survive in a post-colonial world. The United States is a close association of states that have very few rights and cannot withdraw if they wanted to. The United States is an empire whereas the European Union is not.

 

ah, that's where you're both wrong though. EU-law overrides national law automatically. No member has yet tried to withdraw from the EU (only terretories), when that happened in the USA there was civil war.

 

your assertion is that any membernation may leave from the EU. That right was only formally established in 2009 with the Lisbon Treaty as far as I know. BUT, and this is the most important thing to remember, there NO alternative for UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL, only NEGOTIATED withdrawal, at which only the Lisobon Treaty ceases its effect if the negotiations fail. No prveious treaties have had any option of withdrawal, so these are then not reversed, all the way back to the coal and steel union.

 

 

According to the Vienna convention of international politics, there is no right of withdrawal unless directly stated, so in practice the UK can always withdraw from the Lisbon Treaty under special circumstance, but only after negotiation with the EU, i.e. EU vote.

 

Further, in joining the Euro, a nation specifically enters an "irrevercible" pact, so these nations are particularly stuck. the whole debate in Germany over kicking Greece out of the EU was only in relation to Greece failing to satisfy the demands they faked their numbers to acchieve in joining. Greece has no option of choosing to leave, they can however be kicked out: they are at mercy to the EU, and in particular the Euro-cooperative.

 

Before tested in court, noone really knows, but going by current Euro law, no member-nation may leave, other than the treaty of Lisbon, which is not the same as leaving the Union.

 

 

the EU is very similar to the US at its beginnings. federal law expanded gradually over time as well, but were effectively independent at the onset. to me it seems EU members are stuck, at least legally.

So, in other words, the European Union is the Fourth Reich? :thumbdown: