Yes OF. And there is a hell of a lot of fact there too. If you think any of the information i supplied is B/S, then i would be interested to have it pointed out.

Yes, well Adolf Hitler was pro-Europe as well. It's the form of Europe you get that counts though.

Rachel,

The fundamental basis of democracy is direct representation. We have that here. If i have an issue, i take it up with my federal/state/council member depending on who's responsibility it is.

Not you. You can only approach your local member. He can only approach the regional committee. These two branches of government are of a consultative nature anyway, so they are powerless in terms of legeslation. Thus are you.

The executive branch (European Commission): England can appoint only one commisioner. There are 26 others making up the rest of the member states. And as is clearly stated "Commissioners are bound to represent the interests of the EU as a whole rather than their home state." European law overrides national law.

Legislative branch ( Council of Ministers) As above.

So you have no direct representation. Latvia for example has an equal vote to England. England gets only a 1/27 th say in it's own fate. Laws made (whether England like it or not) are binding.
Think about the BCCI bloc within the ICC, and project that on what will happen if England fall on the wrong side of a similar bloc with the EU. Think of the tensions that will form no matter what happens because with every law passed, someone is bound to be shafted.

Wouldn't you just rather just have a government that looks out for your interests only (UK) and has total say over your fate?. And have the right to throw them out if they fail to do just that?

Or will you be happy just to see some English representative throw up his hands and say "It's not my fault - we were outvoted"

Unbelievable.

Council of the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
European Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
The thought police are everywhere..............

Regardless of how exactly it will affect Britain, it's still pretty disturbing that the government can get away with signing on to the EU despite a 75% referendum against it. Surely that violates the democratic process?

You appear to be overly impressed and curiously obsessed with a particularly shallow and populist conception of democracy. I'm as partial as anyone to what I take to be the richest strains of enlightenment thought and thinking (Cavellian readings of Kant, Rousseau, Wittgenstein and others being favoured reading), but the concept of true citizenship that is articulated in those pages is rather too demanding for most stomachs... and I'm equally conscious of Hannah Arendt's concern with the potentially excessive and debilitating burden of citizenship. At the rather shallower level of everyday notions of democracy, however, I am inclined to argue that the form that exists in most of the western world is not even "the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried".I should damn well hope so. I'm chair of the Charity that manages our local community building. The Charity has Trustees. The Trustees are in several instances the nominated representatives of other organisations that use the building.

The first duty of the Charity Trustees is to act in the interests of the Charity. Those nominated may well be Trustees of the usergroups, bound to act in the interest of those organisations in matters internal to those organisations. When making decisions pertaining to the management of the building the Trustees MUST (and this is laid down in Charity Law) put aside the interests of their own usergroup where these conflict with the interests of the Charity to which they have been nominated as a representative.

I don't have a problem with this principle, which is as essential at European level as at any other level: no entity will work with a nominated representative voting against the interests of the entity!

Well, in that case, why would you elect people who aren't going to represent your interests? Why bother having elections at all, if the officials aren't going to speak for you? So if you don't like what's being done, you basically have no choice but to leave the country (and probably Europe altogether).

International politics shouldn't be run like a charity.

Elected officials are never elected to represent interests: they are their to 'represent' ('exemplify' might be more accurate) "the general will"... and that is an altogether higher calling, one requiring that citizens continuously engage in establishing and maintaining an active relation to the meanings and purposes which may provide the basis for a common life with others (see Steven Affeldt's exemplary work).

Rousseau makes a clear distinction between "interest" and "will" and between the "private" interest/will and the "general" interest/will... and places much emphasis on individuals continuously undertaking the work of discovering, or re-discovering "the meanings and purposes upon which a common life with others may be possible, of establishing an active relation to these meanings and purposes and of speaking and acting in such a way as to express these meanings and purposes" (Affeldt).

For Rousseau, the above is what is needed to establish a distinction between what he calls a 'herd' (or 'aggregation of men', or 'blind multitude') and a 'society' (or 'association', or a 'people')... and the elected official who seeks to "represent" the "interests" of an aggregation of men (in the manner Seamer discusses) is at best problematic (arguably encouraging a condition in which people are "everywhere in chains").

