European Politics Thread.

[ElBandito 0]

Yep Nice it was - doh and me talking of education.

I have to disagree about the masses writing policy though. I agree sometimes it can seem that way and god knows I'm always cursing that stupidity but I think it is a side affect of the system not the people. It's about education and information. Those same masses do something far more complicated than just write policy (which is easy, getting people to agree to it isn't), they live with it. If they were engaged and had that power there is a very good chance they'd make a mess of it. At least at first. Though such a failure would cost them dear. Having to suffer the conseqences of your own desicions is a hell of a teacher. Plus it ain't in to great a shape right now.

[Ares1978 0]

I'm sort of against conscription because that will lead to more deaths then if it would be a pro-soldier. Just think of Iraq these days and the italian agent that was killed.

Almost no experience, nervous and relative young people is not the type you want in a warzone where the enemy might be amongs the people.

Young people that start there grown-up lifes by shooting at others may have problems after they return home after going to war, seeing horrible things.

Almost no experience, nervous and relative young people is exactly what you have in the war zone either way. Doesn't matter if the soldiers are conscripts or "professional" soldiers, the only thing that matters is the level of training they have received, and nothing suggests that a professional soldier is automatically more professional than a conscript (one shouldn't mix "profession" with "professionalism"). And if the soldiers aren't trained to be peacekeepers, they won't be able to function as peacekeepers.

[harley 3 1185 0]

I am not a fan of conscription, unless it's a means to a damned big end; i.e. very large war or massive levels of unemployment/discontent. However, I do agree that it all boils down to training, and to the kind of person who is sent into action. Many people volunteer for the Army thinking they're upto it, then when a shot is fired they crumble. There are many conscripts who can fight and fight well. If you had a conscript force-then ensured the training is relatively high (which is more possible than many people make it out to be)-then send only volunteers into danger zones, then you have the makings of a conscript system.

Education is the key to everything, from Democracy, to Economics, to Politics - even to how well a man would fight in battle. I don't think I can say anymore than ElBandito already has .

[denoir 0]

Newcomers fail in final bid to save EU budget [Reuters]

Quote[/b] ]

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Ten poor new European Union member states made a last-ditch bid to rescue a summit deal on the bloc's long-term budget on Friday by offering to give up some aid but the marathon negotiations ended in failure.

The collapse threatens the enlarged 25-nation bloc with financial paralysis on top of political uncertainty wrought by the rejection of the EU constitution by French and Dutch voters, which has unnerved financial markets and weakened the euro. The mainly ex-communist east European states offered to sacrifice some of the funds they are due to receive from Brussels to salvage a deal, aware that a deadlock would delay urgently needed public investment in their countries.

"Something absolutely extraordinary is going on. The 10 new member states, led by Poland, are ready to get less money if a deal can be saved," a Luxembourg EU presidency source said.

But a senior EU official said the leaders were unable to overcome deep differences over Britain's EU rebate and French farm subsidies and had given up efforts to agree a compromise proposed by Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker.

Britain rejected a series of proposals to cap its annual refund from EU coffers, insisting that any reduction must be linked to a promise to reform the Common Agricultural Policy, anathema to French President Jacques Chirac.

But a British spokesman insisted London was not alone since four other west European countries had opposed the final compromise -- the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain and Finland.

The breakdown means British Prime Minister Tony Blair will inherit the presidency of a Union in crisis for six months from July 1 facing blame for the failure of the budget talks, even from the "new Europe" whose accession he championed.

But his spokesman was defiant, saying the final compromise offered by Luxembourg was "even worse" for Britain, requiring London to give up 18 billion euros ($21.85 billion) over seven years with no assurance of a reform in farm aid.

"What's being proposed is a guaranteed change in our rebate without any guarantee on the EU budget. That's unacceptable to us," the spokesman said.

While the European Commission said failure to agree on the 2007-13 budget would throw EU financial planning into chaos, British, Dutch and Swedish officials all said there was no rush.

Earlier, the leaders decided to put the EU constitution into the deep freeze, extending the deadline for ratification into mid-2007 to avoid more humiliating referendum defeats after the French and Dutch fiascos.

Denmark, Portugal and Ireland immediately said they would postpone votes planned later this year.

The charter was drawn up to enable an enlarged Union to work more effectively, with a stable leadership and streamlined decision-making. But the EU will now limp on for years under the cumbersome Nice Treaty, widely seen as a recipe for paralysis.

