National Sovreignty and the UN

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

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.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

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 ]

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Quote: Originally posted by Moiraine: Quote: Originally posted by MagiK: 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. 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]

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

[Timber Loftis]

[quote]Originally posted by Moiraine:

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.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

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.

[Timber Loftis]

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.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

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]

Originally posted by Moiraine: 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 ! Are your "departments geopolitical entities, each with it's own governments? 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 ... 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.) 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. 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? 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] 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] 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 ? 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.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

(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]