European Union wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Gravlen]

So the EU has caused armed conflicts between its member states?

No

So you were just lying?

[Caninope]

It isa popularity contest. That's how the Nobel Prizes work. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a popularity contest.

I don't think you can call it a popularity contest when only a comparatively limited set of people has the right to submit nominations, and only a handful or two people actually pick the winner.

My biggest gripe is that the Nobel Peace Prizes though are that I feel as if it deals with activists nowadays rather than peace, in itself. That might be my biggest gripe with the award.

So, precisely the thing they didn't do this year, then?

The Committee didn't do it this year, and I'm glad of that.

However, I just don't feel as if the EU is particularly deserving, all the same.

[Quintium]

So you were just lying?

Are you made of straw? No - but I'm pointing out that the risk of revolt and armed conflict is growing, and not in decline, due to the European Union. And it has been since the thing was founded - there has been a lot of latent anger ever since the early 2000s, and I'd be surprised if you didn't know. The earlier schemes were fine, but the moment they made it into a political project and an organisation that held political sovereignty, it went wrong. Apparently, a large amount of policemen in Greece now intend to vote for the neonazis. In Portugal, a colonel said the army would never step in and hurt the people in support of the government if the people decided to turn on their government "while these people are making a lot of money from our misery". In Greece, just a few days ago, riot police were set on fire and parliament had yet another lucky escape.

It's going awry, and you'd better believe it.

[Ravenstein]

he Nobel Peace Prize 2012 was awarded to European Union (EU) "for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe".

A sort of lifetime achievement award. Good thing they give it now before it all falls apart...

[Maineiacs]

OK, I'll likely regret asking, but I'm going to anyway: who did deserve the prize?

[Delanshar]

Heh - it's what I've been saying for all of this thread. Glad to find yet another person who states what it looks like, not what it would ideally look like. As it is, the European Union is the exact opposite of what it received the prize for.

So the EU has caused armed conflicts between its member states?

I fail to see how just because the EU hasn't caused an outright armed conflict (yet) that it should be given the Nobel Peace Prize.
My right foot hasn't caused armed conflicts between states. Can I get a Peace Prize too?

[Antrema]

OK, I'll likely regret asking, but I'm going to anyway: who did deserve the prize?

Israel and Iran for not starting WW3

[Gravlen]

So you were just lying?

Are you made of straw? No - but I'm pointing out that the risk of revolt and armed conflict is growing, and not in decline, due to the European Union. And it has been since the thing was founded - there has been a lot of latent anger ever since the early 2000s, and I'd be surprised if you didn't know. The earlier schemes were fine, but the moment they made it into a political project and an organisation that held political sovereignty, it went wrong. Apparently, a large amount of policemen in Greece now intend to vote for the neonazis. In Portugal, a colonel said the army would never step in and hurt the people in support of the government if the people decided to turn on their government "while these people are making a lot of money from our misery". In Greece, just a few days ago, riot police were set on fire and parliament had yet another lucky escape.

It's going awry, and you'd better believe it.

So you were lying when you said "the European Union is the exact opposite of what it received the prize for". Because that's not what you claim now.

It recieved the price for contributing to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe, bringing former enemies together as allies, being a stabilizing factor that helped to transform most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace, and for work that represents "fraternity between nations". None - absolutely nothing - of your lamentations show that the EU is the opposite of this, i.e. hindering peace and reconciliation, weakening democracy and human rights in Europe, turning former allies to enemies, being a factor of instability that transform most of Europe from a continent of peace to a continent of war, and work to promote hostility between nations.

It might seem like I'm taking this very literally, but it seems to be necessary since you don't have a particular regard for the words you choose to use.

[Quintium]

A sort of lifetime achievement award. Good thing they give it now before it all falls apart...

Haha, that's one way to look at it. It's like giving a man in his late 90s a medal for his military service seventy-five years ago. As for who did deserve the prize - there are millions of activists fighting for democracy in the Middle East, in Asia, fighting corruption throughout the world, demanding democracy in Central Asia or trying to keep the situation under control in the Middle East or the Korean peninsula.

