I thought I might present another argument in favour of the EU, as I notice all my previous arguments have been defensive or apologetic. I believe that the loss of our sovereignty to undemocratic institutions is a fait accompli, and that the majority of the power to self-govern that we have lost has been to Microsoft and the Chiquita banana company. If you accept that then the only solutions I can think of to keep decision making in the hands of British citizens are statism or collective bargaining with other nations. In that way a flawed, even corrupt democracy that we have a hope of reforming through the power of the ballot is preferable to a completely undemocratic, solely profit seeking corporation that we have no hope of reforming. The lesser of two evils, as it were.
It only occured to me this morning to look at things this way, so I invite criticism.
Euro elections, 4th June
Moderator: Peak Moderation
Im not sure if this is serious, but if so, my question is this... why would you assume that Microsoft and the Chiquita banana company cant take over the EU as well. How do you know they dont control it already.AndySir wrote:I thought I might present another argument in favour of the EU, as I notice all my previous arguments have been defensive or apologetic. I believe that the loss of our sovereignty to undemocratic institutions is a fait accompli, and that the majority of the power to self-govern that we have lost has been to Microsoft and the Chiquita banana company. If you accept that then the only solutions I can think of to keep decision making in the hands of British citizens are statism or collective bargaining with other nations. In that way a flawed, even corrupt democracy that we have a hope of reforming through the power of the ballot is preferable to a completely undemocratic, solely profit seeking corporation that we have no hope of reforming. The lesser of two evils, as it were.
It only occured to me this morning to look at things this way, so I invite criticism.
Surely if you wished to pervert democracy on a grand scale, it would be easier to pervert the European Unions institutions than have to individually pervert each individual countries democracy (esp given the EUs apparent disinterest with accountability or openness).
Also, if you accept your argument as is, you're now possibly accepting that "our voice" at the EU is that of Chiquita and Microsoft.
(im not saying that has or hasnt happened (before i get jumped on) - just posing the question.
*IF* we give up our sovereignty (which im not automatically against - this isnt some dumb-ass St George (a lebanese knight) Flag waving cortina of an argument i'm driving here ) then it had better be to the most open and democratic institution possible - otherwise, we're screwed.
Certainly, what didn't seem serious about the point? The main reason why the Chiquita banana company and Microsoft can't take over the EU is that they are American companies, so trying to influence EU policy in the same way that they influence US policy would be problematic. We do know that Chiquita has already influenced the Lome convention, and although we lost that particular war would we not be open to far more pressure from multinationals were we not part of a collective bargaining agreement in the EU? A case for ever closer trade relations.gug wrote: Im not sure if this is serious, but if so, my question is this... why would you assume that Microsoft and the Chiquita banana company cant take over the EU as well. How do you know they dont control it already.
Surely if you wished to pervert democracy on a grand scale, it would be easier to pervert the European Unions institutions than have to individually pervert each individual countries democracy.
Also, if you accept your argument as is, you're now possibly accepting that "our voice" at the EU is that of Chiquita and Microsoft.
(im not saying that has or hasnt happened (before i get jumped on) - just posing the question.
*IF* we give up our sovereignty (which im not automatically against - this isnt some dumb-ass St George (a lebanese knight) Flag waving cortina of an argument i'm driving here ) then it had better be to the most open and democratic institution possible - otherwise, we're screwed.
Similarly Microsoft is an example of closer legal systems in Europe being able to combat a worldwide monopoly that it would be infinitely more difficult for an individual country to do. Saying that Microsoft has more bargaining power than Britain would be argumentative, but say Luxembourg?
And yes, I think you and foodinstar nailed it when you said that we were all in favour of the open and democratic EU but were not sure how to get there. I am still arguing against withdrawl from the EU which is the stated policy of UKIP and the BNP - I hear that view many times a day in my day job at the moment (taking phonecalls for the Green Party England & Wales).
-
emordnilap
- Posts: 14814
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
Aah. I've been following the debate here and I'm not really clever enough to compete but now I see we're getting down to some basic truths.gug wrote:why would you assume that Microsoft and the Chiquita banana company cant take over the EU as well. How do you know they dont control it already.
Surely if you wished to pervert democracy on a grand scale, it would be easier to pervert the European Unions institutions than have to individually pervert each individual countries democracy
Well done gug for hitting the nail on the head.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
but Microsoft was totally hammered by the EU a couple of years ago on the anti-competitive issue??? The European Commission can be pretty tough with industry when it wants to be. In fact its normally the national governments that dilute the principles of EU legislation in the face of interest groups, look at fish stocks, carbon emission standards for cars etc.
I think the EU needs a lot of reform, trouble is there is no consensus as to what type of EU we want, so its stuck with the status quo. At least we can hope for gradual progress on financial competence and rooting out corruption.
I think the EU needs a lot of reform, trouble is there is no consensus as to what type of EU we want, so its stuck with the status quo. At least we can hope for gradual progress on financial competence and rooting out corruption.
