Should Nations Give up the rule of their people to the UN?

That first question is an OR question, but my choices are yes or no, a little hard to pick. I assumed yes was to sack the Constitution and no was to keep it.

LOL If the EU should have only 1 vote, it would take them years to make up their minds. If you're waiting for the vote from the EU, better have a lot of patience, a WHOLE lot. :D

Shouldn't those questions be a smidgin less a 'black or white' kind of choice ? It is impossible to reply with "Yes" or "No" without making an extremist and irrealistic and unwise choice ...

Question 1 of 5: Should the US keep it's constitution or scrap it for the UN Charter?
Speaking about the French constitution and not the US one, my choice is no. The UN do NOT replace governments, it completes them, and supersedes them about international matters - peace, but also development programs, scientific programs, ...

Question 2 of 5: Should all nations submit to the rule of the UN?
Yes, for international matters. No for internal matters - the UN has no vocation to replace governments.

Question 3 of 5: Does it make sense for some nations to have greater influence in the UN?
Depends on what you put under 'sense'. And how you define the hierarchy between nations : PIB ? Number of citizens ? ... And on what programs you apply that hierarchy to.

Question 4 of 5: Should the EU have only a single vote in the UN?
Why should the US have more than one vote ?
LOL A quote from the Terry Pratchett books springs in my mind : the city of Ankh-Morpork is governed by a man called the Patrician, whose motto is "One man, one vote. I am the man, I get the vote". [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] ... uh, sorry. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Question 5 of 5: Should the US just pull out of the UN all together?
Again, why ?

<font color="#ffccff">Moiraine...does the US get 50 votes in the UN? there are after all 50 seperate states each with its own special interests. If the Eu is a united collection of nation states, should it not get just one vote?

And what I ment by should any nation be more influential than any other....as in should any single nation be able to veto or single handedly stop a motion by the other states?

Black and white choices make the world much easier to live in. If you start giving weasel room then you just complicate affairs to the point where nothing gets done.</font>

Pulling out of the UN undermines all work done to date. Should not "submit to rule" because the young forming international governmental system is simply not at that stage yet. It's still a "by agreement" cooperative stage.

Which is why different nations having different relative power is still happening. As in contract negotiations, the big guys have more weight to throw around. If the UN ever becomes a body which can effect mandatory rules, then this issue will need to be addressed. You history buffs will recognize this as the central problem in forming the US federal system: how do the states divide power? In the federal system there was the Great COmpromise resulting in our bicameral system: A Senate where all states are equal, and a House where the state's power depends on its (population) size.

There was a prior attempt at a US federal system that the states pulled out of - it was formed under the "Articles of Confederation." I think in the US though, unification was an inevitability even though it took two tries. I think the same is true internationally. It's just a matter of time.

We're on our second try at international governance (remember the League of Nations?). Let's hope it works - because it usually takes a World War for nations to start trying the international government thing again.

BTW - big big huge point. If the UN were nixed right now, there would still be an international governing body - the WTO. WTO addresses TRADE ONLY. UN addresses every issue brought before it. Having only the WTO would be like trying to run your country with only the Federal Trade Commission. The WTO has explicitly said that tangential concerns (such as environment and fair labor) are NOT in its mandate - only the protection of trade is in its mandate.

This means that without the UN, and its some 4000 various treaties, there would be no international body to address anything other than fair trade.

It is my humble opinion that this is horrible regarding many issues. Take environment for example (just because that's my field of expertise). On most issues, the WTO rules would disallow discrimination against widgets based on environmental concerns. This means that a nation could not charge a tariff on a product based on its environmental nastiness.

We'll take CFC's and DDT as examples. Internation regulation of both are dependent on UN treaties: Montreal Protocol and Migratory Bird Treaty (birds are most affected by DDT though it harms humans as well). Take away the UN regulations, and the EU cannot ban or place tarrifs on the imports of CFC's and DDT to EU countries.

