Comments on: An end to pro-European stodginess http://www.jonworth.eu/an-end-to-pro-european-stodginess/ At the intersection of the EU, UK politics and tech Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:28:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jon Worth – Changing the frame: Britain and Europe | Pragmatic Radicalism http://www.jonworth.eu/an-end-to-pro-european-stodginess/comment-page-1/#comment-134546 Jon Worth – Changing the frame: Britain and Europe | Pragmatic Radicalism Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:02:22 +0000 http://www.jonworth.eu/?p=2543#comment-134546 [...] [2] For more on this see http://www.jonworth.eu/an-end-to-pro-european-stodginess/ [...] [...] [2] For more on this see http://www.jonworth.eu/an-end-to-pro-european-stodginess/ [...]

]]> By: Jon http://www.jonworth.eu/an-end-to-pro-european-stodginess/comment-page-1/#comment-124296 Jon Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:20:16 +0000 http://www.jonworth.eu/?p=2543#comment-124296 Nick, I agree with you up to a point, but I don't think that your points and mine are mutually exclusive. I am going to try to frame my arguments in a way that takes it as given that the European Union exists - I'm not going to even address the matter of whether it should, whether country X or Y should be in it. If you take on sceptics at their own game then you back yourself into a corner... If you believe that the EU is a conspiracy then no end of arguments about why it's not are going to influence you. But if you reply to UKIP etc. directly (as Verhofstadt implies in his statement) then you give their views air. Better in my mind to focus the debate on politics and policies, not some pro-vs.-anti regarding the whole construct. Nick,

I agree with you up to a point, but I don’t think that your points and mine are mutually exclusive. I am going to try to frame my arguments in a way that takes it as given that the European Union exists – I’m not going to even address the matter of whether it should, whether country X or Y should be in it.

If you take on sceptics at their own game then you back yourself into a corner… If you believe that the EU is a conspiracy then no end of arguments about why it’s not are going to influence you. But if you reply to UKIP etc. directly (as Verhofstadt implies in his statement) then you give their views air.

Better in my mind to focus the debate on politics and policies, not some pro-vs.-anti regarding the whole construct.

]]> By: Nick Crosby http://www.jonworth.eu/an-end-to-pro-european-stodginess/comment-page-1/#comment-124294 Nick Crosby Sun, 09 Aug 2009 11:17:56 +0000 http://www.jonworth.eu/?p=2543#comment-124294 Jon Thanks for the post and the ideas, which I largely share. My interpretation of your argument is that we need a values/policy debate- usual politics; and a process debate- how we make those values and policies work. My worry about including 'sceptics' in the second debate is that they are NOT a loyal opposition. The rules of the game are not agreed between us- they seek to destroy the EU's system of governance by denying the principle of supra-nationalism. So, fine to have a debate with UKIP on a policy issue and have them in the mix-- but, but, big concern about them being 'included' in the full conversation because they do not accept the basis of the project. It is a milder form of the very difficult question all democracies face when anti-democratic parties achieve power through democratic means- at what point do we say we cannot tolerarate them in the system? Thus I can see how the usual parties in the Parliament want to shut out the extremists and for German parliamentarians in particular, the need for vigilance against anti-democratic parties. Jon
Thanks for the post and the ideas, which I largely share.
My interpretation of your argument is that we need a values/policy debate- usual politics; and a process debate- how we make those values and policies work. My worry about including ‘sceptics’ in the second debate is that they are NOT a loyal opposition. The rules of the game are not agreed between us- they seek to destroy the EU’s system of governance by denying the principle of supra-nationalism. So, fine to have a debate with UKIP on a policy issue and have them in the mix– but, but, big concern about them being ‘included’ in the full conversation because they do not accept the basis of the project.

It is a milder form of the very difficult question all democracies face when anti-democratic parties achieve power through democratic means- at what point do we say we cannot tolerarate them in the system? Thus I can see how the usual parties in the Parliament want to shut out the extremists and for German parliamentarians in particular, the need for vigilance against anti-democratic parties.

]]> By: Trooper Thompson http://www.jonworth.eu/an-end-to-pro-european-stodginess/comment-page-1/#comment-124025 Trooper Thompson Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:59:17 +0000 http://www.jonworth.eu/?p=2543#comment-124025 "we need a debate about multi-level governance, sovereignty, democracy and federalism. " I'm sure you understand this debate of yours can only be for your fellow believers. Still, it's nice that you want to discuss these things, now the EU has had 50 years to bed down. Multi-level governance? You think we need another level of government above the one we've got now? I don't think our problem is too little government. Sovereignty? The nation state's sovereigny is violated by membership of the EU - likewise by membership of the WTO and other international bodies. This is a good thing for the EU because it doesn't need to argue the case politically for any particular policy, it can merely impose it sans debat. Democracy? No referendum, no mandate, no legitimacy. I'll leave federalism for now :) “we need a debate about multi-level governance, sovereignty, democracy and federalism. ”

I’m sure you understand this debate of yours can only be for your fellow believers. Still, it’s nice that you want to discuss these things, now the EU has had 50 years to bed down.

