Margot Responds at Last
For the first time Margot Wallström has at last responded to some of the points we have been making on her Blog over the past few months:
Ok, let‘s talk about democracy: are you saying that democracy can only exist at nation state level? That a “demos“ can only be defined within national borders? To me this is outdated. And over time the definition of democracy has changed. Democracy in ancient Greece did not include women and slaves for example. (and by the way : did you know that the word “idiot“ was the Greek name for those (men) who did not use their vote in the “agora†– the public meeting place ?) The three most important differences between antique and modern democracy are that today we apply universal suffrage, representative systems and tolerance for the minority. The biggest challenges remain the same : ignorance and passivity.
You ask what would make me a Eurosceptic. Some of you call yourselves eurosceptics – but are you? Outright negative would be more appropriate in some cases. I am sceptical/negative towards bureaucracy and elitism and pompous people but I can also acknowledge the positive historical role – and I see a future role – of this European construction of cooperation. With all its successes and shortcomings (as with most human endeavours) it is still something worth fighting for and struggling to improve. I think that nationalism is a very dangerous phenomenon and offers no solutions to today‘s problems that travel across borders. In a globalised world States can no longer always act alone to solve problems. This is a challenge for democracy. The problem is not the integrated global economy; the problem is the lack of integrated global governance. Our institutions and political systems are still mainly national and not adapted to tackle the new circumstances. Global economic forces are a tremendous powerhouse of energy but it is up to global democratic politics to harness that energy and channel those market forces. Some of you think the EU should be just a free trade area. I disagree.I could say a lot more but I will leave it for another day.
There are many things wrong with this view of democracy, not least of which is the Commissioner herself has no democratic mandate from the peoples of Europe to represent them in any way.
There are many comments arguing against the Commissioners view, but one pithy comment say all that needs to be said on the subject of democracy and the EU.
Margot:
Go away and get elected, then come back and try and tell us what to do. Until then: Get lost
It is easily possible for democracy to exist at the supranational level. I am sure Chinese communists would love to invite some of these Euro skeptics to their nation to explain they should not become a democracy. Perhaps India should get rid of itls own government the Indians would be delignted to hear they are not really a democracy. I cannot understand why Euroskeptics put forward such utter drivel about democracy only being able to exist if you have the same language, nationality, race, hair colour, eye colour, accent, class, religion, opinions on every subject. In other words you can only be democracy if you have a nation of one. The population of Amercia is hunderds of millions. Why can’t the EU be a democracy. India is a democracy with huge numbers of laungages, and A BILLION people. Why on earth can we not have democracy in the EU, and don’t give me some drivel about how the state is too unaccoutbale that is just as likely as in a local council.
It is ironic that many Euro skeptics feel pride at their nations old undemocratic empires but claim a democractic state of the same size and same number of cultures is not possible. Ofcourse some issues can be contorlled more locally, But many issues such as currency, trade standards for safety, health, and workers rights, make more sense being decided by a democratically elected European or even world parliament. I think we should have basic rights decided by democratically elected leaders, so corporations cannot exploit us by playing nations of against eachother fo basic rights. The euro skeptics fail to remind us of the house of lords the European monarchies, or nations like Monaco, liechteinstein, which are not part of the EU but are not democracies. This democracty argument is a red herring to hide the cause of the skeptiocs bogoted bigorty to the EU. Tell me euroskeptics how much of a monculture, do you have to one state. Tell the head of the UK civil service to get elected, and then spout out this drivel. The EU has got some politcally appointed officials fo govern policy, so what so does Americia. Who appiointed out chancellor, who appointed our defence secretery. The EU parlimanet can remove the EU commission so ignore that fact, and carry on alolowing the UKIP to collect money from Americian nAZIs.
Why don’t you tell off he house of lords for being unelcted Why Why Why Why Why Why Why Why Why Why Why Why
Why do you not try to learn a little bit about democracy? It does not mean that all parts of the system need to be elected. Pray why are not the house of Lords elected? You could perhaps ask Mr Blair who opposed this, preferring instead to fill the house with his placemen that is a danger because nothing can now stop any other party doing the same. It was the labour government who set up this system the Conservatives wanted a fully elected House.