Unelected Jean-Claude Juncker nominated as next head of EU Commission

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10930500/EU-may-live-to-regret-Juncker-appointment-says-Cameron.html

EU may 'live to regret' Juncker appointment, says Cameron

David Cameron has told European Union leaders at a tense lunch that they may "live to regret" the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as president of the European Commission


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02140/juncker_2140199b.jpg
Jean-Claude Juncker, who may be appointed president of the European Commission


EU leaders may "live to regret" the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker, David Cameron has warned, saying it represents “a sad day for Europe”.

The Prime Minister said: "I've told EU leaders they could live to regret the new process for choosing the Commission President. I'll always stand up for UK interests."

At a tense lunch in Brussels, Mr Cameron made a “passionate intervention” and warned leaders including Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, that Mr Juncker will be “bad for Europe”.

He again suggested that giving the position to Mr Juncker, an arch-federalist, could push Britain closer to exiting the European Union.

A British official said that Mr Cameron used the lunch to say that “today is a sad day for Europe and [he is] disappointed that we have reached this point”.

He will say that the process used to appoint Mr Juncker has been a “backroom deal” that has no support from voters in Britain, the official said.

British officials said that Mr Cameron told his counterparts that “this is a worrying moment for Europe”.

Mr Cameron will force an unprecedented vote on the issue in a bid to make his European counterparts “set out on the record what they are doing”.

It is expected that Mr Juncker will be confirmed as commission president designate at the end of the meeting.

The diplomatic battle over Mr Juncker’s candidacy for the presidency of the European Commission has left Mr Cameron increasingly isolated from his allies across the continent.

His only support during the row over Mr Juncker will come from Hungary.

Viktor Orban, the Hungarian prime minister, indicated that he will vote with Mr Cameron to defend the principle that candidates for the EU's top jobs should be picked by national leaders meeting in the European Council and not by political groupings in the European Parliament.

Mr Juncker's claim on the presidency rests on his position as the chosen candidate of the EPP, which emerged as the largest grouping of MEPs following last month's elections.

Mr Orban told Hungarian public radio that he expected Mr Juncker to emerge victorious from today's vote, but added: "This is a matter of principle. I gave my word to Hungarian voters on what I will represent, and I cannot deviate from that.

"It is against Hungary's interest that things should progress in this direction and I want to give a clear indication of this with my vote."

“This is bad for Britain and for Europe,” the official added, warning that it will have “impact on the British debate”.

Mr Cameron believes that Mr Juncker, who is in favour of an ever-closer EU, will make it impossible for Britain to renegotiate its relationship with Brussels ahead of an in-out referendum in 2017.

At the lunch, Mr Cameron focused “on the type of person that we want compared to Jean-Claude Juncker”.

Mr Juncker represents the “ultimate Brussels insider”, a British official added.

Mr Cameron said that his strategy of reforming and renegotiating Britain’s relationship with Europe can work and could mean that UK voters decide to remain in the EU.

However, he will give a stark warning that if EU figures such as Mr Juncker oppose reform, it could lead to Britain leaving the bloc.

So another crazed federalist is to get the top job (unelected of course) and Cameron was just steamrolled over by the EU just as every British Prime Minister has been everytime they attempt to stand up to the rolling boulder that is the EU. He can't even block the appointment of the head of the European Commission who is the opposite of what Britain's interests are yet we're expected to believe that he can 'reform' and 'renegotiate' the EU? Well, if anybody did believe the EU was capable of reform - which it is not - they can't possibly still believe that.

Worse still, Alexandra Swann was written a great article (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/19/Britain-Should-Have-an-EU-Referendum-Now-if-Juncker-Becomes-President) which points how out the EU has just seized more power for itself by removing the power to select the Commission away from nation states and to it's own parliament, a federalism move. De facto, a referendum should be triggered right now.. but of course we all know the 'referendum lock' was a crock of ****.

The EU is moving towards a federal state, and our choice is either in or out. Now, which is it?

Thoughts?

[The Don]

Unelected Jean-Claude Juncker nominated as next head of EU Commission

Couldn't make this up. Could imagine this as a sketch from Monty Python.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Couldn't make this up. Could imagine this as a sketch from Monty Python.

So when do we go to the polls to elect a Jean-Claude Commission? In which seat did Mr Juncker stand?

The unelected Chinese President is also nominated.. is that so hard for you to understand?

[The Don]

So when do we go to the polls to elect a Jean-Claude Commission? In which seat did Mr Juncker stand?

