Joint eu military

[denoir 0]

The Yougoslavian conflict was most of all a matter of Nationalism.A true "yougoslavian" hasn't really existed anyway ,unless maybe Tito and some followers.It's was most of all a throw-toghether of little country's that had hughe difference's with eachother ,be it ethnicly or religiously.So yougoslavia broke op due to to many people that didn't want it and to few that did want it.

Europe is the other way around.Here European nationalism is continually rising ,more and more people begin to feel European.Europe is expanding.It has much to do with globalism and our history and the way we fit in international politics.For ex. people in the U.S will easily say rather an European to a person from Holland than a dutchman ,it's easier for people outside Europe to mark people from here as European's rather than their seperate nationality ,however this sort of thing's prommote European nationalism.The same goes for international politics ,the More that we work toghether the more we strenthen the E.U .I dare to believe that ,if everything evolve's like planned/wanted ,seperate nationalism in Europe will have as good as died out after 3 to 4 generation's.

The nationalism of the individual republics in Yugoslavia started to grow in the '70s. When the first Yugoslavia was founded in 1918 there was a general concensus that it was a great idea. The arguments presented for it were more or less identical to what is now discussed for the EU.

And it was a fairly sucessful integration. When having a child, the people could select how to register it - as "Yugoslav" or the nationality of the republic where it was born. At the time of the breakup as many as 30% of the population was declared as Yugoslavs rather than as Slovens, Croats, Serbs ... etc

And that's in less than 100 years! Can you imagine people that people in the EU would stop considering themselves as Germans, British.. and start thinking of themselves as Europeans?

Right now we're at the stage where Yugoslavia was in 1918. The question is how we prevent from nationalism in the future destroying the union. We have a long long history in Europe. We've been killing each other for centuries..

[Baron von Beer 0]

Hehe.. kind of like throwing out that one thing in your garage. (Old car, bike, piece of sporting equipment.) You know you will never use it again, but you just can't bring yourself to get rid of it. Or in this case, you know you would never invade your neighbor again, but to give up the option for good?

[Grizzlie 0]

Not so long ago Germany and France had to be punished for too big budget debt, and try to guess what happened?

2 yars ago Portugal was in same situation, and try to guess once more time?

Isn't it that all animals r equal, but...?

And now we started to talk about joint army...

[Donnervogel 0]

Not so long ago Germany and France had to be punished for too big budget debt, and try to guess what happened?

2 yars ago Portugal was in same situation, and try to guess once more time?

Isn't it that all animals r equal, but...?

And now we started to talk about joint army...

So where's the problem. It's supposed to be a democracy. Go and do something about it. It's your right. It's one of your possibilities. Many people died to give you such opportunities. Basicly all you need to do is to convince enough people of your oppinions.

What is this "look this and this and this is wrong. let's dump the whole thing". If something is wrong you can fix it. You can complian. You can change it. You can replace it. This is democracy. Can't say it enough. Don't resign when there is a problem. Do something about it.

You only can't change things when nobody does anything about them.

[NurEinMensch 0]

Germany and France should not be treated different than Portugal and it's stupid at this time when unity is needed more than ever to try to be special and get away with a big debt.

On the other hand I'm no expert and those who call themselves experts disagree on what we need, invest money to get the economy kickstarted (and creating more debt) or save money.

The Euro is not exactly weak currently, more liks it's too strong. I don't really know what'd be better for Europe

Anyways that should be decided in Brussels and France and Germany should comply.

By the way the Netherlands could very well be the next to have a huge deficit:

euobserver.com - Dutch set for a taste of their own medicine

Quote[/b] ]EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - There may be a few red faces in the Dutch Finance Ministry soon if a survey - published today by the Dutch think tank, the Central Planning Bureau (CPB) - turns out to be correct.

The Netherlands has been the strongest critic of the decision of France and Germany not to maintain the budgetary discipline required by the euro zone's Stability and Growth Pact.