My apologies, as soon as i saw "banana company" talked about i became cautious.AndySir wrote:
Certainly, what didn't seem serious about the point? The main reason why the Chiquita banana company and Microsoft can't take over the EU is that they are American companies, so trying to influence EU policy in the same way that they influence US policy would be problematic. We do know that Chiquita has already influenced the Lome convention, and although we lost that particular war would we not be open to far more pressure from multinationals were we not part of a collective bargaining agreement in the EU? A case for ever closer trade relations.
Similarly Microsoft is an example of closer legal systems in Europe being able to combat a worldwide monopoly that it would be infinitely more difficult for an individual country to do. Saying that Microsoft has more bargaining power than Britain would be argumentative, but say Luxembourg?
And yes, I think you and foodinstar nailed it when you said that we were all in favour of the open and democratic EU but were not sure how to get there. I am still arguing against withdrawl from the EU which is the stated policy of UKIP and the BNP - I hear that view many times a day in my day job at the moment (taking phonecalls for the Green Party England & Wales).
The premise was that our own govt was so corrupted that a last ditch attempt was to throw in our lot with europe.
You said above that the fact that MS/Chiquita were "american" would mean that they couldnt influence the EU, but in reality these companies are transnational - they have no loyalty to anyone but themselves/shareholders and if the premise is "influence by corruption" then they would have no more difficulty influencing the EU than they would any national government -and as i've mentioned, i think it would actually be easier to gain nefarious influence on a much wider scale.
Whilst goslows observation that the EU hammered MS the other year is quite correct, remember, best not forget this is a theoretical discussion. Also, for the sake of argument, whos to say that MS has not YET tried to bribe the EU, NOR the fact that theoritically they could have done in order to lessen their sentence - who knows what happened - if anything.
The EU does ostensibly work (or on the face of it) appear to work in our (the people/the planet/humanity) favour and that is to be applauded - but if it can do this through consensus why does it feel its ok to use undemocratic methods. This isnt chivvying a few people into doing the right thing.
The vast majority of europeans think that GW is a bad thing and that much more can be done to counter it - why do we need a european army, a central bank, a single currency, the ability to write treaties and statutes into law, the overriding of national democratic sovereignty, a national anthem for pity sake ! ( etc etc etc ). When anyone questions this, they are declared by the "blindly" pro-european faction (in the eu i mean) as "mentally ill" (really) and fringe conspiracy theorists.
If we ignore the international aspects of any given corruption, i would be no happier if "british gas" or "bill and freds british organic windmill company ( I'd buy shares in them)" managed to bribe the EU either.
I'm no more happy that our own government deemed it acceptable to bribe the saudis to buy our warplanes either - and "we" (for the sake of argument at a national level (if this were relevant)) - were the ones doing the bribing.
I note (AndySir) with some humour (and no malice) that you work for the green party - no wonder i'm getting a kicking at times. Good luck to you all. I'm on "our" side and i hope you are too.
As to the type of EU that we want , did anyone ever ask you or even lay out the options ? - i dont remember that ever happening.goslow wrote:
I think the EU needs a lot of reform, trouble is there is no consensus as to what type of EU we want, so its stuck with the status quo. At least we can hope for gradual progress on financial competence and rooting out corruption.
- The Dutch were asked specifically on the "type" laid out in the lisbon treaty. The french and the irish were asked as well. They all said no. The EU ignored them.
I agree with your last statement goslow - but it is the VERY LEAST we can hope for. Theres a damn good reason why there is no financial competance at the EU and theres a damn good reason why corruption isnt fought at the EU either. Curiously they're related.
If we really cant as an entire continent, get our accounts audited after 14 years then at what point do you say "hold on, this cant be right".
gug I have a lot of sympathy with your views. While I'm not particularly anti-EU, I think that people should have the freedom to decide whether to be in this club or not. The club was designed by the French and Germans in the fifties and the UK missed out on the chance at the start to influence its direction and culture. Then we joined in 73 with most of the UK population not realising the underlying aim of greater European integration, and having to accept the rules of the club as they were. But every country joining in the last 20 years should have had no excuse not to know what they were joining.
I certainly would not oppose having a referendum on continuing membership, whether I would vote no or yes, I'm not sure. The EU with all its flaws has been a big positive influence for the environment in the UK, mainly because the lawmaking in this area now has a big input from the much-more-sensible continental types. Left to our own devices we would still probably be burning coal without flue gas desulphurisation!
I strongly encourage everyone to vote in the election: whether you're anti-EU or pro, climate change/PO convinced or skeptic, so that your views are represented in this EU parliament that has a significant influence in our lives. Its PR after all! Then also vote in the next general election so that our national government is perhaps more to your taste (though perhaps not, FPTP system) and its input into the EU legislation bargaining etc is more to your liking.
I certainly would not oppose having a referendum on continuing membership, whether I would vote no or yes, I'm not sure. The EU with all its flaws has been a big positive influence for the environment in the UK, mainly because the lawmaking in this area now has a big input from the much-more-sensible continental types. Left to our own devices we would still probably be burning coal without flue gas desulphurisation!
