The Results of the UK's European Members Election 2019.

[Wallfire]

Ok this is a bit long winded but it does show how the EU changes the rules to suit its ends. Part about the EU underlined in red by me. Its mostly about Sweden but I think it suits all of Europe

When democracy becomes the enemy of politicians

Published June 2, 2019 at 21.35
COLUMN. Many politicians - especially liberal ones - are not comfortable with the majority deciding. The governing establishment believes that rights belong to the sphere of power of nomenclature, which democracy should not interfere with.


Trying to maximize an outcome against a goal is often quite straightforward. With two goals, it is important to decide which one should be prioritized and to which one should be taken less account. This can be described as a dilemma. At three goals it is often about what should be prioritized.

Within economics there are a number of trilemmen. In a number of issues, two desirable goals may be compatible, they will not even be a dilemma where a result can only be increased at the expense of the second goal. But the third goal puts the spanner in the wheel for the other two. Each of the three goals can be combined with the other two, but only with one of them at a time. A goal falls outside the three possible lines that include two goals and excludes the third.

Graphically, we have a triangle with three possible choices represented by the three sides of the triangle. If we choose baseline A between goal 2 and goal 3 then goal 1 becomes impossible (when choosing another line then one of the other goals falls outside the practical possibilities).

An economic trilemma is (1) free capital movements, (2) controlled exchange rate and (3) monetary independence. Many economists like all three, but they are forced to prioritize a desirable goal, the reasoning becomes clearer if we use a more private example as the housing issue. One can start by presenting three attractive wishes: central location, generous areas and a low rent.

However, it becomes difficult to find objects that meet all three criteria. You have to think more closely about what to choose from. The central location? Generous surfaces? A low rent? Reduced to two goals, the problem is more manageable and less of a desire dream.

Our politicians are torn between three goals for the political system. One goal is to maintain democracy, even it may even be developed. Breaking its guiding principles not only raises opposition in the population but also the politicians' learned views. Introducing a post-democracy does not come up as explicit proposals when formulating a new party program.

Another goal that attracts politicians is to be perceived as a progressive leadership. The politicians want to stand for leadership that raises international admiration. Sweden and many other countries are facing a number of challenges, and it is about phasing out the old society and shaping it new with energy conversion, artificial intelligence and constant retraining. There is a need for a transformational policy in which the politicians show action and leadership.

The third common goal is to safeguard the rule of law. Though it should be changed on things, this should be done under ordered forms. Although it changes, goals and rules should be as intact as possible. We formulate an international order of ideals such as human rights and a large set of international rules and goals such as Agenda 2030.

Some conservatives see legal power as a way to curb political. Many see a potential conflict between the state (politicians) and the deep state (authorities and courts). The Right considered that a number of institutions needed protection against an excess of democracy: the throne, the altar and the money bag. In the past, many conservatives saw an EU accession and a constitutional court with which the deep state's legal machinery could curb leftist activists.

In many countries, however, lawyers in courts have not been braked against reforms, but on the contrary driven a legalistic reformism which is based on moralism rather than on political traditions. With frequent ties between politicians and lawyers / officials, the division of roles between them becomes quite unclear.

Much speaks for a delay effect. Yesterday's political innovator broke through in politics, but it took longer to advance in the other hierarchies. Therefore, today's political elite will soon also take over the deep state. An illustrative example is Turkey, which established a strictly secular state which, however, after a long period of religious political domination gradually becomes an increasingly Muslim state. Culture and politics strongly influence each other.

But today, the nomenclature in Sweden believes it can handle this in a skilful way.
One trend we can see is that the politicians end up in the same situation as the homeowner. Three goals are too much. What seems to be removed is democracy which is a bit erratic. The people have a tendency to not uphold the political leadership nor the legal one.

In the past, democracy was seen either as a support for a socialist equality policy or as support for a tax revolution. Today neither the left nor the right is convinced that democracy is on their side. Yes, it seems like a challenger group is a bit of the people's favorite. It is a development that politicians dislike. Democracy becomes a potential enemy.

The EU had the ambition that the new constitution for the EU would be given legitimacy through a referendum. After the defeat in Holland and France in 2005, they changed tracks and the rules were introduced, but without democratic voting.

When it comes to appointing people to important posts in the Commission, the EU chooses a collegial process that cannot face public setbacks. As you know, Sweden has only advisory referendums. Like democracy, but also a non-democratic resort if the people vote wrong.

A democratic debate is not just a debate but also a part of the division of power. The Swedish government order states that "all public power is based on the people". If it is to be interpreted constructively, it is that the majority of people "get the right", their will break through in the decisions. No system, nor democracy, is infallible so sometimes the people's decision can be "wrong".

If you want to keep democracy it is difficult to solve this in any other way than that the people can make a review and change a failed decision.
All liberals are not comfortable with the majority deciding, they are afraid of a majority repression of minorities.

Previously, a problem was that the rich were so few and the poor so many, but despite this imbalance, democracies worked quite well. Society did not degenerate through democracy into a communist dictatorship. Now the criticism of democracy is emerging in new ways.

We get a number of ethnic and sexual minorities that democratic doctors consider need to be protected from democracy. The enthusiasm in the establishment is not so wholehearted for the voters, and many prefer to see themselves as a (well-paid) lawyer for an exposed group of victims. Yet, these doubts against the majority have not resulted in opposing democratic elections, but freedom of expression is not accepted without limitations.

Some people and groups may be criticized, but not others.
Previously, criticized groups defended themselves with the fact that they contributed to the community's public utility. They were not privileged, but today such arguments are seen as for utilitarian. We have a pseudo-religious debate on rights.

Many people see themselves as underprivileged. The governing establishment believes that rights belong to the sphere of power of nomenclature, which democracy should not interfere with. They seek to prevent certain opinions by demonizing them instead of arguing and trying to convince a majority. They do not believe they can win an honest debate so they create a dishonest.

The establishment sees its opinion on what is right and good as morally superior. This is because they see themselves as morally superior. But they attribute great opportunities to the sub-men to win the debate unless it is surrounded by pointers and clear instructions from the people's guardians, ie the politicians.

Democracy is perceived as unreliable. It is a mechanism that allows a policy that can threaten both the existing politician class and the existing regulatory system. However, democracy can be eroded and gradually abolished.
JAN TULLBERG

source