EP elections 2019

Do you plan to vote on the EP elections?


  • Total voters
    47
  • Poll closed .
Status
Closed
Aug 2009
5,347
Londinium
States are not all the same.

The early modern state developed in ways designed to feed a centre – Paris, Moscow, Stockholm, wherever. Effectively they developed as a kind of vampiric function of the centre. If lucky over time they reformed away from that, to allow redistribution and regional development. Though France (Paris-focused) is more centralised than Sweden (Stockholm-focused), while Russia still has moved the least from the original (Moscow-focused).

Frankly Brussels doesn't work like that in relation to the EU. (Though fantasies about it persist.)

It's somewhere to keep the joint luggage. And it does the agreed redistribution of funds.
Not all states are the same, clearly; and I have already spoken of this in this thread (Constitutional Monarchy of the UK, US is a Federal Republic etc). However there is a well-established definition and understanding of what does and does constitute a state. For example, I can’t just declare my home an independent country.

As I’ve requested before – Germany is not a state; kindly prove me wrong…

Brussels (legislature), alongside Frankfurt (financial) and Luxembourg (judiciary) perform the same functions as the capital city examples provided. Brussels is where the redistribution of funds collected from the provinces/member states is then returned back to the provinces/member states to be spent as per the agreements or instructions/restrictions of the central authority responsible for allocating funds, as your graph demonstrates.

Did I miss anything?
 
Aug 2009
5,347
Londinium
Baldtastic,

Pardon me for the late reply, but I “unwatched” this thread, since I don’t think that anything of valour can come from here. and the posts succeeded in a quick rhythm, difficult to track. This is in a loop for some time. But I also consider that is a lack of courtesy not to answer to a post that was directly addressed to me. I think that here I am addressing the unanswered ones.



By that line of reasoning I could also be rude with you when you, simply to prove your point, called the “CPLP” a “linguistic organization”, showing lack of knowledge about the organization, or when you quote sources that don’t sustain your statements, showing that you didn’t read them. Because that is frustrating. I understood clearly your perspective, since the first post that I changed with you in this thread and tried to show to you other perspectives, widely accepted. If you give a wide definition of a state, yes, you will have many states around the globe, many that usually aren’t consider and seen as states, such as regions and municipalities, and the EU.



I didn’t posted sources in the following post you posted yours mentioned here (made that latter, see the dictionary and the encyclopaedia post) because your sources don’t sustain your perspective. So I didn’t need to search for supporting evidence of the contrary since you did provide it.

As for the last sentence in the paragraph surely isn’t addressed to me.



I have a typo in the quoted posts where we read “ I we exclude…” should be read “If we exclude…” the “f” is missing and changes completely the sentence. My fault. My apologies. The sentence was built since the wide definition give in the dictionary is short, as in any dictionary, and in adding “one that is sovereign” excludes non sovereign states of the definition (Such as Florida, Scotland, Zacatecas, São Paulo…). I didn’t edited anything. For reasoning I separated the two parts of the sentence. For the record that separation helps your perspective, since it even opens more the definition of state and in that way helps to put the EU under the wide umbrella definition.



Ok, you already stated some or even all the attributes mentioned here in some previous posts.

But I also need to state, again, that point 4 is incorrect as it is written since in the international treaties with other states the EU is never mentioned as a state (As far as I know). I already mentioned this and even posted a link. But if there is any international treaty that the EU is mentioned as a state please post it.

The point 8 is also incorrect. As we already said that the EU anthem is not an “national anthem” the EU flag is not a national flag.

About the Flag the EU states: “The European flag symbolises both the European Union and, more broadly, the identity and unity of Europe.” and “It features a circle of 12 gold stars on a blue background. They stand for the ideals of unity, solidarity and harmony among the peoples of Europe.”

Source: The European flag | European Union

About the Anthem the EU states: “The melody used to symbolize the EU comes from…”, “The anthem symbolises not only the European Union but also Europe in a wider sense.” and “The European anthem is not intended to replace the national anthems of the EU countries but rather to celebrate the values they share. The anthem is played at official ceremonies involving the European Union and generally at all sorts of events with a European character.”

