Is Democracy dead in Europe?

[Dick Tator]

Herman van Rompuy of Belgium was appointed the first permanent President of the European Council on 19 November 2009. The president-designate is expected to take office on 1 December 2009.

Hmmm... Appointed? Permanent? Doesn't sound very Democratic to me!

[DamnYankee]

Democracy died the minute leftists took over.

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by DamnYankee

Democracy died the minute leftists took over.

And coming soon to an America near you!

[DamnYankee]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

And coming soon to an America near you!

Well since the leftists are forcing BO-care down our throats and BO plans on taxing the crap out of us, ala Cap And Tax, and voiding the Bush tax cuts, and getting us involved in the ICC, I say we are pretty damn close to becoming a socialist shit hole.

What say U?

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by DamnYankee

Democracy died the minute leftists took over.

Didn't you guys just have a thread claiming democracy is bad and republics are good, and we're not a democracy? How, then, can democracy be dead, and why would you care, if we're not a democracy, and you don't like democracy, anyway?

Originally Posted by DamnYankee

Well since the leftists are forcing BO-care down our throats and BO plans on taxing the crap out of us, ala Cap And Tax, and voiding the Bush tax cuts, and getting us involved in the ICC, I say we are pretty damn close to becoming a socialist shit hole.

What say U?

We elected representatives so they could do that. That's the product of democracy. Is this why you hate democracy? Because you don't always get your way?

[Freedom&Liberty]

We don't elect representatives so that they can subvert the democratic will of the people, but that's what they do when they violate the constitution. The representatives on the left are especially good at it.

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

Didn't you guys just have a thread claiming democracy is bad and republics are good, and we're not a democracy? How, then, can democracy be dead, and why would you care, if we're not a democracy, and you don't like democracy, anyway?

A direct democracy is bad, yes. We have a republic (with a strong democratic tradition) where we vote for our leaders but our leaders vote and pass legislation. The people of Europe weren't granted the opportunity to vote for or against this 'permanent' President.

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by Freedom&Liberty

We don't elect representatives so that they can subvert the democratic will of the people

Health care and tax reform were major campaign issues. Sounds like democracy is functioning well . . . which must be why you're so pissed.

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

Hmmm... Appointed? Permanent? Doesn't sound very Democratic to me!

I don't know anything about it, but I suspect there are misnomers afloat here, somewhere. I saw this:

The president will be elected for two and a half years and may be reelected only once.

http://en.trend.az/news/politics/foreign/1571900.html

I have no idea what those crazy Europeans came up with, though.

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

Health care and tax reform were major campaign issues. Sounds like democracy is functioning well . . . which must be why you're so pissed.

Obama flipped on both of those issues since the election.

As for democracy functioning well, this thread is about European democracy. I hate to tell you this, but Obama isn't the President of Europe.

Dumbass...

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

I have no idea what those crazy Europeans came up with, though.

That was before... this is the first appointment of a 'permanent' President. I have yet to find out what they mean by that... It's still pretty new and even the European Commission doesn't know the role or function of this post. They are saying that this first guy will pretty much write the job description as he goes.

[Forthright]

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865
Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship

Paul Belien: You were a very famous Soviet dissident and now you are drawing a parallel between the European Union and the Soviet Union. Can you explain this?

Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referrring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means.

According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.

PB: Do you think the same thing can happen when the European Union collapses?

VB: Absolutely, you can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient you know. You can press it, you can press it, but don’t forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot.

PB: But all these countries that joined the European Union did so voluntarily.

VB: No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. Switzerland was forced to vote five times in a referendum. All five times they have rejected it, but who knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time. It is always the same thing. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.

PB: What do you think young people should do about the European Union? What should they insist on, to democratize the institution or just abolish it?

VB: I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures cannot be democratized.

PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen by the people.

VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous. It is given the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament.

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

They are saying that this first guy will pretty much write the job description as he goes.

Sweet gig.

[Dogberry]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

Hmmm... Appointed? Permanent? Doesn't sound very Democratic to me!

voted in by the heads of state

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by Dogberry

voted in by the heads of state

Perhaps the Governors of each of the US states should appoint the President of the US. We wouldn't have many of the problems that we have today.

[Dogberry]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

Perhaps the Governors of each of the US states should appoint the President of the US. We wouldn't have many of the problems that we have today.

Well actually you dont vote for the president, the electoral college do......

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by Dogberry

Well actually you dont vote for the president, the electoral college do......

True enough, but it's based on our Congressional representation and decided by the popular vote of the individual states. Did the individual European nations have an election to decide how their nation would vote for their new President?

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

Perhaps the Governors of each of the US states should appoint the President of the US. We wouldn't have many of the problems that we have today.

They manage the elections, and we have an electoral college, not a popular vote. You 'Constitutionalists' don't even have a clue as to what you're mad at and/or opposed to, do you. Obviously you're just mad because you're left out of the 'in' crowd at the top, and think that is some sort of mistake, but the rest us know why nobody with real power is listening to you, and it's no mistake in your cases.

[Dick Tator]

Originally Posted by Farnsworth,Luther P.

They manage the elections, and we have an electoral college, not a popular vote. You 'Constitutionalists' don't even have a clue as to what you're mad at and/or opposed to, do you. Obviously you're just mad because you're left out of the 'in' crowd at the top, and think that is some sort of mistake, but the rest us know why nobody with real power is listening to you, and it's no mistake in your cases.

What the hell are you even talking about? You're in the top of what? The 'in-crowd'? lol, enjoy!

[Dogberry]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

True enough, but it's based on our Congressional representation and decided by the popular vote of the individual states. Did the individual European nations have an election to decide how their nation would vote for their new President?

Actually the electoral college are not bound to abide by the popular vote.

Your founding fathers werent democrats and did not trust the masses.

For the UK the majority were against the treaty so who became president is a non issue.