European Politics Thread.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

Quote[/b] ]

It's definitively best to say no to anything you don't know what it is or means.

Quote[/b] ]

You find out what it is first.

Please explain to me how these two statements are not completely contradictory.

There's an absolute difference.

Say you want to jump into a pool of water, is it better to check if the water is boiling BEFORE you jump in, or is it better to jump in and hope for the best?

I think that's what iNeo is trying to say. You don't have to go in with both feet to check something out. I mean, it's not like you do heroin just to make sure that it really is bad for you, right?

[llauma 0]

?? No I'm not. If you don't know, you say no, unless you want to find out what it is first and then decide for yes/no. Why would they vote yes if they had no idea what it was about? Of course they vote no then.

There is always the option to make a blank vote. I see your point why people shouldn't vote 'yes' to something they don't know, but the same arguments hold up for voting 'no'...

It's a swedish thing. People here say no to everything that is new or unknown. They prefer to wait and see what happens and if enough people joins, the swedes will join too 'cause there is nothing worse than being different for swedes.

Swedes wants to be special without differing from the general standard. Quite impossible, but that's the mentality.

[Postduifje 0]

Not only Swedish it appears, as the Eurobarometer pointed out 32% of the dutch voted 'no' cause of a lack of information.

I can see that a lack of information is a big problem when voting, but I'm lost why it moved the people to a 'no' instead of a 'blank'.

Quote[/b] ]There's an absolute difference.

Say you want to jump into a pool of water, is it better to check if the water is boiling BEFORE you jump in, or is it better to jump in and hope for the best?

I think that's what iNeo is trying to say. You don't have to go in with both feet to check something out. I mean, it's not like you do heroin just to make sure that it really is bad for you, right?

This in no way resembles your heroin example, the pool one is better. Imagine with it that your mother is telling you the pool is nice, clean and refreshing on a hot day like today. Ineo first said you shouldn't jump in cause you don't know what it is, and second that you need to find out what the pool does before you decide. Now that is contradiction.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

Not only Swedish it appears, as the Eurobarometer pointed out 32% of the dutch voted 'no' cause of a lack of information.

I can see that a lack of information is a big problem when voting, but I'm lost why it moved the people to a 'no' instead of a 'blank'.

Who really knows? I think a lot of people just want to make a difference, wether it's right or wrong, some might percieve a blank as missing out on your opportunity to make that difference, be it ignorant or not.

The Yes-side was at over 50% in Denmark before the French and Dutch no-votes, and after that it dropped to below 30%.

That goes to show how severe the scepticism of the EU is, and you have to consider that when so many people lack a real overview of what goes on in Bruxelles, it's very very easy to scare them like the no-side usually tries to.

Personally, I don't neccesarily like the way the EU is run (The Avon Lady hit it pretty well), but I think Europe needs a very organized market to counter the Asian and American ones which will be pressing us direly in the immediate future, so I vote yes, and for parliament I vote for the sceptic pro-EU socialists

[Postduifje 0]

You're right, but that doesn't make me understand it more. I know the reasons, I just don't get them.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

You're right, but that doesn't make me understand it more. I know the reasons, I just don't get them.

That makes two of us,

But in Denmark at least I think it's always been a problem that the population just isn't nearly educated enough in the way the world evolves. We're too easily mislead by television and other shallow one-liner mediums.

[iNeo 0]

Ineo first said you shouldn't jump in cause you don't know what it is, and second that you need to find out what the pool does before you decide. Now that is contradiction.

In my second post I clarified that you should say no, UNLESS you want to and can find out enough about it. So if you can't find out if there's water in the pool or not without actually jumping into it, then you better not.

[Postduifje 0]

Ok, that clears thing up. But I could use a pool right now, I'll take the risk of not having any water in it for granted

[denoir 0]

The Yes-side was at over 50% in Denmark before the French and Dutch no-votes, and after that it dropped to below 30%.

That goes to show how severe the scepticism of the EU is

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that we are really seeing an emerging European demos. Had we all been that different and had completely different interests and opinions, a "nee" in the Netherlands would mean shit in Denmark, Ireland et al

Instead we've seen how there seems to be a common political thread through Europe. So in a way that's great news for European integration

[Bordoy 0]

The Yes-side was at over 50% in Denmark before the French and Dutch no-votes, and after that it dropped to below 30%.

That goes to show how severe the scepticism of the EU is

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that we are really seeing an emerging European demos. Had we all been that different and had completely different interests and opinions, a "nee" in the Netherlands would mean shit in Denmark, Ireland et al

Instead we've seen how there seems to be a common political thread through Europe. So in a way that's great news for European integration  

Because more and more people are going to say no? Im confused

[harley 3 1185 0]

He means that if we all change our minds so as to not stand out (ie. Denmark changing position so as not to fall out of line with France and the Netherlands), then the same would probably happen with European policy.

