Latest Diablo 3 News
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

"How does it feel?"

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by jmervyn, Nov 4, 2015.

  1. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,154
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    416
    To my knowledge, the US constitution doesn't allow a seccession, but it might not disallow it either.

    The EU is not a federation of states like the US or Germany, it's a contract among nations, just like e.g. the NATO, although with different incentives, of course. National law takes precedence over EU law, although contracts between nations require national laws to reflect it. With other words, either you change national law and regulations accordingly or you leave the union. I think that's fair. It's like either paying the bus ticket or leaving the bus. I doubt that US bus drivers are different than those here in Germany :).
     
  2. Glurin

    Glurin Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    126
    The U.S. constitution doesn't allow nor disallow secession. The thing is though, even if it was expressly forbidden in the first sentence as "THOU SHALT NOT SECEDE FROM THE UNION", it wouldn't matter. When you secede, you've thrown down the gauntlet and declared that that law no longer applies, as you are by definition no longer a part of the body to which it applies. The remaining union government then has only two options. Let you go or fight you.

    Anyway, it's just a loose comparison between the two. I'm not saying the EU will actually go to war over this. (Although you never know.) I just noticed some similarities in the dynamics of the event and thought it worth mentioning.
     
  3. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    514
    Trophy Points:
    220
    Slightly naughty, kris. EU law supercedes individual countries' laws - in effect, if not explicitly.
    Or were you wondering why some folks have expressed dissatisfaction with the EU? Perhaps you are mystified by all this?
     
  4. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,154
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    416
    The EU laws do not supersede national law. They have to be taken over as national laws, but that doesn't happen on its own. If a country doesn't do that, it will be penalized for it in concordance to the treaty they signed. If the country doesn't want to accept it altogether, they can refuse, but the other counties can deny things to them as well, like further membership. Pacta sunt servanda.
     
  5. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    514
    Trophy Points:
    220
    Uh-huh, national laws really kick the EU's ass don't they? LOL

    The semantic gymnastics used to defend the indefensible never fail to astound. If it walks, talks and squawks like a duck, the odds are ... it may as well be a duck.
     
  6. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,154
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    416
    The one doesn't have to kick the other's ass.

    I think it's legitimate to use semantic pedantry against rhetorical inaccuracy. It's a bit demagogic to call a treaty a set of laws and to say that they supersede national laws. It's wrong to say it like that.

    Maybe, maybe not, but you can't say that it's certainly one. I can walk, talk and quack like a duck as well. Any ducks here? No? OK, then it was no duck, but me :p.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2016
  7. Glurin

    Glurin Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Not if it's a treaty in name only.
     
  8. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,154
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    416
    In which manner?
     
  9. Glurin

    Glurin Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    126
    If a treaty simply binds you to a larger governing body which passes down more and more arbitrary regulations and rules and other unpleasantness on to you with various punishments if you do not obey, is it really a treaty? Just how much sovereignty do you really have under such conditions?

    Just something to think about. ;)
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  10. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    514
    Trophy Points:
    220
    Hate to say it but ... Glurin's just about on the money here :)

    kris would have got there on his own though, once he gave it some serious thought.
     
  11. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,154
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    416
    You don't lose sovereignty by the treaty, but by being small in comparison to others. Without a treaty, others can treat you badly in in more manners than with one. The US is a pretty big country which is #1 politically, militarily and ecomomically since WW2, so a US citizen might not know this that well.
     
  12. Glurin

    Glurin Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    126
    You didn't address the question. A treaty is an agreement between nations. By it's nature, it generally leaves each nation's sovereignty intact. The size of the nations in question is irrelevant. But if a treaty binds you to a larger or higher body, either another nation or a third party entity, which in turn perpetually makes up new rules directly effecting how your country operates that you have to follow no matter how detrimental they are to you, are you really still in treaty territory? Or have you now entered into a new government with authority over yours? Or maybe something in between?
     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  13. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,499
    Likes Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    509
    Compare & contrast, ladies & germs:
    vs.

