Thread: Europe's Democracy Brushed Under the Carpet?

Originally Posted by InsanityStrickenWriter

Being replaced by the vice president is wrong, but nevertheless better than being replaced by a technocrat, for at least the vice president is an elected representitive. I was peeved when Gordon Brown was allowed to take the reigns of the UK with no election- I thought it was a scandal- but at least he was a member of the Labour party that was voted to power and he himself was voted by his constituents to be an MP. When heads of states get replaced by technocrats, who have absolutely no claim to represent the people, and who are completely unaccountable to the people, it is a complete failure of democracy in all shapes and forms. How is it that all of the elected politicians of Greece and Italy are overridden in favour of technocrats?

The Vice President runs on the same card as the President, and the voters are aware that, should the President be unable to finish out his term for any reason, the Vice President steps in. Some say this is why Palin sank the last election: the more she spoke the less people wanted to consider her having a chance at full power.

So with the VP, at least voters actually voted for, with full knowledge, the person they'd want to succeed the President in time of emergency. Under no situation should a non-elected official hold power for any longer than it takes to hold an election.

Originally Posted by bazz cargo

*Devil's Advocate*
Despite the right to vote, the UK has never been a democracy. The state has always been a puppet worked by the powers that be. Until we get a political party that is interested in standing for one term, fixing what needs fixing and getting out before the vested interests get a hold of enough dirt, or work out the way to bribe the Government, we shall be at the whim of the rich.

You will never get a person, or group, that will "fix things", then leave. Not in the UK. Not in Egypt. Not in Myanmar. Nowhere.

It's a fantasy, a lie people tell themselves. In the heyday of Stalin's USSR, they had a "five year plan" every four years. By year four, it was obvious that the "plan" was failing. So, they just start a new plan. Oh, and Communist Russia had elections, too.

And we will always be "at the whim of the rich". The problem now is, from Brussels, to London, to Washington DC, the rich have moved in. Our public servants do THEIR bidding, then (eventually) leave and get nice jobs from their corporate masters.

Now, I know that this is 'crazy tea-bagger' talk, but the answer is to get the money out of government. This crony capitalism is s4it. Let Airbus and Boeing fight it out on a level playing field, without all this "assistance". The Chinese are kicking everyone's butt in solar panel production. The US subsidized hundreds of millions to it's 'favored' solar companies. To say the least, that didn't work out well.

It's been said that money is the mother's milk of politics. The "baby" is now a toddler, with teeth, tearing at the teat. Time for weaning.

It's been said that money is the mother's milk of politics. The "baby" is now a toddler, with teeth, tearing at the teat. Time for weaning.

Revolution?

Originally Posted by Winston

It's been said that money is the mother's milk of politics.

Interesting you say that given the front page of Sunday's (11/20/2011) Milwaukee Journal.

From local roots, Bradley Foundation builds conservative empire - JSOnline

Less than a week after being elected governor, Scott Walker and his wife met privately with one of the most powerful philanthropic forces behind America's conservative movement.

It wasn't the Koch brothers - the bogeymen for the American left.

On Nov. 8, 2010, the Walkers broke bread at the upscale Bacchus restaurant in the Cudahy Tower with the board and senior staff of the Milwaukee-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

With more than $600 million in assets, the Bradley Foundation provides a cornerstone for the conservative movement in Wisconsin and across America. It has been the financial backer behind public policy experiments that started in the state and spread across the nation - including welfare reform, public vouchers for private schools and, this year, cutbacks in public employee benefits and collective bargaining.

Yet outside conservative circles, the foundation has kept a low profile. It receives a fraction of the attention given the billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch and the Scaife family.

But the Bradley Foundation is in a different league: From 2001 to 2009, it doled out nearly as much money as the seven Koch and Scaife foundations combined.

The Bradley Foundation also has a massive impact on local art and culture in Milwaukee, giving millions of dollars to prized assets such as the orchestra and art museum.

Allen-Bradley roots

The foundation's history is rooted in old Milwaukee.

The Bradley brothers, high school dropouts, helped found an industrial colossus, the Allen-Bradley Co. They built a fortune manufacturing electrical controls. Lynde Bradley died in 1942. Harry Bradley, a fierce anti-communist and a supporter of the right-wing John Birch Society, died in 1965.

What's wrong with being rich and wielding influence socially, politically, or otherwise?

I ask that question while not agreeing with every politically conservative cause. Regardless of the Bradley Foundation and other conservative lobbying foundations and money interests, I could really care less about legalizing polygamy for Mormons and others, or legalizing gay marriage. That's not to say I don't understand (tradition and or social and moral view) the view certain conservative interest groups might have in their objection. Does not mean I have to agree with it.

It's better to be rich than poor. My view. It's better to have 5 wives then no wife or girlfriend at all. I have no car but there are many Americans and citizens of the United Kingdom that do have cars. We can get to "playa hating" and envying everything more another might have then us. Nothing is ever distributed equally.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

What's wrong with being rich and wielding influence socially, politically, or otherwise?

In a word, nothing.

The problem arises when the rich stop concentrating on making wealth, but focus on lobbying pols instead.

I lean heavy libertarian in some areas. The US First Amendment is one of those. Yet, we have substituted "money" for "speech" just a bit too freely, and the poor results can be worldwide.
I personally can't blame any business for angling for whatever advantage they can get. Statistically, you probably own stock in a company (over 60% of Americans have a IRA with mutual funds). As such, it is your right to expect the company you invested in to return as much money to you as they can. To do less would be fiscal malpractice.
The same goes for any "special interest group". As a member, you have the expectation that that group will bring your message to government, so it can be heard.

They are not the problem. The politicians are.

Nothing else has worked. Time for term limits. Balanced budget amendment. Anything. These money junkies will shake down anything and anyone in sight, to fund their next election. Limits on donations? You Bet! Politicians do nothing, "fix' nothing because they have no incentive to do so.
Here's an idea: Make these sleazy, lazy technocrat bums PERFORM. Set up some kind of citizen-review council to place performance goals on every political position. BAN the formation of unaccountable 'departments' and 'czars' that these snakes use to shift blame.
If they don't meet their goals the first year (of a four year term), the results are published and the pol is embarrassed. Two years of unsatisfactory performance triggers an automatic recall election where the pol can be challenged, and removed. No more one year of work, three years of fundraising. WE pay their salary. THEY work for us. 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. Golf on your own time.

Crazy? Maybe. But we need to do something to get these do-nothing leeches out of government. Last time I looked, in the US alone there were millions of folks looking for a job. Most of them could probably do better.

Crazy? Maybe. But we need to do something to get these do-nothing leeches out of government. Last time I looked, in the US alone there were millions of folks looking for a job. Most of them could probably do better.

Over here we suffer the same problem. There are honest politicians, but they are squeezed into impotence by the fat cats.

Money owns the media. Money has a massive leverage on government. Money is only interested in making more money. It will bankrupt countries, starve children, wage war on those it cannot subvert.

A one term party might not work, but it is worth a shot. Stealing votes off the established parties is about the only thing that will make them wake up and do something.

Originally Posted by bazz cargo

Over here we suffer the same problem. There are honest politicians, but they are squeezed into impotence by fat cats..
...A one term party might not work, but it is worth a shot. Stealing votes off the established parties is about the only thing that will make them wake up and do something.

Morally weak people, including politicians, are not swayed by the volume of money. If you sell your soul for a pence, is a pound so much worse? The problem is they are weak. There needs to be a way to identify and remove those that compromise their values, and those of their constituents.
They lie, and try to persuade us that they are special, and cannot be replaced by "just anyone". So, we have to put up with their lack of courage. I say not.

The problem is that whole "third party" thing never works. If it's small, it's used by one side to siphon votes from the other. If the alternate party grows larger, it's core is assaulted by the other parties, and its effectively neutered and absorbed.

Politicians are power junkies. They live in a fantasy world, where they use their super-human abilities to protect all us dumb citizens from ourselves. They just need a wake-up, pure and simple.

They just need a wake-up, pure and simple.

Wake up! Or we will steal your votes and put you out of power.

There are things we need the government to do, but there are things we can do for ourselves, collectively, cooperatively. In fact there are things we need to do that the government should be kept far away from.

We can argue until we're blue in the face over whether assorted countries around Europe are/are not as democratic as they claim to be, but at the end of the day the Italians and Greeks still had their elected governments replaced and political systems overhauled by no-name non-entities at the behest of unelected outside influences (the 'troika' - ECB, IMF, EU).

That is hardly what you could call 'rule by the people.' Ergo, it's not democratic.

It strikes me how little Americans (usually its most vocal supporters) actually know about the workings of the European Union. For a nation that prides itself on democracy, they really ought to be outraged by the EU's conduct in recent years. Ignoring or repeating referendums, paying off senior legislators with 'pensions' which have a 'loyalty clause' attached, its entirely unelected executive which has sole right to pass and repeal law and the ability to override elected parliaments, the European Arrest Warrant, I could go on. Democracy doesn't get past the foyer in any European Union building, so why do democrats support it?

Originally Posted by Gallowglass

We can argue until we're blue in the face over whether assorted countries around Europe are/are not as democratic as they claim to be, but at the end of the day the Italians and Greeks still had their elected governments replaced and political systems overhauled by no-name non-entities at the behest of unelected outside influences (the 'troika' - ECB, IMF, EU).

That is hardly what you could call 'rule by the people.' Ergo, it's not democratic.

It strikes me how little Americans (usually its most vocal supporters) actually know about the workings of the European Union. For a nation that prides itself on democracy, they really ought to be outraged by the EU's conduct in recent years. Ignoring or repeating referendums, paying off senior legislators with 'pensions' which have a 'loyalty clause' attached, its entirely unelected executive which has sole right to pass and repeal law and the ability to override elected parliaments, the European Arrest Warrant, I could go on. Democracy doesn't get past the foyer in any European Union building, so why do democrats support it?

So what's the alternative? The EU puts up a "your economy must be this tall to ride" sign and kick out any country that falls below the line? How do you think Italy would do if they let their people decide the upcoming economic situation?

As an individual, if I claim bankruptcy I lose sovereign control over my finances. It's very much put in the hands of the banks and lawyers and everything gets sorted out. Once that's done I have a roadmap to return to full control of my situation. Why this would be any different at a country level is beyond me. Italy needs external help, and external stewardship attached to that help, if they want to regain financial sanity, and with it control. The same goes for any country that falls that deep into dept with no hope of return.

Originally Posted by Capulet

So what's the alternative? The EU puts up a "your economy must be this tall to ride" sign and kick out any country that falls below the line? How do you think Italy would do if they let their people decide the upcoming economic situation?

As an individual, if I claim bankruptcy I lose sovereign control over my finances. It's very much put in the hands of the banks and lawyers and everything gets sorted out. Once that's done I have a roadmap to return to full control of my situation. Why this would be any different at a country level is beyond me. Italy needs external help, and external stewardship attached to that help, if they want to regain financial sanity, and with it control. The same goes for any country that falls that deep into dept with no hope of return.

His last paragraph was relevant regardless of the financial side. But on the financial side itself, I would answer your first question 'yes'. It's in large part because unsuitable economies were admitted that this problem has arised, and the short-term aside there is a fundamental crisis in competitiveness between economies. Countries in the south are simply not competitive now that they're trapped in a currency union with Germany and the rest of the north. The only way to address the competitiveness is: a) Huge subsidies from north to south and the merging of financial governance, (unacceptable to voting public, though it could be argued that this is already happening), b) the re-introduction of the pre-Euro currencies, or c) either the north or the south must drop out of the euro to allow it to function for the other half.

From the introduction to Clive James' book of essays, The Revolt of the Pendulum first published by Pan Macmillan in 2010:

This is the balance which obtains in the three leading English- speaking democracies, the US, the UK and Australia, and we usually measure the other English-speaking democracies, and all the non- English-speaking democracies, by the extent to which they come near equalling it, or at least aspire to. There may be more than two main parties, but if there are fewer than two, namely one, then we are usually talking about an elected dictatorship which won’t be liberal, and will be democratic only in the sense that the people periodically get a chance to re-elect their oppressor. A free liberal democracy in its full sense is governed by the pendulum. It might fall short of the principles of justice enunciated by John Rawls in his Theory of Justice, but if its government can be changed at the whim of the people then it fulfils the minimum requirement of a liberal democracy set by Karl Popper in his years of exile to faraway New Zealand, an open society where he was free to consider how human liberty could best hold its enemies at bay. ©Clive James | 2009

Unfortunately, the UK has gone the way of many other states and changed to fixed term government which makes it more difficult to chuck out a bad one. Add to this the fact that the EU is run by unelected bureaucrats who have absolutely no interest in democratic institutions, they get in the way of enlarging the bureaucracy, which is, after all, the prime purpose of any publicly funded organisation - The function of bean counters is to create more beans to count...