Throughout the day, negotiations focused on British demands for a trade-off between curbing the rebate won by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 and a commitment to overhaul the farm subsidies that mainly benefit the French. The Dutch and Swedes demanded a substantial cut in their net payments to EU coffers, while Spain and Italy fought to preserve more aid for their poorer regions.

But in the end, it came down to the Franco-British feud that has been a central feature of EU politics for a generation.

Chirac, a veteran champion of farmers, was willing to accept a freeze in the British rebate instead of the phasing out he had demanded. But he insisted on a guarantee that farm spending would be ring-fenced at its current level until 2013, as EU leaders including Blair had agreed in 2002.

Juncker eventually proposed capping Britain's rebate at 5.5 billion euros a year, compared to 5.1 billion euros in a total budget of 106.3 billion euros this year. Without a change in the mechanism, it will explode to nearly 8 billion euros by 2013.

Britain, with few farmers, obtained the rebate when it was poor and agricultural spending made up nearly 75 percent of the budget. It is now among the richest EU states and farm subsidies are down to 43 percent of the total.

Chirac flatly rejected any linkage between the rebate and farm spending.

"The future of the British check after 2013 should under no circumstances be linked to a reform of farm expenditure," he said, according to speaking notes.

Pathetic really. No, not pathetic - shameful. A very simple gesture of agreement would be had the UK said that the new members don't have to pay for the rebate and that the French agreed to an equivalent amount being taken from the CAP. They couldn't even manage that.

Instead we have the 10 poorest countries volunteering to give up money to save the deal. Just shameful behaviour on the part of the old member states.

[harley 3 1185 0]

I must say that the Summit has turned out rather badly – with not much actually changing. The British rebate has been temporarily “Cappedâ€, whilst French numbers for CAP have been frozen. The whole point of the Chirac/Blair feud was that someone was going to have to give way. Tragically, “shamefully†to use Denoir’s word, “The mainly ex-communist east European states offered to sacrifice some of the funds they are due to receive from Brussels to salvage a deal, aware that a deadlock would delay urgently needed public investment in their countries.†That the new members, whom Blair has so long waxed lyrical about, should have to suffer because of the stubborn-ness of himself and Chirac, is disgusting.

“The European Commission said that failure to agree on the 2007-2013 Budget would throw EU financial planning into Chaosâ€; I’m quite sure that even they can sort something out – I doubt that now they’ll be making any special dispensation towards Eastern Europe.

As for the rot about “Britain has few farmersâ€; Britain currently has 230,000 farmers, a third of the French total. Yet Britain farms substantially more than a half the land France does (Britain-16 million Hectares, France-26 million Hectares), and receives Å45 CAP per capita compared to Å117 CAP per capita in France – apart from the fact that France gets 3 times more money back in receipts from CAP, it shows how badly the land is being farmed.

France has absolutely no right to criticise the British rebate; the rest of Europe has, but France does NOT. Last year Britain contributed Å5.950 billion to the EU - Å2.509 billion when one deducts the rebate. If not for contributing toward our rebate, France would have contributed Å56 million. Then France receives Å6.5 billion through CAP.

As for your remarkably pro-Europe views Denoir, I can see why you wouldn’t be too keen on a democracy, since it seems that the Swedish people and the Swedish Government have no great desire to become more involved in Europe. “The Swedish government believes that EU cooperation is good but at the same time must be improved in a number of respects, especially in such important fields as job creation and gender equality, better environment, fair trade, more effective cooperation to combat international crime and greater openness and transparency in EU work. Since joining the EU, Sweden has consistently tried to persuade the Union to focus on issues of importance to ordinary citizens, not just to politicians and decision-makers.â€

Interesting-also that the Swedish government “believes that The foreign policy actions of the EU are increasingly based on common values, democracy and human rights. With its common foreign and security policy, trade policy and development assistance programs, the EU commands a unique combination of instruments in international cooperation.â€, which does not tell me that Sweden wants more Union in Europe. That Sweden has been backing Britain (however foolish our position may be, I concede) is sure an indicator that she has no great desire to see the Constitution see light of day again for a while and that she would like to see some “reflection†in the way the EU functions.

I hope that in the upcoming EU Presidency, Blair actually does something to force the EU to get its priorities right and start putting money where it is needed. Then he can start making political suggestions to the member states.

[denoir 0]

As for your remarkably pro-Europe views Denoir, I can see why you wouldn’t be too keen on a democracy, since it seems that the Swedish people and the Swedish Government have no great desire to become more involved in Europe.  “The Swedish government believes that EU cooperation is good but at the same time must be improved in a number of respects, especially in such important fields as job creation and gender equality, better environment, fair trade, more effective cooperation to combat international crime and greater openness and transparency in EU work. Since joining the EU, Sweden has consistently tried to persuade the Union to focus on issues of importance to ordinary citizens, not just to politicians and decision-makers.â€

On the contrary, I advocate more democracy. My position is that the European Parliament should gain much more power, and that the Commission should have far less power. I think one of the main problems with the EU is that the national governments - i.e through the Commission and the Council have too much power.

As for Sweden, I'm not sure how you manage to interpret it that way. While Sweden is less Europhilic than say Germany, it is far more so than Britain. When we voted to join the EU, the yes side won with 52 percent. At the time of the Euro referendum, the support for being in the EU was over 65%.

Sweden is officially an advocate of a common foreign policy. Unofficially we (or at least the government) is very keen on the idea for a common defence policy as well. (This is a bit controversial though). Sweden is also for a more democratic EU, although the current government is sending some mixed signals in that area. They talk a lot about democracy, but end up supporting the Commission rather than the Parliament.

Quote[/b] ]That Sweden has been backing Britain (however foolish our position may be, I concede) is sure an indicator that she has no great desire to see the Constitution see light of day again for a while and that she would like to see some “reflection†in the way the EU functions.

Oh dear. Sweden has not been backing Britain. You really need to get that idea out of your head. If you wish, I'll translate a very strong anti-British rant that was given by our PM today. The only thing we have in common is that we want to reduce the CAP. We want further integration, we want strict labour laws, we want strong social protection etc Sweden and Britain disagree on more than Britain and France do. I have no clue why the British media seems to think that Sweden somehow is Britain's ally. It's completely absurd.

Quote[/b] ]I hope that in the upcoming EU Presidency, Blair actually does something to force the EU to get its priorities right and start putting money where it is needed.  Then he can start making political suggestions to the member states.

Unlikely given what has just transpired. He'll be just a lame duck until all this is sorted out.

[denoir 0]

Hmm, actually, the statistics I mentioned is open for interpretation. The question in that poll was if Sweden should stay or leave the EU. Stay got an overwhelming majority with 65% for, 22% against and 13% undecided.

I found now however this most excellent resource:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/standard_en.htm

- the Eurobarometer. Have opinion polls in the member states on a regular basis.

There we can see that abut 48% think that it is good that Sweden is part of the EU, while 24% think it is bad. There is a very strong positive trend though, right now it is at an all-time high. Since Sweden's entry, the trend has been more or less positive.

In the question of identity, we have:

First Swedish, then European - 48%

Only Swedish - 44%

As much Swedish as European - 5%

First European, then Swedish - 2%

Only European - 1%

The interesting thing there is that there is an exponential trend going towards the European. In the previous Eurobarometer report 42% felt they were Swedish and  European.

52% are for a common foreign policy, 39% are against.

55% are for a common defence policy, 39% are against.

Now to make a comparison to the UK

If the EU is a good thing or bad thing:

Good thing, UK=38%, Sweden=48%, EU25=56%

A bad thing, UK=22%, Sweden=22%, EU25=13%

Well, anyway, I can't be bothered to list them - you can check the reference yourself. It's an interesting read.

Edit: Man they have some good stuff there. Check this one out:

Post-referendum survey in the Netherlands

Check out page 16 "What are all the reasons why you voted "No" at the referendum..."

32% Lack of information

19% Loss of national sovereignty

14% Opposes the national government

13% Europe is too expensive

8% I am against European integration

7% It will have negative effects on the employment

etc

So "Lack of information" it is.

And here is one on France:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/flash/fl171_fr.pdf

31% The economy will suffer (outsourcing, employment..)

26% Because the economy is bad.

19% Because it's a too liberal economic plan

18% Opposition to the president/national government

16% Not socialist enough for Europe

12% Too complex

6% Against Turkey joining the union

5% Loss of national sovereignty

So the Dutch voted no mainly because they felt they weren't informed enough. The French on the other hand voted on economy. A large percentage was as you can see a protest vote 26+18% = 44% voted because they're displeased with the current economic state of France and the government.

