EU treaty

[Tribesman]

OK , its coming up ,can anyone give any possible reason why I should vote yes ?

[PBI]

How about, because the Sun and the Mail want you to vote no?

I usually find that to be a pretty reliable moral compass ~;)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

OK , its coming up ,can anyone give any possible reason why I should vote yes ?

I can't think of one off the top of my head.

[Husar]

World Peace.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

World Peace.

Was that a joke? :inquisitive:

[InsaneApache]

You got me there Tribes.

[Fragony]

Supporting it would make you a minority

[Tristuskhan]

Supporting it would make you a minority


I hope so, sincerely.

[LittleGrizzly]

How about, because the Sun and the Mail want you to vote no?

I usually find that to be a pretty reliable moral compass

heh, almost seems a good enough reason...

Greater EU cooperation and harmony is the best i can think off..

[Marshal Murat]

This time you can actually vote on it, so you can act like you had a role in the greater democratic process?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why To Vote No. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2038813/European-Parliament-to-ban-Eurosceptic-groups.html)

[Justiciar]

It kicks UKIP in the nads? Hardly a strong argument against. :no:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It kicks UKIP in the nads? Hardly a strong argument against. :no:

It's a move by the EU directed specifically to quell dissent. Not exactly an organization you'd like to give more power to.

[Crazed Rabbit]

OK , its coming up ,can anyone give any possible reason why I should vote yes ?

I think you should vote no. :beam:

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I think you should vote no. :beam:

CR

Out of curiosity, what's the American perspective on the EU? A corrupt, totalitarian morass (what I believe is the right perspective), or a benevolent, democratic, peaceful entity?

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

...a benevolent, democratic, peaceful entity...

In theory this is what it is supposed to be. In practice its my considered opinion that it is a mass of states that have little in common trying to work together to create an economic super-state to rival the US and Russia (with a view to eventually becoming a plain super-state)...

I got news for you Europe, not going to happen...:no:

While I support the theory, (and if I were back in the EU, would probably vote yes to show my support for the ideology (because its doomed to fail as well)), in practise the methodology is way too clunky to function, not to mention most European's don't support it.

I'd recommend vote yes, its not going to get through anyway.

[Ice]

Out of curiosity, what's the American perspective on the EU? A corrupt, totalitarian morass (what I believe is the right perspective), or a benevolent, democratic, peaceful entity?

neither

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I got news for you Europe, not going to happen...:no:


It'll happen - it just shouldn't. The EU government will force it to happen. The question is when it falls apart.

[rory_20_uk]

No, without a second's thought.

Europe would be much better off as a loose federation that greed on broad areas, with a treaty for defence and another treaty for Econmic purposes... Sort of like NATO and the EEC...

We've got that, added several thousand beaurocrats to the mix, landed ourselves with hundreds of politicians who horse trade with each other and their respective countries - and when it comes to collective action we still couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery...

(It would first of all breach health and safety guidelines, secondly a dispute over which country, then an argument that a brewery is placing the southern Europeans at a disadvantage - why not a vinery; then who provides what beverage from where, who serves it, what language is the menu in... you'd need a stiff double whisky just to arrange it all - but Scottish Whisky or Irish / English Whisky, or why not Vodka... :wall:)

~:smoking:

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I'll rephrase...

Its not going to happen... ...in the foreseeable future. The EU government cannot override either the individual countries' rights, nor the will of Eurpoean citizens. To do so would be authoritarian, and they can't get away with that (...yet).

@ Rory: :laugh4: and so true...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

To do so would be authoritarian, and they can't get away with that (...yet).


They are. They're ignoring referendums (and have already said they'd ignore the Irish referendum), using arbitrary powers in the house, etc., etc. They will not go down without a fight.

Fortunately, if it's a fight they want, it's a fight they'll get - from the European people.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Ah, I see...

I'm a bit out of touch. In Australia, we don't hear anything about the EU, and I'm not that concerned as to go actively hunting for information.

What a ridiculous premise... have a referendum so we have a mandate to do what we like... If you don't back us we'll do it anyway.

I presume that Ireland has objected to this. If not they deserve everything they get.

[Marshal Murat]

The EU is viewed as what the U.S. might've been with the Articles of Confederation. It's not something that we worry too much about.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm a bit out of touch. In Australia, we don't hear anything about the EU, and I'm not that concerned as to go actively hunting for information.

Don't worry about it - even here I have to look to the UK for good news on the EU from the Euroskeptic point of view.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Out of curiosity, what's the American perspective on the EU? A corrupt, totalitarian morass (what I believe is the right perspective), or a benevolent, democratic, peaceful entity?

The former, if not quite so extreme. At least, in my perspective. I imagine the general American doesn't have much of a view.

CR

[seireikhaan]

The former, if not quite so extreme. At least, in my perspective. I imagine the general American doesn't have much of a view.

CR
That pretty much sums it up. We don't hear much about the EU over here in America other than that the Euro kicks the dollar's ass, and that's about it. Most people, I'd venture to say, have almost no concept of what it even is. For me, I rather disapprove of it, as I see it as essentially a miniature United Nations: slow, lethargic, inefficient, and without teeth.

[rory_20_uk]

T...as I see it as essentially a miniature United Nations: slow, lethargic, inefficient, and without teeth.


That must be the best description I've heard. :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

[CountArach]

Out of curiosity, what's the American perspective on the EU? A corrupt, totalitarian morass (what I believe is the right perspective), or a benevolent, democratic, peaceful entity?
Neither, pretty much think of it as the UN - Powerless, but with good intentions.

EDIT: It would appear that khaan beat me to it...

[Conradus]

OK , its coming up ,can anyone give any possible reason why I should vote yes ?

Is this the 'constitution' where they give jurisdictional personality (don't know the right word: rechtspersoonlijkheid in dutch) to the EU?
If so I'd vote yes. Then atleast you can sue the EU :)

[InsaneApache]

As the Lisbon treaty is good for the multi-nationals you should vote yes.




















Aversion therapy. :sweatdrop:

[Fragony]

An analysis by Prof. Anthony Coughlan

Today the European Union leaders signed the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty gives the EU the constitutional form of a state. These are the ten most important things the Lisbon Treaty does:

1. It establishes a legally new European Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State.
2. It empowers this new European Union to act as a State vis-a-vis other States and its own citizens.
3. It makes us all citizens of this new European Union.
4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name – European Union – will be kept while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union.
5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union's new citizens.
6. It creates a Cabinet Government of the new Union.
7. It creates a new Union political President.
8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union's citizens.
9. It makes national Parliaments subordinate to the new Union.
10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers.

1. The Lisbon Treaty establishes a legally quite new European Union. This is a Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State:

The Treaty gives this new Union a State Constitution which is identical in its legal effects to the EU Constitution that French and Dutch voters rejected in their 2005 referendums.

It does this by amending the two existing basic European Treaties, the "Treaty on European Union" (TEU) and the "Treaty Establishing the European Community" (TEC). The former retains its name, while the latter is renamed the "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union" (TFU). These two amended Treaties become the de facto Constitution of the new Union which they constitute or establish, although they are not called a Constitution. The EU has thus been given a Constitution indirectly rather than in direct form, as had been proposed in the Treaty which the peoples of France and Holland rejected in 2005.

The provision of the Lisbon Treaty that "The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community" (Art.1.3, amended TEU) makes absolutely clear that the post-Lisbon Union will be quite a new entity, as the European Community of which our countries are all currently members ceases to exist.

2. The Treaty empowers this new European Union to act as a State vis-a-vis other States and its own citizens:

To understand the change introduced by the Lisbon Treaty one needs to understand that what we call the European Union today is not a State. It is not even a legal or corporate entity in its own right, for it does not have legal personality. The name "European Union" at present is a descriptive term for all the relations between its 27 Member States.

At present these relations cover both the "European Community" area where supranational European law is operative, and the "intergovernmental" areas of foreign policy and justice and home affairs where Member States cooperate with one another on the basis of keeping their sovereignty and where European laws do not apply.

The Lisbon Treaty changes this situation by creating a constitutionally and legally quite new EU, while retaining the same name, the "Union". Unlike the present European Union, this legally new EU will be separate from and superior to its Member States, just as the USA is separate from and superior to California or New York, or Federal Germany to Bavaria or Brandenburg.

This new European Union can sign treaties with other States in all areas of its competence and conduct itself as a State in the international community of States. It can speak at the United Nations on agreed foreign policy positions of its Member States, just as in the days of the Soviet Union the USSR had a UN seat while Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia had UN seats also.

The Lisbon Treaty also gives the EU a political President, a Foreign Minister – to be called a High Representative – a diplomatic corps and a Public Prosecutor. The new EU will accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, as all other European States have already done, including those outside the EU.

The Treaty also sets out the principle of the primacy of the laws of the new Union over the laws of its Member States (Declaration 27). The new EU makes the majority of laws for its Member States each year and under the Lisbon Treaty the new Union, which will replace the European Community, gets further power to make laws or take decisions by qualified majority vote in relation to some 68 new policy areas or matters where Member States currently have a veto.

3. The Treaty makes us all real citizens of this new European Union for the first time, instead of our being notional or honorary European "citizens" as at present:

A State must have citizens and one can only be a citizen of a State.

