5 edits
Originally posted by Wheely
You really are one of the most blinkered posters on here.
Disregarding completely your hysterical reference to a "fourth Reich", the title of your post suggest less democracy not more and yet, one of the most important features to come from the summit is a reduction in power of the Commission and an increase in power for the Parliament.
Is this another dwarf" moments or do you simply not understand the issues. I know which one I'm guessing!
Originally posted by WheelyDo you not think that the English voters would be most likely to follow
You really are one of the most blinkered posters on here.
Disregarding completely your hysterical reference to a "fourth Reich", the title of your post suggest less democracy not more and yet, one of the most important features to come from the summit is a reduction in power of the Commission and an increase in power for the Parliament.
Is this another ...[text shortened]... dwarf" moments or do you simply not understand the issues. I know which one I'm guessing!
the example of the French if given the chance of voting on this issue?
Originally posted by shavixmirAlthough you not saying it, you seem to agree that communism (state Capitalism) has been tried and has failed. So I have 2 questions for you if you dont mind :
A car, in theory, has 4 wheels. When it only has two you call it a motorbike.
1. What is so unresonable about people like myself and princeoforange being fearful about the rise of communism (state Capitalism) ie our "socialist-fear-mongering drivel" ?
2. Is there a workable version of communism that you can think of ?
Originally posted by Rajk9991. Well, the first reason could be that on many levels State-capitalism had pros, compared to capitalism. Pure fear of it is irrational. The second thing that should be mentioned is that stating things like: "Blair is a communist" doesn't reflect on socialism and it doesn't reflect on state-capitalism either. Blair is a capitalist. End of story.
Although you not saying it, you seem to agree that communism (state Capitalism) has been tried and has failed. So I have 2 questions for you if you dont mind :
1. What is so unresonable about people like myself and princeoforange being fearful about the rise of communism (state Capitalism) ie our "socialist-fear-mongering drivel" ?
2. Is there a workable version of communism that you can think of ?
2. Most countries that turned "communist" (State-capitalist) did so too early. Communism isn't an alternative to capitalism, it's the progression from it. You need capitalism and industry to move to communism.
Russia, for example, was a farming state. A farmer-share-holder system would have been a better step forwards there than an attempt at communism.
Originally posted by shavixmirBlair was not a capitalist. No elected official is a capitalist.
1. Well, the first reason could be that on many levels State-capitalism had pros, compared to capitalism. Pure fear of it is irrational. The second thing that should be mentioned is that stating things like: "Blair is a communist" doesn't reflect on socialism and it doesn't reflect on state-capitalism either. Blair is a capitalist. End of story.
2. Most ...[text shortened]... holder system would have been a better step forwards there than an attempt at communism.
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkWell...he's in big business's pocket.
Blair was not a capitalist. No elected official is a capitalist.
He does what he's told....
Capitalist enough for me.
Also... are you suggesting that Bush's administration, directly financed by the oil and gun lobbies isn't capitalist?
1 edit
Originally posted by princeoforangeActually, whether it alters a constitution of a member state or not is very relevant.
I'm not quite sure how to explain this to you, you really don't seem to understand! Whether or not this treaty alters the constitutions of member states is entirely irrelevant. The point is that this treaty is not being put to the voters in a referendum. Why, one may ask, are our politicians anxious to avoid a referendum? Well obviously, because t ...[text shortened]... the biggest contributors per capita and second most contributing nation overall after Germany.
A parliament is elected in order to make decisions on behalf of their electorate in the majority of cases. When the government is faced with a choice or a decision which their electorate have not given them a mandate for, a referendum must be called.
Thus, if the treaty does not conflict with any constitutions, it does not propose anything that is outside of the mandate given to our elected representatives, allowing them to make the decision on our behalf (which is their job, that's why we elect them).
That's how a representative democracy works.
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirI dont understand what pros state capitalism had. Please advise me. I would have thought state capitalism was top heavy and inefficient.
1. Well, the first reason could be that on many levels State-capitalism had pros, compared to capitalism. Pure fear of it is irrational. The second thing that should be mentioned is that stating things like: "Blair is a communist" doesn't reflect on socialism and it doesn't reflect on state-capitalism either. Blair is a capitalist. End of story.
2. Most holder system would have been a better step forwards there than an attempt at communism.
The fear of state capitalism is not irrational. Its the result of the reported :
- govt control of the press
- religious persecution
- disappearance of dissidents
- multitude of defections
- food shortages
Which sane person want to live under those conditions. And dont tell me its all western propaganda. I have been to Cuba several times and its a hell hole for someone accustomed to living in a decent 3rd W country, far more so for someone accustomed to a North American or European lifestyle.
To my mind, there is no right time to ever move from capitalism (as it is in the US) to communism (your theoretical version). I would agree that there could be a right time for govt to step in and control wastage that characterises production driven by the profit motive. But the govt should never control the means of production. They are not and will never be efficient enought to manage it properly. But there are exceptions - maybe utility companies which are run at a loss and provide an essential service.
Originally posted by WheelyThe EU reduces democracy by virtue of the fact that it is comprised of more than one state. The logical conclusion of democracy is that the larger a voting bloc is, the less democratic it can be. Any increase of the power of any of the EU's institutions therefore strikes another blow at democracy. I agree that the Commission is even more autocratic than the parliament, but the fact is that the whole thing is an undemocratic unit.
You really are one of the most blinkered posters on here.
Disregarding completely your hysterical reference to a "fourth Reich", the title of your post suggest less democracy not more and yet, one of the most important features to come from the summit is a reduction in power of the Commission and an increase in power for the Parliament.
Is this another ...[text shortened]... dwarf" moments or do you simply not understand the issues. I know which one I'm guessing!
However, the point I was making, which you seemed to miss, was not whether or not the treaty provided for a higher level of democracy within the EU, but the fact that the voter in the UK is getting no say in the matter (which came about deliberately) which means that the treaty is in fact being adopted undemocratically. I'm not sure if you would call that a "giant dwarf moment" or not, but I certainly understand the issues; apparently better than you do.
Originally posted by WheelyNo it is not!! How can you say that? It defies all logic! However "democratic" the wording of the treaty may be, the fact remains that it was deliberately introduced autocratically, and therefore has no democratic legitimacy or basis. Thus, the newest part of the EU's evolving constitution is intrinsically undemocratic, which means that in terms of democracy, the EU has taken another step backwards.
I'm sure they would but that doesn't alter the fact that the EU is, at least, more democratic than it was.