[Gravlen]

So the EU has caused armed conflicts between its member states?

My right foot hasn't caused armed conflicts between states. Can I get a Peace Prize too?
I fail to see how just because the EU hasn't caused an outright armed conflict (yet) that it should be given the Nobel Peace Prize.

lrn2context

Or, try reading the thread, yeah?

[Ifreann]

OK, I'll likely regret asking, but I'm going to anyway: who did deserve the prize?

I wouldn't have said no.

[CVT Temp]

And Peter Higgs didn't get the physics prize either.

[Delanshar]

OK, I'll likely regret asking, but I'm going to anyway: who did deserve the prize?

Nigel Farage..

[Nazis in Space]

Fine. To be honest, I thought I had explained my views earlier, and you simply hadn't looked for them. The hypocrisy - it burns.

Please explain to me how the EU is undemocratic.

Here we go. First of all, they make an effort to detach the European Union from most people's everyday reality. Now, as you may know, turnout is constantly so low the results wouldn't be valid in many jurisdictions around the world. It generally isn't a majority of voters who care to show up, because they have absolutely no idea what it's about. That also means, on a sidenote, that turnout is highest with people who love the European Union - because while they're just as poorly-informed, they have an explicit motivation to show up. Let's not forget the last time a majority of voters even showed up for those elections was in 1994, a year after this thing was founded. Since then, it's been a minority and dropping.

As a result of the extremely-low turnout (under 20% in Slovakia last time), European Parliament does not actually represent the people of Europe. It represents the people who had the luxury of taking a few hours off work to vote, and who were really motivated to vote - unlike a lot of people, who have come to terms with the fact that European Parliament is a chamber of approval and sometimes amendment for measures taken by the European Commission, and not a proper parliament.

Now, since European Parliament is a very weak body that holds little real relevance for the people of Europe, it's easy for those whose full-time job is to govern to decide what happens. These are the people who drive the committees and never get to see plenary debates. These are the European Commissioners and their vast army of overpaid (their net income is often higher than their gross income, and both are mindblowing) jurists and bureaucrats. A law professor once remarked, with a very straight face indeed, that it's completely impossible for any small business owner to understand the laws that govern their field of trade because there are simply too many of them. The European Union's supposed mandate is not only derived from a minority of European voters, but also subject to the whims of an army bureaucrats who know their trade a lot better than any members of European Parliament can.

Okay.

So, you do acknowledge that elections exist, which are free, fair, secret and so on. It's just elections with a relatively low voter turnout - so we can accurately determine that the EU is democratic by design. It is also, incidentally, worth noting that the EU is happily listing all the details of who is responsible for what et al online - so the information of what's going on is there, too. No attempt to hide anything. Excellent.

Your omgtheworkingmassesaredisenfranchisedonlytheunemployedandrichcanvote comment is so hilariously full of bullshit, it can easily feed all the flies in the world - elections are either on national holidays/ sundays, or get their special election holiday. So, you're flat-out lying there.

Low voter turnout is indeed a problem, it's just... You'll first have to show that the voter turnout disproportionately affects some demographics, and you'll then have to somehow explain how chosing not to vote equals all the other votes not counting. It's the people's choice at work there. It doesn't get any more democratic.

Your complaint about the evil, evil bureaucrats (Who keep things running by setting standards et al...) is questionable... Because this is, again, precisely how it works on the national level. It's not exactly an EU-specific criticism when your country, and all the other countries function in precisely the same way. I suppose you can be unhappy with omgevil bureaucracy (Silly though that is, but hating on bureaucrats is like hating on lawyers - publicly acceptable), it's just not a sensible criticism of the EU - rather, it's a criticism of all government ever.

Fundamentally, your issues come down to issues that are either issues on the national level, too, or issues that derive from the people, not the EU - if we follow your line of reasoning, the EU wants to be democratic (And institutionally, is democratic), but the general population doesn't care enough to make it so.

Needless to say, in this case, you're supposed to bitch at the electorate for not voting, not at the EU for setting up everything in beautifully democratic ways and then not getting enough of a voter turnout.

[Delanshar]

My right foot hasn't caused armed conflicts between states. Can I get a Peace Prize too?
I fail to see how just because the EU hasn't caused an outright armed conflict (yet) that it should be given the Nobel Peace Prize.

lrn2context

Or, try reading the thread, yeah?

Ok.
In Context My right foot has never caused anyone to lose their job, and it has never destroyed a nation's economy.
The EU has.

Peace Prize Please!

[Delanshar]

Fundamentally, your issues come down to issues that are either issues on the national level, too, or issues that derive from the people, not the EU - if we follow your line of reasoning, the EU wants to be democratic (And institutionally, is democratic), but the general population doesn't care enough to make it so.

Needless to say, in this case, you're supposed to bitch at the electorate for not voting, not at the EU for setting up everything in beautifully democratic ways and then not getting enough of a voter turnout.

Have you ever considered that maybe, since voting is an act of acknowledgement for an institution's legitimacy, that the turnout is low precisely because the people of Europe don't approve of the EU and won't give it the victory of seeing a high turnout.

[Gravlen]

lrn2context

Or, try reading the thread, yeah?

Ok.
In Context My right foot has never caused anyone to lose their job, and it has never destroyed a nation's economy.
The EU has.

Peace Prize Please!

Comprehension fail.

[Quintium]

So you were lying when you said "the European Union is the exact opposite of what it received the prize for". Because that's not what you claim now.

No. I'm saying, and have been all along, that what the European Union has done ever since it was called that in 1993 has actually been breaking down those things, not strengthening them.

i.e. hindering peace and reconciliation

Peace and reconciliation? Southern Europeans are depicted as lazy bastards here, and people are being attacked in Greece for 'looking German'.
That's lovely. As I said before, sarcastically, 'at least there are no formal declarations of war anymore'.

weakening democracy and human rights in Europe

Which is why 500 million out of 17 million people theoretically, and one commissioner practically, decide on our immigration policies. There's a fundamental problem here, and it answers both of those. Because the European Parliament is so weak and the system is based around bureaucracy rather than democracy, it's not really a good idea for them to do what they're doing now - try to give European Parliament parts of sovereignty that used to belong to national parliaments that were down to earth and much more effective. Answering the human rights issue - this process violates what is arguably the most important right of all: the right to determine who governs you.

turning former allies to enemies

Remember when European heads of state were able to visit Athens without having a full ban on protests introduced temporarily and riot police and soldiers sent everywhere, and without riot police barely being able to hold off people trying to get to them? I do, but it certainly wasn't last week. It's not just about governments - those are always late to catch up. It's about the people, and right now the people are very properly outraged.

being a factor of instability

Economically, and as a result socially, they are a factor of instability. The countries in Europe with the highest economic growth rates (or any growth at all) and the best structural outlooks have one thing in common. None of them use this 'common currency' that supposedly keeps Europe together. Even if European Union member states rather than eurozone countries are measured, and this information comes straight from the European Union itself, it seems the ones that are not members of the European Union have enjoyed a structurally-better economic situation right from the 1990s. And these aren't just developing countries - they include Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, but also Turkey and Macedonia.

that transform most of Europe from a continent of peace to a continent of war

They sure are working on it.

and work to promote hostility between nations.

Really? We have José Manuel Barroso saying national flags are 'flags of xenophobia'. The Irish and the British occasionally pick the European Parliament to shout at each other. Everyone, meanwhile, is up in arms, and isolationist nationalist sentiment is growing in practically every member state as a result of the European Union's daft and undemocratic policies.

[Delanshar]

So you were lying when you said "the European Union is the exact opposite of what it received the prize for". Because that's not what you claim now.

No. I'm saying, and have been all along, that what the European Union has done ever since it was called that in 1993 has actually been breaking down those things, not strengthening them.

i.e. hindering peace and reconciliation

Peace and reconciliation? Southern Europeans are depicted as lazy bastards here, and people are being attacked in Greece for 'looking German'.
That's lovely. As I said before, sarcastically, 'at least there are no formal declarations of war anymore'.

weakening democracy and human rights in Europe

Which is why 500 million out of 17 million people theoretically, and one commissioner practically, decide on our immigration policies. There's a fundamental problem here, and it answers both of those. Because the European Parliament is so weak and the system is based around bureaucracy rather than democracy, it's not really a good idea for them to do what they're doing now - try to give European Parliament parts of sovereignty that used to belong to national parliaments that were down to earth and much more effective. Answering the human rights issue - this process violates what is arguably the most important right of all: the right to determine who governs you.

turning former allies to enemies

Remember when European heads of state were able to visit Athens without having a full ban on protests introduced temporarily and riot police and soldiers sent everywhere, and without riot police barely being able to hold off people trying to get to them? I do, but it certainly wasn't last week. It's not just about governments - those are always late to catch up. It's about the people, and right now the people are very properly outraged.

being a factor of instability

Economically, and as a result socially, they are a factor of instability. The countries in Europe with the highest economic growth rates (or any growth at all) and the best structural outlooks have one thing in common. None of them use this 'common currency' that supposedly keeps Europe together. Even if European Union member states rather than eurozone countries are measured, and this information comes straight from the European Union itself, it seems the ones that are not members of the European Union have enjoyed a structurally-better economic situation right from the 1990s. And these aren't just developing countries - they include Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, but also Turkey and Macedonia.

that transform most of Europe from a continent of peace to a continent of war

They sure are working on it.

and work to promote hostility between nations.

Really? We have José Manuel Barroso saying national flags are 'flags of xenophobia'. The Irish and the British occasionally pick the European Parliament to shout at each other. Everyone, meanwhile, is up in arms, and isolationist nationalist sentiment is growing in practically every member state as a result of the European Union's daft and undemocratic policies.

Well said.

[Nazis in Space]

Fundamentally, your issues come down to issues that are either issues on the national level, too, or issues that derive from the people, not the EU - if we follow your line of reasoning, the EU wants to be democratic (And institutionally, is democratic), but the general population doesn't care enough to make it so.

Needless to say, in this case, you're supposed to bitch at the electorate for not voting, not at the EU for setting up everything in beautifully democratic ways and then not getting enough of a voter turnout.

Have you ever considered that maybe, since voting is an act of acknowledgement for an institution's legitimacy, that the turnout is low precisely because the people of Europe don't approve of the EU and won't give it the victory of seeing a high turnout.

I dunno. Judging by your signature, I guess you're American.

Congrats, you just declared the United States democratically illegitimate according to its population's consensus.

Given the 40- 50% results in European Parliament elections (Average. Varies by country from over 20 to over 90%) are in pretty much the same ballpark, yeah...

And, to be quite frank - people stay away from these elections because they can't be arsed, not because they think the EU is evil.

Well, not all people. But the majority.

[Greed and Death]

Have you ever considered that maybe, since voting is an act of acknowledgement for an institution's legitimacy, that the turnout is low precisely because the people of Europe don't approve of the EU and won't give it the victory of seeing a high turnout.

I dunno. Judging by your signature, I guess you're American.

Congrats, you just declared the United States democratically illegitimate according to its population's consensus.

Given the 40- 50% results in European Parliament elections (Average. Varies by country from over 20 to over 90%) are in pretty much the same ballpark, yeah...

And, to be quite frank - people stay away from these elections because they can't be arsed, not because they think the EU is evil.

Well, not all people. But the majority.

There is the states right argument against the federal govnerment.

[Delanshar]

Have you ever considered that maybe, since voting is an act of acknowledgement for an institution's legitimacy, that the turnout is low precisely because the people of Europe don't approve of the EU and won't give it the victory of seeing a high turnout.

I dunno. Judging by your signature, I guess you're American.

Congrats, you just declared the United States democratically illegitimate according to its population's consensus.

Given the 40- 50% results in European Parliament elections (Average. Varies by country from over 20 to over 90%) are in pretty much the same ballpark, yeah...

And, to be quite frank - people stay away from these elections because they can't be arsed, not because they think the EU is evil.

Well, not all people. But the majority.

By your own source, the US had almost a 60 % turnout in 2008, I'd say thats not too bad. More importantly, no matter how much you wish it, the European Union is not a country while the USA is. Thus the criteria isn't the same. You give turnout as an average of all the EU countries. Ok. But the EU's legitimacy is decided in each country individually... so if a country has only 20 % turnout (as you say some of them do) then they should be allowed to leave.

[Nazis in Space]

Economically, and as a result socially, they are a factor of instability. The countries in Europe with the highest economic growth rates (or any growth at all) and the best structural outlooks have one thing in common. None of them use this 'common currency' that supposedly keeps Europe together. Even if European Union member states rather than eurozone countries are measured, and this information comes straight from the European Union itself, it seems the ones that are not members of the European Union have enjoyed a structurally-better economic situation right from the 1990s. And these aren't just developing countries - they include Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, but also Turkey and Macedonia.

In terms of GDPPC... Three of the top ten don't use the Euro. None of the bottom ten do.

Growth rate... Doesn't look much better. There's more European top growth countries, chiefly on account of still being dirt poor and thus not capable of qualifying for the Euro, but Luxembourg, Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and France sure don't have a problem growing above-average, something that can't exactly be said for the glorious, Euro-free United Kingdom.

[Nazis in Space]

I dunno. Judging by your signature, I guess you're American.

Congrats, you just declared the United States democratically illegitimate according to its population's consensus.

Given the 40- 50% results in European Parliament elections (Average. Varies by country from over 20 to over 90%) are in pretty much the same ballpark, yeah...

And, to be quite frank - people stay away from these elections because they can't be arsed, not because they think the EU is evil.

Well, not all people. But the majority.

By your own source, the US had almost a 60 % turnout in 2008, I'd say thats not too bad. More importantly, no matter how much you wish it, the European Union is not a country while the USA is. Thus the criteria isn't the same. You give turnout as an average of all the EU countries. Ok. But the EU's legitimacy is decided in each country individually... so if a country has only 20 % turnout (as you say some of them do) then they should be allowed to leave.

We're talking parliamentary elections, remember? Hence averaging between presidential- and only senate/ congress elections.

I'm also afraid that you're just a little bit dumb when you think a country 'Should be allowed to leave the EU'. Not because that's a bad idea, quite the opposite.

But because they're all free to leave anytime they wish in the first place. What with the EU not being a dictatorship enforcing membership.

Shocking, I know.

[Quintium]

Given the 40- 50% results in European Parliament elections (Average. Varies by country from over 20 to over 90%) are in pretty much the same ballpark, yeah...

Actually, and here's the most hilarious part, the 90% turnout in those countries is still rather bad. Why? Because it's actually a criminal offence to not show up and vote if you're eligible to vote. That means 10% of those people actually violated the law and risked prosecution so they didn't have to vote.

Growth rate... Doesn't look much better. There's more European top growth countries, chiefly on account of still being dirt poor and thus not capable of qualifying for the Euro, but Luxembourg, Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and France sure don't have a problem growing above-average, something that can't exactly be said for the glorious, Euro-free United Kingdom.

Those are old figures. Looking at the period between 1980 and 2012, and just look for the official figures by the European Union itself rather than a messy Wikipedia article, there are two highly-visible things. Firstly, growth rate has declined with every major measure the European Union introduced. Secondly, current growth rates (don't look at the predicted ones, because they're generally at least double of what they'll turn out to be) are actually, and have been under normal circumstances for over a decade, much higher in non-eurozone and non-EU countries. I once read an article about economic growth in the United States, and then it hit me. What they call sluggish annual growth is better than what we've done in the past five years.