This content is available for free provided you pledge
Penumbra Gazette's content [not rarely] discuss sensitive/controversial issues [sometimes] in [extremely] colorful/emotional/intense language. Additionally, we may have integrated or lined to contents from third-party providers that contains explicit content or descriptions of self-harm, war(s), crime(s) and/or etc. You understand that the purpose of consumption of the material available is the artistic pleasure and intellectual enlightenment ...
You understand, are aware of, and accept the risks involved in consuming the material provided on/through this website – specifically Penumbra Gazette. However any other use than the two aforementioned are not granted.
You're at least 18 year old, or otherwise are accompanied by parent or adult guardian regarding the consumption of the contents.
PS. this is a test edition of Patrons' Oath, hence "We reserve the right to update it in the future (& notify you via e-mail)."
To not see this reminder again
Yesterday I come upon an interesting piece of arguments against the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, while considering the Norway relationship with EU as an alternative which could be more profitable to them than being an ordinary member of European Union. Espen Barth Eide, former Norway’s Minister of Defense and Minister of Foreign Affairs, arguments in his comment on the Guardian:
We pay, but have no say: that’s the reality of Norway’s relationship with the EU
However, Mr. Eide is completely mixing two far different accepts of Norway relationship with the Europan Union in order to come to the conclusion he aims to prove, which is subtly pretending joining the EU is the best possible alternative for any country within Europa.
The two arguments he try to magically mix them and pretend they are the same things are:
- in order to have financial relationship with EU, Norway is forced to comply with Brussel’s decision about lots of regulations and etc. Because Norway is an EEA member.
- if Norway became a full member of EU, Norway people would become a strong say in Brussel’s decision-making constitutions and could successfully manage the money they pay to EU and the costs of the regulations and laws made by Brussel to be their own decision and to their profit.
However, as you can recognize both arguments has nothing in common with each other unless the use of terms like „EU“, „costs“, „decision making“ and etc.
In the fist argument or the fact which Mr. Eide tries to present as a dramatic truth which nobody thought about it before, he is just saying, as a country with 5.08 Million population Norway must comply with regulations which 503 Million people [willingly/unwillingly] made for themselves about having a financial relationship with them as outsider. Unfortunately, his comment is written in a way, so you believe this is something very strange and unjust but this is simply the plain fact of the democratic way of policy making: 5 Million has no say in front of 503 Million. A fair enough portion of the population in Europa has no faith in more *liberal *ways of policy making, so welcome to the reality Mr. Eide: plain democracy doesn’t guaranty justice for minorities!
The second part of the argument is something quite difficult to understand and evaluate, and I am not going to write a complete lecture on political philosophy and observation and evaluation of political practices in real world, however if you are fair enough aware of such areas of knowledge within our civilization, I would like to tell you a very short paragraph about the argument which Mr. Eide is making about the amount of political power and influence each single individual inhabitant of Norway is going to have, if Norway has joined the European Union. So here you go:
Human beings did it in the past in the name of their religion and now they do it under the flag of Democracy in Europe. In my personal opinion democracy * is *not a good for managing a country and unfortunately, it looks like we should wait to see, when the next bright men and women come up with a better model of management and policy for countries but anyway the European Union and they path they are currently going which for the most part of it is designed, formed, shaped and defended by Germany is ending up in a Constitutionalized Power, in which change would a deeply rare currency in their future, but it won’t mean that it will prevent this constitution from gaining power and becoming even more powerful in the world and gaining lots of value in the eyes of their own population, as it always were the case with Constitutionalized Power, in any other form and under any other flag, as with religion, through the history of mankind on this planet. through our history with every other Constitution.
It so happens that I currently live in Switzerland. My new alpine temporary home is not a place which I don’t look at their political practices without any criticism, but for one thing, they should be praised, at least, be praised just because enforcing a piece of Universal Declaration of Human Rights into their current political practices: „No matter how you are, regardless of education, ethnic, religion, age and etc. you are authorized with the power to encouraging others toward participating in political actions and as far you will be successful and have some tiny amount of supports for the specific opinion you want to be presented, defended or simply changed in the society, this minority group has the power to call the majority of population to vote for or against them.“ It may not be the best practice for ensuring you the right to „choose“ for your own „future“ and even „now“, but at least they have the possibility given to every single „individual“ without requiring to have a long lasting „political party“ or etc. and etc. as it is the case in lots of other democratic countries.