RE: US Foreign Policy

RE: US Foreign Policy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: US Foreign Policy (9/3/2006 9:13:53 AM)
The commisioners ONLY HAVE POWER BY PROXY!!!!! What you seem to be saying is that while commentators on the EU see commissioners as a powerful unelected body drawing up treaties, laws and policies you beg to differ. The bureaucrats who make up the commissioners have responsibility to the EU not member nation states. They are under obligation to impose legislation based on EU requirements. So, the policies we voted for at our national elections will, in some instances, be in contrast to the policies we are subjected to from the EU commission. Quite simply, it is undemocratic. Regards

subfever -> RE: US Foreign Policy (9/3/2006 10:39:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Now Bush is getting us involved with Iran over nuclear weapons! Ah,..... to our EUROPEAN friends, could you guys handle one once in a while? Man! After Bush I'm REALLY becomming an Isolationist. And some people think "Isolationism" is a "bad" thing? Yeah, right... just like we got into a war with Iraq over WMDs? I believe it was back in November of 2000 when Iraq started accepting Euros for oil instead of Dollars for oil. From that date, Iraq's days were numbered. Guess what? Recently in March of 2006, Iran started accepting Euros for oil. Therefore, it's a safe bet that the USA will eventually find an excuse, that it believes the American public will be gullible enough to swallow, to engage in a war with Iran. Expect more "test balloon" news bite propaganda pieces flashing across your TV screen regarding various Iran "aggressions."

meatcleaver -> RE: US Foreign Policy (9/3/2006 12:29:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent The commisioners ONLY HAVE POWER BY PROXY!!!!! What you seem to be saying is that while commentators on the EU see commissioners as a powerful unelected body drawing up treaties, laws and policies you beg to differ. The bureaucrats who make up the commissioners have responsibility to the EU not member nation states. They are under obligation to impose legislation based on EU requirements. So, the policies we voted for at our national elections will, in some instances, be in contrast to the policies we are subjected to from the EU commission. Quite simply, it is undemocratic. Regards You are talking the same bullshit as the politicians. If the commission is so all powerful, why don't they make give themselves democratic legitimacy they so crave and allow EU citizens to vote for them? For the same reason the European Parliament doesn't give itself more powers. ie. The real power lays in the hands of the council of ministers. ie. Blair, Chirac, Merkel, Prodi etc. etc The politicians that keep making decisions their publics don't like at EU summits and then go home and blame the EU and particularly the Commission for their decisions. The Council of Ministers could decide to give the Commissioners legitimacy by making them srtand for election but then who would they have to blame for their decisions? Put your brain in and think about it. It's not hard.

NorthernGent -> RE: US Foreign Policy (9/3/2006 12:37:14 PM)
errmmm, because if they had to be elected then people wouldn't vote for them? Would you vote for Mandelson? The policies we vote for at our national elections are not always in line with the legislation initiated by the EU commissioners. This is why it is undemocratic - the fact that commissioners are appointed by national governments is irrelevant when the policies of the national government we are electing are not the same as the policies imposed upon us by the EU commission. Regards

meatcleaver -> RE: US Foreign Policy (9/3/2006 12:55:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent errmmm, because if they had to be elected then people wouldn't vote for them? Would you vote for Mandelson? The policies we vote for at our national elections are not always in line with the legislation initiated by the EU commissioners. This is why it is undemocratic - the fact that commissioners are appointed by national governments is irrelevant when the policies of the national government we are electing are not the same as the policies imposed upon us by the EU commission. Regards Ultimately who is it that decides what we vote on in national elections? Who is it that decides if the Euro legislation initiated by the Commissioners reaches the statute books? Who is it that decides whether Mandelson or his German or French equivalent becomes a commissioner? The same damn people. Blair, Chirac, Merkel, Prodi etc, etc. The same people that in national elections blame all their woes on the EU. If they made the EU truely democratic they would not only lose control, they would have no one to blame for their own stupid fucking policies.

NorthernGent -> RE: US Foreign Policy (9/3/2006 1:17:01 PM)
All true but missing one vital point. The Commission is the only body that can propose legislation. Thus, ALL proposed EU legislation is proposed based on EU interest rather than national interest (because the commissioners are appointed to serve the interests of the EU). Thus, effectively we are not getting a say in proposed legislation and thus any subsequent passed legislation. We have no vote on what is proposed. For example, the commission recently proposed that healthcare should be seen as a commodity to be traded across the EU in line with any other commodities. Now, potentially, depending on the prevailing mood, this legislation could be pushed through when we have had no say on this. Regards

meatcleaver -> RE: US Foreign Policy (9/3/2006 2:44:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent All true but missing one vital point. The Commission is the only body that can propose legislation. Thus, ALL proposed EU legislation is proposed based on EU interest rather than national interest (because the commissioners are appointed to serve the interests of the EU). Thus, effectively we are not getting a say in proposed legislation and thus any subsequent passed legislation. We have no vote on what is proposed. For example, the commission recently proposed that healthcare should be seen as a commodity to be traded across the EU in line with any other commodities. Now, potentially, depending on the prevailing mood, this legislation could be pushed through when we have had no say on this. Regards As I have said before, the Commission could initiate the second coming but without the backing of the Council of Ministers it won't see the light of day. Though I doubt even the Council of Ministers have that power. Since the Commission is supposed to look after EU interest and not the interest of individual states, it is inevitable they will make enemies in national parliaments. But do you really think any Commissioners are so naive to initiate legislation that has not had the nod from the Council of Ministers or has no chance of getting past them? They are just a convenient scape goat and they are also in a position to fly kites for policies national governments pretty much know will be unpopular. I have a friend who worked for the EU legal team in fishery negotiations some years ago. She said the final decisions were agreed upon by individual governments who immediately the deal was publicized blamed the Commission because they knew what was decided would be unpopular at home. The problem is not with the EU but with national politicians needing the EU but not wanting the EU to have democratic legitimacy because it would usurp their power. At this current moment in time, the EU only has power by proxy, any country can walk away so it is gross hypocrisy to criticize the EU for being undemocratic, it is national politicians keeping it that way.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: US Foreign Policy (9/3/2006 2:56:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Is Bush's government a continuation or change to previous US governments - particularly thinking foreign policy since WW2 here? When Bush steps aside will it be more of the same regardless of who replaces him? Is Bush a product of a society steeped in self-interest? - making it impossible that there will be a change of course when he is replaced. Regards Well... I think that if someone else had been the President, things would have gone very differently these last 6 years, so no, I don't think the last 6 years were inevitable because we're America. President Bush is in my opinion, particularly provincial for a President - so as far as the unilateralism and disregard for international law and international relations, no. Furthermore, as to the Iraq invasion - wouldn't have been possible with another President and cabinet. Having said that, by the time Bush gets out, we are where we are. I don't think there can be any dramatic shifts in policy that will really be successful - there is no money for expensive new programs, the military is completely bogged down and can't exit or we face an even bigger mess in Iraq than they've already made of it, and foreign relations are in the toilet - it's damage control at this point - doing a good job of damage control is all that we can hope for from the next President.

meatcleaver -> RE: US Foreign Policy (9/3/2006 3:02:20 PM)
A statemans as a President could change foreign perception of the US very quickly and while the clock can't be turned back and Iraq undone, the right person in charge could give a sense of purpose to the debacle. But is there a staesman out there to be found? I don't think this lack of quality is confined to the US, I think it says a lot about the state of western political culture at the moment which is very depressing.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125