UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Depends on which Union though, doesn't it? If we're talking about a Union of the once independent nations of England, Wales and Scotland (and, Northern Ireland which has a much more complex history and the Conservatives don't stand for election anyway) then the Tories get out their flags and wave them triumphantly. If we're talking about a Union with other nations in Europe ... well, then the flags disappear and the cheers turn to boos.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Given that most Tories are staunch Unionists, it's strange how people say this and then in the next breath claim that Tories are motivated solely by greed and self-interest.
Originally posted by leo:
If there were no Scots in the British parliament, we would be permanently condemned to a Tory government. we need the Shortish labour votes to get a majority.
Nothing, I'm sure, with the fact that in a United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland the Conservative Party has a very strong chance of governing, and even when they narrowly miss the mark are a very strong opposition, and hence wield considerable power and influence over the regions of the Union who predominantly vote for other parties. But, in a Union with other European nations they'd be playing second fiddle in uneasy political alliances with nations who are not going to stand being bossed around by English Tories.
quote:A couple of the responses made before I decided we needed to move up here:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Why not? OK, apart from the fact that the EU isn't a union ... but, could quite reasonably be so in the future.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I can't see how one could possibly begin to compare the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Union.
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.
quote:Which is a position I personally have considerable sympathy with. I would probably class myself as in favour of strong devolution, rather than independence, because I do think that there are some issues that need to be managed by a centralised government covering a much larger area. In many ways, I'd consider the current set up the worst of all possibilities - not enough local devolution, and a UK national government that is too small for the larger issues. Strong local devolution (to regions smaller than current nation states) with strong central government for the issues best covered by such a government covering all of Europe would be my ideal.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes, and many in Ireland, Wales and Scotland have never forgiven the English for doing it to them.
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...
Now, if you were proposing an EU that happened along the same lines as the UK - with every other country becoming more and more like England over time - then I'd be far more in favour of it. But the reality is that England would just end up becoming more French and/or German.
Of course, I'm also in favour of Scottish independence. And Catalan independence. And Cornish independence, should they ever become serious about wanting it. IMO, when it comes to countries small is beautiful.
quote:I fliipently remarked in Hell that I hadn't said much about the form of government in Wales (and, Ireland was very similar for much of it's history) which was highly decentralised to the extent of barely being recognisable as a single nation. There's nothing, IMO, wrong about a highly decentralised government. The main point I was making is that it was a form of government very different to that of the English, and the Welsh system of government disappeared in the Union.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:I think that 'own government' may be overstating it a bit in the case of Wales. AIUI pre-Union Wales was a collection of local regimes which guarded their independence fiercely while simultaneously struggling to lord it over their neighbours, with relationships marked by intense parochialism, mistrust, and mutual backstabbing, and coming together only in opposition to the English. Whereas modern Wales is, um,....
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)...
quote:I'm intrigued to learn which issues you think are too big for the current UK government to deal with properly, and why you think they need a continent-wide government to deal with them properly.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would probably class myself as in favour of strong devolution, rather than independence, because I do think that there are some issues that need to be managed by a centralised government covering a much larger area. In many ways, I'd consider the current set up the worst of all possibilities - not enough local devolution, and a UK national government that is too small for the larger issues.
quote:Even in a perfectly democratic system, it just doesn't work like that. Every time the UK has a Conservative government Scotland starts complaining about being ruled by a party virtually nobody in the country voted for (with some justification, IMO), and that's only on the comparatively small scale of the UK! At the scale of the whole of Europe it would be perfectly possible for the continent to be ruled by a party that virtually nobody in the UK wanted to have in charge. Our votes would be considerable more meaningless than they already are, which is not an appealing thought.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I put 'ruled' in inverted commas because what we'd be doing wrt the EU is sharing authority, rather than giving it to someone else.
quote:If we want strong local government, then why bother with a continent-wide government at all? Why not just have local government and leave it at that?
For sure, the democratic institutions of the EU need reform, and subsidiarity needs to be rolled out across the union, so that neglected regions can at least attempt to order their affairs in a way that suits them vis strong central government.
quote:Why are those areas too big to be dealt with at the level of the UK (or smaller)? We seem to have done OK so far...