Or, it can, but it will pay a whopping fine to the WTO. This means that the EU countries that make comparable, more eco-friendly products (like non-CFC aerosol cans which are the only ones you can buy in the EU or USA right now) will have a market disadvantage.

In other words, the WTO acting *alone* creates a "race to the bottom" because the companies in the USA/EU making products under USA/EU laws will be undersold by the products made using dirtier methods or containing dirtier chemicals.

MagiK, I know you have an Axe the size of Sazerac's to grind regarding the UN. But, if you are in any way advocating a US pull-out of the UN, you are (a) advocating irresponsibility and (b) pipe-dreaming because it ain't ever gonna happen. ;)

What a great idea, MagiK ! Given that France is subdivised into nearly 100 sub-entities called "départements", that means we would get twice as many votes as you would ! http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon16.gif

Oh, it was "one nation = one vote" that you meant ? Oh, then you have a LOT of internal reorganization to make before you are ready to come again onto the international stage. Making 50 constitutions, making laws for 50 nations, electing 50 Presidents and Parliaments ... ;)

If you a referring to the use of veto in the UN, well, remember that the veto right is included in the UN rules. It would have made no sense to include in the rules "you have veto right, but you can't use it, or the UN are no more", would it ? ;) If all nations together feel the rules should be changed, then let's change them together. But a change can't come from one nation wanting all of a sudden to change the rules because they don't suit it. ;)

Oh sure MagiK. Simple choices for simple men. Let me suggest this one : War is bad. Therefore, let's not do it. Ever. Is that simple enough ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

EDIT : If choices are that simple, why is that that you persistently advocate that a lot of experience is required to give weight to someone's opinion ? ;)

[ 02-28-2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

Moiraine, there is no way you can argue it is fair the US gets one vote and Australia gets one vote and Canada gets one vote but the EU gets one voter per country. It's silly and unjust. All three countries I mentioned have smaller governmental bodies (states/ provinces) which is what EU countries truly are after the EU formed.

If the EU countries could agree on the issues, they could literally hijack the UN and make it such that, even given my dissertation above, I would jump on MagiK's "Down with the UN" bandwagon.

As well, as long as each EU country gets one vote, you force the USA to use diplomacy to create divisiveness among EU member nations. Get rid of the entire farce, I say.

What a great idea, MagiK ! Given that France is subdivised into nearly 100 sub-entities called "départements", that means we would get twice as many votes as you would </font>[/QUOTE]No. Wrong wrong wrong. To continue on your train of thought, Kentucky has 120 counties, and that's only 1 state. Oh, and all states DO have constitutions, so the paperwork's already done. ;)

[edit]: All 50 states also have legislatures and a head-of-state (governor). Let me assure you that any state can operate as a separate nation to full functioning and legal capability. The only thing blocking this is federalism. Oh, and if you take a state like California or Texas and compare it internationally, it would still be on the top 10 lists based on size and GNP. ;)

[ 02-28-2003, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Flamebait, [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] , irrelevant, and non-productive comment there.

The EU is not a nation, Timber Loftis. We don't have one constitution, one government, one set of laws, one President. Maybe one day we will. But not for a long time to come.

Ah, but how do you suggest the UN attributes the voting rights, if not on the basis of nations ? Based on population ? Why should the US get 50 votes then, while its population is roughly 5 times that of France ? Based on economical weight ? Based on land size ? Or what ? This would be a decisively political choice, and can NOT be made lightly without much thnking.

But would it be right to have ONE President getting 50 votes ? Would that man truly represent ALL the nation-states ? Elect 50 Presidents first. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-28-2003, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

Moiraine, you either misrepresent or misundertand the EU treaty. Here's all the texts of the EU and EC treaties: http://www.eubusiness.com/institut/amster2.htm

The EU governs its member nations. It has 4 branches of government. It has a two-part legislature. Under its laws, the EU mandates how many balls an English pig farmer must provide in a pen and whether or not a convenience store in Denmark must consider certain products to be hazardous. There is a nearly-singular currency and an EU identity card (the US doesn't even have that yet).

