Could someone please explain the EU to me?

[JamesHackerMP]

Screwy.  Absolutely screwy.  I'm convinced after reading as much of the Wikipedia article as I could stand, that it's all designed to get as little done as possible.  Could someone knowledgeable please explain this structure to me?

[dre]

Sure here's a quick primer.

The main two components of the EU are the EP (European Parliament) and the ECB (European Central Bank).

The EP consists of 751 MEPs who are elected in their home country. They vote on legislation. The EP is seen by many though as being undemocratic because the EC (Commission) is unelected and not accountable to the people of EU member states. Only the commission can propose legisation, elected MEPS cannot.

Unfortunately they DO get a lot done. They have very successfully destroyed the ability of Europeans to govern themselves through their elected officials. They have enacted thousands of laws that are imposed on EU member states and taken much of the power away from European voters and vested it in the EC.

[?Impact]

15 minutes ago, dre said:

The EP is seen by many though as being undemocratic because the EC (Commission) is unelected and not accountable to the people of EU member states. Only the commission can propose legisation, elected MEPS cannot.

In practice that sounds like Canada, with the boys short pants in the PMO proposing most of the legislation. Yes we get the odd backbencher bill through, but they generally are very limited in scope.

[dre]

Right but the PM in Canada is an elected MP. The EP Commissioner and commission members are not. The people have Europe cannot "throw the bums out", which is pretty much the most important part of democracy. A better example would be if the Governor General was the only one allowed to introduce legislation. The GG is an appointee that the voters cant fire.

[OftenWrong]

Think of the EU as being like the Soviet Union, only it starts with the letter E.

[Michael Hardner]

Quote

Think of the EU as being like the Soviet Union, only it starts with the letter E.

Hyperbole and gross simplification.   

[dre]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Hyperbole and gross simplification.   

The central management aspect is similar to the USSR, but the EU is more like a technocracy.  Pretty much the opposite of socialism. The real power in the EU rests in the hands of elites on the EC. Guys like ...

José Manuel Durão Barroso - Chairman of Goldman Sachs international.

Romano Prodi - international advisor to Goldman Sachs.

Jacques Santer - Another economic  elitist - At least he doesnt work for Goldman Sachs but he was on the board of General Mediterranean Holdings. A firm that set itself up to profit from the invasion of Iraq.

Jacques Delors - A prominent french banker.

 

Those are the last few presidents of the commission. None of them are fans of democracy. None of them were elected by European voters.

The EU is an attempt by bankers, banks, and economic elites to try to take control of Europe away from European voters.

 

Edited March 11, 2017 by dre

[Rue]

20 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Screwy.  Absolutely screwy.  I'm convinced after reading as much of the Wikipedia article as I could stand, that it's all designed to get as little done as possible.  Could someone knowledgeable please explain this structure to me?

To:  The Hon. James Hacker, MP

From: The Dishnourable Rue

Re. Please Explain To Me The EU

Date: March 11, 2017

_________________

O.k. so there was this German, a Frenchman, a Dutchman in a bar. The German says to the Frenchman, " You know what the problem with

you French is? The Dutchman said, "Now wait a second, the last time you said that there was a war." Then a Spaniard walked in and said:

"You Dutch smoke too much dope.  Listen to the German." Then some Belgian walked in and said, " the whole lot of you have no idea how

to make good chocolate but think you do."  Then some Brit came in and said, " look yer all wankers, but we have to find a way to spend less

time at the borders so we can get to the football matches." Just then some Portugese guy walked in and said, "the hooligan is right and remember

I'm from Brazil if we start losing again."

This is how the EU started.

 

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, dre said:

The central management aspect is similar to the USSR, but the EU is more like a technocracy.  Pretty much the opposite of socialism.  

I get what you're trying to say but... I can buy pretty much anything in Europe, whereas the Soviet Union was a completely closed market with the state producing and distriburing goods.  Also there was a vey heavy engineering and manufacturing focus in that government.

[dre]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I get what you're trying to say but... I can buy pretty much anything in Europe, whereas the Soviet Union was a completely closed market with the state producing and distriburing goods.  Also there was a vey heavy engineering and manufacturing focus in that government.

Yup. I know. That's why I said the central management aspect is similar but the rest of it is pretty much the opposite. Its similar in that you have countries run by unelected bureaucrats in other countries... but that's about it. 

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, I guess I can buy that part of it as 'similar'.  Unelected officials are an interesting aspect of Western life as they seem to be particularly powerful.  For example, the US Attorney General, the governor of the Central Bank.  