Keeping to the rules, the Netherlands has maintained, is crucial to the credibility of the whole euro zone.

But today it was revealed that the Dutch might break those rules themselves next year.

The CPB survey projects that the Dutch budget deficit will hit 3.25 percent of GDP in 2004 - above the three percent ceiling allowed by the euro rules.

[Grizzlie 0]

Problem is that "3% rule" is LAW. And it seems like rich makes laws for poor. Is it democracy?

[Donnervogel 0]

Problem is that "3% rule" is LAW. And it seems like rich makes laws for poor. Is it democracy?

There is a very handy institution for that. It's called court. Make use of it when you see someone breaking the law. And AFAIK there is a lawsuit in preparation because of that case.

So yes it is democracy.

It's not direct democracy though. As most european states aren't. I find this very sad. I live in Switzerland where we have half-direct democracy. Means we the people vote each month weather we want to accept a law, a constitution change or a initiative by other people after they have passed our parilament that consists of two chambers similar to the US parliament.

I find this comes close to real democracy and I'm very glad to have it like that.

I could imagine to have such a system in the entire EU one day because with modern technical and logistic abillities the size of a country shouldn't hinder that anymore. In the past though it was impossible to do it in large nations.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's not direct democracy though. As most european states aren't. I find this very sad. I live in Switzerland where we have half-direct democracy. Means we the people vote each month weather we want to accept a law, a constitution change or a initiative by other people after they have passed our parilament that consists of two chambers similar to the US parliament.

I find this comes close to real democracy and I'm very glad to have it like that.

I could imagine to have such a system in the entire EU one day because with modern technical and logistic abillities the size of a country shouldn't hinder that anymore. In the past though it was impossible to do it in large nations.

I am pro expanding the power of the people withing a democarcy with such system's ,also in Europe.I guess that ,where telecomunication's have evolved quite a bit the last years ,it should now be possible to use this network to reach most of the European people for voting.

[denoir 0]

Are you two joking? Direct democracy?

It would be a disaster! There is a very good reason why all modern democracies are representative and not direct: people are uninterested, ignorant, uneducated and stupid.

Are you seriosly saying that the average Fritz and Svensson with their high-school diplomas should be deciding the budget of the country? Or the military spending?

Average people are not qualified to run the country. Professional politicians are because they have an army of experts to back them up.

Introduce direct democracy in a country and you'll see the end of that country within months, if not weeks.

[Apollo 0]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Are you two joking? Direct democracy?

Givven te example of Switzerland we were more like talking about sime-direct democracy ,not full direct democracy.

[Bordoy 0]

Are you two joking? Direct democracy?

It would be a disaster! There is a very good reason why all modern democracies are representative and not direct: people are uninterested, ignorant, uneducated and stupid.

Are you seriosly saying that the average Fritz and Svensson with their high-school diplomas should be deciding the budget of the country? Or the military spending?

Average people are not qualified to run the country. Professional politicians are because they have an army of experts to back them up.

Introduce direct democracy in a country and you'll see the end of that country within months, if not weeks.

Finally something i agree with you on. The turn-outs for polling stations are getting lower in most countries so like Denoir said people are uninterested.

[Donnervogel 0]

Are you two joking? Direct democracy?

It would be a disaster! There is a very good reason why all modern democracies are representative and not direct: people are uninterested, ignorant, uneducated and stupid.

Are you seriosly saying that the average Fritz and Svensson with their high-school diplomas should be deciding the budget of the country? Or the military spending?

Average people are not qualified to run the country. Professional politicians are because they have an army of experts to back them up.

Introduce direct democracy in a country and you'll see the end of that country within months, if not weeks.

Denoir I said half-direct... it's not completly. We can decide on laws, constitution changes and initiatives. We can't decide on things like the budget.

Yes people are uniterested and therefore most of them don't vote. Sad thing that is.