Just because you didn't vote for him doesn't mean he wasn't elected.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just because you didn't vote for him doesn't mean he wasn't elected.

By that logic the Chinese President is also 'elected' by the politburo.

In EU land that may constitute an 'election', but to the rest of us... that ain't an election victory buddy. That's an insider stitch up.

[The Don]

By that logic the Chinese President is also 'elected' by the politburo.

In EU land that may constitute an 'election', but to the rest of us... that ain't an election victory buddy. That's an insider stitch up.

By your logic the French President is unelected because you couldn't go and vote for him.

[-:Undertaker:-]

By your logic the French President is unelected because you couldn't go and vote for him.

Or maybe it would have something to do with me not being French?


http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/amoktime/spock_plaktow.jpg

[The Don]

Or maybe it would have something to do with me not being French?

And you're also not an EU Leader which is why you didn't get a vote, doesn't mean he's unelected or that a vote never happened.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And you're also not an EU Leader which is why you didn't get a vote, doesn't mean he's unelected or that a vote never happened.

I can't deal with this stupidity. It's like trying to explain democracy and a parliamentary system to somebody from another planet.

[The Don]

I can't deal with this stupidity. It's like trying to explain democracy and a parliamentary system to somebody from another planet.

It's ok if you can't grasp the idea of representative democracy.

[Chippiewill]

I'm pretty certain no one voted for David Cameron to be elected Prime Minister, he was 'nominated' by the the commons.

[Kardan]

I'm sure you could say something similar about the Lib Dems coming in 3rd and being half in charge :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm pretty certain no one voted for David Cameron to be elected Prime Minister, he was 'nominated' by the the commons.


I'm sure you could say something similar about the Lib Dems coming in 3rd and being half in charge :P

Both the Conservatives and the Liberals Democrats formed a government from the floor of the House of Commons in which they were all elected to. That's a real parliamentary democracy. The European parliament on the other hand isn't a democracy for the reason that although the parliament is elected by public, the European Commission is simply appointed by the parliament/heads of state rather than the parliament forming the government from the floor of the elected chamber. There is also the other distinction that the European Commission is the executive that proposes legislation and makes law, whereas the parliament only has the power to say yes or not: a rubber stamping body, in other words. These key differences are what led Margaret Thatcher to always refuse to call it a parliament, and instead she called it an assembly.

In any case, the EU parliament can never be a democracy anyway for the reason that Europe doesn't have a demos.

- - - Updated - - -


It's ok if you can't grasp the idea of representative democracy.

So why not just abolish Westminster and have elected Local councils appoint the British government on our (lol) behalf?

[The Don]

So why not just abolish Westminster and have elected Local councils appoint the British government on our (lol) behalf?

Why would we do that? You seem to think that because i'm pointing out that representatives electing somebody makes that person elected, and that you're wrong for calling them unelected, means I think that system is superior or without fault. You've done once again what you do to everyone and have put words into my mouth.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why would we do that? You seem to think that because i'm pointing out that representatives electing somebody makes that person elected, and that you're wrong for calling them unelected, means I think that system is superior or without fault. You've done once again what you do to everyone and have put words into my mouth.

So there is or isn't a democratic deficit in the EU?

[The Don]

So there is or isn't a democratic deficit in the EU?

Has Juncker been elected, yes or no?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Has Juncker been elected, yes or no?

Well as a democracy requires a demos to function, which Europe hasn't got, he's no more elected than the Iraqi Prime Minister is.

But in a simple definition of democracy, no he hasn't. He's been appointed by national leaders behind closed doors.

[Chippiewill]

Well as a democracy requires a demos to function, which Europe hasn't got, he's no more elected than the Iraqi Prime Minister is.

democracy
dɪˈmɒkrəsi/Submit
noun
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

I seem to recall lots of people being democratically elected to the Parliament. I also seem to recall member states democratically electing representatives for the Council (Among other things). And I also seem to recall democratically elected governments in member states appointing representatives to the commission, and now also providing an option to the democratically elected parliament to vote for the president of the commission.

[-:Undertaker:-]

democracy
dɪˈmɒkrəsi/Submit
noun
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

I seem to recall lots of people being democratically elected to the Parliament. I also seem to recall member states democratically electing representatives for the Council (Among other things). And I also seem to recall democratically elected governments in member states appointing representatives to the commission, and now also providing an option to the democratically elected parliament to vote for the president of the commission.