Citizenship of the European Union at present is stated to "complement" national citizenship, the latter being clearly primary, not least because the present EU is not a State. It is not even a corporate entity that can have individuals as members, not to mind citizens.

By transforming the legal character of the Union, the Lisbon Treaty transforms the meaning of Union citizenship. Article.17b.1 TEC/TFU replace the word "complement" in the sentence "Citizenship of the Union shall complement national citizenship", so that the new sentence reads: "Citizenship of the Union shall be in addition to national citizenship." This gives the 500 million inhabitants of the present EU Member States a real separate citizenship from citizenship of their national States for the first time. It gives a treble citizenship to citizens of Bavaria and Brandenburg within a Federal State like Germany. The rights and duties attaching to this citizenship of the new Union are be superior to those attaching to citizenship of one's own national State in any case of conflict between the two, because of the superiority of EU law over national law and constitutions.

As most States only recognise that one can have a single citizenship, henceforth it is one's Union citizenship which will be regarded by other countries as primary and superior to one's national citizenship.

Although we will be given rights as EU citizens, we should not forget that as real citizens of the new European Union we also owe it the normal citizens' duty of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority, which will be a higher authority than that of our national States and constitutions.

Member States retain their national constitutions, but they are subordinate to the new Union Constitution. As such they will no longer be constitutions of sovereign States, just as the various local states of the USA retain their constitutions although they are subordinate to the Federal US Constitution.

4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name – European Union – will be kept while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union. By this means the importance of the proposed change is kept hidden from the people:

The change in the constitutional nature of both the Union and its Member States will be made in three legal steps that are set out in the Treaty:

(a) It establishes a European Union with an entire legal personality and independent corporate existence in all Union areas for the first time, so that it can function as a State vis-a-vis other States and in relation to its own citizens (Art.32, amended TEU);

(b) This new European Union replaces the existing European Community and takes over all of its powers and institutions. It takes over as well the "intergovernmental" powers over foreign policy and crime, justice and home affairs which at present are outside the scope of European law, leaving only the Common Foreign and Security Policy outside the scope of its supranational power (Art.11.1, amended TEU).

It thereby gives a unified constitutional structure to the new Union which it will constitute or establish. The European Community disappears and all spheres of public policy will come within the scope of supranational EU law-making either actually or potentially, as in any constitutionally unified State. (One says "potentially" because further inter-State treaties would be required to transfer the minority of law-making powers still remaining with the Member States to the new Union in the future, or to shift powers back from the supranational level to the Member States – something that has never happened up to now. Supranational legislative acts would not yet be adopted in the sphere of Common Foreign and Security Policy and new treaties would be needed to change that. However the Commission, a key supranational body, will through the High Representative/Foreign Minister gain the right of initiative in the foreign policy field, so that even in the light of Art.11.1 TEU a de facto "supranationality" will be attained here);

(c) It makes us all real citizens of the new Federal Union which the Treaty establishes, with all the implications of that for downgrading our present personal status as citizens of sovereign nation States and superseding it by citizenship of a supranational European Federation.

5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union's new citizens:

The Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution makes Members of the European Parliament, who at present are "representatives of the peoples of the Member States", into "representatives of the Union's citizens" (Art.9a, amended TEU). This illustrates the constitutional shift the Treaty makes from the present European Union of national States and peoples to the new Federal Union of European citizens and their national states – the latter henceforth reduced constitutionally and politically to provincial or regional status.

6. It creates a Cabinet Government of the new Union:

The Treaty turns the European Council, the quarterly "summit" meetings of Member State Heads of State or Government, into an institution of the new Union, so that its acts and failures to act will, like all other Union institutions, be subject to legal review by the EU Court of Justice.

Legally speaking these summit meetings of the European Council will no longer be "intergovernmental" gatherings of Prime Ministers and Presidents outside supranational European structures. As part of the new EU´s institutional framework, they will instead be constitutionally required to "promote the Union's values, advance its objectives, serve its interests" and "ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions." (Art. 9 amended TEU). They will also "define the general political direction and priorities thereof" (Art.9b).

The European Council thus becomes in effect the Cabinet Government of the new Federal EU, and its individual members will be primarily obliged to represent the Union to their Member States rather than their Member States to the Union.

7. It creates a new Union political President:

The federalist character of the European Council "summit" meetings in the proposed new Union structure is further underlined by the provision which gives the European Council a permanent political President for up to five years (two and a half years renewable once) (Art.9b).

There is no gathering of Heads of State or Government in any other international context which maintains the same chairman or president for several years while individual national prime ministers and prime ministers come and go.

The federal character of the new President is emphasised also by the Treaty provision which forbids that person from holding any national office and which lays down that he/she shall "ensure the external representation of the Union".

8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union's citizens:

All States have codes setting out the rights of their citizens. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights will be that. It will be made legally binding by the new Treaty and will be an essential part of the new Union's constitutional structure (Art.6, amended TEU).

The Charter is stated to be binding on the Union's own institutions and on Member States in implementing Union law. This limitation to EU law and to the EU institutions is unrealistic however, because

(a) the principles of primacy and uniformity of Union law mean that Member States will not only be bound by the Fundamental Rights Charter when implementing EU law, but also through the "interpretation and application of their national laws in conformity with Union laws" (v. ECJ judgements in the Factortame, Simmenthal and other law cases); and because

(b) the Charter sets out fundamental rights in areas in which the Union has currently no competence, e.g. outlawing the death penalty, asserting citizens' rights in criminal proceedings and various other areas.

This gives a new and extensive human and civil rights jurisdiction to the EU Court of Justice and makes that Court the final body to decide what people's rights are in the vast area covered by European law, as against national Supreme Courts and the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg – the latter Court serving all other European States, not just the EU members – which are our final fundamental rights Courts today.

The EU Commission can be expected in time to propose European laws to ensure the uniform implementation and guarantee of the rights provisions of the Charter throughout the Member States, even in areas which are basically outside the scope of Union competence. American constitutional history provides ample evidence of the radical federalising potential of the fundamental rights jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court.

9. It makes national Parliaments subordinate to the new Union:

The Treaty underlines the subordinate role of National Parliaments in the constitutional structure of the new Union by stating that "National Parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union" by various means set out in Article 8c, amended TEU. The imperative "shall" implies an obligation on National Parliaments to further the interests of the new Union.

National Parliaments have in any case already lost most of their law-making powers to the EC/EU. The citizens who elect them have lost their powers to decide these laws too.

The provision of the Treaty that if one-third of the National Parliaments object to a Commission proposal, the Commission must reconsider it but not necessarily abandon it, is small compensation for the loss of democracy involved by the loss of 68 vetoes by National Parliaments as a result of other changes proposed by the Lisbon Treaty.

10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers:

These are shown by:

(a) the enlarged scope of the Flexibility Clause (Art.308 TEC/TFU), whereby if the Treaty does not provide the necessary powers to enable the new Union attain its very wide objectives, the Council may take appropriate measures by unanimity. The Lisbon Treaty extends this provision from the area of operation of the common market to all of the new Union's policies directed at attaining its much wider objectives. The Flexibility Clause has been widely used to extend EU law-making over the years;

(b) the proposed "Simplified Treaty Revision Procedure" which permits the Prime Ministers and Presidents on the European Council to shift Union decision-taking from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union" (Art.33.6, amended TEU), where the population size of certain Member States is likely to be decisive; and

(c) the several "ratchet-clauses" or "passerelles" which would allow the European Council to switch from unanimity to majority voting in certain specified areas such as judicial cooperation in civil matters (Art.69d.3.2), in criminal matters (Art.69f.2), in relation to the EU Public Prosecutor (69i.4), and in a number of other areas.

Conclusion:

It is hard to think of any major function of a State which the new European Union will not have once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. The main one seems to be the power to make its Member States go to war against their will. The Treaty does provide that the EU may go to war while individual Member States may "constructively abstain".

The obligation on the Union to "provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies" (Art. TEC/TFU 269 a), which means raising its "own resources" to finance them, may be regarded as conferring on it wide taxation and revenue-raising powers, although these will require unanimity to exercise. Currently public expenditure and the tax measures needed to finance it remain overwhelmingly at national state level. This is because such social services as health, education, social security and public housing, as well as defence, policing and public transport – the government functions which cost most money – are still mainly at this level.

However the new European Union will have its own government, with a legislative, executive and judicial arm, its own political President, its own citizens and citizenship, its own human and civil rights code, its own currency, economic policy and revenue, its own international treaty-making powers, foreign policy, foreign minister, diplomatic corps and United Nations voice, its own crime and justice code and Public Prosecutor. It already possesses such normal State symbols as its own flag, anthem, motto and annual official holiday.

As regards the State authority of the new Union, it is embodied in the Union' s own executive, legislative and judicial institutions: the European Council, Council of Ministers, Commission, Parliament and Court of Justice. It is also embodied in the Member States and their authorities as they implement and apply EU law and interpret and apply national law in conformity with Union law. Member States will be constitutionally required to do this under the Lisbon Treaty. Thus EU "State authorities" as represented for example by soldiers and policemen in EU uniforms on our streets are not needed as such.

Allowing for the special features of each case, all the classical Federal States which have been formed on the basis of power being surrendered by lower constituent states to a higher Federal authority have developed in a gradual way, just as has happened in the case of the European Union. Nineteenth century Germany, the USA, Canada and Australia are classical examples. Indeed the EU has accumulated its powers much more rapidly than some of these Federal States – in the short historical time-span of some sixty years.

