Text 7388, 272 rader
Skriven 2010-04-28 17:27:48 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
   Kommentar till text 7356 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Question about democracy
================================
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe on Wednesday April 28 2010 at
09:40:

RB>> Who said I wanted to "help" anyone do anything?

MV> You yoursel. "Help" was the word you used when you mentioned the
MV> situation in Zimbabwe. You said we should help the people in Zimbabwe.

Did I? If so, it was only in the context of "help them rid themselves of a
corrupt dictatorship that has brought the "breadbasket of Africa" down to the
level of starvation except for favorites of the regime. And with the best will
in the world, I can't find anything wrong with that.

On the other hand, it's no skin off my teeth whether they kill each other or
not, as long as they don't interfere with my life: do you prefer that?

RB>> Anyway, I have no faith in elected representatives of _any_
RB>> nationality.

MV> Too bad.

RB>> Don't think that only applies to the States.

MV> You implied it applies to MY country.

I "implied" nothing, Michiel. You're reading things I don't write into my
comments again.

RB>> There are some who are better (more honest, concientious, dedicated
RB>> to the public good) than others, but when the party says "vote this
RB>> way or that", they have to vote that way, too.

MV> Yes, it is called party discipline. A result of people voting for a
MV> PARTY rather than for the individual members.

Right. So who cares about the honest, concientious representatives that - in
the final analysis - don't have anything to say about what the party does? You
can't have it both ways, you know: praise invididuals but condemn them at the
same time for following a party line that goes even against their own
conscience. That's why my scepticism remains active, and will only really be
satisfied when we can vote for individuals rather than merely for parties. The
latter has always been an invitation for closed-door deals to the detriment of
the population (but to the advantage of the parties).

RB>> The constitution in Germany says representatives are only responsible
RB>> to their own conciences, but that's not the way things work in
RB>> practice.

MV> So what? What matter is that if they do things wrong in the eye of the
MV> voter, they pay the price next election.

Theoretically. But then you have the situation as in the States, and that in
Germany, where the parties are so similar that voting for one is like voting
for the other. Some choice.

RB>>>> [The EU "Constitution"]

MV>>> You do not know what you are talking about. *I* know why it failed
MV>>> here. I live here, you do not.

RB>> Who cares? The Dutch voted _against_ the so-called "constitution",

MV> THAT part you got right.

Whew! I was afraid you'd try to dispute even that.

RB>> since they were given a choice and didn't have it rammed down their
RB>> throats by the politicians, as in most of the other EU countries.

MV> No, that was not the reason they rejected it.

Did I write it was? You're interprting things into my comments again.

They rejected it since they had an opportunity to do so. Others who would have
rejected it, such as the Germans, were not given this chance. That has nothing
to do with the reasons, only with the opportunity.

RB>> But in the end, the result was that everything got changed, the word
RB>> "constitution" was dropped

MV> What's in a name?

In this case, quite a lot. At least the EU bureaucrats thought so.

MV>>> How do you "pressure" the voters into voting "in favor"?

RB>> Easy. Just tell them that the EU will go to pot if they don't vote in
RB>> favor,

MV> That only works if the voters believe it. Most voters aren't stupid.

"Most voters" are not named Michiel van der Vlist ;-)

RB>> that their economy will stagnate, that everyone will become poorer

MV> Which, if true, is a very good reason to vote in favour.

You said it: "if true".

RB>> - and then maybe get a few good rock bands to endorse the "yes" vote.

MV> That is called lobbying. Nothing wrong with it.

And you talk about voters not being stupid? I was joking, Michiel, but the joke
unfortunately wasn't very good - it's too close to the truth.

RB>>  That's just normal politics, Michiel.

MV> And the problem with that is?

Nothing, as long as everyone accepts the results of a poll - and gives their
population an opportunity to say "yes" or "not" in the first place. But when
most populations are excluded from participation - which doesn't exactly
promote trust in the institutions - and those who are not get called to the
polls until the powers-that-be get the "right" answer, something's pretty
fishy.

MV> Anyway, I voted in favour. Wasn't the first time I voted against the
MV> majority and it won't be the last. I never felt "pressured" in any
MV> way.

That's you. Now let's hear from the other 16.5 million or so in NL.

MV> You have not answered the question of: "who says the EU court can not
MV> override decisions of the German constitutional court?"

Who says it can? Know of a specific case?

RB>> Once you get into inter-EU matters, you can cite EU regulations, but
RB>> within a member country, the law of the land is still the law of the
RB>> land.

MV> Yes... so far...

RB>> Why otherwise would the EU want EU Directives implemented in local
RB>> law?

