such democracy, the better. My problem is with the unanimity rule which requires that something major can only happen if it is unanimously supported by all members - which gets patently absurd the larger the EU grows.
I agree with you totally. But this solution is far from optimal even in that respect. "Bullying" a country will only create resentment. I actually think that a "multispeed" EU would be a better approach in that respect. So the UK wants to opt out of almost everything? Go ahead, but let others integrate more deeply if they want to.
I don't see how more members - e.g. in the Balkans can be admitted into the EU until this changes.
I would suggest that your beloved EU bureaucracy made a major blunder in expanding to 25 before changing the rules.
I also don't see how the EU can become a significant balancing force to prevent the US neo-con political elite treating the world as their playground - until the EU has more effective leadership and decision making processes in place.
The neocons have currently enough problems inside the US. And again, that idea that our beloved EU bureaucrats are a bunch of social democratic saints is something that I do take for granted. Actually the current EU commission president is the biggest neocon lap dog I could think off (I still remember of pictures of him, as prime minister of Portugal, in the Azores summit where the Iraq invasion was "legitimized").
Most people who whine about the democratic deficit in the EU are also working actively to try to stop it becoming more democratic - because they don't want the EU at all. And if that happens, the US and Global Capital will rule the world unhindered by any democratic sensibilities whatsoever.
I respect your opinion, but I actually think it is the other way around: political power detached from the vote will more easy to be corrupted by money/media power. Direct voter accountability, (near) proportional parliament systems and control of campaign financing are cornerstones of assuring that political power will not be hijacked.
For all it's faults, the EU is a lot better than the alternative - a lot of small and medium size countries
Your argument that there are only 2 alternatives is flawed: Lisbon is not the only way to conceive the EU. Their are other alternatives to Lisbon. Had we had decent leadership, more sensible alternatives could have been purposed.
not some idealised democratic nirvana.
The "idealized democratic nirvana" that some of us are talking about is not idealized (it exists, see most of the EU nation states) and is not a nirvana (it has many flaws, but at least it is still reasonably democratic).
beloved EU bureaucrats are a bunch of social democratic saints is something that I do take for granted. Actually the current EU commission president is the biggest neocon lap dog I could
Sorry, I meant: "I do NOT take for granted"
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I always find it remarkable how much the hard left take their "facts" and language from the Tory Eurosceptic right.
Although I am far from being "hard left" (and thus cannot give an answer from that perspective), I have no problems in using Tory (or whatever) words if they seem to be an accurate description of reality.
I would actually invert the argument altogether: do you have any problems in using other people's keywords just because those people are "far away" from you? So casual agreement with the "other side" is a substantial (negative) argument for you?
But, from an intellectual perspective, I would argue that people sometimes refuse an argument just because it is made from the "other side". That doesn't seem healthy.
From a media/narrative perspective I see your point.