The key difference between these classical Federations and the new European Union is that the former, once their people had settled, share a common language, history, culture and national solidarity that gave them a democratic basis and made their State authority popularly legitimate and acceptable. All stable States are founded on such communities where people speak a common language and mutually identify with one another as one people – a "We". In the EU however there is no European people or "demos", except statistically. The Lisbon Treaty is an attempt to construct a highly centralised European Federation artificially, from the top down, out of Europe's many nations, peoples and States, without their free consent and knowledge.

If there were to be a European Federation that is democratic and acceptable, the minimum constitutional requirement for it would be that its laws would be initiated and approved by the directly elected representatives of the people either in the European Parliament or the National Parliaments. Unfortunately, neither the Lisbon Treaty nor the EU Constitution it establishes contain any such proposal.

By giving a Constitution indirectly rather than directly to the new European Union which it will establish, the Lisbon Treaty sets in place what Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has called the "capstone of a European Federal State". For the Euro-federalist political elites who have been driving this process over decades this is the culmination of what started nearly 60 years ago when the 1950 Schuman Declaration, which is commemorated annually on 9 May, Europe Day, proclaimed the European Coal and Steel Community to be the "first step in the federation of Europe".

The peoples of Europe do not want this kind of highly centralized Federal European Union whose most striking feature is that it is run virtually entirely by committees of politicians, bureaucrats and judges, none of whom are directly elected by the people. The Constitutional Treaty setting it up has already been rejected by the French and the Dutch in 2005. As French President Nicolas Sarkozy has admitted, the Prime Ministers and Presidents have agreed among themselves on no account to have referendums on the Renamed Constitutional Treaty, for that would be rejected everywhere again.

Only the Irish are enabled to have their say on it because of the constitutional case taken before the Supreme Court by the late Raymond Crotty. That action by that great Irishman stopped the State's politicians of that time from ratifying a previous European Treaty, the Single European Act, in an unconstitutional manner.

[Fragony]

Oh, and if you didn't see this comming you haven't been paying attention.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2038813/European-Parliament-to-ban-Eurosceptic-groups.html

[BigTex]

Out of curiosity, what's the American perspective on the EU? A corrupt, totalitarian morass (what I believe is the right perspective), or a benevolent, democratic, peaceful entity?

I see it as a young and forming federal state. Somewhat reminiscent of the US in it's conception. Constant struggle and debate over the rights and authority of the individual states. I don't see individual countries sovereignty lasting much longer. Honestly I think in a decade or less even foreign policy will cease to be with just the UK or France and just be through the EU.

I have no opinion really on it's benevolence to it's citizenry. Though it does seem a bit disturbing to see all these developments and evolutions of it come without a single vote from the citizens of the countries it represents. So much for checks and balances.

[drone]

Out of curiosity, what's the American perspective on the EU? A corrupt, totalitarian morass (what I believe is the right perspective), or a benevolent, democratic, peaceful entity?
I see it as an extra layer of bureaucracy, with very little accountability, applied on top of a group of states that have a long history of enmity towards each other. The bureaucrats have realized that their powers aren't checked very well, and are turning themselves into modern day barons. The comparisons to the UN were pretty close, but the difference is that the "ambassadors" have different agendas than their constituencies.

They should have stopped at the EEC. I foresee either an EU rebellion, or individual European states will lose all sovereignty at the federal level (at the least).

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Oh, and if you didn't see this comming you haven't been paying attention.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2038813/European-Parliament-to-ban-Eurosceptic-groups.html

Just posted that on the last page. ~;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

I "foresee" Europeans frowning, hissing and eventually just taking it up the pooper.

It doesn't really matter, does it? Most of the same people who would vote NO didn't put the government that currently rules them into power either. Who cares.

I'd say vote "YES" so that your new boogyman will be the EU and you will won't have time to deride the US as often (you'll be too busy trying to get your own federal bureaucracy off of your necks.)

Now do you see why court/cadre edicts are so frustrating in the US? Send us a little empathy and we'll return the favor.

Consolidation makes each man less valuable. Like pennies in hyper inflation. Preach it to the choir, brother.


The row over the new EU Treaty meanwhile took a new turn yesterday after José Manuel Barroso, the Commission President, warned Irish voters that they will “pay” if they reject the document in a referendum next month.

Speaking in Brussels on Monday night, Mr Barroso attempted to head off growing opposition to the Treaty by threatening outcast status for Ireland.

”If there was a ‘No’ in Ireland or in another country, it would have a very negative effect for the EU. We will all pay a price for it, Ireland included, if this is not done in a proper way,” he said.

[Fragony]

Just posted that on the last page. ~;)

Must have been our mutual blind spot, can't be the only one who missed it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I "foresee" Europeans frowning, hissing and eventually just taking it up the pooper.

Most Europeans, but I am sure as hell going to do what I can to get a "no".


I'd say vote "YES" so that your new boogyman will be the EU and you will won't have time to deride the US as often (you'll be too busy trying to get your own federal bureaucracy off of your necks.)

It seems to be the people that deride the US that mostly want the EU.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It seems to be the people that deride the US that mostly want the EU.

I know! Isn't that bizarre?

It's cock envy. They think that they can do a better job. They deride to usurp, not because we're doing a particularly bad job.

That's all it's ever been about, substantively.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I know! Isn't that bizarre?

It's also stupid...whether they [Pro-EU bloc] like it or not, America is our ally. :book:



That's all it's ever been about, substantively.

I'm not sure about that, but then, I've never been pro-EU either.

[Husar]

I want the EU, not with a ban of opposition but I think forming a larger group (common it's not that hard, we're already all friends here on the org...) is a good thing, the way they do it is a bit wrong though. Oh and I also want to migrate to the US I think(yes I know nobody wants me there...) so I want the EU but I do not hate the US, if that doesn't make sense I blame the Tequila.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I want the EU, not with a ban of opposition but I think forming a larger group (common it's not that hard, we're already all friends here on the org...) is a good thing, the way they do it is a bit wrong though. Oh and I also want to migrate to the US I think(yes I know nobody wants me there...) so I want the EU but I do not hate the US, if that doesn't make sense I blame the Tequila.

I think I'll blame the tequila for you liking the EU. ~;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

I want the EU, not with a ban of opposition but I think forming a larger group (common it's not that hard, we're already all friends here on the org...) is a good thing, the way they do it is a bit wrong though. Oh and I also want to migrate to the US I think(yes I know nobody wants me there...) so I want the EU but I do not hate the US, if that doesn't make sense I blame the Tequila.

Consider yourself cordially invited. Our country is awesome.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think at some point in the hopefully not to distant future we'll have a fully functioning EU state, That is why i am probably for the EU treaty the main problem seems to be the transitional stage, a bunch of petty powers that only look out for thier own interest, beaucracy and cock ups seem to be commonplace and lastly us brits (though im fairly sure its more of an England thing) are some kind of pure breed that can't possibly mix with the rest of europe otherwise society will collapse and cats and dogs will begn mating (the last bits a tongue in cheek reference to UKIP and the BNP)

[rory_20_uk]

LittleGrizzly, you sound like a battered wife who won't leave her abusive, drunkard husband "he'll change" / "he just has difficulty expressing his love"...

The EU was rotten from conception. Instead of a small group who joined under clear political and ecomonic objectives, adding others who agree to the system, the whole thing is a bodge job with more countries before sorting out the mess with the existing ones, and even founding members effectively lied to join in the first place.

Those in charge have almost no incentive to do so as the'yre enjoying the gravy train just the way it is.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

Is it thirteen or fourteen years now that the EU auditors have refused to sign off the accounts because of graft and corruption?

Talking of gravy trains.....


Today Open Europe publishes the results of its Transparency Initiative on MEPs’ staff allowances. For the past two months Open Europe has repeatedly asked UK MEPs to answer six simple - and completely uncontroversial - questions about how they spend their staff allowances, and whether they are properly accounted for.

Shockingly, only 19 out of 79 UK MEPs were prepared to provide full answers. 14 MEPs replied, but gave only partial answers, while 46 simply refused to answer the questions.


Veteran Conservative MEP Christopher Beazley said, “I would have to question the legality of these questions. What right do you have to ask these?” He argued that MEPs' taxpayer funded expense claims were not "a public matter", that it was "private".

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=75

LittleGrizzly you should get out more mate. :laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Is it thirteen or fourteen years now that the EU auditors have refused to sign off the accounts because of graft and corruption?

Talking of gravy trains.....

Absolutely right, because national governments should retain the sovereignty to get their noses into the trough much more efficiently (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-our-mps-are-out-of-touch-and-overcompensated-835153.html).

British* pork for British* politicians. :2thumbsup:

*Insert EU member of choice here. :wink3:


Anyway, Tribesman, even a pro-EU advocate like me cannot urge you to vote yes. I shall be voting No myself and the reasons are set out thoughtfully in this article (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/adrian-hamilton/adrian-hamilton-if-only-the-irish-would-kill-the-lisbon-treaty-835808.html).


The great benefit of an Irish rejection at this last moment is that it would force the whole of Europe's leadership, and particularly that of the core countries, to face up to the fact that the enterprise lacks legitimacy which no amount of tinkering with treaties will make up.