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's bound to say "Aflack" sooner or later. ;)

Flamebait, [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] , irrelevant, and non-productive comment there.</font>[/QUOTE]I don't know about flamebait, but I do sincerely hope we'll come to that one day. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[quote]Originally posted by Moiraine:

Quote:

But would it be right to have ONE President getting 50 votes ? Would that man truly represent ALL the nation-states ? Elect 50Presidents first. [img]smile.gif[/img]

OK, fair point. Either you send an EU representative, or we'll send all the governors, how's that? I'm sure Bush would be agreeable. ;)

Sooner or later, you said it yourself, Timber. [img]smile.gif[/img] You yourself stated that the EU are not a nation. Well, it won't be in our lifetimes. May I remind you that UN means "united nations" ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Look here. It is the European Union site. "The European Union is based on the rule of law and democracy. It is neither a new State replacing existing ones nor is it comparable to other international organisations. Its Member States delegate sovereignty to common institutions representing the interests of the Union as a whole on questions of joint interest. All decisions and procedures are derived from the basic treaties ratified by the Member States."

The EU doesn't 'govern' its members.

Good site, Moiraine. But, I think you've made *my* point as much as you think I've made yours. It doesn't matter what you call it, the EU governs its member nations. You can't join the EU unless you nix the death penalty, etc. These are mandates, and I assure you that in most every regard the EU governance is just as thorough as the US national governance.

I think you just don't understand how much autonomy US states maintain. We actually have to "extradite" fled criminals, etc.

The one thing I love about corporate law is Nomenclature is unimportant. Call it a "company" but if it acts like a "partnership" the law will consider it one. That should apply to all rules of law, IMO. Call it a "nation" or a "widget" if you like, the substance is what should be viewed.

<font color="#ffccff">A. My intent was not to grind an Axe, but to get a general idea of how people here saw certain things [img]smile.gif[/img]

B. I doubt that the US pulling out of the UN would be as earth shattering as you seem to think.

C. Thank you for the great post [img]smile.gif[/img]
</font>

(Translated from my French dictionary, sorry I don't have an English general dictionary) : Nation = 1) Great human community, most of the time set on a same territory, and that possesses a historical, linguistic (?), cultural and economical unity - 2) Political community, distinct from the individuals that compose it, and holding the sovereignty.

European nations do NOT AT ALL have a historical not a linguistic unity. Look at how many times in the pase we fighted each others ! About cultural and economical unity, I believe we are starting the long road leading to them, but you will agree we are not quite at the end of the journey. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I do have an inkling about how much autonomy your states have. But they are all united under the same Constitution and elect an unique President and government. They are not nations either. Unless you chose to dissolve the US and emerge as 50 new political entities. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The European Union is NOT a nation. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color="#ffccff">Oh geeeezzzzzz DO NOT say things like that without giving warning, I nearly choked on my pepsi :( (way too funny though)

I wanted to thank you for the link to the EU charter by the way, according to my non-legal backgrounded opinion, from what I can tell the EU is very much a single entity just as the USA is. Trying to say otherwise is like trying to have it both ways :( Of course Im not an international law expert... [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

<font color="#ffccff"> :D According to your definition the USA isn't a Nation either [img]smile.gif[/img] Actually according to the Guy (can't remember his name he was a German)who defined Nationalism in the early half of the 20th century The US really never did qualify as a Nation. Of course it is pretty obvious now that he is wrong, but that definition you posted comes straight from his works.
</font>

[quote]Originally posted by MagiK:

Quote:

Of course Im not an international law expert... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well, me neither - yet. But I'm working on it. ;) Environmental Law is my main thing. International Law and Trade Law are hobby interests, and I've done a lot of work in them. WTO environmental issues are *truly* a mixture of all three, meaning I can, and have, written books on the topic. ;)

Moiraine, one final thing. The "constitution" was basically a "treaty." It had to be *ratified* just like a treaty. It was drafted at a constitutional convention just like the EU treaty was finally hammered out at Marakesh. Amendments to the constitution must be ratified - like any treaty.

