With Ciceroni we seek to be a guide to European culture and history. We make videos on little known subjects as well as more ubiquitous ones, ranging from current affairs like the European Union, to historic events like the Tulip Mania, and even mythological stories like those of the Greek Gods. In all these videos we strive to present the subjects in an objective manner and within their complex context.
So the Elected Off don’t write any legislation and there are education systems GLOBALLY putting out products that call this Democratic? IT FALLS ON IT’S FACE AT FIRST GLANCE!! WAKE UP!!!!
Just to comment on your statement at 0:15 , we did not "decide to become a monarchy". After Napoleon's first defeat, the coalition decided it was in their best interest that we should become an absolute monarchy. 1848 was when the second king bowed to popular pressure, ordered his prime minister to draft a liberal constitution, and then handed over the reigns voluntarily.
That's right. The people of the country were certainly not asked for their opinion on this.. Since then though, the Dutch haven't gone French Revolution either :) Currently, most people still agree with the monarchy, although it's a tiny majority (51% in the last report we've seen)..
@@Ciceroni1 I know. I am Dutch, and I am in favour of retaining the monarchy. This is because they led us through hell during the Eighty Years' War and into the green fields beyond. When the British gave them absolute power, they gave it back to the people. To betray a dynasty synonymous with our war for independence, the birth of the United Provinces, and the establishment of our democracy, because we no longer feel like having them around, would be dishonourable conduct.
@@The_Real_Maxajax William of Orange certainly did (together with Van Oldebarneveld etc). But one could say his offspring was a bit less altruistic or heroic.. Not sure whether Willem III's treatment of the de Witts was quite in the spirit of the father of the fatherland.. But your name suggests you might be partial to a ruthless leader? ;)
@@Ciceroni1 There have been conflicts of interest between the Raadspensionarissen and the Stadhouders for the entirety of the lifespan of the United Provinces, from the moment William the Silent was assassinated in 1584, until the moment the Patriots returned to the Netherlands with a French Republican army in tow in 1795. The decapitation of Oldebarneveld, and the mobbing of the brothers Witt, were flashpoints where that conflict between powerful people, and public opinion overlapped. Both of these Raadspensionarissen did things which the people did not like, such as the twelve-year truce which Oldebarneveld arranged with the Habsburgs during the Eighty Years War, and the failed foreign policy of Johan de Witt which lead to the Disaster Year in 1672. People expressing their grievances in a lethal way was simply a possibility you had to account for if you were a leader who did something unpopular whilst having powerful rivals. My name suggests that I was a part of the Sith clan in the award-winning videogame named Rome Total War 1, and that I have not yet found a way to change it in RU-vid's byzantine settings menu ever since 2007. Were such an option to be found, I would much rather standardize it to Maxajax, like my Steam and Discord name. As for your assumption about my political leanings, I volunteer as a vote counter at every election, practice radical egalitarianism, and vocally advocate for the removal of dictatorial regimes with expansionist tendencies by applying as much economic and kinetic force to them as possible. I do not concern myself with whether a leader is ruthless. I concern myself with whether he is the product of a free and fair election, and has a majority in the second chamber by virtue of a compromise coalition to ensure he doesn't push it too much.
Great video! One of the best I've seen to explain how the EP works. But why do they still go to Strasbourg one week every month? Why "because France"? 🤔🤔
The slightly longer answer is that member states really want such institutions in their country. It brings a lot of high-paying jobs as well as prestige and power. Remember how countries lobbied hard to get the EMA to relocate to their country after Brexit. This maybe most valuable for the European Central Bank and the European Parliament as they are most influential. France therefore benefits from having the EP in Strasbourg and would experience a negative economic and political impact if the EP left the city. So even though everyone in Brussels agrees that this system is ridiculous, including the french. No french president that wants to be re-elected at home, would want to take the pain of closing the EP in Strasbourg. And remember that France can veto any such proposal even if all other countries agree. Therefore: because France :)
May I say that this video verges on the caricature and perpetuates some rather un-true tropes? I totally agree that the parliament should get the power to put forward new laws, the EC and CEU should be fully unified and they should eliminate the Veto system. However, saying that the Council is full of bureaucrats or that the European Commission is unelected is BS. The latter is full of members of government from the member countries in a way not much different from how the Bundesrat works. And the commission is formed in a way which is not much different from that of any national gorvernment; that is, voted in by the parliament upon proposal by somebody else. In Italy the President picks the prime minister and they then decide together relating to the members of the government, in a way that is possibly less democratic than that adopted by the EU.
Demystifying the EU seems like such an obvious thing that could be done on RU-vid, yet so few channels do it. This seems like a great video to fill the void!
@@Ciceroni1 It might take a lot of work perhaps but I would like to understand the dynamics in parliament on an ongoing basis. A bunch of things are passed each month but how did the parties lie on the issue? What amendments did they press for? Why? Maybe one could even cover notable behaviour of national parties. If this channel produced something approaching that, I would watch every video for the foreseeable future
Yeah, that is indeed weird... Some lines must have gotten messed up in the animation process without us noticing. I also see that the UK is split up in its individual countries. Thanks for pointing it out, we will add it to the corrections in the comments.
With the right Shift, None of this is possible. The EU isn't a State. People fear the EU. You cant compare the EU and the US. The US dont have 20+ languages between them. I belive its utopian
you're 30 now so it's basically a50:50 coin-flip that you are going to have a family or not. it's better to spend the next 40 years watching people that love you learn and grow than it is regretting you never had that
Helaas weer een staaltje Nederlandse electorale bijziendheid op 6:11. 'First past the post' staat los van het al dan niet hebben van kiesdistricten. We kijken altijd erg naar Engelstalige landen en dat bepaalt ons beeld. Maar zij hebben een 'winner takes all'-stelsel waar wij al meer dan 100 jaar vanaf zijn. We vergeten onze achtertuin: de Scandinavische landen. Zij hebben proportionele representatie én kiesdistricten. Als Nederland kiesdistricten zou hebben, zouden we beter beschermd zijn tegen populisme. Wie in Nederland de Haagse beeldvorming en de sociale media weet te bespelen, kan tal van onverkozen tassendragers het parlement in loodsen en allerlei hardwerkende fatsoenlijke volksvertegenwoordigers die wél voor de belangen van burgers opkomen, buitenspel zetten. Denemarken scoort trouwens proportioneler dan Nederland. We gebruiken de hoogste gemiddelden om zetels te berekenen en dit bevoordeelt grote partijen. De PVV kreeg zo 1,5% meer zetels dan stemmen in 2023. 6:27 Goed dat je het op het enigszins rechtzet, maar nogmaals: ons ééndistrictenstelsel is internationaal gezien de uitzondering samen met Namibië.
If you want to fix EU why are you talking English and not Spanish ? You cant be a protestant Mason and a cristian catholic at the same time. Ask your brittish goverment. THE HOUSE OF LORDS. LUCIFERIANS.
@@Ciceroni1 I against the use of a language, of the ppl whp think that somehow they are better humans. Thats why they brexited. And provoked this war with nasty bussiness as always. Anglo Terre. Anglicans. U made war with each country in Europe and somehow Rusia is the poblem. Nice one. The RAJ ? The Apartheid ? Philipines genocide ? Bah. Another tuesday in London. MANIFEST DESTINY. IM GONNA GIVE YOU SOME CATHOLIC FAITH. Cos you are a pagan of the capitalism, of the.... "I WIL BELIEVE IN GOD WHEN I SEE IT" Dont ask me more questions. You have the whole worl Garrsoned. And its not gonna end well. Ciceron was a Latin Philosopher, Not an Anglo saxon one. What a genius. And i have to use english when they give money Morroco, maybe you dont know that they have been throwing ppl to the sea to their luck for more than 100 years ? Thats why you are buying cheeap land there and trying to steal the Ukraines one. You int have an empire. You didnt even have provinces. You had comercial outpost. Like France. And your Grand Logia and the house of lords. funded Napoleon.
3:46 The Netherlands is basically the only country with one district. And this system is failing us terribly at the moment. Don't make the mistake to push this flawed system to a European level. This would make the EU more right wing and populistic than it should be. 99% of the people are used to the fact that they cannot vote on everyone in their country. They vote for someone in their district. And The Netherlands should want that system also before populists swallow our system for breakfast. To cut short: transnational lists are a terrible idea that make Europe less democratic. Reinier doe je huiswerk (vraag politicologen vanuit de gehele EU) voordat je ons verschrikkelijke ééndistrictenstelsel opdringt aan Europa. In Nederland doen we er zelfs goed aan om kiesdistricten in te voeren om onze democratie te versterken. Bij gebrek aan lokale volksvertegenwoordigers grijpen demagogen op beeldschermen ver van de burgers de macht.
Actually the idea is not to have one constituency like in The Netherlands but rather a similar system to the German national elections. As we say in the video: half the seats are proportional and the other half are directly elected in the constituencies.
@@Ciceroni1 As a Volt member I'm very critical on this subject since we only have one chance to do it right. Like Reinier said himself: the German system is too complex because of its double vote. I can image Germany is dominant in the discussion because of its size. But we sometimes have to look at the small miracles right next to our doorstep. Currently Denmark is nr one in the electoral democracy index with only one vote. Denmark elects 80% of its seats via districts and 20% are national leveling seats. To give it a Dutch flavour: not rewarding overhang seats is worth a discussion. If we want to make European democracy more visible we can decide to stop using national party names. Furthermore instead the most common sense thing to do is to reserve 20% of the seats as leveling seats that are rewarded to the European factions based on the popular vote. I would not suggest to use closed (transnational) lists for this, but to let the voters decide who'll make it to parliament. Together with more federal central media this would be a great boost to the European democracy.
A national perspective is bad because it is small. European perspectives are good because they are bigger. What logic is that? Further, why stop there? Take a global or galactic perspective, to be future proof.
@@Ciceroni1 The criticism I had and tried to express was that the scope of Europe being superior was stated as a given when I would have wanted some justification for that claim. So far it seems arbitrary to fit the arguments being made.
Of course having all of this on a global (or galactic) scale would of course be better. However, while doing all this on an EU level already is difficult to achieve, going even further is even more difficult. So while not necessarily superior it is more achievable. Wouldn’t you agree?:)
One could argue that without an EU the sovereignty of these countries would be rather limited. How much can a single small country keep to its own rules against large powers like the US or China?
Although I would personnaly like to see an european confederal state I must say this essay is just filled with ideals that can never be achieved. The original point of the ECSC was to stop war between the original member states. The European states, currently at least, are too different to be able to achieve everything this video dreams of. The power of the union is its differences. And as these countries are only binded by treaties, and in international law that means countries are only bound political reality. European intergration is a process that will happen over time. But forcing smaller member states to give up their sovereignty by limiting the commissioners and the european council to a select few seats will not work. This will result in the bigger states having all the power, and thus the smaller countries would lose theor bargaining chips. There are at least two things that the Union should focus on, if it could ever achieve such unity: one common army, and the staye sponsord independent news.
As a non-European observer, I would agree. The “European Senate” idea is fair, but its decisions should still at least be made by supermajority vote. This would largely uphold the principle of consensus government that the EU is founded on, while ensuring that one or two mischievous actors can’t stall the whole process. Still, I think these EU-centralizer people need to recognize the value of consensus government. For such an extraordinarily diverse place, all interests big or small need to be respected, and all sovereigns need to have a say.
