Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump

[hollodero]

(10-15-2019, 12:27 PM)Dill Wrote: A vote on an EC balanced by a European Parliament, is hardly "as big a say as Germany" in EU affairs.  Their "taxes, local laws, schools and court systems" cannot be wholly independent if they are part of the EU.

Well, of course not. To be part of the union, you have to agree to certain rules and that's that. But this is the case either way, federalistic or not.
One could argue about the degree of independence loss, and that's why I can understand argueing a certain overrepresentation in a second chamber. But not an 1:1 representation to Germany or France; when the Maltesian delegates feel responsible for 420.000 Maltesians and the Germans are responsible for 80 million people. This is grossly overweighing certain people that are and should not be seen as more valuable voices, and hence to me defies a democratic principle. If that makes me a non-federalist, then so be it.

Because you're right, I find it reasonable to believe the whole Europe is the more important thing. And Malta (or Austria) alone can do nothing to defend the continent, to fight environmental dangers or tax evasion schemes or trade wars or a slightly mad American God-President or whatever really big issue comes along. That has to come with a sense of unity and a wide scope of possible actions taken by said unity. And if the will of some island people is overruled by a majority of people living elsewhere with just as legit interests - then so be it as well. At least that is my belief.

(10-15-2019, 12:27 PM)Dill Wrote: This is not cutting into their sovereignty if the Maltese people freely decide they gain more power than they lose through the union--and can "Mexit" if they come to think otherwise.

...which they certainly can. In which case, good luck Maltesians. They need Europe more than Europe needs them, and that's just the reality behind certain things.
It is not deterministic that it ends like the cat-like GB approach - to meow at the closed door, and when it opens, just sit there and look dull. They can leave, GB can leave (the EU might be forgiven if they want certain funds and benefits back).
What they should not be able to do is to block everything until they get their will for their 400.000 people. Like we will not fight tax evasion unless we get our cakes and goodies.

(10-15-2019, 12:27 PM)Dill Wrote: "Principle" is the operative word here.  I'm not for changing existing constitutional arrangements because they don't favor my party or interests this election cycle. And then maybe changing them back if at some time in the future they do.

I wasn't argueing that. I just took a part of the status quo to show a distinctly negative consequence of the current system.Wwhich, to me, it is.

(10-15-2019, 12:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Again, as someone who grew upon in a small (population) state--one which had been able, for example, to protect its elections from corporate money very well until Citizens United--I view this double state system as a real protection. Your Laender never had such powers, did they? At least not since the Empire.

No they do not, and I'll be damned if Carinthia ever gets those powers. They have enough souvereignty as it is. Certain taxing authority, certain freedoms with social insurance issues, school issues and then some. But if Austria decides there is, for example, a CO2 tax now, then they can not really resist. And that is good.

As for your example - it seems like an "it worked fine until it didn't" argument.

(10-15-2019, 02:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is that compromise that is a bedrock of the system we have here in the US.

I guess that's a large portion of my point. You call it a bedrock of the system - but how does that system look like? It gave you 50% of folks that have no interest in politics anymore, it gave you a strictly dualistic system along with a deep divide between the remaining political people and deep trenches between the two parties, it gave you gerrymandered districts, a Trump vs. Hillary choice, a president that can argue that a president is pretty much immune from any accusation of wrongdoing and folks from overrepresented states holding the power to let that one slide politically out of blind loyalty. It gave you frustration, a creeping takeover of governmental power to special interest and lobbying groups and whatnot. 
Oh, and historically it could not avoid a civil war, but that is just mentioned for good measure.

Is a "bedrock" of that particular system really that sacrosanct?