Hoho..

[denoir 0]

That's a cynical way of looking at it. What I meant was simply that the Danes et al are influenced by what happened in the Netherlands and France. Had there been no common European foundation, they wouldn't have given a rat's ass about it. It goes to show that there is some political unity on the most basic level of the population - that it isn't just an artificial high-level political abstraction.

Ironically, what is uniting is a "no" vote, but you have to remember that it wasn't a vote against the EU - it was a vote against the proposed constitution. If you look at the Eurobarometer stats you can clearly see that it wasn't a vote against EU integration.

Bottom line, it means that European unity is quite possible. The EU might not become what it is now, but there is obviously a raison d'etre for an European Union, whatever it may become in its final form.

[Bordoy 0]

That's a cynical way of looking at it. What I meant was simply that the Danes et al are influenced by what happened in the Netherlands and France. Had there been no common European foundation, they wouldn't have given a rat's ass about it. It goes to show that there is some political unity on the most basic level of the population - that it isn't just an artificial high-level political abstraction.

Ironically, what is uniting is a "no" vote, but you have to remember that it wasn't a vote against the EU - it was a vote against the proposed constitution. If you look at the Eurobarometer stats you can clearly see that it wasn't a vote against EU integration.

Bottom line, it means that European unity is quite possible. The EU might not become what it is now, but there is obviously a raison d'etre for an European Union, whatever it may become in its final form.

Yes, see what you mean. Probably works for every country in the EU apart from the UK, lol.

even if everyone said yes, we would stil say no on a large scale.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

It's a bit of a mouthful to speak for all Danes but I'm afraid the cause of our "no" isn't really a show of solidarity with our otherwise close buddies in the Netherlands or France.

I can relate to the guy that said Sweden just didn't want to be on the outside, and that is also the case to a certain extent with Denmark, of course, due to our small size.

But even moreso I think the common Dane just doesn't have a clue of what the EU is, what it does, or indeed what they are doing. Hell, the EU is so enormous, that even EU politicians sometimes admit to not knowing the whole story. I think that's what caused the Danes to swing basicly from day to day. The fact is that our government has been far from adequate in telling us about the EU, there hasn't been any attempts to integrate the Danes into the EU. The Danes are "Danish above all" (halleluja), and I think that sort of really foolish pride to a large extent was what the no-side managed to trigger on the wave of the French and Dutch no.

As long as we don't know the EU as something made for us, and we don't feel like real EU citizens, but instead just someone that's along for the ride however long or short it may be, then it'll be so damn easy to persuade a no-vote as long as you have a negative current to drive on.

In short, we just don't feel any responsibility for the EU or it's progress. In Denmarks case I blame our government for not seeing the real importance of integrating us into the EU.

(also, it's a common fact that the successes of the EU go widely unnoticed whereas any scandal is blown out of porportion. If the EU passes a bill that's good for everyone people are like "OK", but if they pass a bill that's viewed as controversial and clearly biased to one particular nations interests, people revolt)

[xawery 0]

There's an absolute difference.

Say you want to jump into a pool of water, is it better to check if the water is boiling BEFORE you jump in, or is it better to jump in and hope for the best?

I think that's what iNeo is trying to say. You don't have to go in with both feet to check something out. I mean, it's not like you do heroin just to make sure that it really is bad for you, right?

That's a nice anology, but hardly applicable. You overlook the option to make a blank vote. When, as a citizen in a representative democracy, you are given the chance to influence decision making directly, it's rather irresponsible to vote "no" simply because you do not understand the subject at hand, don't you think? Especially if it really isn't that hard to become at least acquainted with the matter.

In short: you can't make a decision based on ignorance. Or rather, you can (as was shown in the Netherlands and France...) but that's just... ignorant.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

There's an absolute difference.

Say you want to jump into a pool of water, is it better to check if the water is boiling BEFORE you jump in, or is it better to jump in and hope for the best?

I think that's what iNeo is trying to say. You don't have to go in with both feet to check something out. I mean, it's not like you do heroin just to make sure that it really is bad for you, right?

That's a nice anology, but hardly applicable. You overlook the option to make a blank vote. When, as a citizen in a representative democracy, you are given the chance to influence decision making directly, it's rather irresponsible to vote "no" simply because you do not understand the subject at hand, don't you think? Especially if it really isn't that hard to become at least acquainted with the matter.

In short: you can't make a decision based on ignorance. Or rather, you can (as was shown in the Netherlands and France...) but that's just... ignorant.

Like I wrote before, I don't think that option has been made clear for many EU voters. Most would likely see such a vote as giving up their right to influence.

And honestly, I think that if the last referendum had ended in blank-superiority, it would still have started a row within the EU.

Blank votes are an asset for the no-side if they gain a high enough percentage, and perhaps rightly so, it would signify the fact that we haven't been informed well enough. But that would still lead to a row.

It is easy to get acquainted with the EU, but fully understanding it will make your head spin. I think our governments have failed in both respects.

[xawery 0]

It is easy to get acquainted with the EU, but fully understanding it will make your head spin. I think our governments have failed in both respects.

I agree that the EU is difficult to fully comprehend, but please show me who an average citizen who fully understands the workings of his/hers national government. I mean fully. The matter is simply too complex. The EU Constitution is more than a simple set of fundamental rules, it's a complete delineation of the EU's responsibilities and competences. Hence the length and complexity.

Incidentally, I agree that the Dutch government failed to even acquaint the Dutch populace with the contents of the Constitution. The informational campaign started far too late and the brochures actually contained incorrect information. Still, it's just so easy to look up accurate information oneself. EU websites (in all 25 languages), Wikipedia (very good article) etc.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

It is easy to get acquainted with the EU, but fully understanding it will make your head spin. I think our governments have failed in both respects.

I agree that the EU is difficult to fully comprehend, but please show me who an average citizen who fully understands the workings of his/hers national government. I mean fully. The matter is simply too complex. The EU Constitution is more than a simple set of fundamental rules, it's a complete delineation of the EU's responsibilities and competences. Hence the length and complexity.

Incidentally, I agree that the Dutch government failed to even acquaint the Dutch populace with the contents of the Constitution. The informational campaign started far too late and the brochures actually contained incorrect information. Still, it's just so easy to look up accurate information oneself. EU websites (in all 25 languages), Wikipedia (very good article) etc.

You're right in both regards, but it's very different from local government to EU, at least concerning the flow of information in this country.

We have somewhat of a view of what's going on in Denmark as long as we watch the evening news or sift through a paper every morning, however, even if we watch the news or read the papers, we still have no clue what's going on in the EU, and that's the problem I'm referring to.

You're right, it'd be naive to think that one could have a complete overview of the EU, but the EU is practicly alien to us as it is. I'm pro-EU because I believe in the ideology and the purpose, but I cannot claim that I know what the EU is actually doing in detail.

[Bordoy 0]

I would just like to get a French persons' opinion on this.

We are having the Trafalger celebrations soon and French and Spanish dignitaries are invited. But they are not using Britain v France/Spain, they are using Red v Blue.

The decision makers in this matter are saying that you will be upset and ashamed, but is that the case? I have a feeling this is PC gone mad. If you had a 1066 celebration (or any other battle you won v us), I wouldn't feel ashamed or anything as I think you have the privilage and right to celebrate.

[denoir 0]

But even moreso I think the common Dane just doesn't have a clue of what the EU is, what it does, or indeed what they are doing. Hell, the EU is so enormous, that even EU politicians sometimes admit to not knowing the whole story. I think that's what caused the Danes to swing basicly from day to day. The fact is that our government has been far from adequate in telling us about the EU, there hasn't been any attempts to integrate the Danes into the EU. The Danes are "Danish above all" (halleluja), and I think that sort of really foolish pride to a large extent was what the no-side managed to trigger on the wave of the French and Dutch no.

I think that's the key in many respects. I used to think that the EU was terrible at informing people - until I actually started looking around a bit. They have everything on the web - you can find all sorts of transcripts from Commission and Parliament meetings. Brussels is perfectly aware that of what the people object about and what they are not getting informed about.

Regarding Denmark, you can check out:

http://europa.eu.int/comm....nat.pdf

It's part of the regular Eurobarometer opinion polls that the Commission conducts in all member states.

My conclusion has been that the problem is not in Brussels at all, it's in the national governments. Unfortunately this seems to go beyond just incompetence. While the national governments are positive to the EU, the local national politicians are terrified of loosing power - that's why they are all so openly hostile to the European Parliament, which represents a power they have no direct say in. That's the first problem. The second problem is that the EU is a very convenient thing to blame when things go wrong, and it is very convenient to take credit for the good things the EU does. It's understandable as they need to be elected.

At the same time, this creates a very skewed perception for the people of what the EU does. So they should not at all be surprised when people think bad things about the EU - it's the only things that ever get associated with it.

[Supah 0]

My conclusion has been that the problem is not in Brussels at all, it's in the national governments. Unfortunately this seems to go beyond just incompetence. While the national governments are positive to the EU, the local national politicians are terrified of loosing power - that's why they are all so openly hostile to the European Parliament, which represents a power they have no direct say in. That's the first problem. The second problem is that the EU is a very convenient thing to blame when things go wrong, and it is very convenient to take credit for the good things the EU does. It's understandable as they need to be elected.

At the same time, this creates a very skewed perception for the people of what the EU does. So they should not at all be surprised when people think bad things about the EU - it's the only things that ever get associated with it.

Very true. Don't take what the Dutch government as true. They like to pretend now that it was all about the money, and it wasn't! This was about the people and the politicians having a VERY different plan for the EU.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

But even moreso I think the common Dane just doesn't have a clue of what the EU is, what it does, or indeed what they are doing. Hell, the EU is so enormous, that even EU politicians sometimes admit to not knowing the whole story. I think that's what caused the Danes to swing basicly from day to day. The fact is that our government has been far from adequate in telling us about the EU, there hasn't been any attempts to integrate the Danes into the EU. The Danes are "Danish above all" (halleluja), and I think that sort of really foolish pride to a large extent was what the no-side managed to trigger on the wave of the French and Dutch no.

I think that's the key in many respects. I used to think that the EU was terrible at informing people - until I actually started looking around a bit. They have everything on the web - you can find all sorts of transcripts from Commission and Parliament meetings. Brussels is perfectly aware that of what the people object about and what they are not getting informed about.

Regarding Denmark, you can check out:

http://europa.eu.int/comm....nat.pdf

It's part of the regular Eurobarometer opinion polls that the Commission conducts in all member states.

My conclusion has been that the problem is not in Brussels at all, it's in the national governments. Unfortunately this seems to go beyond just incompetence. While the national governments are positive to the EU, the local national politicians are terrified of loosing power - that's why they are all so openly hostile to the European Parliament, which represents a power they have no direct say in. That's the first problem. The second problem is that the EU is a very convenient thing to blame when things go wrong, and it is very convenient to take credit for the good things the EU does. It's understandable as they need to be elected.

At the same time, this creates a very skewed perception for the people of what the EU does. So they should not at all be surprised when people think bad things about the EU - it's the only things that ever get associated with it.

Thanks alot for that link, it was a very interesting read

It showed us to be alot more EU positive that I would've otherwise thought, but at the same time I think it sort of masks the insecurity of the danish people towards the EU.

I don't know if it's so much driven by politics as much as by public relations, or the lack of same. For example that study shows the support for the Euro being above 50%, whereas we voted no in the latest referendum on joining the Euro (I think it was in 2001). It's only when we've travelled to the countries that embraced the Euro after the referendum that we've discovered that those small coints don't jump up and bite us like the No-side wanted it to appear during their campaign (which we bought hook, line, and sinker).

You're definetely right that the EU is a great scapegoat for any politican needing a quick and acceptable explanation, and this plays an important part as well, but in Denmark for example all our political parties are pro-EU with the exception of our 2 right-, and leftwing extremist parties. In the European parliamentary elections we have an entirely different lineup of parties, but the No-parties lost about 75% of their support at the latest parliamentary election.

So I definetely think that the hot potato is with our national governments handling of EU as reality for the Danes. If they would make an effort relay information like what you've just given me which is very comprehensible to the people via the mass medias, I think it would help the danish insecurity if not eradicate it.

For as the study shows, we are very much pro-EU in spirit, but as the vital referendums clearly show, our insecurity is very easy to trigger.

[denoir 0]

Sweden is sort of an interesting animal. We're basically pro-Europe and there is a broad support for issues being handled at the European level. At the same time many Swedes are very negative about the EU, although they are not really capable of saying why. Beyond the lack of democratic insight, there are no real issues per se.

This could have something to do with nationalism in Sweden, which is sort of different than in most other countries in the world. The nationalism is not tied to nationality or culture, but there is a firm belief (in a few places justified, but mostly delusional) that the Swedish system is superior to any other in the world. This again I think is connected to how the Swedish media is working and the school system. While the media can criticise local government, it more or less always promotes a positive image of Sweden and a negative of other countries. The school systems promote the very same ideas. This is being hammered down quite consistently.

Swedes moving to other European countries are often very surprised how far ahead of Sweden other countries are in many areas.

Don't take me wrong, there are plenty of good things to say about Sweden, but there is a problem of how Swedes perceive Sweden. There is a lot of hubris involved and I think that in the long run it hurts us. Self confidence is good, but it has to be attached to some form of reality.

[sputnik monroe 102]

I usually stay out of the European politics thread, I thought the following story was hilarious though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3041288.stm

I wish American politicians were as open and unpoliticaly correct.

[EiZei 0]

Ah, the most hated leader in Europe and a close friend of the US.