BUT it worked very well for us since 1848. Seeing that it works and the fact that we are a modern democracy I can only support this type of State. It has it's disadvantages too. But compared to Germany (since I know them very well) the political interest in our country is bigger. I think it's because we actually do decide on important things here unlike Germany where they only vote people that promise the best and do nothing then.

That would kill my political interest too.

[Grizzlie 0]

Aggree with Bordoy

But from the other hand, isn't policits too important to leave it to politicians?

They have sooooooooooo short memory, and very often forgets what for they r

[Apollo 0]

Well i agree with DonnerVogel ,that is as long as we arn't talking about direct democracy yet ,i can agree that direct democracy is not achievable yet.

But like he said ,it's not that the Politician's let the people decide on crucial matter's ,it's basicly the politician's who decide what theyll let be decided by the people ,and in a democracy there are issue's ,not a majority of them but a small percentage ,where one might achieve a better result by letting it be diceded by the people rather than the politician's.

For ex. it's conceivable that in very difficult debate's like for ex. euthenasia the people might present a good base of reference to make the decission because otherwise it's such an almost impossible issue anyway ,but i'm giving only an example.The key is that it's still the elected politician's that decide how much dept such an indirect democracy has.

Buyt like he also said ,this sort of democracy might bpromote political interrest among the population.We must also consider that an indirect democracy in this way is actually more democratic than the usual democracy's we have in the world ,thus it's democraticly more justified ,may it be effective or not.

[denoir 0]

BUT it worked very well for us since 1848. Seeing that it works and the fact that we are a modern democracy I can only support this type of State.

It doesn't work well for you. As a matter of fact it's one of the least efficient systems in Europe. You have a big social segregation thanks to it. You havn't joined the EU thanks to it. It scales very badly too. Contradictory decisions on a low provincial level clog up the decision process on higher levels.

I'd say that Switzerland is an example of how you don't want to become.

[Donnervogel 0]

I'd say that Switzerland is an example of how you don't want to become.

Quote[/b] ]big social segregation

Big? Compared to our neighbours Germany, France and Italy it's tiny.

Quote[/b] ]You havn't joined the EU thanks to it

We didn't join because the population didn't want to. I say this is democracy. Isn't it? Would it be more democratic when we had joined EU against the will of the majority of the population?

I agree that EU is a good thing and I want that Switzerland to join. Buit I am also a huge believer in democracy with all it's good and bad aspects.

Quote[/b] ]Contradictory decisions on a low provincial level clog up the decision process on higher levels.

When the "higher levels" decide things that the "lower levels" = population doesn't want it's a problem for me. Not the contrary.

Quote[/b] ]it's one of the least efficient systems in Europe.

...and one of the most stable. I agree it takes a very long time to make big changes. But it makes sure there are only changes that the population wants.

I also think that sometimes people mistake our political will with inefficency.

We didn't join UN for a very long time. Many people (and foreign media) said it was due to our inefficient system.

No, it was because the population didn't want to join. Simple as that.

But let me say this. I don't want the EU become like Switzerland. It's a too clumsy type of state. But I do support the element that the people can vote on very important things that affect their lifes directly like revision of a constitution. Otherwise I see the idea of democracy not fulfilled.

[denoir 0]

Ok, let me ask you this way: When a surgeon performs an operation on you, would you like asking people on the street to decide how he should perform it?

My guess is that you would say no, since the people on the street are not qualified. The same goes for running a country. People can in general state their ideologies, but they can't get involved in micro managing the country, since they're not qualified to do so. Their lack of knowledge and education prevents them from making informed decision. The decisions are also always short-term and on the long run people don't know what's best for them.

A very good example of bad direct democracy is Sweden's vote on joining the Euro. Professors of economics had a hard time deciding the economic footprint it would leave on Sweden and yet it was left to the people to choose something that they did not have the first clue about. People got confused by all the economic arguments they did not understand and voted conservativly, out of fear (because of the confusion). And voilŕ - the people choose something that's bad for them.