    Big hint to kris - even I'm not stupid enough to buy this line:
    Quite obviously, EU laws/whims/opinions/corruption do, have, and will continue to supersede national law, i.e. immigration. While the host nation might be stupid enough to try to tie one issue or another up in international courts, the EU already has a fist & a foot on the scales of justice, to the point that they'll essentially be using the plaintiff's "dues" against them. It's not as different from the U.S. as you like to think.
     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  14. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,154
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    416
    Internationational affairs aren't about justice at all. I hope you aren't so naive that you believe that we can achieve a world in which the nations are just and fair to each other. In reality, they put pressure on each other to get their things done, in the name of whatever agenda, ideal or goal they are performed. I think that Europe is a collection of quite distinctive countries in which this works better than in most other places.

    No matter how much you don't like it: EU law doesn't supersede national law, just like paragraphs in treaties don't do so. There is a difference between what paragrapghs say and what reality enforces on us. You might call that nitpicking, but juristic issues are a lot about that.

    No. Treaties are contracts among nations, that's all. Their terms can be of any kind. The sovereignty is kept as much intact as the country can keep it intact itself. You have probably heard about treaties involving the surrender of a country and their acknowledgement of penalties, like reparations or giving up territory. Other treaties turn countries into vassals. In these cases, the sovereignty was lost through something else than the treaty, but by what has made the treaty come into effect.

    The EU treaty is none of the two, no matter how tempting it may be for you to put that sticker onto it. It cannot make small countries be as influential as big ones, however. That would be unfair anway. Germany has 80 million citizens, the UK has 60 millions and Luxembourg has less than a million. Therefore, the EU "parliament" has more Germans in it than anybody else, simply because Germany is the biggest EU member. If you think that's unfair, it's like saying that democracy is unfair, but whatever, demodracy isn't applicable among nations anyway. If you have it, then it's usually an artificial construct, just like matters of equality among nations..

    If there was no EU, Germany would still have the biggest economy and the biggest population and have more influence on many matters on nearby countries than the other way around. I'm sure that of there is no regulation about how to deal with each other, the strong will (and did) take advantage of the weak or deny them privileges of close allies to a greater extent.

    Some matters are distributed according to the polulation (even then, with a certain minimum share for very small countries), while there are other issues for which every country has the same weight. Economical issues are often a matter of who is the owner of what, of course, I guess you don't want to question that.

    Only with respect to how much sovereignty they can keep in comparison to the situation without a treaty. Small countries are obviously less free at making independent decisions. That's not a matter of treaties.

    If your point is that you don't need a treaty to subjugate others, then I agree.

    As I said before, having influence on others doing or not doing certain things is not a matter of a treaty, but of regional, political or other realities. Treaties are used to bind these realities into certain shapes.

    BTW, the US is a collection of states which gave up their sovereignties in order to found a union (which was an excellent idea, for the sake of completeness). I don't think that the contract among the union allows a state to leave the US, unlike EU countries. You might say that this is irrelevant because a majority of all Americans don't want their state to leave the union anyway, but there were times in which this was seriously different and they have been prevented to secede, with force.
     
  15. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,499
    Likes Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    509
    I never have been, though I wonder if you are? That's the soul of trans-national Progressivism, after all - that "gov't is the name for things we do together" &c. &c.

    Brexit and the End of International Progressive Inevitability

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437147/brexit-and-end-international-progressive-inevitability
    Sorry kris, but that's either totally false or intentionally duplicitous. EU law doesn't supersede national law... until it does. Often just because some twat in Brussels decides it does. A treaty isn't supposed to allow the will of the nation (people or rulers, depending on the system) to be circumvented against their will unless it's in the terms of the treaty, which as you generously pointed out the EU doesn't explicitly mention.