I strongly encourage everyone to vote in the election: whether you're anti-EU or pro, climate change/PO convinced or skeptic, so that your views are represented in this EU parliament that has a significant influence in our lives. Its PR after all! Then also vote in the next general election so that our national government is perhaps more to your taste (though perhaps not, FPTP system) and its input into the EU legislation bargaining etc is more to your liking.
Why is it simply a matter of Yes and No though - any yes or no has to be in context. We are not being allowed to set the context by any democratic stretch of the imagination.goslow wrote:gug I have a lot of sympathy with your views. While I'm not particularly anti-EU, I think that people should have the freedom to decide whether to be in this club or not. The club was designed by the French and Germans in the fifties and the UK missed out on the chance at the start to influence its direction and culture. Then we joined in 73 with most of the UK population not realising the underlying aim of greater European integration, and having to accept the rules of the club as they were. But every country joining in the last 20 years should have had no excuse not to know what they were joining.
I certainly would not oppose having a referendum on continuing membership, whether I would vote no or yes, I'm not sure. The EU with all its flaws has been a big positive influence for the environment in the UK, mainly because the lawmaking in this area now has a big input from the much-more-sensible continental types. Left to our own devices we would still probably be burning coal without flue gas desulphurisation!
I strongly encourage everyone to vote in the election: whether you're anti-EU or pro, climate change/PO convinced or skeptic, so that your views are represented in this EU parliament that has a significant influence in our lives. Its PR after all! Then also vote in the next general election so that our national government is perhaps more to your taste (though perhaps not, FPTP system) and its input into the EU legislation bargaining etc is more to your liking.
Just to reinforce the fact that in the last 20 years (more recently, but i'm using your example) many people have become aware of whats in store at the EU. Specifically, the French, the Dutch and the Irish.
When discussed, since it became clear (because there was in reality no Lisbon Treaty or anything anywhere near that level 20 years ago) they decided no. - What difference did it make to the EU.... not a jot.
The People of ireland, france and holland didnt vote NO to the EU and wish to leave, they excercised their democratic "right" to shape it.
They did. They were ignored. Why they were allowed to have a say (ignored or not) whilst the rest of europe never got a chance is a lesson in EU "democracy" in itself.
I'm in no way an expert on flue gas desulpherisation - but its my understanding that we're still doing it - but even so, if we've decided that its a bad thing to not do, did it require handing over of national sovereignty, a single currency, central bank, eu arm.... blah blah blah.
Considering that by most peoples estimates ( both pro/"anti" eu groups) between 70 and 85 percent of our laws (good and bad) are made by the EU so in reality and then handed out to the member states to enact, so my guess is that sorting out europe first is the issue (IMHO).
After all, we'll all be getting ID cards throughout europe, that didnt get cooked up in westminster.
The legal desire to spy on internet and telephone usage came down from above as well - investigate your favourite law and see where it originated.
DNA databases, any guesses anyone ? - All discussed at the EU first.
Edited to add: Although to be fair, theres not much new under the sun and no doubt we could equally have got any homegrown idiot to think these up , but it does indicate a reality with our law making and the quiet rise of europe without any obvious mandate from the people.
etc.
Last edited by gug on 19 May 2009, 17:29, edited 2 times in total.
I'm pro-democracy which ever way it swings (its not possible to be pro-democracy any other way !)goslow wrote:ah yes, but here's the rub. The French voted against the EU constitution because its too Anglo-Saxon! Its (arguably) reversing the great progress towards centralisation and introducing these dangerous free market ideas from les ros bifs.
Ah, no. The premise was that multinational corportations were more powerful than governments and had a greater say over the essentials of our lives - food, housing, employment - not a theoretical position of wholesale bribery. I believe my mistake was in trying to apply the concept of sovereignty to multinationals - while they do wield an increasing power over our daily lives they don't technically restrict the right of the state to govern. I was trying a bit too hard to combine the two and causing only confusion I fear.gug wrote: The premise was that our own govt was so corrupted that a last ditch attempt was to throw in our lot with europe.
Ah, i see, well in that case if the government was so overwhelmed by the power of private corps then joining the EU would still be a desperate act - in at least the fact that you'd still have to hope that the EU was incorruptable and didnt in time get consumed - I think it might work for a time but would be a short term win (in that respect).AndySir wrote:Ah, no. The premise was that multinational corportations were more powerful than governments and had a greater say over the essentials of our lives - food, housing, employment - not a theoretical position of wholesale bribery. I believe my mistake was in trying to apply the concept of sovereignty to multinationals - while they do wield an increasing power over our daily lives they don't technically restrict the right of the state to govern. I was trying a bit too hard to combine the two and causing only confusion I fear.gug wrote: The premise was that our own govt was so corrupted that a last ditch attempt was to throw in our lot with europe.
(and an admission of defeat as well - which who knows, might be inevitable - but surely not without a fight first)
We'd also be relying on the influence of other types of government to sort out our present problems - why not just change our own politics to start with. The corporations have only been able to have such appalling influence with the permission and assistance of governments in any case.
but i've said enough on these matters already and am getting bored by the sound of my own voice (without malice, i genuniely am !)