And a system which requires a demos (a people in Greek) to function. Otherwise it doesn't.

For example, you could not have a functioning democracy between a unified Britain and Saudi Arabia as you lack demos (a people).

[Chippiewill]

And a system which requires a demos (a people in Greek) to function. Otherwise it doesn't.

europeans.

[-:Undertaker:-]

europeans.

There's no such thing as a Europe people, there's only such a thing as a European peoples.

Much in the same way as there wasn't a Soviet people: there were Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians etc. Or the Yugoslavia/Czechoslovakia concepts.

[Chippiewill]

There's no such thing as a Europe people, there's only such a thing as a European peoples.

Much in the same way as there wasn't a Soviet people: there were Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians etc. Or the Yugoslavia/Czechoslovakia concepts.

In the imaginary way there weren't soviet people.. because there were.

[-:Undertaker:-]

In the imaginary way there weren't soviet people.. because there were.

On paper they existed, down on the ground and in culture they did not.

You can create anything from laws and treaties, just look at Iraq and Syria. Doesn't make them a real and alive concept though.

[Chippiewill]

On paper they existed, down on the ground and in culture they did not.
Well if you want to be philosophical about it then these are all constructs we've invented so none of them exist.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well if you want to be philosophical about it then these are all constructs we've invented so none of them exist.

I'm not being philosophical about it, I'm describing the realpolitik situation of nation states and what they are.

False nation states such as the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Iraq only lasted through the use of force. Other than that, they [the people] didn't exist.

[Chippiewill]

I'm not being philosophical about it, I'm describing the realpolitik situation of nation states and what they are.

So what you're claiming is, there was no USSR?

[-:Undertaker:-]

So what you're claiming is, there was no USSR?

It [the artificial state] existed on paper and through force, but there never existed a Soviet people or a Soviet nation.

[Chippiewill]

It [the artificial state] existed on paper and through force, but there never existed a Soviet people or a Soviet nation.

Why?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why?

Because the people there never felt or saw themselves as Soviet people because the Soviet concept was simply created out of thin air in the midst of a revolution rather than being formed over the many centuries as the Russian culture had been. To a degree the Russians, or at least some of them, perhaps did consider themselves Soviet, but that was simply as a way of the Russians hiding what the Soviet Union was: the forceful annexation of neighbouring states by Russia. The Polish still considered themselves Polish, the Czechs considered themselves Czech, and the Estonians as Estonians. A lot of Scottish nationalists would also say the same, that Britain was a concept created - or revived from Roman times - to hide what they view as the annexation of Scotland by the larger England in the Acts of Union.

Nationhood is a strange thing, but it exists just as I would volunteer (potentially my life) for my country in case of a great and just war, but wouldn't volunteer the same efforts (if any at all) for the French Republic or say Brazil simply because I don't feel French or Brazillian.

[Chippiewill]

So under that logic the scots should be allowed to vote in the general election since most of them don't identify as british.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So under that logic the scots should be allowed to vote in the general election since most of them don't identify as british.

Britain is certainly breaking down thanks to devolution, but whether the Scots still consider themselves as a part of the same people we in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be decided in the referendum this September: a referendum they've every right to.

I added a part on my post above about Scotland and the Acts of Union comparing with Russia/USSR before you posted if you're interested. :P

[FlyingJesus]

He can't even block the appointment of the head of the European Commission

Oh my, it's almost as though more than 1 person has a say in these things. You appear to be arguing against democracy here.


By that logic the Chinese President is also 'elected' by the politburo.

No because the politburo isn't elected by the people. You seem to be very good at ignoring the fact that we do elect our representatives, whose job it is to then try to represent us however bad they appear to be at it


The European parliament on the other hand isn't a democracy for the reason that although the parliament is elected by public, the European Commission is simply appointed by the parliament/heads of state

The same heads of state that we elect democratically to lead us? Whoops.


Because the people there never felt or saw themselves as Soviet people

[citation needed]

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh my, it's almost as though more than 1 person has a say in these things. You appear to be arguing against democracy here.

Well no, because if you'd read what I said about a democracy needing a demos then you'd understand my point that even if Juncker and his Commission were elected from the floor of the parliament (which they are not, so he's not elected in the simple 1man=1vote generalisation) it still wouldn't be able to function as a democracy.


No because the politburo isn't elected by the people. You seem to be very good at ignoring the fact that we do elect our representatives, whose job it is to then try to represent us however bad they appear to be at it

That is true, however, there are certain positons which wield such influence over legislation that they should be elected or directly elected (if they are to even exist in the first place). The same example is always put to me on these forums concerns the House of Lords or the Queen, to which my reply is that the Queen and the House of Lords don't create legislation like the House of Commons does. It's very much the same with the European 'Parliament' - it is the European Commission which creates the legislation, therefore the European Commission (should it even exist) should be elected.


The same heads of state that we elect democratically to lead us? Whoops.

So the British people elected Angela Merkel? Fracois Hollande? No.

One person we did elect was David Cameron, and he's just been overruled.


[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989

[Chippiewill]

So the British people elected Angela Merkel? Fracois Hollande? No.

One person we did elect was David Cameron, and he's just been overruled.

We don't vote for all MPs, just our own.

[-:Undertaker:-]

We don't vote for all MPs, just our own.

Yes, but they make up a government which is legit as it is made from a single people.

I go back to the political union idea between Britaina and Saudi Arabia, would a democratic vote in such a state be workable? Would it take place along ideological lines, or would it take place along national/ethnic or tribal divisions? The second of course, and that is why it wouldn't work.

[Chippiewill]

Yes, but they make up a government which is legit as it is made from a single people.
single people is so vague as to mean whatever the **** you want it to.

[FlyingJesus]

Well no, because if you'd read what I said about a democracy needing a demos then you'd understand my point that even if Juncker and his Commission were elected from the floor of the parliament (which they are not, so he's not elected in the simple 1man=1vote generalisation) it still wouldn't be able to function as a democracy.

Are we not people any more


That is true, however, there are certain positons which wield such influence over legislation that they should be elected or directly elected (if they are to even exist in the first place). The same example is always put to me on these forums concerns the House of Lords or the Queen, to which my reply is that the Queen and the House of Lords don't create legislation like the House of Commons does. It's very much the same with the European 'Parliament' - it is the European Commission which creates the legislation, therefore the European Commission (should it even exist) should be elected.

It is, that's the point


So the British people elected Angela Merkel? Fracois Hollande? No.

One person we did elect was David Cameron, and he's just been overruled.

No-one outside of Witney elected David Cameron as an MP, but that isn't grounds to claim that he's unelected. As for being overruled, welcome to democratic politics


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989

Both of those pages show that people wanted democracy and an end to a one-party system rather than being upset about what their passports say on them

[Sian]

it's all just ludacris, do our elected MEPs not get to have a say in this then?

Fair if we cant vote, but the MEPs should.

[FlyingJesus]

No our elected head of state does

[Chippiewill]

I believe the current system (Which Cameron is against) is that the vote MEPS to confirm the candidate.

[GommeInc]

There's technically no difference here with how we do things. During the EU votes the European People's Party had a majority - Junker is affiliated and the best candidate for said party - ergo, he becomes EC President. In our general elections, the Conservatives had a majority - David Cameron was the leader of said party - he was made Prime Minister. We don't elect the Prime Minister, we never have. We can oppose them through public outcry but we have no power in the process. Other EU member state leaders backed Junker and therefore he was chosen by our quazi-elected leaders (Merkel for Germany, Hollande for France etc).The only problem here is that euro-scepticism rose sharply and Junker, arguably, was put in place to continue and further "ever closer union" when EU citizens arguably are against such a concept and therefore a candidate for the EPP should probably have been someone who could work on stabilising and reforms, rather than advancing it further.

[Chippiewill]

Jean-Claude Juncker 'will address UK concerns'

Jean-Claude Juncker has told David Cameron he is "fully committed to finding solutions for the political concerns of the UK", No 10 has said.

The PM called the European Commission president-designate and the pair discussed working together to "make the EU more competitive and more flexible".

"The PM welcomed Mr Juncker's commitment of finding a fair deal for Britain," the No 10 spokesman said.

It comes after Mr Cameron was defeated in an EU vote over the new president.

Mr Cameron tried to block Mr Juncker's appointment by forcing a vote on the selection of the former Luxembourg prime minister, who is seen as a backer of closer political union.

But EU states voted 26-2 to appoint him, in what Mr Cameron described as "a bad day for Europe".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28081415

Maybe Dave's protest has had an impact after all

- - - Updated - - -


There's technically no difference here with how we do things. During the EU votes the European People's Party had a majority - Junker is affiliated and the best candidate for said party - ergo, he becomes EC President. In our general elections, the Conservatives had a majority - David Cameron was the leader of said party - he was made Prime Minister. We don't elect the Prime Minister, we never have. We can oppose them through public outcry but we have no power in the process. Other EU member state leaders backed Junker and therefore he was chosen by our quazi-elected leaders (Merkel for Germany, Hollande for France etc).The only problem here is that euro-scepticism rose sharply and Junker, arguably, was put in place to continue and further "ever closer union" when EU citizens arguably are against such a concept and therefore a candidate for the EPP should probably have been someone who could work on stabilising and reforms, rather than advancing it further.

I think Dan's argument is that we can't elect anyone because we're not a single people, whatever the **** that means.

[FlyingJesus]

We're not a single people because people across Europe don't share the same values as opposed to in England alone where every single one of us has the exact same mind

[Chippiewill]

I'm not sure if you're trolling or actually serious.

[Kardan]

Definitely trolling.

[GommeInc]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28081415

Maybe Dave's protest has had an impact after all
Seems better than nothing. In fact, Barroso (sp?) said the UK is a special case a few months ago. So there seems to be some acknowledgement that, as far as we go, we're miserable sods who see things differently - not that there's anything wrong with that :P

[Chippiewill]

Maybe he's hoping to cut us out like a cancerous tumour.

[-:Undertaker:-]

single people is so vague as to mean whatever the **** you want it to.

So to you, the world is comprised of one single monoculture that means we could effectively all live together under the same political and legal system? I go back to my example of a political union between say Britain and Oman, and could that work?


Are we not people any more

Europe isn't a people, it's of peoples.

And that's the key difference that makes all the difference.


It is, that's the point

Not like a normal government.

Are commissioners taken from the floor of the chamber? Can individual commissioners be removed? No.


No-one outside of Witney elected David Cameron as an MP, but that isn't grounds to claim that he's unelected. As for being overruled, welcome to democratic politics

It's not democratic politics when there doesn't exist a demos.


Both of those pages show that people wanted democracy and an end to a one-party system rather than being upset about what their passports say on them

No it didn't.

It was clear as the Soviet Union was falling that those people sought national independence (because they didn't feel part of the same demos, thus wouldn't want to be locked into a political union with Russia whereby Russia could simply outvote them all of the time) ...... and that is my point throughout this discussion, that you cannot simply throw different people together and expect them to view it as a democracy when they don't view one another as the same. Gorbachev actually made efforts to hold the Soviet Union together under a new democratic confederation in which each republic was 'equal' yet it failed and the USSR was dissolved.

In regards to Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, both staggered onwards for a few years after the fall of communism in 1990 yet eventually split due to cultural, ethnic and historical differences. Democracy didn't work in those states (even under a federal system) as they lacked a demos.

One only has to look at the Kingdom of Belgium for a modern day, European and democratic example.


I think Dan's argument is that we can't elect anyone because we're not a single people, whatever the **** that means.

Because Europe isn't comprised of a single people.

You cannot have German, France and Greece hold an election anymore than you could say China, India and Russia.


Seems better than nothing. In fact, Barroso (sp?) said the UK is a special case a few months ago. So there seems to be some acknowledgement that, as far as we go, we're miserable sods who see things differently - not that there's anything wrong with that :P

Barroso is just playing the game, the same game that has been played since the project started. For decades, British Prime Ministers have gone on quests against growing EU federalism and every single time they've either been beaten or more than often gone along with it. They're just pleasing the increasingly restless great unwashed, after which they'll fob us off with a few meaningless 'reforms' and it'll be back to the usual shortly afterwards.

Exactly what happened with the Wilson referendum in the 1970s.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ah found it, there's a reason this prophet is the man I admire most alongside Ron Paul.

On Democracy, Europe and the nation-state....


What happens then when majorities in the directly elected European Assembly take decisions, or approve policies, or vote budgets which are regarded by the British electorate or by the electorate of some of the mammoth constituencies as highly offensive and prejudicial to their interests? What do the European MPs say to their constituents? They say: “Don't blame me; I had no say, nor did I and my Labour (or Conservative) colleagues, have any say in the framing of these policies”. He will then either add: “Anyhow, I voted against”; or alternatively he will add: “And don't misunderstand if I voted for this along with my German, French, and Italian pals, because if I don't help roll their logs, I shall never get them to roll any of mine”. What these pseudo-MPs will not be able to say is what any MP in a democracy must be able to say, namely, either “I voted against this, and if the majority of my party are elected next time, we will put it right”, or alternatively, “I supported this because it is part of the policy and programme for which a majority in this constituency and in the country voted at the last election and which we shall be proud to defend at the next election”. Direct elections to the European Assembly, so far from introducing democracy and democratic control, will strengthen the arbitrary and bureaucratic nature of the Community by giving a fallacious garb of elective authority to the exercise of supranational powers by institutions and persons who are – in the literal, not the abusive, sense of the word – irresponsible.

Speech in Brighton (24 October 1977), from Enoch Powell on 1992 (Anaya, 1989), pp. 19-20.

[FlyingJesus]

Yet to explain what the difference is between people and peoples other than what I can only assume is the view that somehow all people in X country think exactly the same way and cannot possibly to see eye to eye with anyone from Y country

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yet to explain what the difference is between people and peoples other than what I can only assume is the view that somehow all people in X country think exactly the same way and cannot possibly to see eye to eye with anyone from Y country

So lets take the example of Saudi Arabia and Britain in a hypothetical political union run under a democracy.

Do you think the people who currently live in Britain share similar views/cultural outlooks on subjects (in that there are differences but the differences can be managed within a democracy as there exists consensus between opposing sides) such as women's rights, gay rights, alcohol, drugs, religion and so on and so forth as say those people currently living in Saudi Arabia?

I mean, do I really have to explain the bleeding obvious? Do you think the two nationalities/cultures would be compatible in a democracy at all or would it be perhaps absurd to suggest so in that the cultural differences between the two mean that both would regard the other as foreign and are simply incompatible in any way, shape or form to live together under the same political/legal system?

Do Saudis adhere to say Burkean conservatism, Locke and Classical liberal concepts or Fabian socialism? Or not?

[Chippiewill]

Probably a good thing we're not in a union with Saudi Arabia then.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/images/2007/10/29/mall.gif

It's 2020 and the United Kingdom of Britain and Saudi Arabia is holding its first election.

Party A is a socially liberal party by western standards, the party advocates gay marriage, the Church of England as the national church, the continuence of the House of Windsor on the shared throne, lax divorce laws (by Islamic standards), jury duty and opposes Sharia Law. The name of this party is the Conservative Party.

Party B is a very socially liberal party, the party strongly advocates gay marriage, the Church of England as the national church albeit with reservations, the continuence of the House of Windsor on the shared throne subject to a referendum, more lax divorce laws (by Islamic standards), jury duty (in most cases) and opposes Sharia Law unless only applied in Islamic-majority areas. The name of this party is the Labour Party.

Party C is an extreme socially conservative party by western standards, wishes to outlaw homosexuality, wishes to establish Islam as the national religion and church, supports a dual monarchy with the House of Saud and Windsor on the throne, wishes to outlaw divorce and wants to introduce Sharia Law nationwide. This party is called the Islamic Left Coalition.

Party D is an extreme ba'athist party which wishes to outlaw homosexuality and make it punishable by death, wishes to establish Islam as the national religion and church, supports an Islamic republic, wishes to outlaw divorce entirely and wants to introduce Sharia Law nationwide for ALL UK citizens. This party is called the Ba'ath Party.



...now, the election. What would be likely to happen? Due the Saudi part of the population being very socially conservative and Islamic, as well as lacking the British class divide, as well as historical roots in our democracy (such as Catholic support for the left, with Church of England usually siding with the right) the Saudi population of 25m decides to unite and rally behind the Ba'ath Party for fear of being outvoted by the British part of the country which totals 70m. Although not all Saudis agree with the Ba'ath Party, they agree with the policies of the Ba'ath Party much more than the Labour or Conservative parties.

On the other hand you then have the British part of the nation, who decide to rally behind the Labour Party for fear of an Islamic/culturally alien party such as the Ba'ath Party from winning due to a split vote. Although not all Britons agree with the Labour Party, subjects rally behind the Labour Party in order to prevent the bloc vote of the other side of the nation (with whom they have an entirely different history and feel no shared identity or history with) from winning the election.

Labour wins the election by 35m votes to the 20m votes of the Ba'ath Party. And this process happens time and time again on votes in parliament and in elections. Very soon, the system starts breaking down as it pits one distinct group against another with which there is virtually no concensus on issues due to the vast cultural divide between the two groups..... and thus you have the increasing rise of sectarian parties among the Saudi population (who resent being in a permanent voting minority) and independence parties forming for the British population who wish to end the political union between the two nations due to the trouble it causes.

Now that's a scenario, using rather extreme examples of two nation albeit, how history, culture and peoples can break a 'democracy'.


Probably a good thing we're not in a union with Saudi Arabia then.

But that's the point - we're in an increasing political union with other countries, it is called the EU.

Simply throwing groups of distinct peoples together and giving them a vote each and saying "get on with it" just doesn't cut the mustard. See Iraq.

[Kardan]

http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/images/2007/10/29/mall.gif

It's 2020 and the United Kingdom of Britain and Saudi Arabia is holding its first election.

Party A is a socially liberal party by western standards, the party advocates gay marriage, the Church of England as the national church, the continuence of the House of Windsor on the shared throne, lax divorce laws (by Islamic standards), jury duty and opposes Sharia Law. The name of this party is the Conservative Party.

Party B is a very socially liberal party, the party strongly advocates gay marriage, the Church of England as the national church albeit with reservations, the continuence of the House of Windsor on the shared throne subject to a referendum, more lax divorce laws (by Islamic standards), jury duty (in most cases) and opposes Sharia Law unless only applied in Islamic-majority areas. The name of this party is the Labour Party.

Party C is an extreme socially conservative party by western standards, wishes to outlaw homosexuality, wishes to establish Islam as the national religion and church, supports a dual monarchy with the House of Saud and Windsor on the throne, wishes to outlaw divorce and wants to introduce Sharia Law nationwide. This party is called the Islamic Left Coalition.

Party D is an extreme ba'athist party which wishes to outlaw homosexuality and make it punishable by death, wishes to establish Islam as the national religion and church, supports an Islamic republic, wishes to outlaw divorce entirely and wants to introduce Sharia Law nationwide for ALL UK citizens. This party is called the Ba'ath Party.



...now, the election. What would be likely to happen? Due the Saudi part of the population being very socially conservative and Islamic, as well as lacking the British class divide, as well as historical roots in our democracy (such as Catholic support for the left, with Church of England usually siding with the right) the Saudi population of 25m decides to unite and rally behind the Ba'ath Party for fear of being outvoted by the British part of the country which totals 70m. Although not all Saudis agree with the Ba'ath Party, they agree with the policies of the Ba'ath Party much more than the Labour or Conservative parties.

On the other hand you then have the British part of the nation, who decide to rally behind the Labour Party for fear of an Islamic/culturally alien party such as the Ba'ath Party from winning due to a split vote. Although not all Britons agree with the Labour Party, subjects rally behind the Labour Party in order to prevent the bloc vote of the other side of the nation (with whom they have an entirely different history and feel no shared identity or history with) from winning the election.

Labour wins the election by 35m votes to the 20m votes of the Ba'ath Party. And this process happens time and time again on votes in parliament and in elections. Very soon, the system starts breaking down as it pits one distinct group against another with which there is virtually no concensus on issues due to the vast cultural divide between the two groups..... and thus you have the increasing rise of sectarian parties among the Saudi population (who resent being in a permanent voting minority) and independence parties forming for the British population who wish to end the political union between the two nations due to the trouble it causes.

Now that's a scenario, using rather extreme examples of two nation albeit, how history, culture and peoples can break a 'democracy'.



But that's the point - we're in an increasing political union with other countries, it is called the EU.

Simply throwing groups of distinct peoples together and giving them a vote each and saying "get on with it" just doesn't cut the mustard. See Iraq.

Hahahaha, did you really just use an example where the UK has 25 million Muslims all from Saudi Arabia and every single one would vote for extreme laws? My god.

[-:Undertaker:-]

My darling, your just (trying) to argue on hypothetical numbers now. If it makes you happy, revise the number of Saudi voters to 15m idc.


Hahahaha, did you really just use an example where the UK has 25 million Muslims all from Saudi Arabia and every single one would vote for extreme laws? My god.

But you've (thank god, at last) at least got the gist of my point - you say those parties are 'extreme', but in cultures like Saudi Arabia: they're not. You are judging their politics by western politics, specifically British politics.. which proves the incompatability and which proves my point. Both you are I for example disagree on gay marriage, but that's at least within the context of homosexuality being legal. You argue with a Saudi on the topic of gay rights, it's a completely different argument because the context and gulf between your view and theirs is so wide that they don't even meet.

Or do you dispute what I am saying and contend that a British-Saudi political union (with a democracy) would work? Speak up if so.

[The Don]

My 'darling', there's a huge difference between the relationships of the UK and countries in the EU, and the UK and Saudi Arabia.