The most sensible process is where people choose a political party depending on their ideological preferences. Then the politicians have access to experts that can analyze and explain things to them, making their decisions much more informed then the ones of some bum you pick up on the street.

[Donnervogel 0]

Denoir I know exactly what you mean. It's often the same here. But your surgeon example lacks a bit the paralells. We don't decide on the details of those laws and we don't elaborate laws. That's up to the professionals.

To come back to your example: we don't decide on how the surgeon should perform an operation. We decide on whether there should be a surgeon that performs operationes or not.

The challange here for the parties and the state is to explain the benefits of the changes to the people (or the contrary) in a way that most of them understand it.

Then as I think due to our political system we have a very good and avtive political conversation culuture in all medias and many such events where people come and discuss the matter.

When you're interested (any many people are compared to our neighbouring countries) you can get informed well. ANd I must say most people aren't that dumb. They do understand quite a lot.

When I duiscuss with people about the EU I hear the same arguemnts from the people that are pro EU and those that are against it. The difference is how they evaluate those arguments. Some see one thing I complety oppose as a best thing they can imagine and vice-versa.

Like you say our political system is not good and I think, after having seen other systems and also participated in another system (I have two nationalities), that this is a very good system.

It's not always ignorance that makes people having opinions you don't share. It's often a different evaluation of the same argument caused by other likes and dislikes and other experiences.

Now back to our little discussion here.

When you do something that might be good but it's against the will of the population its in my opinion:

1. undemocratic - a democracy has the right to make wrong decissions.

2. Why would you want to make such important changes as joining an international organsisations against the will of your people. When your people don't want to be there they don't belong there. They are bad members anyway when they are forced to be "europeans" but don't want to. The biggest problem I see with the current EU is exactly this. There are (and soon will be) many EU members that want to make profit of it for themselfs only. They don't follow spirit of a unified EU. Such a members is worth nothing IMHO. It's even then contrary. It blocks all attempts to reach the final goal. There should be good and solid rules. Nations can join when they respect them. That's what I hoped the constitution to become but as it looks now it will be another of those "overcompromised" things that leaves a wide open space in many important issues.

But I guess we're getting too offtopic. It's supposed to be about the joint EU army. Actually the only thing I wanted to say to some people here, is that the EU nevertheless is a democracy and I want to encourrage those people to make use of the rights you get under such a constitutional form and not resign in front of "defects" but instead try to change them. A democracy is a very flexible type of state. There is no need to abandon the whole "project" because it has some scratches.

[denoir 0]

Democracy has the benifit of being a stable and inert system with the downside that it's perfromance and efficiency is terrible. A mix of direct and representative democracy also has some very serious downsides. Again, I'll use the Swedish Euro referendum as an example.

85% of our democratically elected parliament was pro-Euro. In the referendum it turns out that nearly 60% of the Swedish people voted "no". How do you solve that contradiction? Do we trust our elected politicians to make informed choices or do we trust the people to make them? I can say that I for instance was in no way qualified to make a choice. I should have never been allowed to vote. That's why I'm going to a doctor for a surgery - I don't operate on myself. That's why I elect politicians - so that they can make informed decision. Introducing elements of direct democracy can only undermine the work of the professionals.

In a democracy people have the right to make the wrong choices, yes. The ultimate goal should however be to do what's best for the country and for the people. Representative democracy is a way to listen to the people and their ideologies while preventing them from sabotaging the country. And this is IMO very important as people often prefer the wrong things and have very short-term priorities. Had we had democracy throughout all history we would still be living in caves today. There is a progressive, long-term development of a society that regular people really don't care too much about. And this is where we have to have leaders with the authority to make decisions.

[Donnervogel 0]

Well denoir we can spin that further and further.

Quote[/b] ]85% of our democratically elected parliament was pro-Euro. In the referendum it turns out that nearly 60% of the Swedish people voted "no". How do you solve that contradiction?