So much for referenda being good ideas.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Noone really wants to take money from the new states in any form of the rebate, Blair and Chirac are obviously playing some kind of game of chicken for high stakes. Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands were also opposed to the luxembourg compromise with Italy and Denmark taking unsupportive positions. The Polish prime minister Marek Belka said he is willing to 'contribute to the talks' that Blair is proposing on more widespread reform (anathema to the Chirac axis), that he is willing to listen to Blairs ideas (but that a 'vision' is needed by those proposing reform). There is still fluidity to many peoples positions, id like to say more later.

Denoir says

Quote[/b] ]...but the British are completely out of phase. Forcing the people into a union that they hate with passion is a recipe for disaster.

..And if you haven't noticed mr John Wayne, a significant majority of your countrymen resent,  hate and despise everything about the EU. They see it as the  ultimate evil in this world.

..Take a look at what your countrymen and your media are saying. A majority of the British absolutely hate the European Union.

.. The British mainstream is at the level of the French FN and other right-wing populist parties.

Mmm hhhm. So what youre saying is, we really do love the EU deep down in our heart of hearts?  

Quote[/b] ]Even if you are outside the EU, you will still be Europeans.

Really? Gee thanks!

I will end with a quote from my new favourite blog europhobia, (related to The Sharpener which Denoir linked to earlier)

Quote[/b] ]Here's a prime example of why I drifted away from being Eurosceptic. I mean, who'd want to be associated with someone like this?

Quote[/b] ](from the article).. Britain hasn't shown much of a willingness to compromise on its EU budget rebate.

This pompous idiot appears as the main pictoral illustration to this article on Der Spiegel's English language site about the current rebate spat. (Which is actually rather a nice overview, if you haven't got bored of it already.) But is this how our European cousins really see us? Christ... No wonder they don't take us seriously in negotiations. This sort of thing really does tend to stop me from having any pride in being British anymore - largely because that kind of ostentatious gloating is entirely against the traditional national character. What a tit. Defending Britain by acting in an entirely un-British manner - and misplacing apostrophes to boot. Nice one.

Update - national identity discussions aplenty at Stumbling and Mumbling.

I earlier read the english Der Spiegel article and was appalled by the image German readers are likely to have/get. Apparently ,we are all members of the UK Independence Party! Except of course we're not and they are a small minority party, but distorting the facts is something only the British media are capable of, so thats impossible. You can see i am perplexed.

I had a somewhat crazy night, everyone must now stop posting until i have time to make a serious reply tomorrow.

Interesting times.

[denoir 0]

I will end with a quote from my new favourite blog europhobia, (related to The Sharpener which Denoir linked to earlier)

LOL. That's my realatively new favourite blog as well.

If you happened to see comments made by "Lucas" - that's me

Quote[/b] ]I earlier read the english Der Spiegel article and was appalled by the image German readers are likely to have/get. Apparently ,we are all members of the UK Independence Party! Except of course we're not and they are a small minority party, but distorting the facts is something only the British media are capable of, so thats impossible. You can see i am perplexed.

Der Spiegel and the rest of Europe get their information primarily from the British media. And I can tell you, the Germans are not the only ones who have such an image of you. Sure, there are Europhiles like yourself or Nosemonkey, but from the stuff we're getting from Britian, you seem to be a small minority (although the Eurobarometer statistics give a different picture).

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Pathetic really. No, not pathetic - shameful. A very simple gesture of agreement would be had the UK said that the new members don't have to pay for the rebate and that the French agreed to an equivalent amount being taken from the CAP. They couldn't even manage that.

Instead we have the 10 poorest countries volunteering to give up money to save the deal. Just shameful behaviour on the part of the old member states.

Well the countries that joined knew about the situation of the rebate etc before they joined. Unless they forgot to read about joining the EU meant. It was upto them to join and no one forced them to sign up to the EU.

Quote[/b] ]I am not a fan of conscription, unless it's a means to a damned big end; i.e. very large war or massive levels of unemployment/discontent. However, I do agree that it all boils down to training, and to the kind of person who is sent into action. Many people volunteer for the Army thinking they're upto it, then when a shot is fired they crumble. There are many conscripts who can fight and fight well. If you had a conscript force-then ensured the training is relatively high (which is more possible than many people make it out to be)-then send only volunteers into danger zones, then you have the makings of a conscript system.

Education is the key to everything, from Democracy, to Economics, to Politics - even to how well a man would fight in battle. I don't think I can say anymore than ElBandito already has

What we need is national service to sort out all the little runts running around the country, with the anti-social behaviour.

But i agree training can help out seperate the men from the boys. Which is why the UK has one of the top armed forces in the world. The only thing holding is back is numbers.

[Bordoy 0]

Anyone think that Chirac hates the UK?

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13373204,00.html

Quote[/b] ]EU LEADERS ROUND ON BLAIR

European relations seem to be in tatters after a series of bitter exchanges between leaders who failed to reach agreement on future EU spending.

The French and German leaders turned on Tony Blair as talks to broker a new European budget collapsed in chaos.

President Jacques Chirac led the recriminations after the Prime Minister twice rejected compromise proposals aimed at securing a deal.

Mr Blair however insisted he had no choice as the proposals on offer meant abandoning Britain's budget rebate without tackling the EU's bloated farm subsidies.

And he accused his critics of "tactics and manoeuvres" to try to isolate him around the conference table.

The bitter fall out left the EU facing its deepest crisis for years, coming just three weeks after the decisive rejection of the new constitutional treaty by French and Dutch voters.

During an acrimonious final round table session in Brussels in which normal diplomatic niceties were thrown to the wind, Mr Chirac described Britain's stance as "pathetic and tragic".

"This will change Europe," he fumed.

"I ask myself what will be the dignity of those that have said 'no' when the poor member states say at the same time that they want to make sacrifices."

He was joined by Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker who holds the rotating EU presidency and who twice had proposals for a deal rejected by Mr Blair.

"That makes me sad. Especially when all the new member states, even though poorer than the others, were prepared to give up part of their budget. I was ashamed," he said.

Mr Blair insisted throughout the talks he had been prepared to negotiate on Britain's annual Å3bn rebate, provided it was tied to reform of the Common Agricultural Policy - something Mr Chirac was determined to block.

The Prime Minister said he found it "bizarre" that some EU leaders at the final session had tried to argue that the CAP was the right way forward.

Britain has not been isolated, with Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain and Finland also opposing the deal on offer. Italy and Denmark also voiced reservations.

Our stance is 'pathetic and tragic', yet Sweden, Netherlands, Spain and Finland showed the same stance by opposing the deal.

[SPQR 0]

Before telling Blair is a lone victim with lots of friends and chirac his archenemy, I read something in a french newspaper puzzling me. That's why I'd like to have data about others articles, neither british nor french.

During the negociations, chirac accepted not to oppose anymore to a CAP renegociation after 2013 (remember this 2002-2013 plan was accepted by everybody, UK included).

On this other side, it was time to discuss about this rebate, which used to help UK to sort out a hard economical situation, a situation, it isn't anymore.

Nevertheless, still refusing to renegociate the rebate, Blair would have loose support from Netherlands and Sweden, some of the heaviest contributors of the EU budget.

Without trying to say, Chirac was right   , things about this summit seem pretty unclear to me.

Edit :

Today is the 190th birthday of the victory of Waterloo, where Wellington was saved just in time by Blücher and his prussian troops

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Today is the 190th birthday of the victory of Waterloo, where Wellington was saved just in time by Blücher and his prussian troops

Yep, we won

And before you say we only won because of the prussians. At least we had friends who helped out

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

And a doublehard cutthroat army,

composed largely of Irishmen, mercs and thieves yes.

SPQR-

Quote[/b] ]During the negociations, chirac accepted not to oppose anymore to a CAP renegociation after 2013

After 2013? Cant see that as much of concession at all (though no doubt the French press may not have seen it that way). Blairs negotiating position is that -now- is the time for a debate about widespread changes in the budget , with agriculture (pinned) on the table. Yes he agreed to the previous deal, but although that may make him a typical two faced politician (like he wasnt already), it doesnt, for me, detract from the view that now is as good a time as any there will likely be to consider a negotiation on the wholesale restructuring of the EU budget (even if he may have been somewhat forced on the defensive in the first place only by Chiracs tactics). Besides which it is true that circumstances have changed since the previous CAP deal (not least with the no votes, which still loom large).

Things will soon calm down a bit and the EU wont end, i dont see how all the doom and gloom talk could lead anywhere productive or useful (except as a scare tactic). An occassional crisis typically leads to a greater strength and sense of purpose in the EU, there is only a shift going on (not least because of all the new countries), it isnt the end of the road, more like a change of gear, and mention of war is preposterous.