MV> But what will happen if a country openly refuses to implement an EU
MV> regulation in local law? We won't know until it happens...

Actually, it has already happened in the case of the Data Retention Directive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive

The German version:

http://tinyurl.com/2v9ylma

says a bit more:

"Die Frist für die Umsetzung der Richtlinie lief gemäá Artikel 15 Absatz 1 der
Richtlinie bereits am 15. September 2007 ab. Somit hat Deutschland die Vorgaben
der EU sowie neunzehn weitere Mitgliedsstaaten nicht einhalten können. Für die
Dienste Internetzugang, Internet-Telefonie und E-Mail durfte die Umsetzung
allerdings bis längstens zum 15. März 2009 aufgeschoben werden. Hierzu ist eine
besondere Erklärung der Mitgliedsstaaten notwendig. Eine solche Erklärung haben
sechzehn der fünfundzwanzig Mitgliedsstaaten abgegeben, darunter Deutschland
und Österreich."

In other words, only 16 of the 25 EU members have thus far even _agreed_ to
implement the directive in national law - and the deadline for _implementation_
was March 15, 2009. How open must a refusal be?

I don't think things are as simple as you'd like to believe.

RB>>>> I personally think any attempt to do so would result in chaos, at
RB>>>> least in Germany.

MV>>> You are not representative for the German people.

RB>> No, but I know how they think, in contrast to you.

MV> Why would you know any better than I? They have been my neighbours for
MV> over 60 years. I was already watching German television when you were
MV> still living in the USA.

Hell, I was watching Truffaut films when I was 16, but that still doesn't make
me an expert on the French mentality. As you so often like to point out, "I
live here".

MV> As I wrote before, it is a big step from not being saddled with an
MV> almost pathological aversion against government to slavishly follow.
MV> Most Europenas I know stand somewhere in the middle. I pick on you
MV> because in my perception you are the exception. You may have a Gerrman
MV> passport, but regarding your attitude towards government, you still
MV> have the mind of a US American.

Maybe, maybe not. You'd have to know many Germans from all walks of life as
well as you know me to be sure. But you can get an idea from the reader's
comments to Der Spiegel - take a look at the comments on a politican subject,
better on several political subjects sometimes. You'll see the whole range of
opinions, from political left to political right - and sometimes quite
violently expressed.

RB>> Note the sentence above "kowtow to authority"? A good public
RB>> resistance to government and sensitivity to bad government is an
RB>> advantage in my eyes, not a disadvantage

MV> I know. And you think all government is bad. You were born and raised
MV> in the USA. Hard to shake...

You're reading things into my comments again, Michiel. I don't think, and never
did, that "all government is bad", since I'm definitely not an anarchist. I
only think it's unwise to trust government - any government - on faith or
promises alone. It's better to see what they do than to merely believe what
they say. And scepticism is always a healthy reaction when dealing with
politicians.

MV> No. I read your rants about the high taxes in Germany and your
MV> distrust of politicians.

RB>>>> ... is not universal in the EU - not even in Germany, the home of
RB>>>> docile acceptance of authority.

MV>>> Never said it was.

RB>> No, I did. I know the people.

MV> Perhaps not as good as you think. I read your rants in the German
MV> areas. And the comments from the Germans...

"The Germans"?? ;-)))))))))))))))))))

The _two_ who dump on me? One born and raised in the former DDR, and the other
automatically says "no" when I say "yes". Fido isn't the world, Michiel, not
even in Germany.

MV>>> But "we" are not saddled with that typical American allergy against
MV>>> government.

RB>> "You", not "we".

MV> "We", not "me"

You presume to speak for the 16.5 million other Dutch and the 60-some odd
million Germans, as well as the millions of other EU citizens? Brave man.

RB>> Or is there no opposition to the government in NL?

MV> Of course there is. That is what politics in a democracy is all about
MV> isn't it? Ruling parties and opposition.

MV> But you should not confuse opposition to the sitting powers with
MV> aversion to government _as such_.

You're still interpreting, Michial. "I am not, nor have I ever been a member of
the..." anarchist movement, Mr. Chairman ;-)

[The quote being a favorite of people subpoenaed to appear before the House
Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s.]

RB>> From what I read, there appears to be plenty

MV> Opposition is part and parcel of democracy. It means that differemnt
MV> people have different ideas and express them. That has nothing to do
MV> with having no faith in elected representatives or casting doubt on
MV> their integrity.

It doesn't? Apparently some of the fellow representatives haven't read that
yet.

RB>>  - some of it pretty violent.

MV> What violence?

Language issue. You're confusing "violent" (energetic, emphatic) with
"violence" (physical violence, riots).

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)