Source: The European anthem | European Union

Not that the question of symbols like the anthem and flag are entirety necessary to the concept of state. Usually they are products of states and other organizations, either political, cultural, sport, economic…



In the previous paragraph you mentioned that EU is a state. Now you are mentioning that is a country. In the link that you provided to us a few posts back you explained to us the differences between a nation and a country. Now you seem to confuse both.

Let me recall you, your own source: Explore What Defines a State, Sovereign State, Country, and Nation (posted in #411). You should read it. Not really academic but it is not that bad.



Already explained and further explanations will follow in this post. For the record the fact that some pro-European supporters, like me, don’t see the EU as a state (or a country) is because they want that the EU become one and feel that a long path needs to be done. I will elaborate on this.

***

Now the answer to a second post that was also addressed to me.



Already addressed. See above.



See your, I mean *your source*, already linked in this post: Explore What Defines a State, Sovereign State, Country, and Nation



These are your personal considerations and opinions. Don’t have much to say here. We are all entitled to have personal considerations and opinions.
I gave personal opinions in support of the previous links, many, many pages ago. Those opinions were not the foundation of my argument. Furthermore, you have not dismissed any them



Notwithstanding my (single) mistake of saying country rather than state, a shocking crime, you have failed to address anything that has not already been discussed before. Although you have helped clarifying my argument with your source.


Thanks for your link, I would like to revise my previous argument, the EU is not a state, it’s a sovereign state (according to your link; Explore What Defines a State, Sovereign State, Country, and Nation):

  • A sovereign state is a state with its own institutions and populations which has a permanent population, territory, and government. It must also have the right and capacity to make treaties and other agreements with other states…. Space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries
  • People who live there on an ongoing basis.
  • Regulations governing foreign and domestic trade
  • The ability to issue legal tender that is recognized across boundaries
  • An internationally recognized government which provides public services and police power and has the right to make treaties, wage war, and take other actions on behalf of its people
  • Sovereignty, meaning that no other state should have power over the country's territory.
As far as I can seem the EU doesn’t have the ability to wage war; everything else listed out is directly applicable to the EU.

I’ve already demonstrated, clearly, that the EU makes treaties and agreements with other states under the guise of the EU, hopefully we don’t need to go over that again, if unsure then please go back into this thread and pick-out the posts where I have proven this. Having to return back to old posts myself, repeating the same thing, is getting very tiresome. So, unless you’d like to debate if the EU has a permanent population, territory and government (self-evident I feel) then do you accept that by your own source, the EU is a sovereign state?



Lastly, just because the EU doesn’t see itself as a state doesn’t mean it is not a state; if Man Utd declared themselves not a football team but carried on playing football in the EPL etc, would you and the world stop telling people they are a football tea?. Come now, think for yourself rather than what the EU does/does not say.
 
Aug 2009
5,347
Londinium
* The monopoly of force in its territory – this monopoly still belongs to the members;
EU law must be enforced by member states. Furthermore, as I’ve said countless times, EU law must be put on member states statues but this is not reciprocal. The EU could pass a law which supersedes member law resulting in sovereign power resting with the EU and not member states. Monopoly of power isn’t clear, but I would argue the EU clearly exercises force within its territory i.e. Portugal.

* The international community doesn’t see or recognize the EU as a state;
But it does recognize the EU. It does see the EU as an authority which can be negotiated with and enter into contracts with.

* The EU doesn’t see itself as a state;
I don’t care. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I’m calling it a duck. If the EU called it’s Sarah, would you call it Sarah?! LOL


“At the core of the EU are the 28 Member States* that belong to the Union, and their citizens. The unique feature of the EU is that, although the Member States all remain sovereign and independent states, they have decided to pool some of their ‘sovereignty’ in areas where it makes sense to work together. In practice, this means that the Member States delegate some of their decision-making powers to the shared institutions they have created, so that decisions on specific matters of common interest can be made democratically at EU level.” (p. 7. The asterisk is the obvious reference to the Brexit and the UK notification to leave the EU).
I.E one aspect of the apparatus of a state (sovereignty) is now within the EU’s remit. Yes?