    You want to bloviate about jurisprudence, but that's the very problem the British voters looked at and rejected. Polish (?) law (amongst others) didn't have punitive Digital Rights Management codicils or "copywrongs" which the EU forced down their throats - not using valid grounds from any treaty codicil, but rather via bureaucratic mandarins' discussions. British law didn't allow unchecked "migration" by a bunch of middle-eastern scum interested in raping white people & leeching off welfare, but the Brits weren't allowed to sort the 'sheep from the goats'.

    Again, that's the same reason our SCoaMF (Stuttering Clusterfark of a Miserable Failure) is so deeply hated by people who are in the know regardless of political affiliation; he is deliberately allowing ISIS affiliates free entry & support in America while forbidding the Christian & Yazidi (sp?) translators who actually worked for America access - even if they have support networks trying to bring them in! I'm sure you'll pooh-poo this as typical jman ravings but there's more than sufficient evidence, & as I recall he's threatened to veto any legislative attempt to circumvent his vile policy.

    They didn't actually give up their sovereignities wholesale, which is the complaint regarding the EU. Some of them even retained far more than some European states - however the right to secede has generally been answered by the use of force.

    Texit after Brexit? Not so fast
     
  16. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,154
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    416
    Of course, the EU laso puts pressure on countries in order to achieve something goals, but apart from not regarding that as generally wrong, I don't think it's appropriate to regard it as a matter if an Über country enforcing laws on its provinces. I think it's important to use a proper vocabulary and sets of adjectives, else serious discussions turn into polemics and agitation. It's OK to do that in witty one-liners, but not to phrase a point of view or to address other points in a serious manner.

    It's a matter of having disadvantages if you are just one entity versus a multitude of other. Being put at a disadvantage because of a paragraph of a treaty or because of other, non-allied countries placing extra tolls or something on you for whatever action of you they regard as inappropriate, it's just two mechanisms for the similar effect. However, a set of regulations is less arbitrary and more predictable than whatever comes to the mind of the politicians of the other countries. To put into a context of "laws": It offers "legal" certainty.
     
  17. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    514
    Trophy Points:
    220
    kris seems to be following a completion-backward approach here.

    The EU is right in this issue so when it is shown to be wrong in an important way, that particular way must have been interpreted wrongly and thus the EU is right. Again. Please don't insert a fairly meaningless reference to how you don't believe that the EU is always in the right and sometimes gets things wrong. This would be irrelevant to the point at hand.

    Sovereignty is a country acting on its own volition on matters of internal policy. When the effective ability to act is obviated, by an outside agency, this represents a loss of sovereignty.

    This is not dissimilar to the issue of "constructive dismissal" in employment law. Yes, you could say that "Hey, the employee resigned" but you'd be a hopeless buffoon to do so. The employee's job ended as a result of the actions of their employer and the courts recognise this.

    Remember, meaning is "what a thing means to people" more often than it is a dictionary definition which is ignored by almost everyone.
     
    jmervyn likes this.
  18. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,499
    Likes Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    509
    Rather than try to fisk/quote either of you, I'll offer these (in support of Loz, I think?) to reinforce my point:

    "The very idea that the state has a primary obligation to its native citizens has become unfashionable and virtually unsayable within the tightly controlled bounds of political correctness. . ."

    "Six days after it unveiled its plan to ban restaurateurs from giving customers olive oil in refillable glass jugs or dipping bowls, the commission was forced into an embarrassing U-turn by a torrent of criticism from northern European media and political leaders, including David Cameron."

    Because after all, it's a matter of international law whether you're allowed to serve olive oil in a dipping bowl to customers as you have FOR HUNDREDS OF FECKING YEARS!