And Denoir, the Eurobarometer poll isnt exactly that supportive of your view that Britons possess an unbridled hatred of the EU, as you concede. Also Balschoiws link on the UK referendum vote poll had yes and no precisely level (with a large dont know). Im still trying to get my head around the British mainstream apparently being akin to the French National Front. Cant see it myself (as a regular BBC parliament junkie and multi source newspaper reader). There are plenty of zealots, crazies and vitriolic journalists, but they arent the mainstream (even if they like to think they are). A lot like ardent pro-europeans seem to like to speak for 'europe', Anti-Euros have a habit of grandiosely speaking for the people of Britain (or with the royal 'we' ), except they dont.

We have a party called the UK Independence Party. If people have such an intense hatred of the EU they can vote for it to unilaterally pull us out. And they do. There is 1 UKIP local councillor (compared with 493 for the 3rd biggest party, the pro european Liberal Democrats). There are currently no UKIP MPs in British parliament.

UKIP falls short of its targets (-BBC)

Quote[/b] ]UKIP, shorn of its most high-profile campaigner Robert Kilroy-Silk, has lost its deposits in at least 451 seats - costing it about Å225,500.

It was a long way from the 16.1% of the vote it won in last year's European elections, when it took 12 seats.

Even its leader, the former Tory MP Roger Knapman, could only poll 3,914 votes (7.74%) in Totnes, Devon.

He trailed in a long way behind the winner, Conservative Anthony Steen, Labour and the Lib Dems.

The main opposition, the conservatives, i believe say they only want to 'renegotiate' not pull the UK out. An attempt to do so would very likely split the party. So basically youll have to kick us out, because theres no move imminent on our part to pull out. As you can see it aint happening. Hence compromise is simply a necessity. (Unless of course you want the EU to pump massive support into UKIP for say 5-10 years. Might work )

Frankly, if there is a mood sweeping the nation it is one of apathy or disinterest verging on political quietism.  

Hate would be a fine thing.    

[Postduifje 0]

In the Eurobarometer of Autumn 2004 says:

Quote[/b] ]If a Dutch referendum on the Constitution were to be organised today, 73% would vote yes.

But our populistic and incompetent politicians managed to f*ck that up in a little over 6 months...

I'm not surprised that a lack of information has been given as prime reason for voting 'no'. But why for god sake does everyone say 'no' if they don't know sh*t about it? I can still get myself so angry about the referendum, how can the free-spirited dutch I trust so well get so damn stupid...

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]And a doublehard cutthroat army,

composed largely of Irishmen, mercs and thieves yes.

A win is a win. It doesn't matter if the army was 100% British, or 100% Anything else.

[iNeo 0]

But why for god sake does everyone say 'no' if they don't know sh*t about it?

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

[Postduifje 0]

But why for god sake does everyone say 'no' if they don't know sh*t about it?

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

What kind of attitude is that? How will you ever be able to experience something new if you keep rejecting everything you don't know? Man, you're missing out a whole world like this. I'm sure there's a lot of beautiful things to life that you don't know shit about, try to keep an open door so you'll make the best out of it.

I'd say if you don't know anything about it, get yourself informed. If you're to lazy or unable to do so, let other you trust and who do know what they're talking about make the call.

[iNeo 0]

But why for god sake does everyone say 'no' if they don't know sh*t about it?

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

What kind of attitude is that? How will you ever be able to experience something new if you keep rejecting everything you don't know?

You find out what it is first.

[xawery 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.

[Postduifje 0]

I'm also not quite sure what you mean with that last comment iNeo, please explain.

edit: oh, I see now. I was reading the sentence in a wrong way. But as Xawery said, you contradicting yourself completely

[iNeo 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.

[theavonlady 2]

"We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no-one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

- Jean-Claude Juncker, current president of the European Council and Prime Minister of Luxembourg, in an interview with Der Spiegel Magazine, Germany, 1999.

Good luck, Europe.

[Postduifje 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'...

[denoir 0]

"We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no-one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

- Jean-Claude Juncker, current president of the European Council and Prime Minister of Luxembourg, in an interview with Der Spiegel Magazine, Germany, 1999.

Good luck, Europe.

Good luck any representative democracy. That's how things work. The people elect the politicians on fairly vague ideological grounds and campaign promises and then the politicians do the actual decisions. There are very few direct democracies in the world where the people make the decisions.

It's not very surprising though - beyond local issues people have no way of understanding the complexities of various deals. This is especially true for EU negotiations where everything is tied together. As everything is a line of compromises, issues such as common defence is linked to fishing in Portugal. So it's quite difficult for a non-professional to keep track of everything.