1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > ...

What's new on the Web

1 2 3 4 >

Latest comments

  • Galileo, the UK and China – the wrong trio for the EU?

    1 April 2014  14:30, by akku

    It is a very exclusive report that concludes that the Chinese have taken advantage of the Europeans so that they can get one foot in the stirrup. Really thank you for sharing this shocking news and the details.

    snoring remedies

  • Democracy shamocracy - wuthering times in Europe

    3 March 2014  21:54, by Iwantout

    “Voters can no longer complain that there is no such thing as choice in politics” is your opening comment.

    After the elections in May a new President will have to be selected, under the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty (itself put in place without any popular vote after its ill-fated predecessor the European Constitution was roundly rejected by the electorate despite massive support from the political elite – a true example of post democratic politics in action) he / she will have to reflect the outcome of the election.

    There are three potential candidates with a realistic prospect of success. Martin Schulz, Jean Claude Junker and Guy Verhofstadt. While they have minor differences in tone they are all enthusiastic federalists, all want a single European legal system, tax harmonisation, military union etc. In short where exactly is the choice ?

    Amusingly Jose Bove (a potential Green candidate for President) who you mention approvingly in your last paragraph, commented in your own interview posted on the 28th January 2014 (http://www.thenewfederalist.eu/interview-of-the-green-candidates-for-the-european-commission ) that “Federalism is not understandable for the large public” and that is why he does not use the word in their campaigns despite the Greens being absolutely in favour of the “Ever Closer Union”; so no choice there then either.

    Its own surveying has shown 60% do not trust the EU and it is entirely possible that the voters will turn their back on these polls in even greater numbers than ever before. So perhaps it is possible to describe the EU as a leading shamocracy.

    With regards to following the example of Ecuador, it is a country I have never visited and can only refer to reports by credible NGOs such as Human Rights Watch. You seem to describe it in very positive terms particularly in the claim that it enshrines the right of nature in its constitution, it may, but it is not what is written in the constitution that is important so much as what happens. HRW World Report 2013 paints a very much less flattering picture (http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/ecuador ) particularly when it notes that legislation designed to deal with terrorism and sabotage is used against participants engaged in public protests against environmental and other issues.

    Seems to me what we really need is straight forward old fashioned democracy. The politicians gain a direct mandate for their actions, it is painfully clear they have lacked any such authority in continental Europe since at least since 1992 and in the case of the UK they have never had such a mandate. A campaign of six months followed by a simple question, “Do you support the creation of a Federal United States of Europe?” If you think people would say NO but still want to move in that direction, are you not part of the ‘shamocracy’ problem ? At least eurosceptics want to put the decision to the people.

< 1 2 3