    Of course, that's hardly the level to which Brussels is expected to operate at:

    EU to launch kettle and toaster crackdown after Brexit vote

    EDIT - alibi posting, reference what I had meant to flesh out more fully before the vote, about Britain being better off on the EU's "border":

    After Brexit, only one thing can keep Britain together: the Norway model
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2016
  19. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,154
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Trophy Points:
    416
    I cannot agree to your expectations about sovereignty and what you believe a lack thereof. It sounds cynical, but it's still true: Sovereignty is no problem if it doesn't violate the interests of stronger countries or alliances. Therefore, don't do things which makes more others oppose you than you can face. That's reality and I don't think that it will ever change in the next few thousands of years. If a country expects its neighbors to be fair to it, it must not just have a moral right for it, but also have the influence or power to achieve that, eiother by itself or by being in an alliance.

    I don't like the aspect of the European parliament or EU oprganizations to rule every country, but it's obvious that the big European members have more of a say on what's going on than the small, with the EU and much more without one.

    If the UK leaves the EU, all privileges for being an EU member are null and void, as well as the obligations. From that point on, new negotiations will have to be made. I doubt that the UK will receive any better conditions about an entry to the EU market than before. The opposite is the case. They don't want to pay any longer, so nothing will come for free in return. Quid pro quo. There is nothing like a free lunch. That's not a matter of the one being offended about the other, but of negiotiating positions.

    My amateur guess is that Britain can only achieve a Norway deal if Scotland stays in. Even worse, a not well-meaning EU could wait until Scotland is fed up and secedes in oerder to join the EU and then get their gas into their market without having to offer anything for that. I'm not sure if that's a reasonable strategy by the EU. Perhaps the EU will be graceful and don't take advantage of the UK being on its own, but I wouldn't count on it too much. Again, not out of vengefulness, but for business reasons.

    Liechtenstein has this deal because it's small and granting it doesn't matter much which is an easy way to produce an illusion of being generous. Norway has it because of their oil. I'm not sure about Iceland. Perhaps strategical reasons, like their location? Fishing zones? I don't know.
     
  20. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,499
    Likes Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    509
    There's no such thing as limited sovereignty in the context of your claims. You're sovereign or you're not. No matter that the EU wants to represent member states as toothless dowagers in need of someone to soak their biscuit in milk to be fed; there's no legitimate reason that any member states should have surrendered their sovereignty to FECKIN' BRUSSELS!**
    You're either not understanding my point or you're dodging it. It wasn't the "big vs. small" that did in #Remain, it was that BRUSSELS is not only telling Britons that Abdul al-Rapey gets to roger their children & there's not a damn thing they can do about it, but that BRUSSELS is also telling them they can't have hot tea or dark toast.

    Given that degree of totalitarian nanny-state control by un-elected & unaccountable bureaucrats, I'm incredibly proud to have shed blood in defense of America. For all its ills & woes, I am still able to blow the feckin' head off of some UN buttwipe trying to tell me I can't have hot tea because it would cause global warming. Or that Abdul gets to live on the dole next door to my chubby yet good-looking boy. They can go play bacha bazi in their own country.

    Despite the #Remain fearmongering, Britain is definitely on the creditor side of the fence, though not to the degree Germany is. While I posted the argument for the Norway Way, I don't think it's terribly credible, nor do I assume that the EU will be successful in building the Wall of Cheese or whatever the fanciful claims are about isolating Britain. There's every reason for Britain to remain at the old EEC levels of cooperation without all the totalitarian garbage that Brussels comes up with.

    The Scottish North Sea oil is drastically overrated, particularly in the minds of Scottish Nationalists. You'll have a new Venezuela before terribly long if they're stupid & arrogant enough to do what you've identified, and Britain will be incredibly better off losing that sack of deadbeats. Ditto for Ireland. Yes, I have both Scottish and Irish ancestry as well as English & Welsh (far more Irish ancestry, TBH).

    Do you seriously think there's a large enough market for wool that either Scotland or Ireland would be contributor nations? Ireland's high tech boom will essentially be extinguished by EU regulation.

    ** inspiration credit:
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2016

Share This Page