[-:Undertaker:-]

My 'darling', there's a huge difference between the relationships of the UK and countries in the EU, and the UK and Saudi Arabia.

Did I not say I was using an extreme example to get across my point?

But even so with European nations, there's still huge differences in feeling. Look at Belgium, Spain (Catalonia, Basque) and even the UK (Scotland).

[Chippiewill]

You can't use extreme examples to prove your point in situation, we're already in a union with Scotland, wales , NI and England which CLEARLY you regard as a single people. So its apparent the issue here is the degree of cultural difference rather than the existence of a difference. Using an extreme example here does your argument no service.

[Kardan]

So not only are we going to get 28 million Romanians and Bulgarians, we're also getting another 21 million Muslims from Saudi Arabia.

[Chippiewill]

Don't forget the contents of China. We'll all be communists soon with the development of the nanny state

[GommeInc]

Technically we can ignore certain laws based on public morality, policy and general interest so if 25 million Muslims in this hypothetical situation were to vote for extreme laws to be passed (which is a bit strange seeing as Muslims are not all extremist idiots the same way not all Christians are Phelps family members), the British side of the union can simply oppose them.

[FlyingJesus]

So lets take the example of Saudi Arabia and Britain in a hypothetical political union run under a democracy.

Do you think the people who currently live in Britain share similar views/cultural outlooks on subjects (in that there are differences but the differences can be managed within a democracy as there exists consensus between opposing sides) such as women's rights, gay rights, alcohol, drugs, religion and so on and so forth as say those people currently living in Saudi Arabia?

I mean, do I really have to explain the bleeding obvious? Do you think the two nationalities/cultures would be compatible in a democracy at all or would it be perhaps absurd to suggest so in that the cultural differences between the two mean that both would regard the other as foreign and are simply incompatible in any way, shape or form to live together under the same political/legal system?

Do Saudis adhere to say Burkean conservatism, Locke and Classical liberal concepts or Fabian socialism? Or not?

So yes, you really do think that all people in one country think the exact same way. Interested to see a source on when Saudi Arabia joined Europe though

[-:Undertaker:-]

You can't use extreme examples to prove your point in situation, we're already in a union with Scotland, wales , NI and England which CLEARLY you regard as a single people. So its apparent the issue here is the degree of cultural difference rather than the existence of a difference. Using an extreme example here does your argument no service.

I regard them as a single people, although there are differences between them just as there are differences between Yorkshire, Lancashire and Kent. But the point is, England/Scotland/Wales and Northern Ireland are similar enough culturally to live under the same political and legal system.... which isn't the case for the constituent parts of Iraq, the former Yugoslavia or the EU. If this changes, then the UK will cease to exist.

And rightly, too.


Technically we can ignore certain laws based on public morality, policy and general interest so if 25 million Muslims in this hypothetical situation were to vote for extreme laws to be passed (which is a bit strange seeing as Muslims are not all extremist idiots the same way not all Christians are Phelps family members), the British side of the union can simply oppose them.

But again, you are ignoring the fact that many (I would bet my testicles on a healthy majority) muslims in the Middle East DO believe homosexuality should be illegal and punishable. A western liberal Christian country cannot exist in the same political and legal union as a conservative Islamic state. And it's the same between say France and Britain for other cultural reasons.


So yes, you really do think that all people in one country think the exact same way. Interested to see a source on when Saudi Arabia joined Europe though

Ah come off it, you know exactly what I mean.

Unless you advocate the marxist belief of internationalism, in which case it's hopeless even discussing it.

[FlyingJesus]

No I don't know exactly what you mean because your entire claim is that 2 people of different background can't possibly like each other, so either you think that everyone in Britain has the exact same values and ideals or you want Britain to devolve into tribal areas of like-minded people because we can't all get along in one country.

[Grig]

But again, you are ignoring the fact that many (I would bet my testicles on a healthy majority) muslims in the Middle East DO believe homosexuality should be illegal and punishable. A western liberal Christian country cannot exist in the same political and legal union as a conservative Islamic state. And it's the same between say France and Britain for other cultural reasons.

Well Russia is able to govern a state with both Christian values, as well as Islamist beliefs in Republics such as Chechnya and Tatarstan, although they are not as conservative. Hence, the war in Chenya :P.

Someone gave me an interesting analogy actually; you saw what happened to the USSR, and then the Europeans decided to start doing the same thing, i.e. more control and pretty strong hints of greater federalization. It failed once, and it'll fail again, I'm pretty sure of it.