|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Comparing two Unions: UK and EU
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fairly certain that taxes paid to the state of residence are sent up to the federal level and then redistributed back to the states. Some states receive more than they send in and some less. Sort of a welfare for the state governments.
In the US? No, this is not correct. There are some state-administered activities that are partially funded by the federal government (like Medicaid), but the fed collects this money from individual taxes, not from the states.
My bad, this is what I was referring to. So not exactly, but contains elements of.
Actually, the language in that article is misleading, and I can see why you might have got the impression that state tax money went to Washington. However, when it refers to taxing the states it just means taxing the individuals and corporations that reside in those states.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The particular middle ground I happen to prefer is the one that lets each region decide for itself whether it wants to be a hippy commune or a capitalist bear-pit. It just seems so much more democratic to let people decide for themselves rather than imposing one philosophy on an entire continent.
It's clearly escaped your attention that the various EEC and EU treaties were signed into law by the democratically elected leaders of many different countries, and even last week, a new country joined the EU because their citizens wanted it.
No one is 'imposing', and that's a frankly bizarre thing to say about a union of 28 different countries who can barely agree which biscuits to have at meetings. Seriously, put the tin foil away.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
By that logic, the current austerity measures in the UK aren't being imposed on anybody, as they've been brought in by a democratically elected government.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
By that logic, the current austerity measures in the UK aren't being imposed on anybody, as they've been brought in by a democratically elected government.
Well, yes. (And no. At the recent photo-op at Downing Street with the party leaders and Andy Murray, there was only one person there who'd won something significant. Andy Murray.)
So what's your point again? That democratic institutions sometimes do things I don't personally agree with? Excuse me while I fire up the Catholicism meter and aim it at the Pope.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So what's your point again? That democratic institutions sometimes do things I don't personally agree with?
That you've got better chance of your democratic institution doing what you want - or at least caring about what you want - the smaller that institution is.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You have an equal chance it going in a direction you do not like. At least in a large government, you can have the satisfaction that almost everyone is equally unhappy.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So what's your point again? That democratic institutions sometimes do things I don't personally agree with?
That you've got better chance of your democratic institution doing what you want - or at least caring about what you want - the smaller that institution is.
Nope, that's just bollocks, unless you're intending to be an island. Under FPTP, all you need is one vote more than the next candidate, no matter how few you get. No majority required, and almost every MP is elected by a minority of those who vote.
(Under STV, things change a bit - a winning candidate needs a broader electoral appeal, but we're not here to debate electoral reform. Currently neither the Tories nor the LibDems care one hoot about how I vote, as the constituency has returned a Labour MP since Methuselah was young.)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That you've got better chance of your democratic institution doing what you want - or at least caring about what you want - the smaller that institution is.
Nope, that's just bollocks, unless you're intending to be an island.
Not at all. It's only bollocks if you assume that people of all shades of political opinion are scattered randomly around the globe.
If people who live near you are more likely to share your politics than people who live further away from you, you are more likely to have your opinions turned into policy if those far-away people aren't poisoning your voter pool.
With specific reference to the EU, the rest of the continent is mostly to the political left of the UK. So, particularly if you fall to the right of UK politics, you have a pragmatic opposition to joining political forces with the continent, because it's full of socialists who will tend to drag the political centre in a direction you don't like.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If people who live near you are more likely to share your politics than people who live further away from you, you are more likely to have your opinions turned into policy if those far-away people aren't poisoning your voter pool.
With specific reference to the EU, the rest of the continent is mostly to the political left of the UK. So, particularly if you fall to the right of UK politics, you have a pragmatic opposition to joining political forces with the continent, because it's full of socialists who will tend to drag the political centre in a direction you don't like.
Er, no.
The UK regularly returns left-of-centre governments, and a majority of the electorate votes (Labour/LD/PC/SNP/Green) for left-of-centre parties. It's the vagaries of the electoral system that allow for the Conservatives to get in - remembering that they didn't this time, either.
I appreciate from over there, it looks like Europe is 'full of socialists', but it's only because you have two parties, one of which is very right-wing, and the other extraordinarily right-wing.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope, that's just bollocks, unless you're intending to be an island. Under FPTP, all you need is one vote more than the next candidate, no matter how few you get. No majority required, and almost every MP is elected by a minority of those who vote.
