Kenny Kan » Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:16 am wrote:Absolute dross.
The very fact a nation has to cede a "a certain degree of their national sovereignty" marks the notion that the undemocratic and unelected foreign organisation is actually totalitarian by nature. Obviously, you cannot overtly coerce a country to membership or rule, as the Nazis' tried and subsequently found out, so other means of diplomacy ensure more covert ways of this organisation flex their totalitarian nature.
Just ask the Irish, in regards to the Euro, who are in over their head more so than the British, taking upon their 'flawed' financial monetary system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gm9q8uabTsHe's bang on (excuse the pun) money.

You f'ucking wally.
The EU cannot by any reasonable definition be accurately described as being "totalitarian in nature" because, as I have said, it cannot force its members to remain members if the elected governments of those countries wish to withdraw. The defining feature of totalitarian states is that they recognise no limits to their authority, and having the right to withdraw is the ultimate limit on the authority of the EU. That right is provided for in the Treaty on the European Union, which all member states agree to accept as a condition of membership.
And, for the record, the EU has a Parliament which is elected by the citizens of the member states. The people are also indirectly represented by their governments in the Council of Ministers and the European Council, which, along with the EU Parliament, are the institutions responsible for creating EU law.
This isn't to say that the democratic credentials of the EU aren't in doubt (this is a matter of more complex debate) or that the governments of EU member states necessarily respond adequately to the wishes of their electorates, but it does prove beyond question that the EU is neither "totalitarian in nature" nor "unelected".