Yes, and then out penal code has international jurisdiction and has been used to prosecute Pinochet and Chinese officials (not under the ICC, under Spanish law). It’s complicated, but basically the whole justice and liberty part does not apply only to Spanish nationals, not in wording and not in intention (the welfare part does, that’s why, against public opinion, we now charge foreigners who use our health system. Until recently we didn’t). Of course, the international jurisdiction never leads to anything (but scares to former dictators), and that’s why ICC (an institution in which most ratified signatories are indeed democracies) membership is such a good idea.
And then you have the whole European Union thing, which is about ceding sovereignty to help a wider collective, even though it might sometimes be counter to national benefit… We even changed the constitution a couple of years ago on pressure by the EU. No matter what the wording is, in practice (and in public opinion) the idea the country is only indebted to its nationals is not operative).
The United States doesn’t sign many international treaties because it can afford not to. It might not bring them friends, but for the moment, it does well enough without those friends.
European countries no longer can afford to be “above the law”, so, soft power, blah blah, diplomacy first, international treaties uber alles, etc.
The EU is a way to keep Europeans from killing each other / stay relevant, not some attempt at helping a wider collective.
Yeah, but Spain only does that because it provides a benefit. For instance, why change because the US wants you to? Likely because you get something of value in return. Why join the EU? Same deal. That’s a tradeoff, but here the US doesn’t see itself getting enough in return.
Mind you: I support the ICC and I as an individual would like the US to ratify it, but there’s just no compelling reason for the government to do so. When there is, I think they would. In the meantime, individual arrangements with nations that house our troops allows the US to leverage a more beneficial arrangement for itself, and likewise in financial affairs. In a poker game, it’s essentially being a big stack bully. It’s effective, although not pleasant.
Timex
3624
But you don’t seem to grasp the fact that you don’t need to be subservient to some international body which you lack influence over, to do things that benefit the world.
If you want to do those things, you are better off not being subservient to that body, since then your government is free to act as it’s people see fit.
Yeah, I agree it doesn’t make practical sense (my stating of that started this whole tangential discussion). However, I feel that as the US society is structured in a strongly individualistic way (no public health care, etc…), that’s somewhat reflected in how it behaves internationally. And I do think there are countries out there that do not necessarily follow only their self interest in their international relations, but that they sometimes take into account the international community benefit over theirs.
It’s not always so and it needs to be analyzed case by case, but the international scene is not purely a Darwinian playground, and it doesn’t need to be so. And I believe it’s dangerous when it behaves like that.
Timex
3626
Do you feel like you have no control over your government’s actions, and that’s why you want them to be subservient to some other international body?
And then the question becomes, do you believe that you have control over what the icc does?
Juan - Except there’s many Americans who insist on approaching it in that matter. The US government in the Ireland data center case, for instance. Just because it’s an American-based company, they demand it comply…regardless of other counties laws.
Timex
3628
Did you guys go back to a monarchy, or do you still have a Socratically elected government?
“Did you guys go back to a monarchy”
Stereotype more?
Timex
3630
First, lol at autocorrect picking the word Socratically.
Beyond that though, you are essentially unhappy with the fact that the positions held by the majority of your citizens don’t agree with yours. But you want to impose your views upon them, and so you hope that if you go to a larger international body, that they will then be able to do what you are complaining about, and impose their views upon the majority in your country, who will then become the new minority.
Do i have that right? Am i missing anything?
Auto-correct, uh-huh.
Then you make up nonsense I never said (YOU are!), in a typical bad faith argument.
Timex
3632
Can’t you just make new parties that represent what you want?
It seems like a bit of a conspiracy theory, that there is secretly a majority who is consistently disenfranchised by your government.
Further, there is no reason for you to believe that an international government, which you have sentient no say in at all, is gobbing to represent your interests better.
You have a much better chance to affect change in the government you actually elect.
ShivaX
3633
Democracy is great until people vote wrong. Then it’s time for a change apparently.
ShivaX - FPTP is not identical to “democracy”, y’know.
Timex
3635
Your vote in the EU parliament is essentially trivial compared to your influence over your own government.
You just think that because they policies happen to coincide with what you think you want, at this particular moment in time, that they represent you.
To me, it seems crazy to prefer being controlled by a government that you have less influence over.
Keep yelling all Europeans are crazy, as you make up nonsense about my vote which isn’t true in another bad faith argument.
Timex
3637
It’s weird that you don’t seem to grasp the difference in proportionality between your influence over your native country and your continent.
But honestly, whatever. That’s totally your call if you want to give up your country’s sovereignty. We kind of did that two hundred and some years ago when we formed the united States…
But we did it because it made us stronger to be a single main, not because of some misguided belief that more detached government somehow represented us better.
ShivaX
3638
So because the UK can’t do things correctly, Americans should hand over some of their sovereignty to a foreign organization.
Gotcha.
As a duel citizen or the US and the Netherlands, and as a person how has voted in many different elections,(although not the EU ones recently), I find that I have a lack of choice in the US. The winner takes all approach leaves me with short sighted corupt jack asses who hate science or short sighted corupt jackasses whoe are afraid of losing funding. At least in the EU, I had 5 or 6 different short sighted politicians of various descriptions to choose from. In fact, I jumped between 3 different parties, depending on the current platform, all were okay, and would work together, but sometimes the era dictated that one was better than the other 2.
That being said, my father is an Irish Citizen living in the Netherlands, and because of the EU, he can vote for his MEP and the local dutch elections. Just not the national ones. So, he actually has a larger same inwhat happens where he lives than he would without it. Obviously, this scares the pants off manh right wingers. The idea that living somewhere might make you a stake holder and give you a voice (sinc you pay taxes) might mean that people different from themm might have a say.
CraigM
3640
Timex, as an American, it should be blindingly obvious that first past the poll DOES NOT serve the will of the people. In fact due to gerrymandering, the geographic splits, and general way that seats are doled out the makeup of our politicians is profoundly altered from representing the people.
How many congress people are in ‘safe’ seats, places where there is no viable way to challenge. How about how the fact that, to cite a particularly egregious example, in 2012 (because the data from 2014 is still spotty) Pennsylvania voted 50%-48% in favor of Democrats for congress. The breakdown of seats? 13 Republicans to 5 Democrats.
Your notion of ‘vote to change the government’ are laughable when the reality bends that way.
FPTP is a fundamentally broken form of democracy. It opens up for that type of electoral abuse, and makes forming of viable third party (the only real means of introducing new ideas) impossible.
Why is it that every election there is half a dozen states that get all the attention nationally? It sure as hell isn’t because all the elections are competitive. A vote in Ohio, on a national level, is worth infinitely more than in Illinois.