I believe that the EU has to take its citizens seriously, introduce a significant amount of subsidiarity and accountability. It will fail brutally if the people it governs are not convinced of its worth. Those of us who believe in that worth should make the case, not lurk behind sophistries.

[Husar]

Those of us who believe in that worth should make the case, not lurk behind sophistries.
Or Tequila. :oops:

[LittleGrizzly]

:laugh4: :laugh4: he might change, he loves me really :sweatdrop:

I understand theres greed, corruption and that word i don't like spelling aplenty in the EU. I never denied this and theres many other problems with the EU but the general idea of greater cooperation in the EU is something i am for, now if it could just work better in practice...

[Kralizec]

The last time I voted grudgingly "yes". I'm not really against the treaty as such but I'm disgusted by the way our esteemed leaders are trying to push it through. If I could vote again, I don't think I could chose between voting "no" and staying at home.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Having read the article that Fragony posted above, I have to say I'd now recommend voting 'no'.

The way the EU has hidden these changes away, and not allowed the people of Europe to have a say in it, quite frankly it disgusts me. ~:mad

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I understand theres greed, corruption and that word i don't like spelling aplenty in the EU. I never denied this and theres many other problems with the EU but the general idea of greater cooperation in the EU is something i am for, now if it could just work better in practice...

Cooperation, as in free trade agreement, and I suppose currency, fine. A single nation with it's own constitution, etc.? No thanks.

[InsaneApache]

Here's a bit more food for thought...


After years of being accused of riding the Brussels gravy train, members of the European parliament are about to step aboard a real one.

A Eurocrats-only express service will be launched next month to ferry MEPs and officials in luxury at 186mph between one European parliament in Brussels and the other in Strasbourg. The buffet car will, of course, be fully stocked.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4040180.ece

That's nice, a train all of their own. Bless.

or...


Company documents reveal that since 1996 Chichester has paid the company £445,000 for services “in connection with secretarial and assistant services for the European parliament, constituency and committee work”.

Chichester has been in discussions with the parliament over whether the payments represent a conflict of interest

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4040000.ece

What's wrong with an ordinary bloke making a quid or two? Conflict of interest? Pah!

[Abokasee]

If you have no idea, get a dice, if it lands on 1,3,5 say yes, if it lands 2,4,6 vote no, afterall, 50-50 is ultimatly the chance this thing is gonna work.

(On the basis we've got no idea)

[InsaneApache]

From todays Gruniads' comment is free...


The EU is already the government of Europe. The Irish ‘government’ is just fronts for the EU. The purpose of national governments is to do what they are told by the EU. They are told who to trade with, what deals to make, how many fish to take from around our coasts and Ireland has a huge coastline, how many Irish fishermen redundant in favour of the Spanish, to allow economic migrants from Poland, Bulgaria, etc., to introduce VAT, to receive instructions about recycling of rubbish, to send child benefits to the children of migrant workers left home, bathing water quality, and much, much more. The Lisbon treaty allows for or reinforces the following: EU defence force, EU harmonised taxation policy, EU judicial system, EU Police Force with right of arrest in all EU states, EU foreign embassies and foreign policy, EU financial institutions policy, EU trade and treaty policy, EU transport policy, 80% of all legislation originates with the EU. Governments should be honest and say what the EU allows them to do and will allow them to do in the future. They don’t because they have all agreed to pretend to be the government and take the flack for the EU. They take EU law, tweak it, implement it and stamp it with the HMG logo and call it British. Just like Rolls Royce cars; designed in Germany, engines and parts made in Germany, shipped over and assembled in Crewe and stamped with a big RR.

But the media is complicit. It would take an anal character with a few months with nothing to do to find the truth so Journalists just trot out what they hear second hand and follow what they think is fashionable when the real action is in Brussels. Journalists should be writing about what the EU will do, what their plans are, interviewing key people and holding it to account for its laws, to explain themselves to these highly paid interviewers on TV and radio. But they would refuse to be interviewed, refer them to Brown, Cowan and co. as they are the front organisation, there to take the flack. They can be trusted to do their bit as they have pensions unmatched elsewhere and fantastic expenses arrangements to protect and if they keep enough voters in the dark long enough they can look forward to even cushier jobs at EU central office.

Spot on.

[Brenus]

I did vote "NO". You see what my President and all Parties did with it, Sit on it, told me off, and did what they want to do any way... It is so good to be heard in a democratic world.
And that is NOT EU responsablities, it was my own Governement which decided to do so, no EU directives...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Momentum is gathering for the No vote (http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0606/1212696236403.html). There's still a lot of undecided, but those coming off the fence are pretty much deciding on a No.

[Louis VI the Fat]

If Ireland votes no, we have a problem. Not a constitutional one, mind. There's always a way around a 'No' vote. Plus, it is, well, a tiny fringe island so nothing a little pressure won't solve.

But the EU will run into a major legitimacy problem. Ireland is the EU's flashy succes story, the one formerly passionately pro-European country. Bugger.

Then again, serves the EU right. I passionately support the EU, but brushing aside the referenda results from France and the Netherlands is simply not on.

[Banquo's Ghost]

If Ireland votes no, we have a problem. Not a constitutional one, mind. There's always a way around a 'No' vote. Plus, it is, well, a tiny fringe island so nothing a little pressure won't solve.

But the EU will run into a major legitimacy problem. Ireland is the EU's flashy succes story, the one formerly passionately pro-European country. Bugger.

Then again, serves the EU right. I passionately support the EU, but brushing aside the referenda results from France and the Netherlands is simply not on.

And therein lies the problem. I think I am as pro-Europe as you are Louis, but I shall be voting No precisely because this Treaty, and the whole European project, has lost its legitimacy because of the cavalier treatment of France's and the Netherlands' earlier vote.

If the EU hierarchy tries the route noted in your first paragraph (as Ireland's is the only vote this time because it is "only" a Treaty) they may get what they want - though we are naught if we are not a stubborn people - but fundamentally ruin the possiblity of a real, united and co-operative Europe.

The people of Europe are no longer on board - or rather, are contemplating jumping ship even though the waters around her are shark-infested. They have been forced into steerage too long; patronised, bullied and when occasionally asked if they are comfortable, ignored.

The No campaign here is largely incoherent, apt to spread misinformation and downright lies, and offers no solutions bar this sense of half-suspected menace. Ireland is the success story of the EU, brought from a third world status to vibrancy in a mere two decades. I am voting no, yet have nothing much in common with others that will follow me into the booths to do likewise. Truly an unholy alliance - which has taken a breathtaking arrogance from the powerful to forge.

Democratic institutions require legitimacy. Whist an enormous project like the EU also requires a time of decision making more centralised than ideal, the Union was also founded on the great principle of subsidiarity - the idea that power should be exercised and accountable at the lowest possible level. There is so much that is good about the European project, there is no reason to skulk behind disenfranchisement.

It should be easy to bring the people along - or to pause, as I suspect most wish, and refine the redistribution of power through democratic means back towards those people so they more surely engage with their Union.

[JAG]

Look at all those who are urging you to vote no, and I think any sane person would have to come to the conclusion that a vote yes is the only option. I know that is a cheap statement to make but it doesn't make it wrong. The extremely rich hate it because here is a body in Europe which might be able to stop their tax loopholes, Americans hate it because it forms a political body and path towards a new, credible and strong international actor - one which cannot be bullied and manipulated like Western Europe has been over the last 60 years. Conservatives in many countries hate it for many reasons, but chief amongst them are either ridiculous notions about traditions of nations - and their imperial pasts - and the actual denial of the fact that certain nations arn't what they used to be. Or the fact that a European Union might actually reverse some of the extreme conservative principles and policies in a few certain countries or finally that it is an outrageous bid to take power completely away from the nation state and put it into the hands of brussels. All these reasons, are reasons to support the treaty. They are either misguided, narrow minded and wrong or empowering for us as members of the EU.

What conservatives don't realise is that nation states have already lost national sovereignty, look at the current situation in the world markets, in the increasing inter-dependent situation which we find ourselves - one which conservatives, at least extreme economic ones, always wanted! We do not have control over our economy anymore, at least not at a level to successfully change things which happen on the world stage. Why not actually gain some control back by being an active and important member of the EU, an EU with increasing presense over important global situations which effect these world wide effects?! It is a fallacy and an insanse trick of the mind which people cannot come to terms with, that by entering into an EU - which the treaty outlines - decreases sovereignty and empowerment of the nation state, far from it, it empowers the nation state once again. Surely the people who are the most vehmently against it, show how delluded the argument against it is!

I can go on - stating how there is an importance for European values on the world stage, especially now, and that only via a strong EU able to work seamlessly on the world stage can this work etc, etc. But there really is no need, it is as plain as night and day. My argument has won anyway and will continue to do so much to the annoyance of petty nationalists and delluded conservatives not to mention aggressive Americans. The EU is ever increasingly getting closer and closer in a mannor which can't be stopped or broken by the member states, and it is about time to. Great time to be a European.

[JAG]

As to the democratic question brought up, I don't really have a problem with the way the no votes have been treated. Let us not dellude ourselves and blind ourselves to the reality of the situations in those no votes - they were not based solely on European affairs. Does the fact that every European Parliament election get, firstly, a low turnout and secondly, the party in power in a nation a kicking, show that in peoples minds national politics still plays a significant factor in European matters. If you think that the votes on the constitution which was rejected by France and Holland were simply that of European matters you are delluded!