Again, Ducks, Walking, Aflack. Common sense really.

If you like, I can hook you up with the German and British instructors at the College of Europe in Bruge (spelling?) that I know who have composed tons of stuff on the topic. Also, the folks working at the EU (last time I checked) as assistants and legislative drafters. Some of them may have even forgiven me for my actions from back in the days when I mixed romance and profession more often.

Look, if you've ceded your ability to veto a law, you've federalised. Pull out your OED and read all the definitions you want, but these nations all are under one true sovereign now. The UK can't ignore the pig regulations MagiK posted on the forum. They have ceded their sovereignty as much as US states have.

We're not that far apart in our view on this, it seems. I simply think the EU is "there" already. Believe me, it took over 100 years and a civil war for the US to get its wrinkles sorted out, but that didn't mean a federal government didn't exist at the time. ;)

My absolute final words on this topic: From your quoted text, and as MagiK quoted: DELEGATE SOVEREIGNTY. From a legal standpoint, that is all that makes a nation a nation.

[ 02-28-2003, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Well, as I see it, comming from Sweden not EU. EU is not my country, nor does Europe have many of my countrymen at all.
EU does not carry my vote, and if I can help it never won´t either.

US got Veto, France got Veto, Russia got Veto so get over it. UN is a play for the galleries, a sort of collective of quilt for the richer countries in the world, and sometimes unfortunately the only thing that can help people to a democratic life.

Keep it as it is and get the stupid ideas that EU is a country or equal to US.
If US wants 50 votes or more or less, make 50 individual countries of them and let them all sign in and you will have 50 votes.

Timer Loftis, that is not all true. Each country has final say as how to govern their own country and internal affairs and skip the regulations from EU but EU is the streamlining to make the market in all EU member countries to act as the same to increase trade.

Mostly EU is a big bag of stupid tricks and most countries follow it like they want to until the press makes it the news in another country and people satrt arguing.

One thing you also beglect is that several countries in Europe that belongs to EU have different military sides. Norway is part of NATO, alas Sweden and Finland are not. Is Texas for instance Neutral? Guess not.

[ 02-28-2003, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: WOLFGIR ]

Yes, in a way (we don't call the departments' head instances "governments"). We vote for them, they have a budget, their purpose if to take care of the local specifics. They can make local laws too, if those don't interfere with the French constitution. [img]smile.gif[/img]

They are based on the ancient historical parts that now compose France. LOL We spent centuries trying to unite them under a common nation, would be weird to come back in time ! [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Technically, 150 years ago, I wouldn't have been "French" : my mother and father come respectively from the two parts of France that were the last to join. I wouldn't have been at all - hardly likely that my Mum and Dad would even have met. ;) And nonetheless, we have managed to create a political unity - took 1000 years to achieve ...

I just wanted to convey that either you are one nation and under the current UN rules you get one vote, or you are 50 nations and in that case you have some work to do to reorganize them - and in that case, these 50 nations can not be represented in the UN by only one President and government.

Now, as I said to Timber Loftis in an earlier post, maybe the rules must be changed. But your question in the poll was too 'black or white' to be answered properly. If the rules must be changed, then to what ? If the nations are not the basic members, then what ? Entities based on population ? On economical weight ? On territory size ?

I still think nations are the best voting entity so far. Because while any other division is subject to change, a nation represents a cultural, historical, linguistic and economical unity. Hence it can speak with one voice. [img]smile.gif[/img]

And IMO giving several votes to one nation would be wrong. As I recall, when Bush was elected, not a few states voted massively either Democrat or Republican. Would those states that voted massively Democrat feel they were accurately represented by M. Bush and his government ? ;)

Believe me, my statement was only half a jest - I heartily wish we could live in a world simple enough that the idea of killing other humans for a cause would not exist. [img]smile.gif[/img] But unfortunately I know and you know that is not possible. Because there is no simple answer to complex problems, even if they seem attractive.

Same about your poll. It is impossible to give simple answers to complex questions. ;) "Yes" or "No" is not an option - and in any case, an answer makes no sense if it does not come with propositions for change. ;)

<font color="#ffccff">Well as for my poll [img]smile.gif[/img] all I wanted to do was get an idea of what people already thought, not to propose changes or to say this or that idea is better.

I think in the UN, no single nation should have any more power than any other, but that isn't the way it is. as for the UN telling people what they as a nation can or cannot do, I am against it. Im against one world government. hy? Becuase there are waaaaay too many leaders out there who really like things I cannot live with. Most of those people reside in the middle east and asia. I am a product of the western civilization of the 20th centruy...and I like it that way.

Oh and Thanks Moiraine for the info on the French History and make up. I had no idea that the region had been so fractious before. Odd because I knew the germanic states were really pretty messed up...well live and learn :D </font>

He's pointing out that Texas doesn't maintain its own army but EU member nations do, MagiK.

<font color="#ffccff">I wouldn't be too sure of that. The State tree in Texas is a Gun rack in the pickup.....</font>

From Magik:
"Well thanks a lot. Lets not go whole heartedly calling people and nations names here. Lets try to be civil." (Sorry, don´t like the uberquoteing ;) )

LOL, if you keep our history in mind you would see that I am very civil ;)
If you look closer you will see most "old" enemies still bickering and fallmebaiting each other like it was a general forum somewhere :D

Thing is that my despise is not for the countries, rahter the politicians and all the scandals and corruptness therein ;)
Of course I do enjoy some harshness with my fellow Scandinavians here on and off.

From Magik again:
"You lost me with this reference. What do you mean is texas neutral? have you seen raging Texans running rampant in your streets?"
Indeed I have, they studied technical engineering at Chalmers and got very drunk one night and bathed in a pool on Aveny here in Gothenburg one very warm night :D

I meant that Europe still has their own standing armies and allegiances whereas the US have one army.

<font color="#ffccff">I wouldn't be too sure of that. The State tree in Texas is a Gun rack in the pickup.....</font></font>[/QUOTE]Oki, sorry, maybe Texas was a bad example ;)

You know, MagiK, you can find most that is sacred in Kentucky in a pick-up truck:
1. State Tree: Coffee Tree (for real) - check the cupholder - good for hunting at dawn. Oh, and the gun-rack, too.
2. State Bird: The dead one in the back of the truck with buckshot in it.
3. State Plant: Tobacco. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]
4. State Flower: Check the glovebox. [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img]
5. State song: Bound to be a Garth Brooks CD in there somewhere.
6. State Motto: Check the bumper for a sticker - you can't expect us to remember a "state motto" can you? Heck, we couldn't even remember our Cub Scouts motto.
7. State Beverage: any good country boy knows to keep the bourbon under the passenger seat so you won't get caught. ;)

Ah, but Wolfie belongs to a nation that is a member of the EU - he has the absolute right to criticize it as harshly as he wants. If a US person says harsh words about the US, is it country bashing ? ;)

Just to wade in briefly here I'll point out that EU policy and public politics is a quarter of my course... (yes I'm having fun! Why do you ask? [img]tongue.gif[/img] ). You would be suprised, or probably not in fact, how much of the past year my class has just spent debating on what the EU actually *is*. What it certainly *isn't*, according to just about every political scientist to have ever put pen to paper on the subject, is a nation state itself.

For a start the governments of the member states are able to use national veto at any treaty negotiation of the EU. Theories of functionalism and spillover just simply don't describe what has actually happened - delegation of power has been sparse to the EU institutions. Pretty much all the EU does is act as a central regulator for the single market, its powers are not budgetary with a few exceptions. The total budget of the entire EU system? Somewhere around 1% of the GDP of the total member states... and 70% of that goes on the CAP every year, and thats tightly controlled by the individual agriculture ministers.