As far as I am aware, I must confess that I never fully read or analysed all the text, my reading on it has always been quite light, in all the text the EU never claims to be a state. I consider the wording “political system”, as used by the Carlton university link, or “State under construction” already used by me, more accurate to definite the EU. Since “International Organization” is also already quite vague. It is a new project. As far as I am aware it is the first time that so many sovereign states give big steps to achieve common goals. As it is a new project, old definitions sometimes are not enough to describe what is new.
Well that’s very convenient for the EU. Is this not classic double speak
 
Oct 2013
14,267
Europix
Brussels is where the redistribution of funds collected from the provinces/member states is then returned back to the provinces/member states to be spent as per the agreements or instructions/restrictions of the central authority responsible for allocating funds, as your graph demonstrates.

Did I miss anything?
Yes.

The sovereign decisional level for the EU budged doesn't lye in EU itself (as it does in a state) but at the country members level.

So, "Brussels" receives a quota from the national budget of the sovereign state "X", "y","z" (pick-up UK or whatever else You like), exactly as the ministry of Justice of the same state "x" receive, or the national security of the same state "y", or the national education of the state "z", and so forth.

In my knowledge, no modern State (from the hyper-centralised PRC to hyper-loose Swiss Confederation) has the budget sovereign decision at province/cantonal/etc, (non-central that is) level.
 
Aug 2009
5,347
Londinium
Yes.

The sovereign decisional level for the EU budged doesn't lye in EU itself (as it does in a state) but at the country members level.

So, "Brussels" receives a quota from the national budget of the sovereign state "X", "y","z" (pick-up UK or whatever else You like), exactly as the ministry of Justice of the same state "x" receive, or the national security of the same state "y", or the national education of the state "z", and so forth.

In my knowledge, no modern State (from the hyper-centralised PRC to hyper-loose Swiss Confederation) has the budget sovereign decision at province/cantonal/etc, (non-central that is) level.
Who sets the quota? The EU's institutions or the individual member states within their respective Parliaments? If it's the EU (think it is) then the "sovereign decision" occurs within the sovereign entity, the EU.

Just to reiterate, as you glanced over it, the functions of any state you can mention are replicated directly within the EU; legislature, judiciary and financial as per my counter point to Larry.
 
Oct 2013
14,267
Europix
Ok then, define the modern state

If the EU is not a state, as you say, then you should have no hesitation in providing a concise and clear response. In the rest of this post you give many examples and equivalences of what can be considered a state or not, so I know you have already thought it over, now I’m asking you to share….
Although I think it's difficult to give THE definition, I find myself very close to Georg Jellinek's definition of soverignity (having the faculty to dispose of the compétence of it's competences, being juridically "irresponsible" to other entities in exerting it's competences, if You want).

Soverignity, in that acception, is determinant for being or not a state.


France is juridically "irresponsible" in military matters to any other entity except France itself, for example. EU isn't.

(I will not continue, as I gave multiple examples on that in at least two posts).
 
Last edited:
Aug 2009
5,347
Londinium
Although I think it's difficult to give THE definition, I find myself very close to Georg Jellinek's definition of soverignity (having the faculty to dispose of the compétence of it's competences, being juridically "irresponsible" to other entities in exerting it's competences, if You want).

Soverignity, in that acception, is determinant for being or not a state.


France is juridically "irresponsible" in military matters to any other entity except France, for example. EU isn't.

(I will not continue, as I gave multiple examples on that in at least two posts).
Would voting MEP's out of office not count as meeting Georf Jellinek's definition of sovereignty?

France, under Article 5 of NATO (IIRC) is militarily response to other entity's except France.
 
Aug 2009
5,347
Londinium
The Member States, unanimously.

Meaning, every single member state has a veto right. Meaning, the decisional level is at national level.
Nice try, the entire apparatus for setting the budget occurs at the EU level, no? Any decision making power member states have is gracefully received from the ultimate authority, the EU.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions