German Elections 2017

Stanley Road said:
We should start listening to the people, Schultz said at a recent eu meeting.

Then went to Wallonia to tell them to fall into place.
Click to expand...
The right wing is just the right wing, you know they will try to make the rich richer. The real danger are these neoliberal globalizerrs who pose as left wing and fool generation snowflake with a progressive social agenda government has little to do with, while serving the banks and other big businesses. Tony Blair was just one of the first, we know what Obama did, and Schulz has shown nothing but contempt for democracy while he was in the EU. This is a dangerous man.
 
JuveGER said:
Here is one of them!
Click to expand...
Well thats really unfair on Stanley now, moving abroad doesn't mean that he's a globalizer, after all he's still a proud Englishman (Not British tho that's an important difference!). His support for everything that opposes the EU also leads to huge improvements for the little men, as we can see in the UK with the generous Tories and the fact that he wants countries to waste 2% on the defence are great examples of how he opposes neoliberalism!
 
Dr. Funkenstein said:
The right wing is just the right wing, you know they will try to make the rich richer. The real danger are these neoliberal globalizerrs who pose as left wing and fool generation snowflake with a progressive social agenda government has little to do with, while serving the banks and other big businesses. Tony Blair was just one of the first, we know what Obama did, and Schulz has shown nothing but contempt for democracy while he was in the EU. This is a dangerous man.
Click to expand...
Yeah, particularly when he pushed for giving democratically elected MEPs a louder voice and more impact. A crystal clear sign for his utter contempt for democracy.
 


Has this leap really just come from having a credible leader?
 
Kasper said:
Well thats really unfair on Stanley now, moving abroad doesn't mean that he's a globalizer, after all he's still a proud Englishman (Not British tho that's an important difference!). His support for everything that opposes the EU also leads to huge improvements for the little men, as we can see in the UK with the generous Tories and the fact that he wants countries to waste 2% on the defence are great examples of how he opposes neoliberalism!
Click to expand...

I didn't sign up to 2%. Thats the agreement no one is sticking to bar a few.
 
Ubik said:


Has this leap really just come from having a credible leader?
Click to expand...

IMO that's too simplistic and I'm not sure if 'credible' is the correct word. The relief that Gabriel isn't running is palpable but it's also that Schulz is a new kid on the block in the Berlin world of politics, although he's been on the SPD's council forever, his name isn't so connected to the labor market reforms (Agenda 2010) and finally he speaks very blunt and in-your-face, i.e. against populists like AfD or 45, what is a refreshing contrast to Merkel who neither has this temperament nor could she without causing a diplomatic crisis.
 
Crossie said:
Yeah, particularly when he pushed for giving democratically elected MEPs a louder voice and more impact. A crystal clear sign for his utter contempt for democracy.
Click to expand...
I'm just not buying into this cargo cult democracy. We have the campaign, the voting boots and the talkings heads in a parliament, so we must have democracy. Wtf is 'a louder voice' for an MEUP? In which democratic concept is it about loudness and 'more impact'?

In my concept of democracy, the people who are ruled by the law can vote in and vote out the people who make the law. The EU made sure that isn't the case. Therefore, in a democracy, the outcome of the election can make a difference in how the people are rule, the EU made sure that isn't the case. In a democracy, there's the rule of law, in the EU that isn't the case. That's the EU Martin Schulz has worked on for years and that's the EU he's defending by all antidemocratic means.

Kasper said:
Who are his favorites?
Click to expand...
@fcbforever doesn't care, he probably just wants to put me in a category and use it as an excuse not to pay attention to arguments about democracy and the right wing nature of the EU. His next move would probably be to point out the undemocratic history of Die Linke, no matter how irrelevant to the antidemocratic nature of the EU.

I'm opposed to crony-capitalism, that puts me in the left wing these days. I'm a democrat, that makes me a radical these days, that sums up current politics nicely.
 
Dr. Funkenstein said:
I'm just not buying into this cargo cult democracy. We have the campaign, the voting boots and the talkings heads in a parliament, so we must have democracy. Wtf is 'a louder voice' for an MEUP? In which democratic concept is it about loudness and 'more impact'?

In my concept of democracy, the people who are ruled by the law can vote in and vote out the people who make the law. The EU made sure that isn't the case. Therefore, in a democracy, the outcome of the election can make a difference in how the people are rule, the EU made sure that isn't the case. In a democracy, there's the rule of law, in the EU that isn't the case. That's the EU Martin Schulz has worked on for years and that's the EU he's defending by all antidemocratic means.


@fcbforever doesn't care, he probably just wants to put me in a category and use it as an excuse not to pay attention to arguments about democracy and the right wing nature of the EU. His next move would probably be to point out the undemocratic history of Die Linke, no matter how irrelevant to the antidemocratic nature of the EU.

I'm opposed to crony-capitalism, that puts me in the left wing these days. I'm a democrat, that makes me a radical these days, that sums up current politics nicely.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I really don't care about "Die Linke". I'm glad some of them are showing their true face during this election, so afraid of the AfD they are drifting into nationalism as well. It's great. And nah, the SED history doesn't matter all that much to me (keeping despicable people like Gysi around for 25 years? Yeah, that does matter).
Do you know who the best partner for "Die Linke" would be after the next election? If you compare the points, it's probably the AfD.


But you coming in here, blabbing about how Schulz is anti-democratic without any arguments, without ...anything really. What am I supposed to do with this?
Other than having a slight laugh because I'm pretty sure that you have drifted into nationalism just as your party did.
 
Dr. Funkenstein said:
I'm just not buying into this cargo cult democracy. We have the campaign, the voting boots and the talkings heads in a parliament, so we must have democracy. Wtf is 'a louder voice' for an MEUP? In which democratic concept is it about loudness and 'more impact'?

In my concept of democracy, the people who are ruled by the law can vote in and vote out the people who make the law. The EU made sure that isn't the case. Therefore, in a democracy, the outcome of the election can make a difference in how the people are rule, the EU made sure that isn't the case. In a democracy, there's the rule of law, in the EU that isn't the case. That's the EU Martin Schulz has worked on for years and that's the EU he's defending by all antidemocratic means.
Click to expand...
Sweet. You do vote for people in the EU parliament and in your national parliament. But yeah, that's very undemocratic, obviously.
 
fcbforever said:
Yeah, I really don't care about "Die Linke". I'm glad some of them are showing their true face during this election, so afraid of the AfD they are drifting into nationalism as well. It's great. And nah, the SED history doesn't matter all that much to me (keeping despicable people like Gysi around for 25 years? Yeah, that does matter).
Do you know who the best partner for "Die Linke" would be after the next election? If you compare the points, it's probably the AfD.


But you coming in here, blabbing about how Schulz is anti-democratic without any arguments, without ...anything really. What am I supposed to do with this?
Other than having a slight laugh because I'm pretty sure that you have drifted into nationalism just as your party did.
Click to expand...
I already noticed your urgency to label me, you really didn't need to confirm that. If your interest in politics exceeded labeling you could have observed the democratic nature of Schulz's behaviour and who's interests he has served. This is a man who has fought hard for the right of multination corporations to challenge decisions of democratic governments in their own courts, behind closed doors, over the right of national parlements to protect their citizens from a ridiculous antidemocratic treaty like that. That's just one example.

I'm much more a Europanist than a nationalist, allthough every kind of administration needs a specified territory for policies to take effect. But for Europe to be strong the European cooperation needs popular support, the EU is already weaker because of the lack of popular support by the simple fact that the UK is out. I've never met a European who's opposed to a strong Europe with lots of cooperation and integration, I've met plenty who hate the EU for it's policies. A European Union that does a proper job should and would have 90% popular support in any member state. I want a EU constitution, and this time a real one, and I want European elections for a EU-parliament, but the next time real ones, not national elections for national members for a parlement that isn't a legislative body. Because that's the only way Europe can be strong enough to face the world's issues.

Crossie said:
Sweet. You do vote for people in the EU parliament and in your national parliament. But yeah, that's very undemocratic, obviously.
Click to expand...
Cargo cult democrat wasn't a compliment. I compared you to primitive Tuvaluans who mimicked the 'rituals' preceeding the landing of cargo plains in the past to expect more cargo plains arriving. There's no need for you to confirm the correctness of this comparison.
 
fcbforever said:
Yeah, I really don't care about "Die Linke". I'm glad some of them are showing their true face during this election, so afraid of the AfD they are drifting into nationalism as well. It's great. And nah, the SED history doesn't matter all that much to me (keeping despicable people like Gysi around for 25 years? Yeah, that does matter).
Do you know who the best partner for "Die Linke" would be after the next election? If you compare the points, it's probably the AfD.
Click to expand...
Ah you're still riding the Linke as bad as AfD train because of some Wagenknecht quotes (Who got repeatedly called out from within her own party btw)? Thanks to the federal states that have Die Linke or the Greens in government, Tunisia, Algeria and Marocco haven't been declared as "sichere Herkunftsländer". That's a bit strange, as I thought they're the ones hating against refugees yet your SPD were the ones pushing the policy.
But it's telling that with the first boost in polls in ages the SPD instantly becomes arrogant and dismissive, I wouldn't be so sure about the Left not being near goverment in the end, they might be the ones just edging it for you.

Dr. Funkenstein said:
I already noticed your urgency to label me, you really didn't need to confirm that. If your interest in politics exceeded labeling you could have observed the democratic nature of Schulz's behaviour and who's interests he has served. This is a man who has fought hard for the right of multination corporations to challenge decisions of democratic governments in their own courts, behind closed doors, over the right of national parlements to protect their citizens from a ridiculous antidemocratic treaty like that. That's just one example.

I'm much more a Europanist than a nationalist, allthough every kind of administration needs a specified territory for policies to take effect. But for Europe to be strong the European cooperation needs popular support, the EU is already weaker because of the lack of popular support by the simple fact that the UK is out. I've never met a European who's opposed to a strong Europe with lots of cooperation and integration, I've met plenty who hate the EU for it's policies. A European Union that does a proper job should and would have 90% popular support in any member state. I want a EU constitution, and this time a real one, and I want European elections for a EU-parliament, but the next time real ones, not national elections for national members for a parlement that isn't a legislative body. Because that's the only way Europe can be strong enough to face the world's issues.


Cargo cult democrat wasn't a compliment. I compared you to primitive Tuvaluans who mimicked the 'rituals' preceeding the landing of cargo plains in the past to expect more cargo plains arriving. There's no need for you to confirm the correctness of this comparison.
Click to expand...

Good post, no surprise that no one responded anymore. I disagree about the aspect that the parliament isn't a legislative body, for me it is although not strong enough.
 
Kasper said:
Good post, no surprise that no one responded anymore. I disagree about the aspect that the parliament isn't a legislative body, for me it is although not strong enough.
Click to expand...
Without the right of initiative, the parliament can only choose between the legislation proposed by the commission or no legislation at all. That gives the commission more power and leads to the rather absurd situation that often a compromise between the parliament and the commission has to be achieved, and the parliament has to be satisfied with that and is even often proud the parliament got a bit of what they want. In a democracy the elected should always be the boss over the unelected, compromises should be found inside the parliament.
 
Do you really think, that European voters would support transferring substantial sovereignty rights (e.g. common budget, taxation, social system) to the EU parliament? I want to see the party that runs a campaign on this promise.
 
PedroMendez said:
Do you really think, that European voters would support transferring substantial sovereignty rights (e.g. common budget, taxation, social system) to the EU parliament? I want to see the party that runs a campaign on this promise.
Click to expand...
That has already happened without the voter's support and without any part campaiging for that, but that's not the question. The question is why not have European elections for a European parliament as the main legislative body for a EU with it's current rights and powers. The EU is just a level of administration, just as national administration and municipal administration are, they all have their own powers limited by the other levels. Municipal inhabitants vote for their local councils, nationals vote for their national parliaments, but Europeans can't vote for a European parliament. The EU wants denationalization on about every subject, but when it comes to voting we can only vote for our compatriots, why? It just doesn't make sense in a democracy.

