Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Rebecca Harms, a senior member of the German Green Party, and co-President of a major Green Group in the European Parliament, thinks referendums, direct plebiscites, should be limited to issues which don’t endanger power structures which she thinks are important.
According to Breitbart;
Greens Want To Ban Referendums On European Questions, As Direct Democracy Threatens the EU
A senior Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the German Green Party has called for an end to referendums on issues “not suitable” for direct democracy because they threaten the very existence of the European Union (EU).
Rebecca Harms MEP (pictured above), a qualified tree surgeon and Co-President of The Greens–European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament, has said that some questions relating to the EU are not suitable for referendums.
Showing how much she values direct democracy, Ms. Harms used the shock of the recent rejection of the EU-Ukrainian agreement by the Netherlands to make the case for limiting the use of referendums in future warning that they could “endanger the existence of the EU”, reports Austria’s largest newspaper Kronen Zeitung.
According to German newspaper Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger, the list of subjects which others have deemed “not suitable” for referendums include the controversial but yet-to-be-finalised Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement with the U.S., the principle of open borders within the EU, and the future of the euro currency.
…
Even worse, the left wing German newspaper Junge Welt reports that Ms. Harms claimed it is unacceptable for a mob of people to be able to reject an agreement that was “supported by all governments of Member States and their parliaments.”
This is not the first time WUWT has noted the authoritarian tendencies of some greens, ranging from praising the “efficiency” of the Chinese dictatorship, complaining about democratic “paralysis”, Bill Gates rant against representative democracy, or President Obama’s $500 million giveaway, without congressional approval.
Far too many prominent greens seem to think that some decisions are too important to be decided by voters. I guess when you believe the world is on the brink of a climate catastrophe, it is horribly easy to feel contempt for the wishes of ordinary people, especially when those wishes impede your great mission.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rule by plebiscite is a terrible idea. The U.S. was founded as a republic where the voters do not make the decisions, but they elect the people who do. What is the matter with you people?
Except women, slaves, etc. couldn’t vote.
Sounds like Colorado!
Read ‘The Vision of the Self-Anointed’ by Thomas Sowell to understand how these arrogant ‘we know better than you’ dumbos have ploughed us into the doodo in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vision_of_the_Anointed
we are all equal but some are more equal than others
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/526323a
Nature : Climate justice more vital than democracy
“Decision-making based on
social-justice principles could be
more effective than democratic
efforts against climate change(see
N.Stehr Nature 525, 449–450; 2015).
Democratic decision-making
involves multiple stakeholders,
and democracy emphasizes
the mutual roles of actors: all
preferences are treated as equal.
In many regions of the world,
however, the results of democratic
choices can be strongly
influenced by power relations and
inequitable social arrangements,
owing to differences in economic
development, access to
technology and knowledge.
Elites may use democratic
processes to entrench their status
or encroach on other social
goals (B.Sovacool etal. Nature
Clim. Change 5, 616–618; 2015).
This can lead to incremental or
undesirable results, which might
explain why large democratic
nations such as the United States
continue to oppose progressive
climate legislation.
In our view, sound climate and
energy planning should not treat
all stakeholders in the same way.
Instead, preferences and roles
should be weighted to consider
criteria related to equity, due
process, ethics and other justice
principles. This would ensure
that stakeholder discussions
and resulting policies serve to
eradicate, rather than exacerbate,
socio-economic vulnerability to a
changing climate.
Jingzheng Ren, Michael Evan
Goodsite University of Southern
Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Benjamin K. Sovacool Aarhus
University, Herning, Denmark.
benjaminso@auhe.au.dk “
Absolutely shocking.
ideas so good they have to be mandatory…
hence the 2nd Amendment.
The two different views of the purpose of government: To some government is meant to ‘serve’ the people. To others government is meant to ‘control’ the people.
I met Rebecca Harms at the 2006 COP in Milan. She’s a complete crank. Her fanaticism on global warming is only exceeded by her rabid anti-nuclearism.
Environment good, human bad!
Dictating to others was what religious leaders did, and god-ordained royalty.
“I am friends with god. If you don’t do [whatever it is] you won’t go to heaven. It doesn’t matter if your life is miserable, at least it is virtuous.”
Currently the dominant principle is happiness during one’s life, with the electorate deciding how that might be assisted (or not) by government.
But now we have the new messiahs. Greens (and communists) have just secularized the old game.
The virtuous green v the happiness of the people. Think denial of electricity in Africa…
Consensi = agreement.
Mob = disagreement.
One man’s consensus is another man’s mob.