It partially explains why some people are so delluded as to think the nation state is still ever powerful, they do not want to nor do, take the EU seriously and so don't vote on European issues, or the issues at hand at referendum time - on things such as the constitution. They vote on national issues, on how much they like the current government at home or how popular the leader is, etc, etc. To think that the votes in France and Holland, as well as other places were simply votes on the European issues, in a grand statement about the future of the EU is to disregard all we know to be true on past European votes.

Now I am not saying that this explains it all, because it clearly doesn't, but when it comes to Europe it has always been the nation states who have drived it, not the people. True there is good democratic traditions inside the EU and there needs to be - but it has always been the member states which have drived reform not the people, or the democratic choice of the people. If we were to have waited for the democratic voice of the people to push EU reform, we would not have an EU at half the stage it is now - so again let us not kid ourselves that what is happening now with the constitution / treaty, is grossly out of the tradition of the EU, nor one which is a bad move by the powers that be inside the EU, and the member states.

The fact remains, we need this treaty, now. If you like the EU, then the only thing to do is vote yes.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Look at all those who are urging you to vote no, and I think any sane person would have to come to the conclusion that a vote yes is the only option. I know that is a cheap statement to make but it doesn't make it wrong.

.... Surely the people who are the most vehmently against it, show how delluded the argument against it is!

You see, old fruit, I don't cast my vote on the basis of the company I am keeping but on the merits of the case. In my opinion, simply voting Yes because the No camp contains people I would normally shun, is unthinking.


I can go on - stating how there is an importance for European values on the world stage, especially now, and that only via a strong EU able to work seamlessly on the world stage can this work etc, etc. But there really is no need, it is as plain as night and day. My argument has won anyway and will continue to do so much to the annoyance of petty nationalists and delluded conservatives not to mention aggressive Americans. The EU is ever increasingly getting closer and closer in a mannor which can't be stopped or broken by the member states, and it is about time to. Great time to be a European.

The "March of History" eh? ~:rolleyes:

This "treaty" has been rejected already by the free peoples of France and the Netherlands. It has been tinkered with for the specific purpose - and only that purpose - of enabling it to avoid proper constitutional processes in those and other countries and avoiding reference to the people that the designers of the treaty seek to govern. If the EU project cannot command the consent and support of the people of Europe, I want no part of it. My country is the only one where such a portest can be made.

This is not petty nationalism but a concern for the very future of the EU. If the people are disenfranchised by subterfuge, they will, regardless of force, disengage. The petty nationalism you deride is a symptom of this as surely as the rise of bigoted nationalist parties among the working classes in many countries.

The Europe you hope for is, I suspect, in line with my own hopes for a close and binding political future of peace and prosperity. Lines on maps have caused far to much bloodshed in the past, not least in this little island. The difference between us is that I would trust the European peoples to see this. Such a future is only made with the consent and participation of the people, never by dictat. This liberty is no less dear to those of us on this ancient continent than it was to the "aggressive Americans" whose descendants helped us from their New World to emerge from a prior darkness and set us to hope for our own new world.

"My argument has won anyway" is an arrogant posture entirely in line with the elite of the EU bureaucracy and dictators old and new. If they, and you, are so sure, why not allow the people to demonstrate that in referenda?

EDIT in light of subsequent post. Referenda are often informed/diverted by other events, but all democracy suffers from this deficiency. The point is not that the voters may have been misinformed or rebellious (and whose fault is that?) but that whatever their will, it is their will. Cutting them out of the new process is arrogant, dictatorial and most of all will destroy the EU project because they will hate it. And I have several ancestors with heads in baskets that will silently testify to the ultimate idiocy of "knowing what's best for the Great Unwashed".

[Fragony]

These boots are made for walking, and that's just what they'll do, one of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.

[rory_20_uk]

My aim is to leave Europe within the next 2 years. The EU is one facet that I'll cheerfully leave behind.

~:smoking:

[JAG]

I say 'my argument has won anyway', not for self aggrandising, nor to rub it in the noses of those who disagree - well OK, a lil bit of the latter. But for the important fact that people need to come to terms with it, just like I have had to bitterly come to terms with the economic situation in this country and the fact my view of the way economics should be handled in this country lost, in the most part and there is no turning back. People cannot change the way the EU is or is going and need to wake up to it, is all I was saying.

Just because a majority vote a certain way does not mean that they are right. Indeed a slim majority - the French election was what 55% to 45% - is still even more uncertain. Though of course just because the people might not be right doesn't mean they should be ignored. But if you look at what happened, they haven't been! Ignoring the voters would have meant implementing the constitution anyway, what has happened is different. What has happened is a reflection on the constitution, a tinkering and it being pursued via other means - which for someone who believes in democracy so vehmently, you seem to be forgetting is also completely democratic. Nothing the EU is doing is undemocratic, the elected leaders of the member states are supporting the elected members of the EU and their executive. The fact that it is not going to a vote via referendums, does not mean that it hasn't gone through democratic process, need I trot out the previous treaties which fundamentally shaped the EU?

[JAG]

My aim is to leave Europe within the next 2 years. The EU is one facet that I'll cheerfully leave behind.

~:smoking:

Good to see someone who I seem to remember disliking all those pesky immigrants coming over here, so brilliantly supporting the system. But that is a different story - and thread topic - altogether.

[rory_20_uk]

Good to see someone who I seem to remember disliking all those pesky immigrants coming over here, so brilliantly supporting the system. But that is a different story - and thread topic - altogether.

But sadly not before you've managed to provide a tabloid summary. It is a shame that your memory already is failing, but I imagine that it helps to see the past filtered.

~:smoking:

[JAG]

If my memory is wrong then :bow: I take it back and apologise. But anyway, I can never help myself disrailing a thread sometimes, even when I don't want to!

[KukriKhan]

As an aggressive American with little stake in the outcome, I nevertheless observe for the thousandth time that governments, from neighborhood councils through national parliaments to continental assemblies, ultimately derive their authority from the consent of the governed.

And that rights are not given from on high, they are taken, since they are unalienable.

When the people speak through the ballot, those proposing to govern had best pay strict attention, lest the people, ignored, decide to speak louder and more forcefully, and insistently, and maybe violently.

If the goal is to create a viable economic competitor to the US/NAFTA and China/India, why do you need more than a solid economic treaty? Why sacrifice national sovereignity on the altar of "one people, one europe"? I don't get it.

But then, I am american.

[Fragony]

Bat Ye' or was spot on everything goes directly as she said. Up to 'islamphobia' whatever it may mean becomming a criminal offence under EU law.

What is really going on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurabia

[JAG]

Kukri, I was not being hostile to Americans with what I posted, I love the US it is a great place and have no problems with Americans, it was aimed at a significant majority who would love the EU to collapse / be weak for the reasons I stated - it was not an ignorant pop at all US citizens, you should know me better than that.

The goal is of course better economic situations for European nations, but more than that. Better social and political situations within each nation and in the new globalised setting, a bigger voice and continuing peace inside Europe - and beyond.

It takes more than economic treaties to get that - hell it takes more than economic treaties to get the economic benefits which we have seen and continue to benefit from.

[Banquo's Ghost]

People cannot change the way the EU is or is going and need to wake up to it, is all I was saying.

Of course they can. And I trust we poor Irish are just the people to do it.


Just because a majority vote a certain way does not mean that they are right. Indeed a slim majority - the French election was what 55% to 45% - is still even more uncertain. Though of course just because the people might not be right doesn't mean they should be ignored. But if you look at what happened, they haven't been! Ignoring the voters would have meant implementing the constitution anyway, what has happened is different. What has happened is a reflection on the constitution, a tinkering and it being pursued via other means - which for someone who believes in democracy so vehmently, you seem to be forgetting is also completely democratic. Nothing the EU is doing is undemocratic, the elected leaders of the member states are supporting the elected members of the EU and their executive. The fact that it is not going to a vote via referendums, does not mean that it hasn't gone through democratic process, need I trot out the previous treaties which fundamentally shaped the EU?

Have you read the Lisbon "Treaty"? Do you know what you are voting for?

As for the elected leaders of the member states, whilst they have the power (in most cases) to sign treaties, they do not have the power to over-turn national constitutions. Coming from a country which doesn't have one and is therefore more used to diktat by the majority than most, I can understand you being a little hazy on that principle, but the rest of us are quite keen on the process. :wink:

The document that was the European Constitution, and is now the Lisbon "Treaty" by courtesy of a word processor search and replace, fundamentally alters many member countries' constitutions. In my opinion, mostly in positive ways - but in many others' opinions, not. For example, I am deeply uneasy with the proposed European Defence Force - designed with a potentially aggressive role in mind, that may well extend to regime change operations outside the mandate of the United Nations. Why should my country - long neutral and dedicated to UN oversight - be forced into such an arrangement?

Representative democracy has flaws just in the same way as referenda. When you voted for New Labour last time, not only did you not vote for your current Prime Ministerial representative, you did vote for a referendum on this issue - a manifesto commitment now conveniently put aside. Why the subterfuge? Why was he so ashamed of being associated with the Treaty that he turned up so late he had to sign it out of sight of the cameras?