My comment to this is either:

you obviously have a large difference between the people and the representatives. So the people obviously are badly represented.

or

your representatives did a bad job on informing the public - in a way they understand it. That is one of the great challenges with democracies and in my eyes it's not the right way to by-pass it by just excluding the people of real decissions.

I agree our form of democracy has many downsides but yours has them to. I don't want to decide what's ulitmaively better. I like our system better and it worked very well in our coutry that has some parallels to the EU. Like the EU we're very federal. Like the EU we combine many different cultures and languages in one country (we have 4) - that's why I don't speak of Switzerland as a nation - because we're not a nation in the sense of the word.

On the contrary unlike the EU we're very small. I don't know if our type of democracy was ever tried on such a scale but I doubt it since in the past there weren't enough logistical and technical abillities.

Your form of democracy on the other hand is much more effective and that's much more important for a international acting union than for a tiny country than ours. You can act and react quicker. I know that's very important. Therefore I am sure the swiss system wouldn't work 1-to-1 transferred to the EU. But I think the EU could learn from our experience and inculde some elements of the direct democracy. Of course it's a risk when you have professionals deciding something that the public doesn't understand it. But you have a problem too when you make important decissions against the will of your people. In the first case you might make wrong decission in the secound you risk that some nations or parts of them want to leave and that could end in a conflict. Democracy is always a risk.

[NurEinMensch 0]

Interesting debate, keep it coming.

[Baron von Beer 0]

Doctor is a horrible example. In it's most basic form, you are paying a person to perform a service for you. Much like a mechanic, or the cook at a resteraunt. He uses the method he was taught. If you go to a restaraunt, do you ask everyone else inside to vote on what you will eat? No, you get what you pay for. Politicians are paid, to perform a service, but that service IS to make choices, not do a specific, set action.

As for Switzerland, It appears that joining the EU is not what is best for them, or they would have done it. It is for them to decide what is best for them, not the current EU members. However, in 2 years, they may decide it is best for them. If Union is what the EU is about, than that is great. Trying to bully, or force nations to join is not Union, but subjugation. (Telling someone what is best for them in an open vote counts as being forcefull) In the end, that can only weaken the EU, so best to let nations join when they are ready and not when the others want them too.

[denoir 0]

Wow, I don't know where to begin to explain to you how much you've missed the point. We're not talking about the EU deciding for other countries but representative vs. direct democracy in the countries themselves.

Switzerland did not join the EU not because it was not the best for but because the people were against it. What the big ignorant masses choose and what's best isn't always the same. Having professional politicians is acknowledging the fact that regular people don't know enough and arn't interested enough to make and implement political decisions all by themselves. The politicians have advisors that are experts on various fields and they can get the proper information that way. Regular people don't have access to such tools to properly analyze the consequences of a decision.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I have read the entire 12 pages up till here and it is a realy damn interesting topic that is!

To calm down all opposers to a joint european army one could come forward with the argument that:

A joint EU military force could reduce the responsibilities and workload of the United States to act as World Police.

Being the only superpower this is not a self chosen job but imposed!

A EU could intervene without the presence of US army infrastructure.

In the future we can not be sure that the US is always able to provide as much resources as in the past. Especially right now too much of its potential is allocated for the war against terror. Furthermore is the defense budget pretty sensitive and cannot cope with more operations. And thirdly we cannot always expect the americans to support a war. Clinton already had a hard time explaining to his people why Jugoslawia was worth sending troops.

Considering the Colonial history of France, Britain, Spain, Holland and Portugal we, europeans, have more peace-obligations in Africa than the US. In the future, that continent will be our homework. We will not only have to pay for eurofigthers but accept bodybags returning home. And for that purpose you better be prepared and ensure good hardware and compatible european command policies.

Never been a better time for a EU force. This time we unite proactively and not, as it has been, reactively!

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

oppppppps (i posted this in the wrong topic)