this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2023
17 points (87.0% liked)
Europe
3907 readers
3 users here now
Europa
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think you didn't understand the title. Its about the UK and Brexit and how that has caused all sorts of supply issues UK side.
The title is pretty accurate actually, and the phrasing is deliberate. Nations that are part of EU are subjects to rules and regulations made by the EU bureaucracy. This body is not elected by the people of these nations nor can it be held to account by them. Any current member of the EU that wishes to pursue an economic policy that's contrary to neoliberal capitalism that EU champions will find it impossible to do so because it lacks economic sovereignty required to do so.
Have you heard of the EU parliament? The one that EU citizen vote for?
Have you heard of the European Commission which EU citizens do not vote for?
Yes, it's voted for by the parliament, which EU citizens vote for. Representative democracy. And can absolutely be held responsible by the people. The EU parliament can dissolve the comission if wanted.
The commission is not voted for, and most importantly there is no practical way for people of the individual countries to hold the commission accountable. EU parliament can dissolve the commission in theory, however claiming that there is some direct accountability happening is beyond absurd.
This is a bold, bold move.
The EU itself admits there is a democratic deficit.
That is a bit misleading as the Comission is not directly voted for, but rather appointed by the head of states. But since all EU member states are democratic (with some reservations to Hungary these days), that is still more democratic than many similar economic coordination bodies.
The UK is not part of the EU any more. Under what rock have you been living?
I very clearly was not talking about UK in my comment, but rather explaining to you what national sovereignty is and how EU undermines it. Hope that helps clear things up for you.
Yes, but your original post shows a picture about the UK. I still think you are missing a lot of context (as usual for your "/c/europe" posts) and thus didn't understand what this is about at all. The original picture is literally about how you can't eat (post-Brexit) sovereignty and is a pro EU comment.
As the title of the post very clearly indicates, my point is regarding the framing used by the publication. I get the impression that you are intentionally failing to understand what I said in my post, and the follow up explanation. There were plenty of other framings that could have been used to describe post-Brexist problems that UK is having, but The New European chose to mock the concept of sovereignty. Again, hope this helps clear things up for you further. Please let me know if there is any other confusion on your end.
Ah, so I was assuming the best that you simply did not understand it, but actually you are just a right wing nationalist. Thanks for the clarification.
I've noticed the same behavior talking with liberal Americans, anything they don't agree with is dismissed as right wing propaganda.
Don't try to wriggle out of it now, Yogthos, your true agenda has been revealed!
😂
I love how you end every single discussion using ad hominem. What I actually wrote in black and white was this:
This is obviously the case for actual socialist policies such as mass nationalization which would not be allowed under EU policies. This is precisely what Corbyn wanted to do if UK gained economic sovereignty. Thanks for once again clarifying that there is no difference between anarchists and liberals.
@poVoq @yogthos get a room you two! 😂
🤣
They actually did few days ago, remember the thread that had like 80 comment long chain XD
This is however not what the OP cover image is about, nor what the "sovernty" discussion in the UK is about. So basically you have no idea what you were talking about and now try to change the topic to make it less obvious that you were just parroting right-wing nonsense.
I have explained in detail what my point is, and that it relates to the wording used by the publication. Feel free to continue arguing in bad faith though since that's all you seem to do here.