Multi-level governance? You think we need another level of government above the one we’ve got now? I don’t think our problem is too little government.

Sovereignty? The nation state’s sovereigny is violated by membership of the EU – likewise by membership of the WTO and other international bodies. This is a good thing for the EU because it doesn’t need to argue the case politically for any particular policy, it can merely impose it sans debat.

Democracy? No referendum, no mandate, no legitimacy.

I’ll leave federalism for now :)

]]> By: Aidan OSullivan http://www.jonworth.eu/an-end-to-pro-european-stodginess/comment-page-1/#comment-124014 Aidan OSullivan Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:51:13 +0000 http://www.jonworth.eu/?p=2543#comment-124014 Good post Jon. I believe people obsessed still with pro/anti European framing the debate will be able to relax after (and if) Lisbon is passed. Then the EU institutionally will be safe (from Cameron and co)....then normal left/right politics can come more into the mainsteam... ...that with also Commission candidates well in advance of the 2014 elections should make for a more engaging European political scene. Good post Jon.

I believe people obsessed still with pro/anti European framing the debate will be able to relax after (and if) Lisbon is passed. Then the EU institutionally will be safe (from Cameron and co)….then normal left/right politics can come more into the mainsteam…

…that with also Commission candidates well in advance of the 2014 elections should make for a more engaging European political scene.

]]> By: Jo http://www.jonworth.eu/an-end-to-pro-european-stodginess/comment-page-1/#comment-124000 Jo Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:47:31 +0000 http://www.jonworth.eu/?p=2543#comment-124000 Jon, welcome to my way of thinking. I'm fed up with those that are vaguely pro the idea of working together with other MS, thinking things can be done better if we do it collectively, that the things that unite us are more important to there actually being a planet in the future for my son to grow up in than pulling up the drawbridge etc. being portrayed as wanting a superstate, wanting an unelected elite of foreigners deciding 100% of laws etc. I hate that view being characterised and parodied by the sceptical or nationalistic commentators and any attempt at nuance being portayed as weakness of conviction - i.e. it's the old straw man game. But shutting out those that take that sort of line from the positions of power when they do actually have democratic legitimacy (no matter how uninformed they may feel that voters' position to have been) is elitist and frankly anti-democratic. There's got to be a forum in which a different way of thinking can start and the EU blogosphere's not a bad place to start. Jon, welcome to my way of thinking.
I’m fed up with those that are vaguely pro the idea of working together with other MS, thinking things can be done better if we do it collectively, that the things that unite us are more important to there actually being a planet in the future for my son to grow up in than pulling up the drawbridge etc. being portrayed as wanting a superstate, wanting an unelected elite of foreigners deciding 100% of laws etc. I hate that view being characterised and parodied by the sceptical or nationalistic commentators and any attempt at nuance being portayed as weakness of conviction – i.e. it’s the old straw man game.
But shutting out those that take that sort of line from the positions of power when they do actually have democratic legitimacy (no matter how uninformed they may feel that voters’ position to have been) is elitist and frankly anti-democratic.
There’s got to be a forum in which a different way of thinking can start and the EU blogosphere’s not a bad place to start.

]]> By: Jon http://www.jonworth.eu/an-end-to-pro-european-stodginess/comment-page-1/#comment-123997 Jon Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:51:47 +0000 http://www.jonworth.eu/?p=2543#comment-123997 Oh, hell, of course not. There the Yes side will be 100% grey as ever, confusing the constitutional questions with the political questions which, admittedly, the Treaty itself does too... But trying to win a vote is probably not the best time to try to re-frame a complete debate. Essentially I am in favour of the Treaty for constitutional reasons, and would vote yes if I had a vote. It makes decision making procedures a bit more efficient, and makes a small step towards the separation of constitutional from political questions at EU level. Oh, hell, of course not. There the Yes side will be 100% grey as ever, confusing the constitutional questions with the political questions which, admittedly, the Treaty itself does too… But trying to win a vote is probably not the best time to try to re-frame a complete debate.

Essentially I am in favour of the Treaty for constitutional reasons, and would vote yes if I had a vote. It makes decision making procedures a bit more efficient, and makes a small step towards the separation of constitutional from political questions at EU level.

]]> By: Fergus O'Rourke http://www.jonworth.eu/an-end-to-pro-european-stodginess/comment-page-1/#comment-123994 Fergus O'Rourke Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:27:50 +0000 http://www.jonworth.eu/?p=2543#comment-123994 Well said, and well worth saying, not to mention overdue. But will such an approach commend itself to the pro-Lisbon side in Ireland's forthcoming re-referendum ? I bet not. Well said, and well worth saying, not to mention overdue.

But will such an approach commend itself to the pro-Lisbon side in Ireland’s forthcoming re-referendum ?

I bet not.

]]>