The fewer voters there are, the more important each vote becomes. If 100 people in a constituency of 25,000 want something, there's no real need for the MP to give a shit. If 100 people in a constituency of 500 want something, they'll get listened to.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'm definitely with Marvin on this. When it comes to having a genuine representative in government, the smaller the number of people represented the better. And, it's not primarily about voting every 4-5 years. It's primarily about day to day contact with constituents. The smaller the area/number of people your MP (MEP, MSP etc) has to represent the easier it is for her to know what the issues in the constituency are and what people really think about them. Each letter, each meeting at a surgery or conversation in the street has more impact. People are more likely to know their MP, more likely to tell their MP what they think, more likely to hold her accountable for how she campaigns on their behalf.
Of course, in practice, there is a balance between small constituencies and constraints on how many representatives can be afforded - more MPs means greater costs and more administration of the machinary of government (how easy would it be for Parliament to work with 6000 rather than 600 MPs?).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, in practice, there is a balance between small constituencies and constraints on how many representatives can be afforded - more MPs means greater costs and more administration of the machinary of government (how easy would it be for Parliament to work with 6000 rather than 600 MPs?).
That, of course, is where having smaller countries comes in!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope, that's just bollocks, unless you're intending to be an island. Under FPTP, all you need is one vote more than the next candidate, no matter how few you get. No majority required, and almost every MP is elected by a minority of those who vote.
The fewer voters there are, the more important each vote becomes. If 100 people in a constituency of 25,000 want something, there's no real need for the MP to give a shit. If 100 people in a constituency of 500 want something, they'll get listened to.
Listened to, yes. And then ignored as the other 400 have their say and it's back to square one.
Democracy doesn't work by persuading our legislators that something's important. It works by persuading our neighbours that something's important.
That scales up, and down. I'm all for decisions to be made at the most appropriate level - we have local planning policy, regional transport policy, national economic policy, and trans-national defence policy - but it strikes me that you (Marvin) seem to think of representative democracy as something that happens to you rather than something you take part in.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The UK consists of four previously independent nations which had their own governments, their own currencies, their own languages and cultures (and, in most cases, regional variations in culture and language within each nation). Over a period of time each nation was assimilated into a Union where the national differences were slowly eroded, although recently through devolution some of those differences were re-established (albeit in different forms than before Union). In the case of Scotland, we've maintained our own legal and education systems and printed our own bank notes (legal tender south of the border).
A potential greater (in terms of stronger ties between current nations, rather than necessarily encompassing more nations) European Union could easily be envisaged. It would also take previously independent nation states with their own governments, languages and cultures (just as England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland had been before Union) - although now not their own currencies (except for the Brits).
The two scenarios seem entirely equivalent with the exception of scale. But, that's relative. In 1707 the effective distance between London and Edinburgh (eg: how much time and effort it took to get from one to the other) was far more than the equivalent effective distance between any major European city today. Which is why it seems bizarre to be in favour of maintaining a Union in Britain yet opposed to a Union in Europe.
In my view, this argument overlooks the fact that there is a British demos but there is no European demos.
Regardless of what came before it (or the ethics of how it came about) by 1707 England and Wales were essentially one political unit and England and Scotland had been united under a single crown for a century (and had been one country during the Interregnum). I don't know what pre-1707 Anglo-Scottish relations were like but I imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that they were close both politically and culturally and that a lot of Scottish commerce, education, culture, etc. was in English.
Europe - or more specifically, the European Union - has no central head of state to which there is any real allegiance, nor do its people have a shared common language or cultural background. We've had over fifty years of attempts to forge a united Europe and to my mind we don't seem to be any closer to forging a sense of a European identity (particularly not in the UK).
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
What has common language got to do with it? Several countries in the EU (and one outside it, Switzerland) seem to manage OK (well, Belgium has its problems) with more than one language.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Democracy doesn't work by persuading our legislators that something's important. It works by persuading our neighbours that something's important.
And how am I supposed to do that if my "neighbours" are in Romania?
quote:
but it strikes me that you (Marvin) seem to think of representative democracy as something that happens to you rather than something you take part in.
Government is something that happens to all of us. The only way we take part is when, every five years, we get to have a minuscule (and individually irrelevant) say in which particular set of corrupt bastard politicians will be bending us over for the next five years.
The only way to have representative democracy is to make it truly representative - with MPs who actually represent their constituents and do what those constituents want, rather than representing their Party overlords and doing what they're told.
When do you suppose was the last time David Cameron asked the people of Witney which way they wanted him to vote on a bill - after all, is he not supposed to be their representative in Parliament? If the people of Doncaster North agree with a Conservative policy then shouldn't Ed Miliband be obliged to vote in favour of it? And if not, where is this "representative democracy" of which you speak?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
For much of history the language of the English court was French, and for a century the royal family spoke primarily German. The language of the majority of Scottish people was divided between Scots and Gaelic. The key difference between Scotland and Ireland, and the key reason the union with Ireland faltered and that with Scotland survived, is Protestantism. The English government condoned Scottish Presbyterianism in a way that they couldn't countenance for Irish Catholicism.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
a lot of Scottish commerce, education, culture, etc. was in English.
If by "English" you mean "not Gaelic" then yes. However, most commerce, education and culture was in Scots, which was a distinct language, though close enough to English to be mutually comprehensible.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
a lot of Scottish commerce, education, culture, etc. was in English.
If by "English" you mean "not Gaelic" then yes. However, most commerce, education and culture was in Scots, which was a distinct language, though close enough to English to be mutually comprehensible.
Is this related to 'Ulster Scots'?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Yes. The Scottish settlers in Ulster spoke Scots, and this developed into Ulster Scots.
Scots is a separate language, though linguistically close to English. Take my name, for example - Quine is Scots for "young woman" or, used ironically, for an older woman. It has the same linguistic root as "Queen" but they've been separate words for centuries. In Scots it developed as a word for a woman, in English it developed as a word for a monarch. Scots also has the diminutive quinie, meaning a very young girl, or it can also mean daughter.
[ 11. July 2013, 09:56: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't know what pre-1707 Anglo-Scottish relations were like but I imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that they were close both politically and culturally and that a lot of Scottish commerce, education, culture, etc. was in English.
Pre-1707, and for some time afterwards, Scotland was politically, culturally and economically tied much closer to mainland Europe (France and Holland in particular) than to England. You were far more likely to need to speak French or Dutch to conduct trade in Edinburgh than English, and Gaelic of course.
Mary Stuart spent most of her childhood in France, married the Dauphin who later became King of France. When James VII was ousted by William (OK technically by his own daughter, married to William) he fled to France. It was in France that the 'King over the Water' resided. Religiously, Presbyterianism founded in Scotland by Knox etal tied Scotland closer to Switzerland than the reformed Catholicism of English episcopalianism (and Scots fought hard to maintain their religious identity against the imposition of Episcopalian traditions).
quote:
Europe - or more specifically, the European Union - has no central head of state to which there is any real allegiance, nor do its people have a shared common language or cultural background. We've had over fifty years of attempts to forge a united Europe
The UK had no shared common language, a disputed head of state and diverse cultural backgrounds at the end of the 17th century and at least the first half of the 18th. That didn't stop an uneasy union developing into something that many people in the UK want to retain. We still have diversity in cultural backgrounds, with the re-awakening of regional identities (including the resurgence of traditional languages in Wales and Scotland, to a lesser extent in Cornwall) and the introduction of other languages and cultures that enrich our society.
The UK is not as diverse as the whole EU in terms of culture and language, but it's not a quantum difference either. It's the difference between a Union with 3 main languages and several culturally distinct regions (just how many would depend on who you ask!) compared to a Union of a dozen or so major languages and a few more culturally distinct regions. Not a difference with a Union with one language and no culturally distinct regions.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And how am I supposed to do that if my "neighbours" are in Romania?
The location of Romania is not a state secret, and since they are now members of the EU, travel there does not require a visa or an inconvenient trip through the Iron Curtain.
quote:
The only way to have representative democracy is to make it truly representative - with MPs who actually represent their constituents and do what those constituents want, rather than representing their Party overlords and doing what they're told.
Party politics and its potentially corrosive effects are probably a different discussion.
However, let's look at Call-me-Dave's constituency. He got 58.8% of the vote - safe Tory seat. He can safely ignore the 40% who didn't vote for him. 40%! That's actually quite a lot of people. So let's go with your idea that the MP does what the constituents want.
Which constituents? The 58.8% who voted for him? The 3.5% who voted for UKIP perhaps? Or the 37% or so who voted for centre-left parties? Perhaps the 4.1% who voted Green will come to an understanding the the UKIP folk. Perhaps Labour and Tory voters will all sit down in the town square and sing kumbayah. Or perhaps not.
I never had you down for a utopian fuzzy-consensus sort of guy, but hey...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Democracy doesn't work by persuading our legislators that something's important. It works by persuading our neighbours that something's important.
And how am I supposed to do that if my "neighbours" are in Romania?
For representative democracy, you need to start by convincing your representative to campaign for what you want. That starts by convincing others in your constituency of your position. Romania, even just London or Manchester, is irrelevant at that point.
Get your MP representing you, then expand your net and convince your more distance neighbours in other constituencies near you. By now you'll be needing to rely more and more on other people to join the cause and do a lot of the person-to-person stuff, you'll be needing to use the media to get your position across. And, once you've got there then distance is irrelevant - as you know from here, the internet and television allow your thoughts to be seen and heard anywhere in the world, and for anyone in the world to challenge you on those.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And how am I supposed to do that if my "neighbours" are in Romania?
The location of Romania is not a state secret, and since they are now members of the EU, travel there does not require a visa or an inconvenient trip through the Iron Curtain.
It's a long way away, and what goes on here doesn't affect them. So why should I have any say in how they choose to run their society?
quote:
Which constituents? The 58.8% who voted for him? The 3.5% who voted for UKIP perhaps? Or the 37% or so who voted for centre-left parties? Perhaps the 4.1% who voted Green will come to an understanding the the UKIP folk. Perhaps Labour and Tory voters will all sit down in the town square and sing kumbayah. Or perhaps not.
Are we assuming that every voter for Party X agrees with every single policy of that party? I don't see why we should assume that at all - party politics may force us into that assumption, but I'd much rather see a system where each constituency can decide how it feels about each issue for itself.
Or better still, where people can just do what they feel is right without any governmental interference other than the most simple of measures to protect life and property.
quote:
I never had you down for a utopian fuzzy-consensus sort of guy, but hey...
I'm not that, no. But neither am I some kind of "everyone must do things the way I want them to be done" fascist. I want small, independent political units so that people can choose the type of society they want to live in without having it dictated to them by people who live hundreds (or thousands) of miles away.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Get your MP representing you, then expand your net and convince your more distance neighbours in other constituencies near you. By now you'll be needing to rely more and more on other people to join the cause and do a lot of the person-to-person stuff, you'll be needing to use the media to get your position across.
Only if you assume that policy has to be decided on a massive scale. If each region is free to decide for itself then I don't need to worry about what the people of far-flung regions think at all, because I'll have what I want already. And so will they.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Get your MP representing you, then expand your net and convince your more distance neighbours in other constituencies near you. By now you'll be needing to rely more and more on other people to join the cause and do a lot of the person-to-person stuff, you'll be needing to use the media to get your position across.
Only if you assume that policy has to be decided on a massive scale. If each region is free to decide for itself then I don't need to worry about what the people of far-flung regions think at all, because I'll have what I want already. And so will they.
No, you won't. You'll be the Tory voter in a solid Labour constituency.
You seem to equate smaller = get my own way. Again, the only way you can do that is to be only inhabitant of a sovereign island. Anything else is filthy compromise.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Get your MP representing you, then expand your net and convince your more distance neighbours in other constituencies near you. By now you'll be needing to rely more and more on other people to join the cause and do a lot of the person-to-person stuff, you'll be needing to use the media to get your position across.
Only if you assume that policy has to be decided on a massive scale. If each region is free to decide for itself then I don't need to worry about what the people of far-flung regions think at all, because I'll have what I want already. And so will they.
Exactly. Hence the importance of that good European (and originally RC, BTW) concept of subsidiarity.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You seem to equate smaller = get my own way.
More likely to get my own way, yes - because if nothing else my vote is proportionally more valuable to the politicians. And I'm going to be more able to convince people to change their minds to my way of thinking if I'm actually able to speak to them about it. I can chat to Alison from down the road and try to change her mind, but I can't do the same with Alina from Romania.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Hence the importance of that good European (and originally RC, BTW) concept of subsidiarity.
Ah yes, the principle that states that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralised authority capable of addressing that matter effectively. Which brings us right back to the question of why any matters need to be handled by a continent-wide authority.
In fact, you might say that in some ways I'm a great supporter of subsidiarity - it's just that I think everything can and should be managed at the local scale.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Hence the importance of that good European (and originally RC, BTW) concept of subsidiarity.
Ah yes, the principle that states that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralised authority capable of addressing that matter effectively. Which brings us right back to the question of why any matters need to be handled by a continent-wide authority.
In fact, you might say that in some ways I'm a great supporter of subsidiarity - it's just that I think everything can and should be managed at the local scale.
To reduce red tape, and increase competitiveness.
Imagine if you had to fill in a visa every time you wanted to visit Staffordshire.
Of course Brummie-land could make an individual agreement with every other county. Or it could dominate the other counties to fit round it.
Or it could take a lazy approach but then those in other counties would take advantage.
Or it could make an agreement to follow a set pattern of behaviour, a sort of union.
Particular examples that are better (at least in some respects) the wider scope might include H&S (particularly standards), Tax frameworks and definitions*, Policing methods, Copyright law, Measurement terms, Medical terms,...Heck even phone number patterns and addresses.
*which isn't necessarily the same as the tax regime (though like the UK or US could include considerable parts of it).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Er, no.
The UK regularly returns left-of-centre governments, and a majority of the electorate votes (Labour/LD/PC/SNP/Green) for left-of-centre parties.
Err, yes.
Yes, I know that a majority of the electorate have voted for one of the vaguely lefty UK parties for quite some time. Nevertheless, the political centre in the UK is rather to the right of most of Europe. Consider France, where the Socialist Party is a long way to the left of the UK Labour party, and even the "conservative" Sarko would probably be a Blairite if he was British. Or compare the power and activity of the union movement in Germany with that in the UK.
The EPP, the large centre-right EU umbrella party, is significantly to the left of the UK Tories, and has a political platform which is pretty close to that of Tony Blair, and whilst Labour has sauntered gently leftwards under Miliband's leadership, it hasn't gone that far.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Difficult to judge from one's own national POV I suppose. But despite the generally stronger support for publically owned infrastructure in much of continental Europe, it's not all that left wing surely? What about Italy, where Berlusconi (despite his sub-criminal activities) has been re-elected time after time? And the BNP and EDL, the only really far-right parties in the UK, have got minuscule support compared to their equivalents in France, Italy and elsewhere.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In fact, you might say that in some ways I'm a great supporter of subsidiarity - it's just that I think everything can and should be managed at the local scale.
Its pretty easy to think of things that need to be managed on a scale wider than local, or even wider than national. We could start with deep-sea fishing quotas.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Imagine if you had to fill in a visa every time you wanted to visit Staffordshire..
The way round that is to have lots of small autonomous communities with very few continent-wide or world-wiode rules. And one of those few rules is everybody is allowed to leave the autonomous community they are living in and go to any other at any time whatsoever for any erason whatsoever. So no tinpot dictator can treat their neighbours as victims because they can always leave.
Maybe in the Ideal World (TM) - whiuch we will never make of course - no state would be larger than a single city or county or island, and the only crimes in international law or woudl be building weapons of mass destruction, passport controls, and overfishing. That last rather broadly defined to include quite a lot of environmental nastinesses from air pollution to nuclear testing.
So if the people of of Heidelberg-on-Trent really want to run their tiny statelet as a nasty little Nazi tyranny they can, priovided they don't stop anyone leaving who wants to leave or joining who wants to join; they possess no weapons capable of destroying their immediate neighbours quicker than an alliance of more distant neighbours can intervene; and they don't mess up anyone else's air or water or other stuff.
Of course the hard part of making that happen is getting the existing weapons out of the hands of the state and other organisations that already possess them. That is left as an excercise for the reader.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
In statecraft, the two are pretty much the same in practice. The consequences of an action will restrict a state's freedom to do what it pleases. Even the United States has come to learn that foreign events and forces influence the way it regulates at least some of its internal affairs.
This is true. However, it's a bloody big leap from that to saying that all the various countries may as well become one big country.
I didn't say that. I'm merely saying that international relationships and competing interests constrain sovereignty to some degree.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In fact, you might say that in some ways I'm a great supporter of subsidiarity - it's just that I think everything can and should be managed at the local scale.
I too am an adamant support of subsidiarity. But subsidiarity does not mean that everything is decided at the local level, but only matters which can be dealt with effectively and efficiently. Education and health can be addressed relatively locally; Ssipping rights, long-distance air travel and food quality standards in continental-wide markets cannot. This is why the EU is involved in the latter, but not in the former.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So if the people of of Heidelberg-on-Trent really want to run their tiny statelet as a nasty little Nazi tyranny they can, priovided they don't stop anyone leaving who wants to leave or joining who wants to join; they possess no weapons capable of destroying their immediate neighbours quicker than an alliance of more distant neighbours can intervene; and they don't mess up anyone else's air or water or other stuff.
And this is an excellent example of how such international agreements impinge on sovereignty. Your ruthless imperial rules are suspending Heidelberg-o-T's freedom to follow their hearts and be real Nazis (albeit obviously for their own good).
[ 11. July 2013, 21:38: Message edited by: Molopata The Rebel ]
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Of course, subsidiarity doesn't necessarily imply a body like the EU. You could have a lot of ad hoc treaty organisations- the Universal Postal Union and so on- to handle particular issues. That might be more agreeable to someone who shares Marvin's position (and while I have become a qualified supporter of the EU, I do think that we need to guard against a tendency for the Union's central organs to try to extend their field of responsibility unnecessarily).
But I think that a lot of the misunderstanding of what the EU could be, in the UK, stems from our basic cultural predilection to think of states as being primarily unitary. We don't, for example, really understand federalism, so we're not able to argue clearly about whether or not some kind of formal European federation or confederation might be a good idea.
[ 12. July 2013, 04:48: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Of course, subsidiarity doesn't necessarily imply a body like the EU. You could have a lot of ad hoc treaty organisations- the Universal Postal Union and so on- to handle particular issues. That might be more agreeable to someone who shares Marvin's position
For sure. I don't have a problem with NATO or the UN, because those organisations are explicitly made up of independent countries choosing to work together.
The difference between that sort of arrangement and one where a single country happens to delegate some powers to its regions is obvious. Especially if/when one of the countries/regions decides it no longer wishes to be part of the arrangement.
quote:
But I think that a lot of the misunderstanding of what the EU could be, in the UK, stems from our basic cultural predilection to think of states as being primarily unitary.
They are.
quote:
We don't, for example, really understand federalism, so we're not able to argue clearly about whether or not some kind of formal European federation or confederation might be a good idea.
Federalism is where one government rules the whole country, but chooses to delegate a few powers to its regions. Independence is where those regions are countries in their own right.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
We don't, for example, really understand federalism, so we're not able to argue clearly about whether or not some kind of formal European federation or confederation might be a good idea.
Or perhaps we do understand it but think 'we don't want to be governed like that'?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
(and Scots fought hard to maintain their religious identity against the imposition of Episcopalian traditions).
Bit of an over-simplification. Plenty of piskie and catholic Scots went to war, in part, for the right to worship in their own traditions. The history of conflict between Episcopalianism and Presbyterianism in Scotland is fascinating, for all that the Presbyterians were the ultimate victor in numerical terms.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Independence is where those regions are countries in their own right.
What does 'independence' mean in a world where most decisions that affect people are taken not by governments (national, local or supernational) but by unaccountable and faceless corporations anf financial institutions?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
No, no, no, Marvin: with all respect, QED. Devolution or decentralisation is where the national government chooses to delegate powers to lower level governments, and as Enoch Powell, who could be stunningly right as well as stunningly wrong, said, 'power devolved is power retained'- what the central government gives it can, at least in theory and possibly in practice, reclaim.
Federation - and more loosely but more rarely confederation- is where the lower level governments have certain rights, powers and responsibilities in their own sovereign right, which the central government can't remove. Indeed, in very many cases- the USA, Australia, Canada, Germany, Switzerland- the lower level governments predate the national government. Now in practice, the lines between national and subnational governments get blurred a bit, and shift a little one way or another. But the subnational sovereignty thing is key.
[ 12. July 2013, 10:22: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Now in practice, the lines between national and subnational governments get blurred a bit, and shift a little one way or another. But the subnational sovereignty thing is key.
I thought the whole "Civil War" thing proved once and for all that the various states of the USA don't have sovereignty.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, only insofar as it concerned the admittedly quite big question of whether a state could secede from the Union. But otherwise it was about where the dividing line between Federal and State power lay. The precise way in which these matters are arranged varies between federations, of course.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Well, only insofar as it concerned the admittedly quite big question of whether a state could secede from the Union.
A big question indeed! If they can't leave, they're not free.
And as far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter what benefits may be gained from being in the larger federation. You could be in the fanciest five-star hotel on the most beautiful tropical beach, but if the doors are permanently locked and you're never allowed to leave it's no more than a prison.
quote:
But otherwise it was about where the dividing line between Federal and State power lay. The precise way in which these matters are arranged varies between federations, of course.
As long as there is a dividing line, there will be policy areas that the individual regions are not free to decide on for themselves - policy areas where the regions will be forced to accept whatever the central government chooses to impose on them. And that isn't self-determination.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
Devolution or decentralisation is where the national government chooses to delegate powers...
And that's your problem right there. The UK Government does not like giving power away. Take the so-called free schools as an example; they *say* the aim of this idea is to give local communities more control over their schools, but what it actually does is take control away from the local authorities and give it back to central government...
The only example I can think of where Westminster really did give away power in the last hundred years or so is the post-1997 devolution.
[ 12. July 2013, 15:30: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
And the Irish settlement of 1921-22, which in the case of Northern Ireland established a devolved Parliament and Government. Being devolved institutions, they existed by the will of the Westminster Parliament and government and so could be abolished by it (as they were in 1972).
Marvin talks about self-determination. Two points: (i) the US Constituion doesn't accept secession from the Union. There's no reason in principle why you couldn't have a federal constitution that did allow for secession and off the top of my head I think that, for example, Singapore did withdraw from Malaysia in the 1960s. I believe that there is also provision for negotiated secession from the Canadian federation (ii) given a right of secession, why is it not self-determination for states to agree to merge their responsibilities in some fields- e.g. foreign affairs, fisheries, weights and measures, posts and telecommunications, or whatever you think is right in a particular case?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
given a right of secession, why is it not self-determination for states to agree to merge their responsibilities in some fields- e.g. foreign affairs, fisheries, weights and measures, posts and telecommunications, or whatever you think is right in a particular case?
I've already said that having treaties with a bunch of other countries is perfectly fine. But that's very different from setting up another government to rule over you in those areas.
And if you have one government to rule you in those areas, you have to either accept its judgement in all areas or leave completely. With treaties you can independently negotiate each area to your own best advantage.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, yes, if you're only talking about bilateral treaties. But what if you have multilateral teraties because you're one of several small countries in close proximity to each other with lots of contacts anyway and no real animosities and it just saves a lot of time and trouble to have one treaty that you all sign up to rather than each having separate treaties with each of the others? So you get, say, the West Midlands Postal Union in order to arrange a reasonably integrated and inexpensive service encompassing the city states of Dudley, Wolverhampton, Telford, and the rest. Then you find you have a lot of issues in common and a lot of day to day thigns that need sorting out like how the waters of the Severn and the Trent are divided up and maybe an integrated electricity grid and a common system of weights and measures and ways of allowing people from one city state to commute to work in another with a minimum of fuss and so on and so yyou set up a secretariat to oversee these things and you all agree to be bound by a common arbitration process in case of disputes.
Quite quickly, simply on practical grounds, you are looking at the embryonic institutions of a West Midlands Confederation (or to give it its offical Latin name Confederatio Marvinica). Now you can build in all sorts of constitutional safeguards if you wish, in order to ensure that the city states remain paramount, that the Confederal authorities are accountable to the City states, and that the City states can leave if they wish to do so. It is up to you how much you want to reserve to the City states. The point is that (i) very often this makes sense from a practical point of view and (ii) there is a whole spectrum of possible arrangements. So to return to the OP, it ought not to be the case that the choice is between the EU as it is now and no EU.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Oh, and sorry to double post, but the other thing you're going to want to think about as a West Midland city state is 'what are we going to do about Brum?' There will almost certainly be reasons why you want to co-operate with your very big neighbour and why it is in their interest to work with you. There are basically two ways that you can do this. You can negotiate individually with your big neighbour, and almost certainly get the fuzzy end of the lollipop; or you can get your neighbour into some kind of (con)federation where you are all bound by common rules, where the rules say that there are (possibly a lot of) thigns that are your business and nobody else's, and where by virtue of being one of the constituent states you get to punch above your weight a bit in common decision making(e.g. the two US Senators per state, whether California or Wyoming, or maybe giving each member state a veto power on some matters).
[ 12. July 2013, 20:19: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