To say that the EU is anything more than a handy intergovernmentalist institution is stretching the facts slightly. The EU is really more similar to the WTO than it is to the US, something many people have problems seeing.

Coming in late to the debate but here goes

Can Texas, Maryland, Washington ECT all remove themselves from the United States and become independent countries? IIRC I think not.

All members of the EU can remove themselves from the organization even though it would be at an astronomical expense.

So the countries of the EU are still independent, they have just ceded some of their regulatory powers to a unifying body

And I concur with Barry the (Brussels?) sprout. The EU is more of a glorified WTO than a "federal type government".

I actually agree with Wolfgir I don't see the EU as a single country but many countries working together with similar interest, in things such a trade, currency, hazardous materials, things that are of a convenience. The currency is great especially for tourist, and business, having to switch to so many currencies would be a nightmare when travelling between countries is so frequent, as well if they all have similar standards for hazardous materials than it reduces the cost of resources examining materials moving across borders, being checked etc.

If you look similar things are taking place in North America. For the most part the US and Canada are very similar culturally although we can deny it as much as we like. There are talks, of things like a common NA currency, and identity cards here as well. I doubt the currency will ever take place but the NA identity card will likely be a possibility in the future. Our refugee and immigrant policies are almost the same and it would not be difficult to make them standard, we have many similar standards when it comes to toxic waste, various equipment, and the environment as well. The main differences in creating similar policies would be in compromising on the few things were we disagree.

Plus you will have to get rid of that ridiculous British system of units and adopt the base 10 metric system. :D

quote
"Plus you will have to get rid of that ridiculous British system of units and adopt the base 10 metric system."

I feel this could be a thread of it's own :D Oh the joyous day of the U.S. finally becoming integrated with the rest of the world.

Wellard.. Born in 64, taught the metric system from kinder garden to collage, raised in a metric world, laughed at all the oldies hanging on to the old abacus era measurements. Fulfils is ambition of working on aircraft at the so-called cutting edge of mechanical knowledge. Then.. Urm sorry lads that will be a imperial spanner you need, throw away your metric stuff, mr. Boeing don’t agree with all this new fandangle modern stuff :rolleyes:

Sorry an off topic rant I know. Now back to the reasons why U.S. should dominate the U.N. :D [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img]

I haven't voted in the poll but wanted to add my opinion.

It would be good if the UN DID have real international power, but there is really only one way to go about this. Give each nation one vote, including China, US, Russia and EU. Sure the EU may be made up of many countries but a way around that is to have internal voting, a majority of the EU countries voting to approve or disprove a UN charter then decides their vote either way. The same with US states if they wanted making a vote and the majority of states carry the vote for the country. Sure if some of the countries don't want to be lumped under the EU bloc then they can withdraw and have their own vote, but every vote should be equal no matter the size. And get rid of all the veto crap, that just disregards the entire voting system! What use is there to spend months or even years on a UN mandate only to find some country can then chuck it out the window in one hour by excercising their veto option. For all intents and purposes the US and the EU are entities that should only have one vote, they can sort it out internally before bringing it to the international stage but thats the only way I can see it working.

[quote]Originally posted by pritchke:

Quote:

If you look similar things are taking place in North America. For the most part the US and Canada are very similar culturally although we can deny it as much as we like. There are talks, of things like a common NA currency, and identity cards here as well. I doubt the currency will ever take place but the NA identity card will likely be a possibility in the future. Our refugee and immigrant policies are almost the same and it would not be difficult to make them standard, we have many similar standards when it comes to toxic waste, various equipment, and the environment as well. The main differences in creating similar policies would be in compromising on the few things were we disagree. Plus you will have to get rid of that ridiculous British system of units and adopt the base 10 metric system. :D

<font color=orange>Funny, I have never heard any talk of NA currencies or ID cards. Heck, they can't even agree on a national ID system for the US. And as I stated on the Metric thread, I don't think the metric system will be adopted here for quite a while. </font>