To answer Marvin - pretty much the same raft of policies that the UK government won't devolve to the regions. Economic policy, defence, trade, human rights.
quote:Which is why strong central government deciding every last bit of policy is stupid, bad and wrong. You're right, in that no one in say, Cornwall, should have to have local planning decisions dictated to them by someone in Warsaw, and vice versa. The authority of central government should only extend to those policy areas where a continent-wide strategy is necessary.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
At the scale of the whole of Europe it would be perfectly possible for the continent to be ruled by a party that virtually nobody in the UK wanted to have in charge.
quote:Because there are some decisions that cross borders and need to cross borders.
If we want strong local government, then why bother with a continent-wide government at all? Why not just have local government and leave it at that?
quote:Free trade areas are necessarily cross-border. Free movement of people is necessarily cross-border. Defence is necessarily cross-border. Human rights is necessarily cross-border. Yes, we can have 28 treaties with 28 other countries all saying the same thing, with those 28 other countries all having treaties with the other 28, etc, etc.
Why are those areas too big to be dealt with at the level of the UK (or smaller)? We seem to have done OK so far...
quote:I heartily agree
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why strong central government deciding every last bit of policy is stupid, bad and wrong. You're right, in that no one in say, Cornwall, should have to have local planning decisions dictated to them by someone in Warsaw, and vice versa.
quote:I heartily disagree that any policy areas need to be dealt with by a continent-wide government.
The authority of central government should only extend to those policy areas where a continent-wide strategy is necessary.
quote:I prefer the "28 treaties" approach. Because the "one central government" approach means we also have to have that one central government deciding (among other things) how much tax we will pay, what it will be spent on and where it will be spent, passing laws about what we can and can't legally do, and deciding which stupid fucking wars we should join in with.
Free trade areas are necessarily cross-border. Free movement of people is necessarily cross-border. Defence is necessarily cross-border. Human rights is necessarily cross-border. Yes, we can have 28 treaties with 28 other countries all saying the same thing, with those 28 other countries all having treaties with the other 28, etc, etc.
Or we can have one treaty, which we all sign, and have one body overseeing it, to which we all elect representatives.
quote:First, you need to demonstrate the necessity for those roles to be performed at the federal level in the first place. What would the UK gain by handing those roles over to a theoretical United States of Europe rather than retaining them for itself?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The federal government will need some revenue to fund the roles it has
quote:But if that voting difference is leading to a region being disadvantaged without having the ability to do anything about it, then democracy isn't functioning for the region anyway.
Originally posted by Sylvander:
A democracy cannot function if regions feel they can defect because they voted differently from the majority last time round.
quote:The problem being...?
On that basis Bavaria (vote conservative since 1949) and North-Rhine Westphalia (red for all but one election since 1949) would long have left Germany. At other times other states would have left with the same argument.
quote:Why not indeed?
And why stop at regions? Why not let cities do the same? There are a few city states in Europe - why not some more?
quote:If the UK retains some roles, rather than those roles all being devolved down to smaller regions within the UK then you are accepting the argument that there are roles that require government at a level above the local scale. The question then is, what makes government covering that bit of Europe known as the UK acceptable but putting that government at a level covering more of Europe not? What is the fundamental difference?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:First, you need to demonstrate the necessity for those roles to be performed at the federal level in the first place. What would the UK gain by handing those roles over to a theoretical United States of Europe rather than retaining them for itself?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The federal government will need some revenue to fund the roles it has
quote:Don't get me wrong - I'd happily settle for all powers being held at the local level.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the UK retains some roles, rather than those roles all being devolved down to smaller regions within the UK then you are accepting the argument that there are roles that require government at a level above the local scale.
quote:Size, and the corresponding reduction in how much of a say any given voter has in how their government does its business. The bigger the country, the less important any individual voter is.
The question then is, what makes government covering that bit of Europe known as the UK acceptable but putting that government at a level covering more of Europe not? What is the fundamental difference?
quote:But, as Alan points out, that's exactly what the UK has now. You're arguing for the UK to have those powers while simultaneously arguing against any larger body having them. You're also picking on taxes, laws and wars as if national governments alone are the only bodies which can ever decide such things. That not only doesn't have to be the case, it's not the case now.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I prefer the "28 treaties" approach. Because the "one central government" approach means we also have to have that one central government deciding (among other things) how much tax we will pay, what it will be spent on and where it will be spent, passing laws about what we can and can't legally do, and deciding which stupid fucking wars we should join in with.
quote:Yes, because the UK is smaller than the EU. But you'll note that, as a supporter of Scottish independence, I'm also arguing for the UK to become smaller.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But, as Alan points out, that's exactly what the UK has now. You're arguing for the UK to have those powers while simultaneously arguing against any larger body having them.
quote:If the renewable energy sources of each country you just mentioned are insufficient to meet that country's power needs, then how are they going to be sufficient to meet an entire continent's needs when added together? You wouldn't create any extra energy by doing so, you'd just be spreading the same amount more thinly.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think energy policy is probably something that would benefit from a continent wide approach. Ultimately the only way renewable energy is going to be viable is if Spanish and Italian solar power can be balanced with Scottish and Danish wind, backed up by Swedish pumped hydro storage. That means a continent spanning high voltage DC network, and a sophisticated control system to manage the different sources.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:A Free Trade Area does not require any loss of sovereignty, so long as each country (or region) is free to enter or leave the agreement as it wishes. All the rest should be for the people of each country (or region) to decide for themselves. Isn't that what democracy means - that the people should decide for themselves rather than being told what they want (or what is in their best interest) by some distant politician who doesn't give a single fuck about any of them?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
However, it would still be in the best interests of EU nationals to have common policies regarding defence, human rights, food tracing, movement of goods and people, consumer standards - stuff like that which the EU actually already does pretty well - and rather than having a bajillion bilateral agreements, having just one is more sensible. I rather thought you'd be against giving more jobs to bureaucrats...
quote:Even if you only look at times when it's blowing, there's still not enough wind in Scotland to provide for the power needs of Scotland, let alone to provide backup for the rest of the continent. Even if you could somehow plug all the renewable energy sources in Europe together, I seriously doubt you'd have enough power to run Belgium, let alone the whole continent.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(Also, I'm absolutely certain you know what Arethosemyfeet meant... the big problem with renewables are that they're atomised, so that when the sun goes in, you need back up, or the wind dies, you need back up. Across a whole continent, and solar farms in North Africa, that back up is also renewable).
quote:The pedant in me claims that both of your alternatives are the same; both are about how the EU currently works (the second just compares it to pre-Maastrict as a better system).
Originally posted by Custard:
But it is quite possible to be pro-UK but anti-EU if your primary objection to the EU is the way that organisation works at the moment. One could be pan-European in principle, but against it in this manifestation of its practice.
Alternatively, you could be pro-UK but anti-EU if you believe that changes in government are more likely to be negative than positive, and you believe the pre-Maastrict system worked well.
quote:But that's what currently happens between Scotland and England. England's power stations generate a steady amount 24/7; they can't just be switched off and on. Scotland imports electricity at night, when England produces more than is needed, and uses some of it to pump water uphill in hydro-electric pump-storage schemes. Then, during the day, when England can't supply it's own needs, Scotland generates power by releasing the water to generate hydro-electricity and exports it to England. It's called "top-slicing." Hydro electricity slices the top off the peaks of demand. But it's economically viable because of the surplus electricity generated at night.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If the renewable energy sources of each country you just mentioned are insufficient to meet that country's power needs, then how are they going to be sufficient to meet an entire continent's needs when added together? You wouldn't create any extra energy by doing so, you'd just be spreading the same amount more thinly.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think energy policy is probably something that would benefit from a continent wide approach. Ultimately the only way renewable energy is going to be viable is if Spanish and Italian solar power can be balanced with Scottish and Danish wind, backed up by Swedish pumped hydro storage. That means a continent spanning high voltage DC network, and a sophisticated control system to manage the different sources.
Which makes it a good allegory for the EU, actually...
quote:I just checked the figures, and I'm reasonably confident you're wrong. The EU currently produces 20% of its energy via renewables - more than enough for Belgium.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Even if you could somehow plug all the renewable energy sources in Europe together, I seriously doubt you'd have enough power to run Belgium, let alone the whole continent.
quote:It doesn't work that way neccessarilly.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If the renewable energy sources of each country you just mentioned are insufficient to meet that country's power needs, then how are they going to be sufficient to meet an entire continent's needs when added together? You wouldn't create any extra energy by doing so, you'd just be spreading the same amount more thinly.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Which makes it a good allegory for the EU, actually...
quote:I would have thought it was fairly clear that I wasn't talking about current capacity. Scotland has the potential from wind (and wave and tidal when they come on stream) to power it self many times over. The problem is that getting enough installed capacity to power the country when wind levels are low and seas are relatively calm means having 10 or 20 times more power than is needed at other times. The lack of interconnectivity and the losses associated with long distance AC transmission means that there will be a limit to the proportion of power any small geographic area can generate from a single or related set of renewables. The chances of the wind not blowing anywhere in northern Europe and it being dark across the whole of southern Europe and North Africa AND all the pumped storage being used up is much much lower. By spreading the variability across technologies and across countries you can maximise the proportion of power produced from renewable sources, reducing the need for conventional backup, and reduce the need for overcapacity.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Even if you only look at times when it's blowing, there's still not enough wind in Scotland to provide for the power needs of Scotland, let alone to provide backup for the rest of the continent. Even if you could somehow plug all the renewable energy sources in Europe together, I seriously doubt you'd have enough power to run Belgium, let alone the whole continent.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(Also, I'm absolutely certain you know what Arethosemyfeet meant... the big problem with renewables are that they're atomised, so that when the sun goes in, you need back up, or the wind dies, you need back up. Across a whole continent, and solar farms in North Africa, that back up is also renewable).
quote:I would like to latch on to your use of the word "sovereignty". In practice, sovereignty is quite a slippery term and cannot be simply legislated by constitutionally declaring "the people are sovereign" or "parliament is sovereign". Countries are known to cajole one another into doing or not doing certain things. Germany has dictated economic modalities in Greece, the United States has dissuaded a number of countries from hosting Mr Snowden, Switzerland, although not part of the EU, finds herself accepting all sorts of EU standards and laws nevertheless. What we call sovereignty is in fact something which is situationally weighed up and negotiated in terms of prevailing power relationships and economic opportunities. We can either do this on an ad hoc 27-treaty basis, or we can do it within the confines of a systemic framework (yes, I mean the EU), which greatly simplifies many processes and makes the outcomes more straightforward for most participants. It opens the way to pursuing common interests towards the outside, in Europe's case, establishing a common voice in the world, thereby regaining some of the sovereignty at a collective level which was lost within the community of countries.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A Free Trade Area does not require any loss of sovereignty, so long as each country (or region) is free to enter or leave the agreement as it wishes. All the rest should be for the people of each country (or region) to decide for themselves. Isn't that what democracy means - that the people should decide for themselves rather than being told what they want (or what is in their best interest) by some distant politician who doesn't give a single fuck about any of them?
quote:So are people, but that doesn't mean they may as well surrender their individuality and independence.
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Countries are known to cajole one another into doing or not doing certain things.
quote:Who gives a shit about global impact or political relevance? If its a choice between self-determination and those two concepts I'll take self-determination, thanks.
The geopolitical logic of ever larger power blocks will sustain the European Project, as the individual states are too small to make any real global impact. Yet remaining within the Union of the UK, Scotland, distinct as it is, is doomed to become a region of a region, and thus remain irrelevant as a political entity at the European level.
quote:No, that's not how the US tax system works. The federal government taxes individuals and corporations directly, it does not raise levies from the states.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
AC,
ISTM the US has the tax system you described a few posts up. And, of course, all are happy how it works.
quote:I think it means having the freedom to choose what you want to do.
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
I would like to latch on to your use of the word "sovereignty". In practice, sovereignty is quite a slippery term and cannot be simply legislated by constitutionally declaring "the people are sovereign" or "parliament is sovereign". Countries are known to cajole one another into doing or not doing certain things...
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Scotland has the potential from wind (and wave and tidal when they come on stream) to power it self many times over.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:There's nothing wrong in principle with giving France and Russia all the power (literally)? There's nothing wrong in principle with giving those places the ability to say "you're free to do what you want of course, but if we don't like it we'll just turn off the power supply to your homes"? Or do you envisage us having something they will need that we can threaten to stop providing should they turn off our energy?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In practice we'll come to rely on French nuclear and Russian gas. Not that there is anything wrong in principal with people relying on each other and sharing the resources they have with others.
quote:I think the key word here is 'share' and not 'threaten'.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:There's nothing wrong in principle with giving France and Russia all the power (literally)? There's nothing wrong in principle with giving those places the ability to say "you're free to do what you want of course, but if we don't like it we'll just turn off the power supply to your homes"? Or do you envisage us having something they will need that we can threaten to stop providing should they turn off our energy?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In practice we'll come to rely on French nuclear and Russian gas. Not that there is anything wrong in principal with people relying on each other and sharing the resources they have with others.
quote:Well if we were all going to share nicely we wouldn't need governments at all, would we?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think the key word here is 'share' and not 'threaten'.
quote:That would be nice.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Well if we were all going to share nicely we wouldn't need governments at all, would we?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think the key word here is 'share' and not 'threaten'.
quote:Yeah, 'nicely' is an adverb you've just added. There is considerable middle ground between the thing that you hate (arse-clenchingly liberal tofu-knitting hippy commune) and the thing I hate (hyper-capitalist antagonistic market-forces balkanisation).
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Well if we were all going to share nicely we wouldn't need governments at all, would we?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think the key word here is 'share' and not 'threaten'.
quote:My bad, this is what I was referring to. So not exactly, but contains elements of.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote: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.
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.
quote:This is starting to sound like some kind of socialist "share everything equally between everyone" crap.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An EU government would have to do the same job ensuring resources are shared. Just like the UK government does ... back to my original point that there would be considerable similarities between the two Unions.
quote:True that. 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.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There is considerable middle ground between the thing that you hate (arse-clenchingly liberal tofu-knitting hippy commune) and the thing I hate (hyper-capitalist antagonistic market-forces balkanisation).
quote:Because we're not all the same. And because it would mean pretty much everyone in the part of the world where I live becoming considerably poorer, myself included.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why not?
quote:Yes. So what? We currently live in a United Kingdom which manages to accomodate lots of different people fairly amicably. Why shouldn't such accomodation of differences work as well in a larger Union - whether that be continental or global in scale?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Because we're not all the same.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why not?
quote:And, a lot of people in the world currently in abject poverty a little bit richer. I see no problem there.
And because it would mean pretty much everyone in the part of the world where I live becoming considerably poorer, myself included.
quote:We have differences, yes - but at the local scale we also have a lot of similarities that hold us together. Language, culture, and so on. As the scale grows bigger the similarities vanish while the differences grow - hell, even at the level of the UK there are some major fractures such as the push for Scottish independence and the whole north/south divide.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Yes. So what? We currently live in a United Kingdom which manages to accomodate lots of different people fairly amicably. Why shouldn't such accomodation of differences work as well in a larger Union - whether that be continental or global in scale?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Because we're not all the same.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why not?
quote:The problem is whether you think self-determination is important.
quote:And, a lot of people in the world currently in abject poverty a little bit richer. I see no problem there.
And because it would mean pretty much everyone in the part of the world where I live becoming considerably poorer, myself included.
quote:Because the seven worst enemies of local government in the UK, are, in approximate order of worstness, the British Government, the House of Commons, the Conservative Party, the Treasury, the House of Lords, the Liberal-don't-know-crap Party, and the Labour Party. (The Liberals used to be better and Labour worse, but Labour did actually push through some genuine decentralisation between 1st May 1997 and 11th Septenber 2001 - the only four years in British history that have seen any serious decentralisation from Westminster since at least the early 1920s and possibly the 1840s). So if you want more local autonomy and suibsidiarity, the only way you are going to get them short of a revolution and the overthrow of the entire British Establishement, is to find a way to do a run round it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If we want strong local government, then why bother with a continent-wide government at all? Why not just have local government and leave it at that?
quote:Why shouldn't they if they want to? Who would it inconvenience?
Originally posted by Sylvander:
I never understand the argument that Scots did not vote for Tory governments since the 1950s and are ruled by them. A democracy cannot function if regions feel they can defect because they voted differently from the majority last time round.
On that basis Bavaria (vote conservative since 1949) and North-Rhine Westphalia (red for all but one election since 1949) would long have left Germany.
quote:Because public administration is a hard problem that doesn't scale well. Civil services are better at it than business (more large business projects fail than succeed) but no-one is very good at it. Much better to let people get on with things on their own rather than telling them what to do.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why not?
quote: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.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:My bad, this is what I was referring to. So not exactly, but contains elements of.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.)
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So what's your point again? That democratic institutions sometimes do things I don't personally agree with?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So what's your point again? That democratic institutions sometimes do things I don't personally agree with?
quote:Not at all. It's only bollocks if you assume that people of all shades of political opinion are scattered randomly around the globe.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Nope, that's just bollocks, unless you're intending to be an island.
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.
quote:Er, no.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:That, of course, is where having smaller countries comes in!
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?).
quote:Listened to, yes. And then ignored as the other 400 have their say and it's back to square one.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote: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.
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.
quote:In my view, this argument overlooks the fact that there is a British demos but there is no European demos.
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.
quote:And how am I supposed to do that if my "neighbours" are in Romania?
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
a lot of Scottish commerce, education, culture, etc. was in English.
quote:Is this related to 'Ulster Scots'?
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote: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.
a lot of Scottish commerce, education, culture, etc. was in English.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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
quote: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.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And how am I supposed to do that if my "neighbours" are in Romania?
quote:Party politics and its potentially corrosive effects are probably a different discussion.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:And how am I supposed to do that if my "neighbours" are in Romania?
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.
quote: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?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And how am I supposed to do that if my "neighbours" are in Romania?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
I never had you down for a utopian fuzzy-consensus sort of guy, but hey...
quote: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.
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.
quote:No, you won't. You'll be the Tory voter in a solid Labour constituency.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote: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.
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.
quote:Exactly. Hence the importance of that good European (and originally RC, BTW) concept of subsidiarity.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You seem to equate smaller = get my own way.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Hence the importance of that good European (and originally RC, BTW) concept of subsidiarity.
quote:To reduce red tape, and increase competitiveness.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Hence the importance of that good European (and originally RC, BTW) concept of subsidiarity.
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.
quote:Err, yes.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Imagine if you had to fill in a visa every time you wanted to visit Staffordshire..
quote:I didn't say that. I'm merely saying that international relationships and competing interests constrain sovereignty to some degree.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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).
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.
quote: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.
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
quote:They are.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Or perhaps we do understand it but think 'we don't want to be governed like that'?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
(and Scots fought hard to maintain their religious identity against the imposition of Episcopalian traditions).
quote: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?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Independence is where those regions are countries in their own right.
quote:I thought the whole "Civil War" thing proved once and for all that the various states of the USA don't have sovereignty.
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.
quote:A big question indeed! If they can't leave, they're not free.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Well, only insofar as it concerned the admittedly quite big question of whether a state could secede from the Union.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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...
Devolution or decentralisation is where the national government chooses to delegate powers...
quote: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.
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?
quote:Of course not. Thhese are all things that peopel invent, or impose on each other, for various transient reasons. And the reasons change, as do the means of governments to impose political boundaries on people.
Originally posted by orfeo:
...there is no inherent definition of what a local area is, or a region, or even a nation.
quote:What size of state is best for what kind of action?
About the only useful guide is one of practicality: does a particular kind of decision get made more effectively at a higher or lower level?
quote:...but apparently we just can't be arsed to.
Originally posted by ken:
The UK is probably about the right size to organise a national rail network...
quote:Unless you are a federation. Then, depending on your constitution, sub-national government might be the default level. In fact, come to think of it, in Scotland (but not in Wales) the devolved sub-national government is the default setting- Holyrood deals with everything not specifically reserved to Westminster.
Originally posted by orfeo:
As far as I can see, the main function of a nation state is for setting the 'default' level for decision making. The level at which it happens unless expressly decided otherwise.
quote:Well it's a little more complicated than that. In the case of a federation, you'll have a constitution setting out who gets what. Some do this by setting out the federal level powers. I'm not sure whether that's universal.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Unless you are a federation. Then, depending on your constitution, sub-national government might be the default level. In fact, come to think of it, in Scotland (but not in Wales) the devolved sub-national government is the default setting- Holyrood deals with everything not specifically reserved to Westminster.
Originally posted by orfeo:
As far as I can see, the main function of a nation state is for setting the 'default' level for decision making. The level at which it happens unless expressly decided otherwise.