Of course the EU needs a constitution, to limit powers of the different administrative bodies towards eachother, but also towards the national governments and the citizens. That's what constitutions do, and that's why the 2005 constitution/Lisbon treaty didn't qualify as a constitution, that was just a lot of BS to hide it didn't limit powers. It was designed to leave all the room for the EU dynamics where every crisis has to be solved by transferring powers from national government to the EU, effectively taking away powers from underneath democratic control and bringing it to people who aren't elected and aren't under effective democratic control. So that's what happening in a continuous process.

If the EU would become democratic, there is no reason to assume that almost all MEPs would be in favour of further transfers of power like the knee jerk reaction they have now. Maybe some powers would go back to national governments, others would move the other way, because they are not divided in a sensible way now. An EU that is forced by democracy to work for the people might that get a lot of support from the people and made stronger by the people, why not?
 
I misunderstood your argument. My bad.
The answer: Countries still want to maintain veto-powers. The voting procedure in the Council of Ministers are precisely created in a way that allows certain minorities to block legislation (e.g. France+Spain+Italy vs UK+Germany+NE+Belgium+Denmark). Almost no country would want to get rid of that.
 
Dr. Funkenstein said:
Without the right of initiative, the parliament can only choose between the legislation proposed by the commission or no legislation at all. That gives the commission more power and leads to the rather absurd situation that often a compromise between the parliament and the commission has to be achieved, and the parliament has to be satisfied with that and is even often proud the parliament got a bit of what they want. In a democracy the elected should always be the boss over the unelected, compromises should be found inside the parliament.
Click to expand...
I agree but it's still a legislative body. With Art.225 they also can demand the comission to initiative. That's not enough but not nothing.
 
PedroMendez said:
I misunderstood your argument. My bad.
The answer: Countries still want to maintain veto-powers. The voting procedure in the Council of Ministers are precisely created in a way that allows certain minorities to block legislation (e.g. France+Spain+Italy vs UK+Germany+NE+Belgium+Denmark). Almost no country would want to get rid of that.
Click to expand...
That doesn't really matter, member states can still have veto rights when the EP is elected in European elections by the Europeans and the EU starts working for it's citizens instead of for corporate interests.

Kasper said:
I agree but it's still a legislative body. With Art.225 they also can demand the comission to initiative. That's not enough but not nothing.
Click to expand...
True but I don't think it's very relevant. When it comes to the EU there is this idea that is promoted that there's some scale of democracy in this system and every little step that makes it more democratic is something to cheer about. Besides the fact that I don't see a reason why we should have to repeat developments in the right direction from the 19th and early 20th cenury after we've already had democracy, that idea is false. A system is democratic or undemocratic. If it's undemocratic it's wrong, if it's democratic it might have flaws that have to be adressed, it's still a democratic system. The EU system is undemocratic and rights of parliament to urge the executive branche are just confirming that the system is undemocratic, because in a democratic system the elected are in power and don't have to urge/beg the unelected. They order them.
 
Dr. Funkenstein said:
That doesn't really matter, member states can still have veto rights when the EP is elected in European elections by the Europeans and the EU starts working for it's citizens instead of for corporate interests.
Click to expand...

It does matter, because an empowered parliament would clash with various veto privileges. We still have this form of decision making, because even in these areas, where the EU can make decisions, nation-states want to maintain a certain level of influence that would be lost otherwise.

I also don’t understand how European-wide elections for the EU parliament would change anything. It would be fairly inconsequential and certainly not the difference between a “EU that works for corporate interests” and one that works for the people. Lobbyists would just influence other decision-makers when the balance of power shifts, but I don’t agree with your assessment, that we currently have an “EU that works for corporate interests” in the first place. We have an extremely centralized and elitist EU, but its bureaucratic and political elites, not corporate ones, who shape decisions. But even if you disagree with that: Changing the election-modus for parliament won’t change that one way or the other.

The problem of the EU is that there is no European populus and that would be needed for deeper integration. European elites still think, that they can continue to advance integration and “the attitude of the people will change accordingly afterwards.” That was true till the 1990s, but we are approaching the point where a significant part of Europeans would rather burn the whole thing down, if the the only alternative is deeper integration. Different forms of elections won’t change that.
 
I am sure @Fener1907 will love it. Apparently the new line of attack against Schulz is, that he supported the position, that Turkey can and should join the EU. :wenger: Talk about desperation, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it works.
 
Dr. Funkenstein said:
That has already happened without the voter's support and without any part campaiging for that, but that's not the question. The question is why not have European elections for a European parliament as the main legislative body for a EU with it's current rights and powers. The EU is just a level of administration, just as national administration and municipal administration are, they all have their own powers limited by the other levels. Municipal inhabitants vote for their local councils, nationals vote for their national parliaments, but Europeans can't vote for a European parliament. The EU wants denationalization on about every subject, but when it comes to voting we can only vote for our compatriots, why? It just doesn't make sense in a democracy.

Of course the EU needs a constitution, to limit powers of the different administrative bodies towards eachother, but also towards the national governments and the citizens. That's what constitutions do, and that's why the 2005 constitution/Lisbon treaty didn't qualify as a constitution, that was just a lot of BS to hide it didn't limit powers. It was designed to leave all the room for the EU dynamics where every crisis has to be solved by transferring powers from national government to the EU, effectively taking away powers from underneath democratic control and bringing it to people who aren't elected and aren't under effective democratic control. So that's what happening in a continuous process.

If the EU would become democratic, there is no reason to assume that almost all MEPs would be in favour of further transfers of power like the knee jerk reaction they have now. Maybe some powers would go back to national governments, others would move the other way, because they are not divided in a sensible way now. An EU that is forced by democracy to work for the people might that get a lot of support from the people and made stronger by the people, why not?
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, we have European elections for the European parliament.
What the heck are you even on about?
 
fcbforever said:
Funnily enough, we have European elections for the European parliament.
What the heck are you even on about?
Click to expand...
That's not what he meant, here's a detailed overview on this argument about a democratic deficit in the EU from Follesdal ("Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik" 2006)
Third, despite the growing power of the European Parliament, there are no ‘European’ elections. EU citizens elect their governments, who sit in the Council and nominate Commissioners. EU citizens also elect the European Parliament. However, neither national elections nor European Parliament elections are really ‘European’ elections: they are not about the personalities and parties at the European level or the direction of the EU policy agenda. National elections are fought on domestic rather than European issues, and parties collude to keep the issue of Europe off the domestic agenda (Hix, 1999; Marks et al., 2002). European Parliament elections are also not about Europe, as parties and the media treat them as mid-term national contests. Protest votes against parties in government and steadily declining participation in European elections indicate that Reif and Schmitt’s famous description of the first European Parliament elections – as ‘second-order national contests’ – is as true of the sixth European elections in June 2004 as it was of the first elections in 1979 (Reif and Schmitt, 1980; van der Eijk and Franklin, 1996; Marsh, 1998). Blondel, et al. (1998) provide some evidence that at the individual level participation in European elections is related to citizens’ attitudes towards the EU. However, this effect is substantively very small, and more recent research has shown that, if anything, the main second-order effects of European elections – whereby governing parties and large parties lose while opposition and small parties win irrespective of these parties’ EU policies – have increased rather than decreased (Mattila, 2003; Kousser, 2004; Hix and Marsh, 2005).
The absence of a ‘European’ element in national and European elections means that EU citizens’ preferences on issues on the EU policy agenda at best have only an indirect influence on EU policy outcomes. In comparison, if the EU were a system with a genuine electoral contest to determine the make-up of ‘government’ at the European level, the outcome of this election would have a direct influence on what EU ‘leaders’ do, and whether they can continue to do these things or are forced to change the direction of policy.
Click to expand...
 
fcbforever said:
Funnily enough, we have European elections for the European parliament.
What the heck are you even on about?
Click to expand...
Read what I wrote and you'd know. I can only vote for people from the Netherlands who are registered as candidate in the Netherlands for seats in a parliament that are exclusively for the Netherlands. What's European about elections like that? I'd call that national elections, and the fact that there are other national elections in other European countries on the same day doesn't make it European. Why are you calling it European elections? Just because someone told you they were European elections?
 
Kasper said:
That's not what he meant, here's a detailed overview on this argument about a democratic deficit in the EU from Follesdal ("Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik" 2006)
Click to expand...

Dr. Funkenstein said:
Read what I wrote and you'd know. I can only vote for people from the Netherlands who are registered as candidate in the Netherlands for seats in a parliament that are exclusively for the Netherlands. What's European about elections like that? I'd call that national elections, and the fact that there are other national elections in other European countries on the same day doesn't make it European. Why are you calling it European elections? Just because someone told you they were European elections?
Click to expand...

I know the former text and disagree heavily with it and your position.
You are butthurt about technicalities, while in reality, there just wouldn't be huge difference other than the bigger members getting more powerful.
That's also why nobody wants it, neither in the parliament itself nor in the population.

By that standard btw, the British election isn't a "british" election either. It's that stupid.
 
fcbforever said:
I know the former text and disagree heavily with it and your position.
You are butthurt about technicalities, while in reality, there just wouldn't be huge difference other than the bigger members getting more powerful.
That's also why nobody wants it, neither in the parliament itself nor in the population.
Click to expand...
If you want to know what the population want you'll have the hold free elections.

By that standard btw, the British election isn't a "british" election either. It's that stupid.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of the winner takes it all system, but it has two advantages: It brings local representation, keeping voters and elected close, and it leads to a 2 or 3 party system, that gives a lot of power to effectively change things after an election.

The EP system is a mixture of two systems, with a few improvisations, that makes sure the outcome of the election won't change much. That makes it antidemocratic.
 
Dr. Funkenstein said:
If you want to know what the population want you'll have the hold free elections.


I'm not a fan of the winner takes it all system, but it has two advantages: It brings local representation, keeping voters and elected close, and it leads to a 2 or 3 party system, that gives a lot of power to effectively change things after an election.

The EP system is a mixture of two systems, with a few improvisations, that makes sure the outcome of the election won't change much. That makes it antidemocratic.
Click to expand...
The latter is your opinion. It's not a very popular one and you won't find many supporting it.
 
Dr. Funkenstein said:
That's not really an argument for people who can think for themselves.
Click to expand...
It's not meant as an argument, I won't convince you anyway. This is more about a feeling than any actual science, if you have looked at the system and that's how you fell about that, no one but yourself can change that.
I strongly disagree, I think transaional elections are neither really possible, nor desirable or superior to what we currently have and I know I'm part of the vast majority.
I'm fine with that, I'm fine with what you think. No point to have an argument.
 
PedroMendez said:
I am sure @Fener1907 will love it. Apparently the new line of attack against Schulz is, that he supported the position, that Turkey can and should join the EU. :wenger: Talk about desperation, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it works.
Click to expand...

He supported which country?! Disgusting. There'll be kebab shops on every corner before we know it. Wait...
 
fcbforever said:
It's not meant as an argument, I won't convince you anyway.
Click to expand...
So that makes one attempt to label me, and a poor one, one remark that reveals you didn't read what I wrote, and zero arguments. Thanks for your contribution.
 
@fcbforever

Are you right now in Berlin at the SPD convention? 'Hannelörken' Kraft is in full election campaign swing. :D According to her, 13,000 new party members since this January - that's impressive.
 
Crossie said:
@fcbforever

Are you right now in Berlin at the SPD convention? 'Hannelörken' Kraft is in full election campaign swing. :D According to her, 13,000 new party members since this January - that's impressive.
Click to expand...

I'm not, but friends are. I'm a bit tired of those conventions and meetings, they just go nowhere. I was once integrated in that circle that just visits every single one of them, but there's not much you get from those apart from fine vines and good catering. Also, I'm campaining in NRW ;) (not for myself of course)
The numbers are true though. It's astonishing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.