I am far more concerned with the preponderence of deflationary views such as Seamer's than I am by the things Seamer believes I should be worried about: I fear the debilitating effects of deflationary thinking more than any limitation of democratic accountability associated with Westminster (barely accountable, not significantly participatory) ceding powers to something transnational (which is more likely to act in the best interests of all than a government that's easily bullied due to the need to sustain a parliamentary majority and which is constantly chasing future votes).

I should tell you right now that I know less than nothing about higher philosophy, so quoting Rosseau's semantics won't mean much to me. Call it the people's interests, call it "the general will," whatever. Whatever you call it, that is what elected officials are there to represent. That is why they are elected, based upon their ability to fulfill the will of the people. If the British representatives are not there to represent British interests (or will, or anything else), but instead greater European interests (same goes), then they are not representing the will of the British people. Therefore, I can't see that it would make any difference what way the British people vote, because their will won't be represented, and there wouldn't seem to be a great deal that the British would be able to do about it- because their votes wouldn't make any difference.

What matters about being an engaged citizen cannot be represented. What matters is us each finding that individual voice with which we each exemplify how "we" grasp matters... and thereby holding out the possibility of speaking and being with (and for) others. This is the (endless) work of creating a "general will"... and Rousseau's argument (on this point) was that one only becomes truly human (discovers meaningful individuality, creates the very possibility of genuine private interest) by engaging in that task.

The temptation is always to abrogate responsibility for the above. One way is by hoping a representative will speak for us, as if the "general will" could be constituted independently of each of us engaging in the work of constituting it. Such outlooks tend to be "deflationary" (see the work of Peter Dews) in the sense of reducing the matter of "interests" to material advantage (or perceived material advantage) as if we are mere automata, and as if the complexity of the real world could be reduced to some sort of "objective" bedrock that is far simpler to understand.

This is implied by many outlooks that confuse our biological existence as naturally independent beings (the realm of the private will) with existence as fully fledged individuals with independent voices (existence as citizens with genuine private interests). Such outlooks assume we can have a meaningful (private) voice independently of individual willingness to try and give voice to what we (in general, together) would actually recognise as a voice.

Charity Trustees.... and elected officials... have a duty to consider common interests over individual interests... but whatever "interests" they consider must be those of engaged "citizens" (participants in the formation of the general will) and NOT the poor substitute for "interest" that is commonly discussed in terms of material advantage / percieved material advantage (all of which should be associated with independent beings in the "herd" rather than with individuals in "society" with one another).

Putting the point more bluntly, the obligation on those who make transnational decisions is firstly to attend to what constitutes our common "interest" at THAT level (where "we" are those who are engaged, together, in a common cause)... and even the more parochial "interests" that are "represented" at the higher level should be something quite other than material advantage / perveived material advantage!

Fortunately, whilst much (most) politcial theory struggles with such complexities... the actual practice of politics is often more nuanced... which is why those who are left to get on with stuff (including folk in quangos) commonly make a better job of what they are engaged in than is commonly recognised in discussions such as these (which tend to treat matters as far less complex than they actually are).

So, if I understand you right, the politicians should be allowed to make unpopular decisions if they decide it's in the nation's best interest? I agree, actually- no one in power should be swayed entirely by the public, who can't be relied on to know everything. But I do think that if you have a referendum, you should uphold the outcome.

As for not acting for material advantage, even Third World or disaster-struck countries who accept foreign aid are acting for their own material benefit. There'd be no trade ever if countries didn't act for their own benefit. In fact, where would we be, if the Romans hadn't spread their advances throughout the Ancient World, if not for their own benefit?

As for the rest of your post, I don't even know what it means. As I said before, I'm not familiar with advanced philosophy, and plain English comes more easily to me than doctorate language. So tomorrow, I'm going to come back with an eye to focusing on the cricket, and nothing else. Until then, I'm taking my newest Alexander McCall Smith novel to bed- not quite up to the level of a uni dissertation, perhaps, but infinitely more enjoyable to read.

I'm not arguing against personal interest as a basis for action... I'm just suggesting that what constitutes a genuine personal interest is rather more complex than is commonly supposed. One's interest as an engaged citizen (simultaneously seeking to exemplify a personal take on what constitutes being a good citizen) should, in short, go well beyond material advantage!

Many of the media storms surrounding the current Archbishop of Canterbury offer simple illustrations. Rowan Williams quite understandably argues for the place of faith in public life... irrespective of which faith. His "material advantage" lies not in promoting Islam, Judaism or any other faith... but he has a clear interest in shaping the terms of political discourse such that matters of faith carry a weight and significance that goes well beyond what is commonly accepted - and if Islam and Judaeism are the primary beneficiaries, and the comments create problems for the church, then sobeit.

To take another example, many have defended the right to free speech of folk whose views they truly abhor: their "interest" (as a citizen) means they put themselves into controversies in ways that make them targets for all manner of abuse... and in ways that lead them to be associated (albeit mistakenly) for apologists for all manner of nonsense - but the personal interest (as citizen) is clear.

On a completely different note... a scholar I admire immensely once noted that farmers in SW Nigeria moved into cocoa pretty much DESPITE the material advantage: motives are always a complex area... but one thing was clear from his work - moving into cocoa was, for many, in large part a matter of showing one's interest in, and commitment to, a very different kind of local future than one might have been taken to support had one tried to make ends meet in other ways.

To me, Britain's "interest" in Europe lies not in getting anything specific "out" of Europe... but in strengthening hold of north-European ideas about how business should be conducted in ways that might well benefit entrepreneurs from the newly-joined Eastern block more than most folk in the UK. I'd back all sorts of steps that actually COST Britain (in material terms) to increase the odds of that sort of long term (and beneficial to Britain) culture change.

Worrying about where "power" lies seems to me to be rather trivial by comparison!

Well the course of this thread has proven interesting.

I made a comment regarding what i assumed was common knowledge regarding the EU's political impact on England. Then suddenly i read the previously unread term of "The Euro Myth" Hmmm, i thought. Better check this out.......and subsequently came up with a heap of "Euro fact" Just the tip of the iceberg too, for legal reasons, i decided it was impudent to delve into any of the "rabbit holes" i came across.

Thus we ended up with "The myth of the Euro myth"


Yes curious that. Having a grandmother who as a young woman, who lived through the hell of Germany between 1939 and 1945 (two of her three brothers KIA), and having a grandfather who humped his ass through Italy and France fighting Germans, the lessons imparted by them on to me kinda made an impression i must say.

Yes, why trouble the peasants with the bother of deciding their future, when it can always be decide by their betters right?

Thank you so much for highlighting the true pro-Europe agenda so succinctly Rachel I can assume that the sight of the Union Jack makes you grimace right?
The last quote is a classic. Are you trying to say that England should sacrifice business practices that has made it one of the greatest nations in history, so they can "learn" the business practices of corrupt, failed Eastern block states?? How logical

Your not meant to Aurelius, and don't even bother trying. It's a tactic people like Rachel use when they are backed into a corner when confronted with cold hard truth, logic and fact.

Here's a good link that describes the process.
Orwell's Handy Word Choice Hints

While Orwell is on my mind, here's a good quote that sums it up nicely

No offense Rachel....but. While OF metaphorically closed his eyes, stuck his fingers in his ears, and beat a hasty retreat while chanting long live Europe, you instead decide to cover your retreat by "squirting ink".

There is no way you are going to suck me in to the quagmire semantics, empty rhetoric, and the far-fetched world of obscure left wing philosophy. I don't deal in such paper currency. I only deal in the hard currency of truth and fact.

A true democracy is like a pyramid of power. The broad base at the bottom is the people who hold the most power. From that broad base, the people project there own (through elections - of the people for the people) upwards to complete the pyramid. The pyramid is solid and will not collapse.

What you are advocating is an inverted pyramid - the opposite. Yes you can prop it up for a while through the use of draconian laws, riot police armed with guns and cctv cameras. But it is unstable and all such power systems invariably collapse.

You say the English should sacrifice themselves for the greater good of all. I say England should preserve itself at all costs, so as to be an shining beacon for the failed eastern states to strive to emulate.

And i believe this is exactly what will happen. The Euro dream will shatter on the rocks of England and the Scandinavian countries. Then France will follow suit. After that the rest will fall like nine pins.

__________________
The thought police are everywhere..............