There was a great book int he 1970s called The Power Broker, about a bureaucrat named Robert Moses who created a publicly funded empire for himself and made himself practically untouchable at the head of it.

[JamesHackerMP]

Michael, you ignore the fact that the executive power of the United States government is vested in the President.  Not the AG.  Now, no one rules alone, but he still answers to an elected president.

[Michael Hardner]

..and is UNelected but yes your point is taken.  I think we're ready for the next form of government after democracy maybe.

 

We saw Western nations form a meritocracy, then the elites started to figure out how to reduce egalitarianism and convince the masses to vote to keep them in power.  That, coupled with mass entertainment and popularity contests has created a situation where people actively vote against their best interests.  Most people don't even know the basics of how government works, so why let them vote ?

[dre]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

..and is UNelected but yes your point is taken.  I think we're ready for the next form of government after democracy maybe.

 

We saw Western nations form a meritocracy, then the elites started to figure out how to reduce egalitarianism and convince the masses to vote to keep them in power.  That, coupled with mass entertainment and popularity contests has created a situation where people actively vote against their best interests.  Most people don't even know the basics of how government works, so why let them vote ?

Voters don't really need to know "how government works". They just need to understand in broad terms what they want government to do.

Quote

I think we're ready for the next form of government after democracy maybe.

We already have it. The modern plutocratic kleptocracy. The question is how do we get back to a more egalitarian democracy from here.

Edited March 12, 2017 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Eliminate voting - create mandatory minimum incomes with free basic food, transportation and healthcare, and education.  Education to those who have merit is also free at higher levels.

[dre]

2 minutes ago, dre said:

 

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Eliminate voting - create mandatory minimum incomes with free basic food, transportation and healthcare, and education.  Education to those who have merit is also free at higher levels.

That's a really bad idea. Almost all of your resources would be consumed by the gigantic authoritarian police state you would have to maintain in order to control 30 million people that have been stripped of their right to self determination. 

Made me cringe... Hopefully you were just kidding?

[OftenWrong]

 

24 minutes ago, dre said:

The question is how do we get back to a more egalitarian democracy from here.

The new form of government is going to be run by big business. CEO's in politics. But in any case, getting back to what we had isn't necessarily any better. Most career politicians are wealthy people's kids, so are already born entitled.

Edited March 12, 2017 by OftenWrong

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, dre said:

That's a really bad idea. Almost all of your resources would be consumed by the gigantic authoritarian police state you would have to maintain in order to control 30 million people that have been stripped of their right to self determination. 

Made me cringe... Hopefully you were just kidding?

 

How does having the basics of life supplied strip people of their right to self-determination?   If a mandatory income level were established and people were able to pursue an education that suited their interests and their talents, which could then be used by the State to produce (whatever) and create wealth, would that really not work?

(Keep in mind in your reply that I had to look up plutocratic kleptocracy to understand your previous post.     )

 

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Most career politicians are wealthy people's kids, so are already born entitled.

It would be interesting to see the demographics of politicians, are you aware of any studies?

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, dre said:

 Hopefully you were just kidding?

Thinking outside the box.  Voting doesn't mean self-determination, though, you should have seen that by now.

[OftenWrong]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Thinking outside the box.

That's nice. And here I thought it was hyperbole and gross over-simplification!

[dre]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Thinking outside the box.  Voting doesn't mean self-determination, though, you should have seen that by now.

Voting means the illusion of self determination and provides a means for the peaceful exchange of power.

Like I said... you have two choices. Democracy or police state.

[dre]

15 minutes ago, dialamah said:

How does having the basics of life supplied strip people of their right to self-determination?   If a mandatory income level were established and people were able to pursue an education that suited their interests and their talents, which could then be used by the State to produce (whatever) and create wealth, would that really not work?

(Keep in mind in your reply that I had to look up plutocratic kleptocracy to understand your previous post.     )

 

I'm not necessarly against the idea of some sort of minimum income. I was referring to the part about ending suffrage (taking away peoples right to participate in politics.

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, dre said:

I'm not necessarly against the idea of some sort of minimum income. I was referring to the part about ending suffrage (taking away peoples right to participate in politics.

 

I see.  Sorry for misunderstanding.

[dre]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Thinking outside the box.  Voting doesn't mean self-determination, though, you should have seen that by now.

Its not always effective to that end, but its still the only thing preventing revolution. Like I said... you can either have a democracy or a police state.