National Sovreignty and the UN

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's bound to say "Aflack" sooner or later.

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]

Originally posted by Moiraine: "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." This particular quote sounds suspiciously like something I read in an American history class. It makes the EU sound more like a single entity than ever to me ...now I have to go find out where I have seen such language before)

Originally posted by Moiraine: (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]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

[quote]Originally posted by MagiK:

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 ]

[WOLFGIR]

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 ]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by MagiK: Are your "departments" geopolitical entities, each with it's own governments?

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 ...

Originally posted by MagiK: Again, your train of thought has me lost in a cloud of dust. I don't see what you are trying to convey. (oh by the way, each state already has a constitution and set of governing principles. In the US that is.)

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.

Originally posted by MagiK: I know it is in the UN charter, what I want to know is. Is it right for any one nation to have more authority or ability to block than any other? Why does France have more power than Croatia, why does the USA get more say than Poland? and is that fair?

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 ?

Originally posted by MagiK: Except that your premise is a false one. Can't go basing things on falshood now can we? War is NOT bad. Oh it has some bad results, but in and of itself war is neither good nor bad, it is either necessary or not. As for simplicity...I wanted the poll simple to try and keep the results simple, so that we didn't go waaaay off on tangents and get [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] I never said real life is simple, I said I wanted to keep this poll simple. I may not have made that clear enough to you in the beginning though, my apologies for that.

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.

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

Originally posted by WOLFGIR: 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. As you state it is all a sham any way, why not just get rid of it and deal with reality? 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. Well thanks a lot. Lets not go whole heartedly calling people and nations names here. Lets try to be civil. 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. You lost me with this reference. What do you mean is texas neutral? have you seen raging Texans running rampant in your streets?

[Timber Loftis]

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

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: He's pointing out that Texas doesn't maintain its own army but EU member nations do, MagiK.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. The State tree in Texas is a Gun rack in the pickup.....