Originally posted by GScholz
- Ok, I'll connect the dots for you. You stated the UN was not a democracy, hinting that no one have veto powers in a democracy. Ccvi stated, as I have tried to explain to you, that democracy and veto powers are not mutually exclusive. You can have both.
[/b]
Please explain how you think that works. Lets assume that the people vote on their new government. Give 5 persons veto power. Explain what happens if 95% of the population votes for candidate A, but one person vetoes that desicion. How is that democratic in your version of democracy?
What CCVI said, and what you fail to understand, was (and still is) completely irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that the word "democracy" comes from greek "demos" is so hopelessly irrelevant to the question whether a democracy can be a democracy if some voters have veto rights. One might think that you would have realized that when CCVI was saying that the USA is not a democracy, or that in a real democracy people dont have leaders.
I suspect this will go right over your head though.
My personal opinion is that the various member states of the UN should have a number of votes that in at least some degree reflect the size of the nations population, i.e. the number of people that will be affected by the outcome of the vote.
A "World Democracy" is a union of all Earth's nations ... a utopia for sure, but maybe conceivable in the future. I just found it strange that you would reject this idea and still vote yes for the EU, an international democracy, which will become the same on a lesser scale. Just to forestall any outcries of confusion on your part let me just emphasize that World=The Whole World while International=Two or More Countries ... get it?
[/b]
You are seriously weird. I have never had that much sympathy for the cosmopolitans, franky I see that as some freaked out hippie dream. But thats just my opinion. The reason I voted for the EU is the simple fact that I want my country to be a part of the EU for as long as the EU exists, because it beats the alternative, and it is beneficial for Sweden as a nation and Swedish economy. If you think I voted out of some idealistic conviction, you are wrong.
But this is of cource completely irrelevant.
- Once again I will connect the dots for you Hortlund. If we take the EU as an example, Norway is, as you probably know, not a member state, yet we have access to EU's internal market as if we were. This is because Norway has a TREATY with the EU (for which we pay dearly I might add). Norway does not however have any privileges when it comes to the EU Governmental processes or lawmaking. Sweden is a member state, and as such has these treaties embedded in its LAW, and as a member state have a say in EU's decision-making and lawmaking.
- If a person is a member of a nation state, i.e. a citizen ... like Norway, he is subject to Norwegian law, and able to participate in the politics and rule of Norway. If said person is not a Norwegian national he does not have the privilege to participate, and is not subject to Norwegian law. A person can however obtain a visa (treaty), and thereby become a temporary citizen of a nation, subject to its laws, but without any privilege in matters of state.
- See the similarities? Norway-treaty-EU=person-visa-nation, Sweden-member-EU=person-citizen-nation?
[/b]
Geez... you really dont have a clue do you? I mean this is getting really embarrassing. Please oh please drop this subject you weird weird person. This is quite frankly among the most idiotic ramblings I have ever seen on these boards, and that says alot. If you
really want, I can take this quote apart piece by piece and show you how insanely wrong you are...but do you really want that? I mean how fun can it be to have someone tell such very fundamental facts like "anyone within norwegian jurisdiction is subject to norwegian laws irrelevant of nationality", the fact that you didnt know that is just breathtaking. (let me guess, now you will say "that is not what I meant" or some other pathetic and lame excuse). And your idea that a visa is the same thing as a temporary citizenship is...cute...but not correct.
You really should know when to STFU and sneak out of a discussion...
- So what you're saying is that the EU does not write down its own laws, but forces the member states to embed them in their laws? Isn't that EU lawmaking? Ever heard of The Court of Justice of the European Communities? The EU has on numerous occasions exerted force to make Norway comply with EU directives and law.
[/b]
Again you seem unable to understand the basic difference between a law and a treaty. Again you seem to fail to understand that any international court cannot force anyone to do anything in the same way a national court can force the subjects of that law to do whatever.
I am saying that EC directives are roughly in this form:
Rules:blah blah blah,
now the member nations have [time limit] to incorporate these rules into their domestic law.
You should also try to read up on the difference between the EU and the EC, it gets even more embarrassing when you talk about EU directives or EU law.
- So you're saying the EU is NOT an governmental organization? Norway does not deal with Sweden, Germany, France or any other member state of the EU. Norway deals with the EU Parliament, yes the EU has a PARLIAMENT. And on several occasions this Parliament has threatened to deny Norway access to EU's internal market, which would be detrimental to Norway's industry, especially the seafood industry. The EU is a parliamentary democracy of nation states, soon to be a parliamentary federation of European states.
[/b]
Yes I am saying that the EU is not a governmental organization. The EU is a cooperation between various member states. The difference is enormous, yet you seem unable to understand that.
If Norway is dealing with the EU Parliament, that might explain why Norway is left out in the cold, like the retarded cousin you dont really want to play with, but who insists on coming over to your house. You ought to do some reading up on the powers of the EU parliament.
Just out of curiosity, what is your impression of the desicion making progress in the EC? What is your impression of the desicion making progress in the EU? Do you understand the difference between the EC and the EU? Do you understand the difference between the European council, the European commission and the counsil of ministers and the counsil of the European union?
I seriously doubt it, and your posts give clear indication that you dont know jack toejam about what you are talking about.
- It is kind of sad that you have so little knowledge of the very organization you voted for Sweden to join. My posts have been filled with facts and realities. Your posts have been nothing but hypotheses and cynicism. Here a link to the official info site of the EU, read up ... wise up.
[/b]
hehehe, well at least you are funny.