The EU is something to be proud of, but it has hit the wall of democratic deficit. As you note, in set-up phase a certain amount of leadership by imposition may be needed, but that time has long passed. The EU institutions are corrupt and barely anyone supports them or has faith in them. It is time to go back to the people and re-invigorate them with our vision. If we cannot do that, then the project is worthless - and doomed to fail. Maybe it will takes ten, twenty years - but what is the rush?


As an aggressive American with little stake in the outcome, I nevertheless observe for the thousandth time that governments, from neighborhood councils through national parliaments to continental assemblies, ultimately derive their authority from the consent of the governed.

And that rights are not given from on high, they are taken, since they are unalienable.

When the people speak through the ballot, those proposing to govern had best pay strict attention, lest the people, ignored, decide to speak louder and more forcefully, and insistently, and maybe violently.

But then, I am american.

And God bless America, and KukriKhan, for the honouring of this truth. :bow:


If the goal is to create a viable economic competitor to the US/NAFTA and China/India, why do you need more than a solid economic treaty? Why sacrifice national sovereignity on the altar of "one people, one europe"? I don't get it.

Because this is not the aim. The European project is federalist and political and seeks to move beyond the national sovereignties that have caused us to murder each other for a thousand years. It is the goal of internationalism, with cultural diversity, mutual understanding and respect and the final triumph of the French language.

OK maybe not the last one, exactly.

The tragedy of the pro-European movements is that they usually deny this, and try to hoodwink the peoples of Europe with the trade stuff. This is why they are reduced to imposing, deceiving and double-crossing - as seen with this "treaty" - instead of proudly driving forward the vision and trusting that if it is right, the people will see that.

[InsaneApache]

It's interesting to see JAGs' democratic deficit. If the vote goes against you, the voters are ignorant of the facts and should be ignored. If the vote goes in your favour the voters have seen the 'big picture'. A sentiment worthy of those other luminaries of the left, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro....Hitler.

Someones done a good brainwashing job on our favourite socialist student. :no:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why not actually gain some control back by being an active and important member of the EU, an EU with increasing presense over important global situations which effect these world wide effects?! It is a fallacy and an insanse trick of the mind which people cannot come to terms with, that by entering into an EU - which the treaty outlines - decreases sovereignty and empowerment of the nation state, far from it, it empowers the nation state once again.

LoL. From what I understand, the individual countries aren't going to have much control at all.

I love the double speak as well. 'Empowering' nations! It'll turn nations into less than US states it seems.


My argument has won anyway and will continue to do so much to the annoyance of petty nationalists and delluded conservatives not to mention aggressive Americans.

As has already been pointed out, it's a wonder how you're so sure of that when it was rejected before, and why you don't care for more people to vote on it.


The EU is ever increasingly getting closer and closer in a mannor which can't be stopped or broken by the member states, and it is about time to.

LoL, again. This goes along how, exactly, with the empowerment of member states? Indeed, this is disturbing if it's to become a power unaccountable to it's members, which it will rule over.

Your arguments have made me more suspicious than anything else of the EU. When anyone is so dismissive of democracy and the will of the people, so desiring to impose their will, it is disturbing.

Now, here in America there's a infrequent saying; the people have the soapbox, the ballot box, and the cartridge box. Now what happens when you take the first to away, as the EU seems so eager to do? I think even Europeans will squirm under oppressive heels and dictates.


Indeed a slim majority - the French election was what 55% to 45% - is still even more uncertain.

In the US, we call a 55-45 popular vote a big win for Presidential elections.


Because this is not the aim. The European project is federalist and political and seeks to move beyond the national sovereignties that have caused us to murder each other for a thousand years. It is the goal of internationalism, with cultural diversity, mutual understanding and respect and the final triumph of the French language.

IIRC, We Americans have been to war with every nation bordering us (just two left) on this continent. But we get along fine with simple economic treaties. Having a great oppressive and controlling state hardly seems necessary.

CR

[rory_20_uk]

Looks like Ireland is going to sink the latest iteration of rules forced on those it is supposed to serve.

Isn't it funny how whenever the people are asked what they think the answer is always "no". Of course we are never asked if we would like to get the hell out of the EU altogether, as in many cases that vote would be very embarrassing.

~:smoking:

[KukriKhan]

Kukri, I was not being hostile to Americans with what I posted, I love the US it is a great place and have no problems with Americans, it was aimed at a significant majority who would love the EU to collapse / be weak for the reasons I stated - it was not an ignorant pop at all US citizens, you should know me better than that.


I like to think that I do, my friend. I apologize; I admit to using your "aggressive" quote rather cheaply there. :bow:

This part:

The goal is of course better economic situations for European nations, but more than that. Better social and political situations within each nation and in the new globalised setting, a bigger voice and continuing peace inside Europe - and beyond.

and this:

Because this is not the aim. The European project is federalist and political and seeks to move beyond the national sovereignties that have caused us to murder each other for a thousand years. It is the goal of internationalism, with cultural diversity, mutual understanding and respect

changes my understanding of what is intended by this EU movement, to which both JAG and Banquo's Ghost seem to agree. The issue then becomes JAG and the EU-supporters say: "It's a matter of when, not if.", whereas the EU-skeptics say: "We've bitten off more than we can chew.", or "It's too early to assimilate".

You Europeans have unified your currency, your markets and your travel-abilities. What remains, to achieve political unity, is the final stumbling block: language (in the opinion of this outsider). I suggest: Spanish.

That'll be a tough one - but then, I never thought the Euro currency would take hold either.

[InsaneApache]

The issue then becomes JAG and the EU-supporters say: "It's a matter of when, not if.", whereas the EU-skeptics say: "We've bitten off more than we can chew.", or "It's too early to assimilate".

You Europeans have unified your currency, your markets and your travel-abilities. What remains, to achieve political unity, is the final stumbling block: language (in the opinion of this outsider). I suggest: Spanish.

That'll be a tough one - but then, I never thought the Euro currency would take hold either.

Hold on ther pardner, one cotton pickin' minute, England* still has Sterling, not the Euro.

*And I do mean England :laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Hold on ther pardner, one cotton pickin' minute, England* still has Sterling, not the Euro.

Yes, but Kukri is still right. As in so many things European, England doesn't count. :wink3:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

whereas the EU-skeptics say: "We've bitten off more than we can chew.", or "It's too early to assimilate".

Or "this is my country, get your pan-European ideals out", or "why doesn't my vote count, again?", or "the EU is a corrupt morass" or "why am I sending my money to Estonia?"

[InsaneApache]

Yes, but Kukri is still right. As in so many things European, England doesn't count. :wink3:

Although meant and taken in jest......now what was it they said about things said in jest? :wink3:

[KukriKhan]

Hold on ther pardner, one cotton pickin' minute,

I love it when you speak Texican. Do it some more. :laugh4:

Btw, point taken on the Euro v pound.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I pretty much agree with most of what JAG has written. Except for the slightly undemocratic nature of his road to progress.

~~~


The European project is federalist and political and seeks to move beyond the national sovereignties that have caused us to murder each other for a thousand years. It is the goal of internationalism, with cultural diversity, mutual understanding and respect and the final triumph of the French language.Aaah...bliss and utopia. :2thumbsup:

Of course, all kidding aside, the history of the EU really is written in French. From its imaginative concept, its beauty, its eloquently formulated lofty ideals, down to its corruption and rotten institutions, the project bears the hallmark of French Civilisation.

~~~~~

On to other matters now. It's been too long since I pestered my friends across the channel:

England still has Sterling, not the Euro. Yes, you do indeed. ~;)


The Euro will spell the end of Britain's economic succes! Gloom and doom! Continental madness!
2002: the Euro is introduced.


New figures show that France may be about to supplant Britain as the world's fourth largest economy.

Since 1999, Britain has claimed to have the larger economy, as measured by the size of its gross domestic product compared with France. GDP is a measure of the total value of all goods and services.
Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2806611.stm)


Well, following the good results for French GDP produced in Q3 2007 (as detailed in this post here) - and the weakening performance of the UK economy as the credit crunch starts to really bite, we have a surprising result:

"The size of the British economy has slipped below that of France for the first time since 1999 thanks to the slide in the value of the pound. Sterling’s rapid fall to 11-year lows against European currencies has also pushed Britain into sixth place in the world. The US, Japan, Germany, China and France all had larger economies than the UK in the third quarter of 2007." Linky (http://frencheconomy.blogspot.com/2008/01/french-economy-is-back-at-number-5.html)

Looks like the British party that lasted from 1999 to 2007 is over, and the natural order of the universe restored: France is bigger than Britain again. Have fun in your medieval Sterling fantasy kingdom, lads. ~;p


Edit: Maybe I will not buy Texas after all. Instead, do you know of any nice Yorkshire property, InsaneApache? I am considering buying some for a holiday home. Preferably with a backyard of at least 500 acres.
Edit II: I hear Yorkshire must be quite the pleasant place in summer. For all two weeks of it.

[Husar]

"why am I sending my money to Estonia?"

It's a concept called compassion, some people even send their money to Africa and others to Eastern Germany(well, you do that already). If you should lose your job one day my money will be sent to you and even though you're pretty much a stranger I won't even complain about "why am I sending my money to Bavaria?". ~;)

[Fragony]

I don't know Husar I kinda like the voluntary part of compassion. But if I don't pay these fat santa's in no time a man with a suitcase and a truck is in front of my door who wants to confiscate my stuff and if I refuse I go to jail, that's not quite it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Edit: Maybe I will not buy Texas after all. Instead, do you know of any nice Yorkshire property, InsaneApache? I am considering buying some for a holiday home. Preferably with a backyard of at least 500 acres.
Edit II: I hear Yorkshire must be quite the pleasant place in summer. For all two weeks of it.

This is perhaps a little small and draughty for IA, but I can recommend Castle Howard to you. 'Tis a trifle over-blown, but I am led to believe you Frenchies like that sort of thing. :wink:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/aslanngrae/Castle-Howard02.jpg

Picture taken in late June.

[Husar]

I don't know Husar I kinda like the voluntary part of compassion. But if I don't pay these fat santa's in no time a man with a suitcase and a truck is in front of my door who wants to confiscate my stuff and if I refuse I go to jail, that's not quite it.

That doesn't sound like anything new with the EU, we already have a 19% VAT, I'd prefer that to be voluntary as well but it isn't and if I don't pay it they'll also put me in jail. :dizzy2:

Western germans also pay for eastern german development and we weren't asked about that either but you hardly see anyone complain.

[InsaneApache]

Picture taken in late June. :laugh4:

You're more than welcome to come and abode in Tykeshire Louis as long as you promise to...

(a) Keep ferrets, whippets and pigeons.

(b) Wear a flat cap.

(c) Partake in Yorkshires' delicious cuisine. I.E. Potato pie and black peas, boiled tripe and onions, boiled pork ribs and cabbage....etc.

(d) Live somewhere like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-DxovgI7NI) until you can say Ey Yup and Ecky Thump in a Cleckheaton twang.

:laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Charity is known to decrease as taxes increase - pretty obvious really that when people have less disposable income they give a smaller amount away.

The government these days takes our money and doles it out to the people they feel are deserving, whereas in times past people gave it out to where they thought it was required. I imagine this old system allowed for efficient resource management, local accountability and dynamic allocation.

I can see why this system has been scrapped as where were all the managers? Luckily the EU has managed to find a way of ensuring that a small percentage goes to the right destination - we can't be sure of amounts as after all, the EU never gets signed off by the auditors anyway...

~:smoking:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It's a concept called compassion, some people even send their money to Africa and others to Eastern Germany(well, you do that already).

On the contrary, I think that money should be going to East Germany.

[Fragony]

uh-oh!!! Hide your lasses they gonna breath in your face http://euobserver.com/9/26299

[InsaneApache]

It doesn't matter what the Irish vote. The EU 'parliament' has pledged to ignore them. Didn't they also vote to outlaw any party that disagrees with the EU 'vision' thang?

Nice guys over there in Bruxelles/Strasbourg. :shame:


politicians in larger member states particularly cannot understand why the treaty may be defeated.

Of course they can't, except that every time it's been put to a plebiscite it's been defeated. Self serving fascists one and all.

From Rupert Murdochs mouth, apparently...


Oh, for the luck of the Irish. They are the only people in Europe to have a vote on the future of the European Union. That is thanks to their Constitution, not their leaders. Until recently the Irish Establishment had assumed that its citizens would rubber-stamp the Lisbon treaty, the repackaged EU constitution. Now, in the face of a formidable “no” campaign, it is trying to scare them into doing so. That tomorrow's poll is too close to call, in a country that has benefited so much from EU largesse, is a measure of how wrong-headed the whole process has been.

The Irish “no” coalition is a ragbag that includes Sinn Fein, pro-life campaigners and business executives. Like the French and Dutch rejections of the EU constitution in 2003, an Irish “no” vote would have its own parochial dimension. But that would not undermine its legitimacy. Most of those planning to vote “no” tomorrow have one thing in common: they do not trust a treaty that they do not understand. They show a good deal more common sense than the politicians.

The lack of clarity should make it impossible for any country to sign this document. It is a piece of deliberate obfuscation by technocrats who wish to proceed with a considerable erosion of national sovereignty under a smokescreen of “tidying up”. As a result of its vague wording, the treaty is dangerously ambiguous. Countries which imagine that they have negotiated opt-outs from unpopular bits risk finding out in years to come that the European Court of Justice takes a different view.

The “yes” camp argues that the Lisbon treaty is essential to the smooth functioning of the EU after enlargement, and that a rejection will throw the institutions into “chaos”. But the European Union is not paralysed. In the past year alone, 177 EU directives have passed into British law.

It is equally disingenuous to portray the treaty as a purely administrative exercise to cope with enlargement. A change in voting weights is an inevitable consequences of the arrival of new members, although small states such as Ireland stand to lose out disproportionately from that, and from the reduction in commissioners. But enlargement is no justification for the proposed removal of more than 40 vetoes in areas ranging from “economic co-ordination” to energy policy. The Lisbon treaty would give the European Court of Justice jurisdiction over crime and justice matters for the first time. It would make the EU a legal personality, able to sign treaties in its own right. Through a self-amending clause it would allow ministers to abolish national vetoes without any further treaty, and so without ratification by national parliaments or referendums. It is anti-democratic at its very core.

These changes, and others, would dramatically alter the powers of member states. Politicians hold these powers in trust for the people. They are not theirs to give away by executive order. Gordon Brown was wrong to insist that Labour's manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the EU constitution did not apply to the Lisbon treaty. He has wilfully ignored the evidence of two select committees that the two documents were substantially similar.

The Lisbon treaty does nothing about EU corruption and waste, which have returned to centre stage this week. It does nothing about the EU's notorious farm subsidies. It enshrines, rather than bridges, the gulf between the public and the elite. Brian Cowen, the Irish Prime Minister, has implied that an Irish “no” vote would be a vote to “disengage” from Europe. That is disingenuous. An Irish “no” would signal that the elites must go back to the drawing board. Deprived of our own vote, we must pin our hopes on Ireland to speak for all of us.

[Fragony]

It doesn't matter what the Irish vote. The EU 'parliament' has pledged to ignore them. Didn't they also vote to outlaw any party that disagrees with the EU 'vision' thang?

Yep. People who didn't see that comming haven't been paying attention. Most alarming of all is the addition of the completily unspecified term 'islamphobia' becomming a criminal offense. Can be anything. People who didn't see that comming haven't been paying attention either.

Most of those planning to vote “no” tomorrow have one thing in common: they do not trust a treaty that they do not understand.

Well let me help them, EVERY national law can be overuled, and the EU can make laws as they see fit. Basicly they can do whatever the hell they want to.

[Tribesman]

Most alarming of all is the addition of the completily unspecified term 'islamphobia' becomming a criminal offense.
Wow I missed that one Frag , could you specify which article it is in the treaty ?

But hold on wouldn't that "addition" already be covered as prohibited under the fundamental rights thingy .

[Fragony]

Wow I missed that one Frag , could you specify which article it is in the treaty ?

But hold on wouldn't that "addition" already be covered as prohibited under the fundamental rights thingy .

Nope, been added it's sitting next to the fundamental rights thingie and will have the same legal weight. And it's unspecified, anything can be islamphobia, a blog, an article in the newspapers, carte blanche for scary people. It will be on the same level legally as a hate-crime, how that translates into reality: nothing negative can be said about the islam because everything can be islamphobic. Nice don't you think?

[InsaneApache]

For some reason I feel that this is appropriate...

Someone stopped the clock
When we should have started early
If we miss the morning meeting
Our lives will be in danger
Someone's trying to stop us
There is someone in our party
It is someone with a grudge
And they won't let us reach the border
Our lives are in his hands
We pay with Krugerands
The currency of pain to help
Us leaving
While back in our homeland
The ones who make a stand
Are taken from their homes and
No-one hears of them again
I felt I had to come here
I thought things would be better
The situation's changed
But I find I'm still resented
Someone wants my job
It is someone in this building
Someone's spreading rumours
And I don't feel I can stay here
I think I'm going north
And now's the time to leave
The people there they say
Are good to strangers
And if I do my best
And try to settle in
I'm sure I can be just like
Someone's neighbour
I'm sure I can be just like
Someone's neighbour (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7yqsui_k48)

[Tribesman]

Well then Fragony , given that you cannot cite the article from the treaty or from the amendments and appendments to the treaty I am sure you won't mind me pointing out that it seems like you are once again talking bollox .

Oh hold on ,I get it . You are worried that next time you break the law by refusing someone employment because of what their name sounds like you will be breaking the law under the law that says it is prohibited to discriminate on grounds of gender , race , religeon etc.......
I see your worries there Frag , but as has been pointed out to you already that crap you do is already illegal under your national laws as well as european law .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Bloody hell Frag nearly 500 pages of rubbish to pick on in the treaty to easily show how bad it is and you have to go and invent something:dizzy2:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

As I recall, he said that it was something that would be eventually included into European law, not something that would necessarily be in the Lisbon Treaty. :book:

[Tribesman]

As I recall, he said that it was something that would be eventually included into European law, not something that would necessarily be in the Lisbon Treaty.
As you recall ??????
Most alarming of all is the addition of the completily unspecified term 'islamphobia' becomming a criminal offense. Can be anything. People who didn't see that comming haven't been paying attention either.


Nope, been added it's sitting next to the fundamental rights thingie and will have the same legal weight.
frag is talking bollox and you have very faulty recall abilities

Oh yeah :book::oops:

[Fragony]

When talking with you it doesn't really matter wether or not I am bolloxing or not no way out of that perception you see things like that and that is good. At least you can keep it good or not what's it to me.

[Tribesman]

Well Frag its quite simple , you made a very definate claim about why the treaty is rubbish , you made very definate claim that something had been added .
If your claims turn out to be bollox then the only possible deduction is that you are indeed talking bollox .
It does make me wonder though , when you have something as crap as the Lisbon treaty why is there any need for you to invent crap ?
Is it that you cannot manage a topic without your islamophobia shining through in all its splendour ?

[Banquo's Ghost]

OK, that's quite enough of that.

It's a contentious subject I know, but can we get back to specifics rather than trying to rile each other into anger?

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[InsaneApache]

OK, that's quite enough of that.

You know, I swear I read that with John Cleeses' voice inside my head. :laugh4:

[JR-]

OK , its coming up ,can anyone give any possible reason why I should vote yes ?

no.

[Fragony]

OK, that's quite enough of that.

It's a contentious subject I know, but can we get back to specifics rather than trying to rile each other into anger?

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Fine,

http://www.coe.int/t/dcr/summit/20050517_decl_varsovie_en.asp

9. We strongly condemn all forms of intolerance and discrimination, in particular those based on sex, race and religion, including antisemitism and islamophobia. We affirm our determination to further develop, within the Council of Europe, rules and effective machinery to prevent and eradicate them. We will also further implement equal opportunity policies in our member states and we will step up our efforts to achieve real equality between women and men in all spheres of our societies. We are committed to eradicating violence against women and children, including domestic violence.

Again, islamphobia, unspecified, can be anything. Bloggers, critical journalists. A phobia is an irrational fear, how can an irrational fear be illegal?

[Adrian II]

I pretty much agree with most of what JAG has written. Except for the slightly undemocratic nature of his road to progress.The Fat King has it. It is amazing how Frogs mature into sensible beings as soon as they live and work outside France. Delors or Platini come to mind.

[Tribesman]

Fine,

http://www.coe.int/t/dcr/summit/2005...arsovie_en.asp

And there was me wondering why your little bugbear wasn't in the treaty , and the simple answer is because it isn't in the treaty :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Well done Frag:2thumbsup:

Oh I get it , the treaty will make anti discrimination laws legally binding in all states , but hey frag anti discrimination laws are already legally binding in your state :idea2:


A phobia is an irrational fear, how can an irrational fear be illegal?
A mental disorder is not as such illegal , however when the mental disorder is applied in a manner that breaks the law it is breaking the law and is illegal .
Simple isn't it .
There is no law that says you cannot have this compelling fear that Muslims are hiding under your bed just waiting to jump out and grab ya , but if you do something silly like refuse an employment appliction because the applicant has a kinda muslim sounding name and they might be coming to get ya then that is an illegal act of discrimination .


But anyway , on the vote .
Early yet , but first results look like a No vote:2thumbsup:

[Fragony]

ehh, it's right there :inquisitive:

[InsaneApache]

But anyway , on the vote .
Early yet , but first results look like a No vote

One can hope. If nothing else it will make that French chappie choke on his Foie Gras.

[Fragony]

And we got a NO :balloon2:

Not all districts in but with 60% vs 40% it looks pretty clear that the eurocrats need to do another paintjob. Way to go Ireland :2thumbsup:

[JR-]

it seems to be tilting towards a NO.

Hooray for Ireland, you saved us from our own spineless inability to have our own referendum.

this will be good for the EU in my opinion, with any luck the result will be a less centralised EU which is more transparent in its doings.

:balloon2: :clown: :balloon2:

[Tribesman]

ehh, it's right there
Errrrrrrrrrr....that isn't the treaty Frag :dizzy2:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

"If the Irish people decide to reject the treaty of Lisbon, naturally, there will be no treaty of Lisbon." - Francois Fillon

We can only hope...

[Fragony]

Errrrrrrrrrr....that isn't the treaty Frag :dizzy2:

Errrrrrrrrrr it's part of it tribes. Having regards to thingie.

[rory_20_uk]

The all new, completely different Treaty Of Erm, Hold On a Minute... Madrid??? The tippex is almost dry over the name...

~:smoking:

[Incongruous]

Even if there is a no vote, does not the fact that the majority of the Irish govt. is made up of pro-treaty prats mean they will just pass it through somehow anyway?

If the EU does push through the massive pile of over inflated pap that the Lisbon treaty is, will this make the pro-EU crowd stop and think (not that you do not do this already!) about their democratic freedoms?
Or has that been sold out by a stronger EU economy?

[Tribesman]

Errrrrrrrrrr it's part of it tribes.
No it isn't :wall:
It is not in the treaty neither is it part of it .
The warsaw summit statement to which you refer is not included in the text of the fundamental rights charter which was adopted and it is the fundamental rights charter which is referenced in the Lisbon treaty .
So you are wrong wrong wrong and errrrr...wrong:yes:
Congratulations .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You could of course check it out for yourself , its quite simple , article 21(1):book:

[InsaneApache]

Give it six months and the Irish will be forced given the opportunity to refect and rethink their disgusting ingratitude to the EU. Place your bets here.

[Fragony]

Jezus christ on a plane :wall:

[rory_20_uk]

Give it six months and the Irish will be forced given the opportunity to refect and rethink their disgusting ingratitude to the EU. Place your bets here.

Like last time they voted no. Funny how people are never given the chance to no after voting yes...

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

I'd like to add some thoughts that echo JAG's and Louis' posts. It's probably useless trying to convince hard-liners on either side (some may be surprised to know I would be delighted with an Irash 'No', even though I am pro-European) and this is meant for those with an open mind.

First of all, Louis is right that dogmatic skeptics, chauvinists and other saboteurs often manage to water down or complicate European treaties to the point of meaninglessness, and then complain that they are meaningless and unworkable.

These is also a different way of looking at the so-called democratic deficit of the EU. Up close, no political system is truly satisfactory. The Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy, with an unelected official acting as head of state and as chief mediator between the parties represented in our parliament. The United States doesn't have that problem, but as a republic it has other issues, such as the constant (and costly) infighting between the federal layer of government and the separate states to the point where many citizens deeply distrust the federal government.

Since in this thread we are dealing mainly with British anti-European sentiment, let me emphasize that Britain has its own issues, for instance the lack of proportional representation: the first past the post system means that theoretically a 100% majority in parliament is possible based on only 34% of the popular vote. More than one 'majority' government in the recent past had less than 50% of the British vote. And if further European integration is a problem to Brits, let me say that the present ridiculous and extremely wasteful disintegration of Britain through devolution is not a prospect I relish for my country or for the EU as a whole, thank you very much.

Finally, it must be said that some British politicians prove that constructive thinking and acting with regard to the EU can go hand in hand with critical assessment. The LibDems may be the most pro-European of the major British parties, but their leader Nick Clegg has also been a co-founder and leader of a European group that aims to fight corruption, waste and unaccountability in Brussels and Strassburg.

[LittleGrizzly]

And if further European integration is a problem to Brits, let me say that the present ridiculous and extremely wasteful disintegration of Britain through devolution is not a prospect I relish for my country or for the EU as a whole, thank you very much.

Blame the damn nationalists!

The issue is getting so stupid i keep hearing calls for a northern english parliment (well if the welsh the scots and the south get one why not us ?) i swear at this rate were going to have overpriced parliment buildings for every country, i can hear some people from north wales now, "how come those people in the south run us, we should have our own parliment!" Its practically the opposite idea of the EU though im sure its a much bigger waste, I blame braveheart myself!

slightly off the topic i now but i needed that rant out of my system...

[Tribesman]

Jezus christ on a plane :wall:
Yes he is because he is everywhere :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: however what you claimed is in the treaty is not in the treaty , neither is it in the rights charter , in fact it is nowhere apart from the summit declaration which is nothing at all :yes:
So Fragony not only do you get you knickers in a twist over nothing ,your phobia insists that the nothing is actually real ...is that a symtom of your anxiety disorder ? a manifestation of the mental illness that is described as an irrational fear of something ?

[InsaneApache]

Tribes and Frag, the .orgs version of the chuckle brothers. :laugh4:

[JR-]

Since in this thread we are dealing mainly with British anti-European sentiment, let me emphasize that Britain has its own issues, for instance the lack of proportional representation: the first past the post system means that theoretically a 100% majority in parliament is possible based on only 34% of the popular vote. More than one 'majority' government in the recent past had less than 50% of the British vote.

And if further European integration is a problem to Brits, let me say that the present ridiculous and extremely wasteful disintegration of Britain through devolution is not a prospect I relish for my country or for the EU as a whole, thank you very much.


I have no problem with first past the post, I like giving a government a mandate to push their ideas without compromise from coalition governments.......... even when i don't like the government, and boy do i dislike labour!

I agree totally about the daft and destructive devolution process in this country.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

To The People Of Ireland:

Thank You.

[Fragony]

Indeed, and if they could now kindly invade us to bring democracy. Ah well who am I kidding if our democracy was functional it would be outlawed :shame:

[Tribesman]

Indeed, and if they could now kindly invade us
If Ireland invaded Holland and took over most of the country would be back under seawater within a few years .

[Fragony]

If Ireland invaded Holland and took over most of the country would be back under seawater within a few years .

Just convince them it's whiskey :2thumbsup: