EU referendum.

[InsaneApache]

Now the parties almost over, let's have a reality check.... all those 'EU' citzens cast your vote.*

EU as a trading bloc cast yes.

EU s a government cast no.

If you'd like to play from outside the EU please state your case and why as a courtesy.

Thankyou.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

EU as a trading bloc - Yes

EU as a government (Lisbon Treaty) - No

[Kagemusha]

EU as a trading bloc cast - yes.

EU as a government cast - no.

[InsaneApache]

opps there was s'posed to be a poll, if a Mod could help? :oops:

[Fragony]

I could make a joke right now

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I could make a joke right now

:laugh4:

[LittleGrizzly]

From the looks of your post there wasn't too much choice in the matter anyway...

[JAG]

EU as a government, thank you kindly.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Poll added, as requested. I hope it is in line with your intention IA.

I am a federalist, so in such a simplistic choice I vote for the EU as a government. But a radically different, democratically accountable government based on the principles of subsidiarity rather than the current attempt.

[Ice]

I'm not going to vote since I don't live in the EU zone, but I'd say as a trading bloc.

I honestly loathe much of big government. It does have it's positive aspects, but once it starts growing, its near impossible to stop.

[seireikhaan]

Trading block- sure. Mostly make sense, trade is generally beneficial to all parties as a whole.

Gov't- No, especially not from what I've seen thus far.

[CountArach]

From outside the US:

While I think the idea of a central government for all of Europe is a noble one, and one I would indeed love to see, I do not believe that it is likely to happen. However, I do believe it will become a strong trading bloc.

[PBI]

Government please. We have a brief window of opportunity to avoid becoming simply a pawn once again between the US and Russia, and we need to overcome our differences and take it.

That said, I do think the EU could stand to take a few steps back and become a good deal more democratic and accountable. The difficulty is doing this without caving entirely to the "we hate the French and Germans, scrap the whole thing, let's go back to 1914" brigade.

[HoreTore]

EU as a government? And risk having Blair and his cronies as President? Or that rabid Italian? Or the Polish Twins? NO THANKS!

If the EU transforms into a trading bloc again, I heartily support joining it. In its current state; no way.

I'll elect my own idiots into power, thankyouverymuch. I really don't see the benefit of having you people elect your idiot in their place.

[Husar]

Government, united it will be easier to pressure Norway into joining us. ~;)

Actually I think that unity will be beneficial in some ways, like Banquo I don't want it at all costs but the sooner my passport looks exactly like that of Louis(apart from the name etc of course) or Adrian the better. I bet some people from Hessen were also complaining when they got a federal german government but nowadays it's just normal, I could see the same happening with the EU, people will get used to it and perhaps even develop some national sense as EU citizens.

Some questions remain of course:

How long until we have only one language across Europe?

In the football worldcup, will the EU only field one united EU team? :inquisitive:

[PBI]

In the football worldcup, will the EU only field one united EU team?

Now that'd be something. Might make the Euro championships a bit boring though.

[Odin]

EU as a trading bloc, it just seems like the logical baby step to take before the attempt at federalism. Also provides for greater opportunity for economic success which might lesson nationalist inclinations.

[rotorgun]

I shant cast a vote here, as I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I see the EU as an opportunity to do something peacefully that Europreans have been trying to achieve through war and violence since the times of Charlemagne, that is to say unify Europe. It is likeley that it will begin as a trading block that will gather more and more political clout. Gradually, or even fairly rapidly depending on how successful the various factions can work together, the formation of a government will follow.

For where your treasure is, so shall your heart be also-Jesus of Nazerath

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The way I see it:

1) Europe has been at peace since the end of the Second World War. Saying that the lack of the EU as a government will lead to European war is not only scaremongering, but it's pretty bad scaremongering at that. We can be friends without being in a single government, and Germany and France, the two historical rivals in Europe, have been friends for a long time now.

2) The current European "government" is rife with corruption. No.

3) The current European "government" is both arbitrary and totalitarian in the way it controls the House and Referendums.

4) The Schengen Agreement can be kept without a federal European government.

5) Ummm...no. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2038813/European-Parliament-to-ban-Eurosceptic-groups.html)

6) The European Union's individual nations have some of the strongest economies in the world on their own. We don't need to fear becoming "pawns."

7) Many European nations are part of NATO. Therefore, we don't need a new military alliance when we have the strongest nation in the world behind us, which will help us if our only major threat, Russia, decides to try anything - which they won't, since we buy their gas.

8) I value independence and my culture.

[Quid]

Not voting since, thankfully, we are no direct part of this EU thing.

Why are some people so easily persuaded to 'unify' this government? I'd fight blood, sweat and tears before I would have my vote negated entirely by this.

On related note, what exactly, can a citizen of the EU still vote on that actually counts for something?

Economic - Yes!

Government - No!

EU - Over my dead body!

Quid

[PBI]

I think you may find that a lot of us are in favour of a central European government, but not necessarily the undemocratic mess we currently have. If the poll had been phrased with an option for "I'm in favour of greater integration, but not the Lisbon treaty" there would have been a lot of votes for that I suspect. But I think it is entirely premature to suggest that we should abandon the ideal of federalism entirely simply because the current model is flawed.

Perhaps if the Eurosceptics weren't quite so frothing in demanding the EU be scrapped entirely, EU supporters might not be so unwilling to permit any backpedalling at all.

[Fragony]

EU supporters might not be so unwilling to permit any backpedalling at all.

That's why.

no.

EU supporters speak of europe or the eu as they see fit, we need europe and we need the eu are two different things. Of course we need europe that's where we do business, the eu, nah we don't need it.

[Conradus]

The EU as a goverment please. Of course more democratic than now, but since it's all we have right now, we should strive to make that better.

[drone]

Just a USian putting in his two (devalued and worthless) cents. Power held by a government will never be relinquished without a violent uprising. You Europeans saying "EU government please, but a little more democratic" are just fooling yourselves. The mess you have now will only get worse. A house built on a poor foundation will not last long. It is important to start well, and that doesn't appear to be happening in this case.

Trade bloc now, yes. Government now, no.

Overall, I don't really have a problem with a full EU government, but it needs to be more accountable and representative, with proper checks and balances.

[InsaneApache]

Power held by a government will never be relinquished without a violent uprising. You Europeans saying "EU government please, but a little more democratic" are just fooling yourselves. The mess you have now will only get worse. A house built on a poor foundation will not last long. It is important to start well, and that doesn't appear to be happening in this case.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how the EU fans can't see this. It is after all, self evident. Now if the EU adopted summat akin to the Declaration of Independence, which BTW is one of the most uplifting and wisest proclamations ever made IMO, then I could see the merits of a unified Europe.

[PBI]

If the people of Europe want out of the EU, they are free to vote in a party that will do this. I wouldn't like it but I wouldn't be able to do anything about it, and neither would the EU.

They do not, largely I suspect because the parties which promise to do this are very much of the "why would we want anything to do with foreigners" persuasion.

The poll needs a middle ground.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If the people of Europe want out of the EU, they are free to vote in a party that will do this. I wouldn't like it but I wouldn't be able to do anything about it, and neither would the EU.




5) Ummm...no. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2038813/European-Parliament-to-ban-Eurosceptic-groups.html)


They do not, largely I suspect because the parties which promise to do this are very much of the "why would we want anything to do with foreigners" persuasion.

I disagree - the UKIP, for example, is for the trade agreement, but not the government, an opinion which most people here seem to share.

[PBI]

Don't get many votes though, do they?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Don't get many votes though, do they?

Well, 16.8% of the UK vote in the 2004 European elections.

[LittleGrizzly]

Well, 16.8% of the UK vote in the 2004 European elections.

I think that was before the whole kilroy scandal, EU as a goverment i went for...

[InsaneApache]

Don't get many votes though, do they?

Aye, and there's the rub. All the main political parties, at least in the UK, have the same agenda. I can remember when the main anti Europe party was the labour party, more than likely tribalist, because it was the tories that took us (UK) in.

Now however, we have such a scale of corruption, evasiveness, duplicity and mendaciousness that they all have their snouts in the trough. You could vote until Kngdom Come but not one of the main three are going to tell it like it is. It would literally cost them millions. As seen this week on the 42 day detention 'debate', pork barrell politics has become as common over 'ere as it has been over there. :thumbsdown:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I think that was before the whole kilroy scandal, EU as a goverment i went for...

You mean this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKIP#Kilroy-Silk)

[LittleGrizzly]

You mean this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKIP#Kilroy-Silk)

Yeah, i mean its not as if they didn't have enough problems before this, 3 major partys and the nationalist partys (PC, SNP) to compete with and then BNP as well which probably takes alot of the racist vote, this combined with the fact they keep getting linked to BNP and racism in general gives them a bit of an uphill battle. All the scandal an events like the orange man really make the anti-EU guys look useless or racist, im pretty sure kilroy's later resignation was to due to some racist comment maing it into the media....

thier 16.8% is for the EU parliment elections, im pretty sure this makes them 4th biggest british influence, which when you consider the other 3 are all for EU goverment makes it look like a small portion..

[Louis VI the Fat]

Now if the EU adopted summat akin to the Declaration of Independence, which BTW is one of the most uplifting and wisest proclamations ever made IMO, then I could see the merits of a unified Europe.The EU can't have a fully functioning constitution - the sceptics won't have it.

The EU can't have a beginning of a whiff of hint of a Treaty that looks like a functioning constitution - the sceptics won't have it.

The EU can't function properly and democratically without either of the two - which to the minds of the sceptics proves they have been right all along.

[HoreTore]

The EU can't have a fully functioning constitution - the sceptics won't have it.

The EU can't have a beginning of a whiff of hint of a Treaty that looks like a functioning constitution - the sceptics won't have it.

The EU can't function properly and democratically without either of the two - which to the minds of the sceptics proves they have been right all along.

Bah. The trade can function very well without any constitution nonsense.

And trade was the original purpose of the EU, right? And the common market is also hailed as the reason we're no longer planning any invasions, right? So why fix something that isn't broken?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Bah. The trade can function very well without any constitution nonsense.

And trade was the original purpose of the EU, right? And the common market is also hailed as the reason we're no longer planning any invasions, right? So why fix something that isn't broken?

This is the second time I've uttered four words to someone I never thought I'd agree with. First Krook, now you.

I agree with you.

[InsaneApache]

The EU can't have a fully functioning constitution - the sceptics won't have it.

The EU can't have a beginning of a whiff of hint of a Treaty that looks like a functioning constitution - the sceptics won't have it.

The EU can't function properly and democratically without either of the two - which to the minds of the sceptics proves they have been right all along.

Hey Louis, how's the footy? :titanic: :beam:

Listen old mate, we see eye to eye on a lot of things. Indeed, you have even, on occasion, changed my views. However this time, you are just plain wrong misguided.

[JR-]

i *want* the EU to be a trading block, and thus i hope ireland votes no and spares us the constitution,

[Sarmatian]

Why not organize EU on two levels? The first level would be a trading bloc, namely joint market and all that we have and another level which would be a political union of countries with constitution, joint foreign policy, goverment, president and maybe even an army one day. This way you're not forcing any country to surrender parts of its sovereignity if it doesn't want, it's still is a part of a free trade bloc, but its on its own in all other issues.

Not that I am a great fan of EU, but this is getting ridiculous. To respect democracy a in particular, you're ignoring democracy in general. 3 million people paralyzing a union of 400 million.

So, for those countries who do not wish political union and are generally against further federalization of the EU, relegate them to "associate members" (or some more appropriate name), share a free market with them and that's it. Give them a limited say on the economic issues but they take away their right to affect all other policies of the Union. You'll see that almost all countries that are now bitching "we don't want EU goverment to rule in our country" would quickly change their tune.


Now that'd be something. Might make the Euro championships a bit boring though.

I already see it - Euro Championship 2020

The final and only match: EU-Serbia

P.S. Serbia wins of course :laugh4:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not that I am a great fan of EU, but this is getting ridiculous. To respect democracy a in particular, you're ignoring democracy in general. 3 million people paralyzing a union of 400 million.


Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Our parliaments just went ahead and ratified it without giving us a referendum. The EU is ignoring democracy. If they accept the Irish result then they will be recognizing democracy, but until then they are ignoring the will of the people.

[Quid]

So, for those countries who do not wish political union and are generally against further federalization of the EU, relegate them to "associate members" (or some more appropriate name), share a free market with them and that's it. Give them a limited say on the economic issues but they take away their right to affect all other policies of the Union. You'll see that almost all countries that are now bitching "we don't want EU goverment to rule in our country" would quickly change their tune.

Like Switzerland, then. Not part of the EU but still profiting of special trading agreements. We are probably just lucky due to our geographic position...AND, we keep our dmocracy! Probably the only true one still left.

Quid

[Conradus]

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Our parliaments just went ahead and ratified it without giving us a referendum. The EU is ignoring democracy. If they accept the Irish result then they will be recognizing democracy, but until then they are ignoring the will of the people.

Parliaments ratify treaties daily without referenda. They pass laws without referenda, that doesn't make them undemocratic though.
Apart from that, in countries who are based on the sovereignity of a "nation" referenda are against the constitution most of the time. I know they are here, it's the same reason why our members of parliament don't have to do what we've elected them for.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Parliaments ratify treaties daily without referenda. They pass laws without referenda, that doesn't make them undemocratic though.

This treaty, however, is a hugely important issue to the people, the people want a referendum, and the governments are refusing to give it simply because they think it could fail. It's not democratic, it's passing something many people don't want passed by using brute force. The treaty can change constitutions, and the people aren't even looked at for an opinion.

To make my Euroskeptic voice heard in Germany, I'd have to vote NPD. I'd much prefer a referendum to that. Wouldn't you?

[Conradus]

This treaty, however, is a hugely important issue to the people, the people want a referendum, and the governments are refusing to give it simply because they think it could fail. It's not democratic, it's passing something many people don't want passed by using brute force. The treaty can change constitutions, and the people aren't even looked at for an opinion.

To make my Euroskeptic voice heard in Germany, I'd have to vote NPD. I'd much prefer a referendum to that. Wouldn't you?

Apparently most people don't even know what is in the treaty exactly, neither do I know all its details. Doesn't sound like a huge concern then eh?
Furthermore, it seems to me that the annual taxdecision is of far more importance to the people, yet we don't hold referenda about that one either?

I can't see how you can be absolutely sure that people want a referendum, without having a referendum about that question:yes:

And what I always loathe about referenda is the same thing I loathe about opinion polls. People tend to vote differently if the weather's bad that day, or if their grandmother just died or, ...
In an article in on our newspapers they were quoting an Irish professor this week and some anti-treaty supporters. Appertently some were against the treaty because they rather had that 3 lighthouses remainded open on some island. This professor then stated that this was a common thing in Ireland with elections (and no doubt in a lot of countries)

Lastly, I can't see how the treaty would directly affect constitutions, at least here to change them, you have to have a significant majority in our parliament. However, previous EU-directives with immediate power already overruled our laws, or sometimes part of our constitution, again this is nothing new. I really am hardpressed to see the great problem. This treaty allows us to make the EU a more democratic body, with more power to the EP. I say go for it.

[rory_20_uk]

Voting yes for the treaty gives the underlying concept legitimacy. I don't want the EU, not as it is, not as the treaty would make it. I think it is screwed up, based on very shaky foundations and there should be talk of throwing countries out of the EU for failing to comply, not dragging even more in as though we're playing a game of sardines.

There should be small, simple areas of common agreement, and work up there in a slow, methodical way not the undemocratic mess we have at the moment.

~:smoking:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Apparently most people don't even know what is in the treaty exactly, neither do I know all its details. Doesn't sound like a huge concern then eh?

You must be joking. If you don't know what's in the treaty, does that mean you should blindly vote yes or have your parliament ratify it for you? No, you should educate yourself. And if the Lisbon Treaty is deliberately layed out by the powers that be so that you cannot understand it, then you should vote no until the European Union shows that it wants the people to understand and vote on something they know.

Right here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzbeDvMi71Q) You should watch the whole thing, but from 4:10 onwards especially.


I can't see how you can be absolutely sure that people want a referendum, without having a referendum about that question:yes:

There are large and vocal groups calling for a referendum, and if the people want to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, they will. If they don't, they won't. That's democracy, and the EU is making a farce of it. Notice that it stopped holding referendums when it realized it couldn't win?



Lastly, I can't see how the treaty would directly affect constitutions, at least here to change them, you have to have a significant majority in our parliament. However, previous EU-directives with immediate power already overruled our laws, or sometimes part of our constitution, again this is nothing new. I really am hardpressed to see the great problem. This treaty allows us to make the EU a more democratic body, with more power to the EP. I say go for it.

The question in the referendum was whether or not Ireland would change it's constitution to enable the ratification of the treaty of Lisbon. Therefore, it directly effects the constitution. The great problem is that the treaty of Lisbon is a pretty big thing.

The EU is going to become more democratic by denying the people the right to vote on the treaty to make it more democratic? Somebody here has already said that the EU is not going to become more democratic, and we need to open our eyes now.

[Kralizec]

I voted for the trading block option.

If "they" hadn't been so pompous to label the earlier treaty as a constitution and decided not to hold a referendum about it there would have never been an outcry about it, for better or worse. "They" now realize their mistake and are trying to rectify it but it's too late. If governments organise referenda so that they appear to be "listening to the people" they shouldn't be able to just ignore the result if it doesn't suit them.
The most farcical thing I've read last week in the papers was some bloke who said that it was undemocratic if 4 million Irish could decide over the fate of 400 million people (as opposed to even less people deciding about it, apparently). To bad I can't remember who it was.

Still, there are some things that the EU is doing right that can't be considered purely economical. Trying to stop the genocide against tuna in the mediteranean, for example. I don't think a purely economic entity is the best way, but I think it's better then a federal state.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Apparently most people don't even know what is in the treaty exactly, neither do I know all its details. Doesn't sound like a huge concern then eh?

Well, Brian Cowen (our Taioseach or Prime Minister) also said he hadn't read it, nor had our Euro Commissioner. Trust us, though, they pleaded, it's really good for you. I don't know about you, but I tend not to trust politicians too much on the occasions when they do know what they are talking about - and I was also taught Aesop's story about the Scorpion and the Frog.


Furthermore, it seems to me that the annual taxdecision is of far more importance to the people, yet we don't hold referenda about that one either?

We hold elections on that one - or at least, on the results of four years of those decisions. Do we get a four yearly election on the progress of the Lisbon Treaty? We do, of course, get Euro elections - to provide otherwise failed career politicians with shelter, food and drink, but almost no actual power to revise policy. Therefore your comparison is moot at best.


And what I always loathe about referenda is the same thing I loathe about opinion polls. People tend to vote differently if the weather's bad that day, or if their grandmother just died or, ...
In an article in on our newspapers they were quoting an Irish professor this week and some anti-treaty supporters. Appertently some were against the treaty because they rather had that 3 lighthouses remainded open on some island. This professor then stated that this was a common thing in Ireland with elections (and no doubt in a lot of countries)

This is a good point about referenda, but is directly related to the biggest current challenge to all western democracy - alienation and disinterest from the enfranchised. However, my solution to this would be to make politics more relevant and educate the people in civil responsibility, rather than deem them idiot cattle and disenfranchise them - as the EU governments are effectively doing for the Lisbon Treaty.

Even now, we see so-called democratic leaders telling us how Ireland should be cast adrift, friendless as a punishment. There was even a spokesman from Berlin muttering darkly on the radio as to how a mere million Irishmen should not be allowed to frustrate the aspirations of 500 million. I'd think a German spokesman might have a little more sensitivity when articulating those kind of sentiments.


Lastly, I can't see how the treaty would directly affect constitutions, at least here to change them, you have to have a significant majority in our parliament. However, previous EU-directives with immediate power already overruled our laws, or sometimes part of our constitution, again this is nothing new. I really am hardpressed to see the great problem. This treaty allows us to make the EU a more democratic body, with more power to the EP. I say go for it.

Well, it would have required a change to ours, and ours says that requires a referendum. That's the law.

As for making the EU more democratic, that assertion shows you haven't read the Treaty. Whilst a few more checks and balances are ceded to the Parliament, the Commission (unelected) gets many more powers and the number of commissioners - and place of origin - is reduced. So the big countries get proportionally more power. In addition, the number of MEPs is kept largely the same, but from 27 total countries, lessening local influence again.

This constitution has been rejected now by the people of France, the Netherlands and Ireland. These are three of the most europhile countries in the Union. If the people of those countries don't understand/appreciate/want the vision of the EU it contains, I respectfully suggest it is about time to get back to the drawing board.

[InsaneApache]

Hear, hear BQ. An excellent summation.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Hear, hear BQ. An excellent summation.

And if any more evidence is needed that the EU elite have got it so badly wrong, it is that IA and I are agreeing on a Europe issue. :shocked2: :wink:

[JR-]

Parliaments ratify treaties daily without referenda. They pass laws without referenda, that doesn't make them undemocratic though.


i consent to my government ruling in my name, i do not consent to my government giving away the power to govern me to a third party.

i am no fan of referendums as part of the normal process of governance, but i definitely want to be asked if its ok to be ruled by somebody else!

[JAG]

This whole thing about the 'undemocratic' EU and the 'power grab' by the invisible - yet handidly omnipresent - 'EU elite', is complete hypocrisy by those who spoute it; double standards my friends. You want the EU to act like a democratic form of governance, yet hold the EU to democratic principles and standards far beyond that of our national democratic systems. It is, by the vast majority a mere code, a way of saying - GET OUT, GET OUT! - without actually saying it. I understand there are a few, seemingly, misguided souls who have a poor way of thinking about the situation - and have got their good principles mixed up with people they should never have got tangled with. You guys definately arn't in Kansas anymore and now what you gonna do? ...

To those few misguided yet principled people - like BG - you cannot get away from the fact that it is you that is the problem - the biggest problem - with the EU project. Those who 'like' or 'love' the EU, yet hate the way it is or has become or is acting at the moment. The fact remains, if you love the EU and have supported the things it has done - such as enlargement or trade reforms and social policy - by rejecting the constitution you betray yourself and that is the worst betrayal of all. You go back on the very things you would argue for in the same breath. No point saying I support the EU reforms and enlargement or whatever, then not support the constitution because they are one and the same - without the constitution the EU won't, can't and will never work. Start understanding that.

[InsaneApache]

You want the EU to act like a democratic form of governance, yet hold the EU to democratic principles and standards far beyond that of our national democratic systems.

Too right. If the EU wants to become a nation then it must make the case of being an entity better than what it proposes to replace. It has failed to do that, hence the three rejections by France, The Netherlands and Ireland.


I understand there are a few, seemingly, misguided souls who have a poor way of thinking about the situation - and have got their good principles mixed up with people they should never have got tangled with.

You've hit the nail right on the head here. For the pro EU fanatics anyroad.

OK JAG that's now three plebecites held and three lost for the Euro-fans, so which part of no don't you lot understand?

[JR-]

if there were plebiscites all over the EU how many would have voted yes....................................................

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=21MlrowJqqc

It would be nice if the CDU would get it's act together. I will vote for whatever party has German sovereignty and German interests as a concern.

[Sarmatian]

i consent to my government ruling in my name, i do not consent to my government giving away the power to govern me to a third party.


So you vote for a party (in national elections) and it doesn't get enough votes to form the goverment by itself, and it had to enter a coallition with two other parties and share the power with them. These other two parties could be some parties for which you wouldn't vote under the threat of death, but it doesn't make it "undemocratic". Party you voted for doesn't have to ask you do you want to withdraw your vote in light of the new circumstances or to hold another elections to see would you vote for it if you knew they're going to form the goverment with those two other parties.

Similar stuff here. The goverment you voted for is sharing it's power on a larger level...

[JR-]

third party is a phrase you are misunderstanding the context in which i use it.

Labour, Lib-Dem, and Conservative are not third parties, they are British parties which have their roots in British politics, accumulate a British mindset and culture, act towards British goals, and are directly subject to the voting whims of British voters.

The EU is a third party, Belgium is a third party, the righteous chorus of Bono supporters is a third party.

Do you see the distinction I make?

p.s. but yes, i do dislike coalition politics which is why i like the British first past the post system.

[SwordsMaster]

I thought you guys might find this interesting:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2008/06/a_costless_no_for_ireland.cfm

[JR-]

interesting article, i dislike the tone implying that ireland has done something wrong (it was the only nation to do it right), but the idea is sound, i want no part of political union for the UK, but if others want to go ahead then more more power to them.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Has Royal Assent been granted in the UK yet?

[JR-]

i'm kind of hoping that royal assent suffers an unexplained 24 hour delay, just long enough for it to be noted in the press and speculated upon.

piling the pressure on gordon is exactly what is needed and he deserves.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The Queen should just flat out refuse. Use that power for something useful.

[InsaneApache]

Our Beloved Leader, the Great Ditherer is shilly-shallying yet again. FFS Gordon make your mind up and then stick to it you wassock!


Gordon Brown has said Britain will not ratify the EU Treaty until the High Court has ruled on a bid to force a British referendum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7465665.stm

[rory_20_uk]

I think that this is one occasion where Gordon would get into a greater mess by plunging ahead - only to find that what he'd done was illegal. The EU is enough of a dictatorship as it is without the judiciary pointing it out.

Here's to the UK referendum :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

[JR-]

agreed.

[discovery1]

I have a question that is probably what? 4 years too late?

Why was the original constitution, and presumably the Lisbon treaty, made to be such a complicated mess? Why not a much simpler document like the US constitution that provides guidelines for the laws of the land rather then state said laws directly. Seems like such a constitution would be much easier to get accepted at the very least.

[InsaneApache]

I have a question that is probably what? 4 years too late?

Why was the original constitution, and presumably the Lisbon treaty, made to be such a complicated mess? Why not a much simpler document like the US constitution that provides guidelines for the laws of the land rather then state said laws directly. Seems like such a constitution would be much easier to get accepted at the very least.

It's about destroying democracy and handing power to an unelected elite. A power grab. It was written to be incomprehensable so that no ordinary voter can understand it and see it for what it is.

Just to underline the Mugabesque attitude of the elite, they have decided that because Ireland gave the 'wrong' answer last week, they will have to go back and have another referendum, probably next spring, to be given the 'opportunity' to deliver the 'right' answer. As I said before to one of the elites little cheerleaders, "Which part of NO don't you lot understand?"

[Louis VI the Fat]

Here's something for you regionalists to ponder about:


The unipolar world of the 1990s and early 2000s - the world of overwhelming American predominance, with no other superpower in sight - is not yet dead, but it is certainly dying. A more complex and infinitely more dangerous multipolar world is coming into existence, with China, India and perhaps a revitalised Russia as superpowers alongside the US.

We cannot know how this new, multipolar world will evolve, but there is little doubt that it will be an unkind place, riven by quarrels over constrained resources and the divergent impacts of climate change. The great question for Europeans as it takes shape is brutally simple. Do we want our children and grandchildren to live in a world run by the Americans, Chinese, Indians and perhaps Russians, or are we prepared to make the qualitative leap towards federalism, and become at least a quasi-superpower in our own right?

Linky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/27/eu.ireland)

One quote I wish I had written myself in this thread:

According to the conventional wisdom, the Irish vote shows that Europe's elites pay too little attention to their peoples. The truth is very nearly the opposite. For the most part, our elites have succumbed to a kind of bastard populism that makes courageous political leadership virtually impossible.

[Incongruous]

Ugh...
What a horrible piece of nothing that article was.
Boundless opinion dressed up in a degree.

[InsaneApache]

Talking of quotes...


Ha! This coming from the people who are only interested in a federal EU because it will provide them with a gigantic willy to wave in the faces of the Americans and Chinese?

:laugh4: class, sheer class. :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Talking of quotes..
I like this one myself .


Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.



Here's something for you regionalists to ponder about:

regionalists ???:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: have you ever considered that some people reject the treaty because it is crap , it is after all the third time this treaty has been rejected .

As for a revote in Ireland on the same question on the same document , it will probably be tried , but it will probably end with that biffo getting put out of office and quite rightly so .
He didn't read the treaty because he thinks he knows what it says . He agreed to sign off on a long and very complex legal document without even reading the bloody thing , only a frigging imbecile would do that .

[Incongruous]

What was that article really in support of Louis?
Neo-Imperialism? Willy waving?
Why would anyone wish to be a super power? It does not greatly improve the lot of the normal citizen, though it gives fat headed politicians an appendege extension. Everyone hates you, and in the end you fall over.
That hurts, as any of the major European countries can attest to, why go through it again?

[Adrian II]

Like I said in the other thread, I applaud the Irish 'No' because it rejects a treaty proposed by a PM who hasn't even read it. The vote doesn't invalidate any attempt at further federal integration, but it is a scathing indictment of the sort of politicians we elect: politicians who 'go with the flow' instead of providing leadership.

The triumphant Irish gentlemen in this thread would do well to understand that the lack of democratic accountability of Brussels does not start in Brussels; it starts in Dublin -- as it does in London, The Hague and other European capitals -- because we prefer leaders with no vision or backbone whatsoever.

HoreTore is against a full-blown European government because it may be led by Tony Blair. He says her prefers to elect his own idiots. And so he has. Even the present PM Jens Stoltenberg has nothing going for him, except the fact that he enjoys playing Medieval Total War as his Wiki page notes. In case he has switched to M2TW in the meantime, this sole mitigating circumstance of course has become mute as well.

Which raises the truly crucial question about the EU: does any European political leader play Shogun TW? If so, can he pull off a decent Oda campaign?

Because whoever can lead Yari Ashigaru to victory is a true leader and gets my vote. :bow:

[Louis VI the Fat]

What was that article really in support of Louis?
A Europe that can hold up its own pants. A Europe that does not continue its free ride on an American-guaranteed freedom. A Europe that is the master of its own future. A Europe that will not let itself be divided-and-ruled by that blackmailing resource-rich Russian bear. A Europe that understands that agriculture and food are not luxury items. A Europe that is prepared to safeguard its democratic, humanitarian values both internally, and externally in a changing world.

[Tribesman]

The triumphant Irish gentlemen in this thread would do well to understand that the lack of democratic accountability of Brussels does not start in Brussels; it starts in Dublin -- as it does in London, The Hague and other European capitals -- because we prefer leaders with no vision or backbone whatsoever.


Perhaps the esteemed dutch fella can write that again if I ever describe the leaders in Dublin as anything other than a bunch of walking talking bollox or other descriptions that end up getting the:daisy:treatment

[JR-]

Here's something for you regionalists to ponder about:
Linky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/27/eu.ireland)


Some comments:

"Their inability to speak with one voice in world affairs was humiliating, but not humiliating enough to force them to put their geopolitical house in order."
Humiliating to whom? I have never wanted to speak as one voice with the continent, so i can hardly be described as fazed when we do not!

"In any case, the triumphant launch of the euro, and the somewhat questionable triumph of helter-skelter enlargement, gave them more than enough to do."
The euro has been a triumph...........? Granted Italy must like have their economy competently managed for a change, but.........

"In different ways, China's authoritarian capitalism and continental Europe's social market economies have both turned out to be more successful than the hyper-individualistic capitalism of the US."
How? How about a little something (or even anything) to back that statement up.

"America's huge military arsenal and sclerotic military doctrine have turned out to be unfit for purpose."
And anyone else's is better? I rather think that iraq and afghanistan demonstrate beyond question the adaptability of US/UK strategic doctrine.

"Do we want our children and grandchildren to live in a world run by the Americans, Chinese, Indians and perhaps Russians, or are we prepared to make the qualitative leap towards the federalism that Kissinger's question implies, and become at least a quasi-superpower in our own right?"
Maybe it's just because i'm British, confidant in the knowledge that the Anglosphere remains a potent force, but i don't live in fear of America, India, Russia and China as does the author.

"In voting against the treaty, the Irish were voting for Europe to remain a fat, rich political pygmy, in a world dominated by potentially predatory giants."
No. What they did in fact was realise was that they as a nation do not share enough of the goals and aspirations of their continental partners to justify a political union.

"But they didn't know that that was what they were voting for. No one told them."
Oh, it's the "stupid" Irish again. So stupid that the Irish people have a political system that demands their politicians ask their permission before giving away the power of governance to a third party that was entrusted to them by the people!

"Seemingly, they have forgotten that the statesmen who launched the European project 50 years ago were taking immense political risks, and that if they had submitted their project to a referendum, it might well have been defeated."
So because France and Germany were terrified of being the battleground of another world war the rest of europes nations should just suck it up and agree?

"In their innermost souls most of them probably know that the institutional changes envisaged in the Lisbon treaty were, if anything, far too modest to give the EU even a modicum of the political clout it will need as the 21st century progresses."
The degree of political union necessary to create a viable federal state out of nations which share few similar goals and aspirations is called an authoritarian dictatorship. Count me out.

"But they were afraid to say so. Indeed, their treaty was expressly designed not to say so. Their whole object was to present the narrowest possible front to Eurosceptic opposition, to smuggle barely adequate changes into law, in the hope that nobody would notice."
So they treat what they hope to be their future electorate with utter contempt in broad daylight, and yet have the gall to act hurt and dismayed when those same people raise two fingers.............

"Yet Kissinger's question will not go away. Sooner or later, Europe will have to find an answer."
Why? What is wrong with a european trading block where we all muddle along together in harmony and tolerance?

"I don't think there's much doubt that during the course of the next 20 or 30 years, the core countries of the EU - broadly speaking, the eurozone - will in effect federate."
You may be surprised, why is it that you believe only Ireland Denmark and the UK can perceive the contempt with which eurocrats hold their own 'electorates'?

"What the rest will do is unknowable at this stage, but I suspect that more of them will join the core than the current conventional wisdom envisages."
But fair enough I say, if the continent wants to forge ahead with political union then go ahead, but not everyone is interested in that game, so you may need to do without the UK's economic, diplomatic and military clout when it comes to future willy-waving contests with the US.

David Marquand is a cretin.

[Adrian II]

Perhaps the esteemed dutch fella can write that again if I ever describe the leaders in Dublin as anything other than a bunch of walking talking bollox or other descriptions that end up getting the:daisy:treatmentMy dear Tribesman, I didn't want to put too fine a point on it, but you in particular haven't a leg to stand on in this whole affair.

You see, in your view politics and politicians are going to be bollox anyway. Anywhere. Whatever happens. And it is never your fault either. You never voted for the wrong guy because you obviously never voted at all, right? Or did you vote for a bollox politician against your prime principle in politics which says that all politics is bollox? Of course you didn't. It would be self-defeating [insert bad Irish joke here].

Now watch this: it doesn't make a bollox of difference if you are going to be bolloxed by Brussels or by Dublin.

Or does it?

Oh bollox! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[JR-]

"A Europe that can hold up its own pants."
First of all, I have no interest in europe holding up its own pants, but i am delighted to know that France is capable of looking after its own affairs, as it should.

"A Europe that does not continue its free ride on an American-guaranteed freedom."
It is called NATO, but it also requires that nations spend a reasonable proportion of GDP on Defence, and have the collective balls to use force when necessary. France has this, but few other nations on the continent do.

"A Europe that is the master of its own future."
If this can only be achieved by federal union then i would rather not, however i'm confident that the UK will successfully sail whatever winds the future brings. I accept that Frances perspective on this may be different.

"A Europe that will not let itself be divided-and-ruled by that blackmailing resource-rich Russian bear."
Trying to make up for the lack of spine demonstrated by other euro nations by binding them up in a collective where they will have no voice seems like the wrong answer to me for dealing with russia.

"A Europe that understands that agriculture and food are not luxury items."
Is this an argument for continuing CAP style subsidies?

"A Europe that is prepared to safeguard its democratic, humanitarian values both internally, and externally in a changing world."
The difference here is that i believe that the degree of control necessary to bind these disparate nations into a unified whole will actually lead to a degradation of those very same democratic and humanitarian values.

[SwordsMaster]

What most american journalists don't seem to understand is that Europe is not of such homogeneous anglosaxon culture as the US, and therefore impossible to federate. Look at the Balkans. You think if offered the opportunity they would reunite again? The same happens with everyone else. Europe is, as it always was a bunch of conflicting and rival powers, rightly self centered.

And they will never live in the shadow of the US, since they are pretty much the only market for american exports, and the biggest source of money for Russia.

Europe didn't get a common constitution because it doesn't need one. And it has been fighting its neighbours for too long to give up and unite now.

Besides, if you go tell the Queen of England or the King of Spain they have to go kiss *** to some clerk in Brussels, they won't even dignify you with an answer. Or tell you to "Shut up" like HM did to Hugo, for which I give him kudos.

[Louis VI the Fat]

David Marquand is a cretin.Marquand's academic career began as lecturer in politics at the University of Sussex and included the occupancy of two chairs in politics, first at Salford and then at Sheffield as well as Principal of Mansfield College, Oxford. Marquand is currently a Visiting Fellow, department of politics, University of Oxford and Honorary Professor of Politics, University of Sheffield. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1998. He is recognised by the newly opened Marquand Reading Room at his old school, Emanuel School in London.



What most american journalists don't seem to understand is that Europe is not of such homogeneous anglosaxon culture as the US,

Besides, if you go tell the Queen of England or the King of Spain they have to go kiss a** to some clerk in Brussels, they won't even dignify you with an answer. Or tell you to "Shut up" like HM did to Hugo, for which I give him kudos. Marquand is a British academician and former MP, not an American.

Secondly, I could not care any less what sensitivities kings or queens have towards the EU.

[JR-]

Marquand's academic career began as lecturer in politics at the University of Sussex and included the occupancy of two chairs in politics, first at Salford and then at Sheffield as well as Principal of Mansfield College, Oxford. Marquand is currently a Visiting Fellow, department of politics, University of Oxford and Honorary Professor of Politics, University of Sheffield. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1998. He is recognised by the newly opened Marquand Reading Room at his old school, Emanuel School in London.


i read that at the bottom of the article too, he is still a cretin for espousing such arrant nonsense.

[SwordsMaster]

Marquand is a British academician and former MP, not an American.

Secondly, I could not care any less what sensitivities kings or queens have towards the EU.

It is even more of a shame then. For a man like him it's almost unforgivable. Although, of course he can have an angle: having tasted the corridors of power in the UK, he wants to rule abroad. How sweet.

As little as you may care, there are quite a few countries in the EU that are still monarchies, and a common constitution requires that these be respected if it is in any way to be popular. An EU that would interfere with a country's policy to the point of removing its head of state and appointing a new political system would definitely get rejected.

[InsaneApache]

Yes, he's just an edumacated cretin. A bit like Gordon brown.

[Tribesman]

Now watch this: it doesn't make a bollox of difference if you are going to be bolloxed by Brussels or by Dublin.

Or does it?

Of course in this issue it does , currently we are screwed by Dublin and Brussels , after the constitution we would still be screwed by Dublin and Bussels but Brussels would have become more powerful and less accountable .
So that makes a bollox of your point :yes:


David Marquand is a cretin.
I didn't realise he was one of those that thinks the earth is 5000 years old and was made in 6 days .
Or do you mean a different sort of cretin ?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The triumphant Irish gentlemen in this thread would do well to understand that the lack of democratic accountability of Brussels does not start in Brussels; it starts in Dublin -- as it does in London, The Hague and other European capitals -- because we prefer leaders with no vision or backbone whatsoever.

That is, unfortunately, true. But you know what? The people here in Germany can't do much about it. You know the only party here that is against the Lisbon Treaty and the European Union.

[JR-]

I didn't realise he was one of those that thinks the earth is 5000 years old and was made in 6 days .
Or do you mean a different sort of cretin ?

On the same order of magnitude of idiocy, but less forgivable in that he has had an excellent education and still holds such ridiculous notions as true.

[JR-]

You know the only party here that is against the Lisbon Treaty and the European Union.
no. which party is it?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

no. which party is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany

It's like being stuck between a hammer and an anvil.

[Tribesman]

Well thats no surprise Mars , they don't want a more powerful Germany as part of Europe just a bigger more powerful Germany , they didn't want Poland to be part of the EU , they just want part of Poland .

[JAG]

Louis you thought stealer! I was going to mention and post a link to that very same peice now. Nice job. :yes:

All those people who don't think what he has to say - opinion or not - is credible or valid have to seriously think why they believe that. What has he said which is so disgusting, other than plain reality / future reality. Do people think that there will not be multiple superpowers in the near future. Do you actually think your nation will have a say in world affairs? You think the situation for your nation will be better under the multipolar situation? You are kidding yourself if you think anything other than a federal, fully integrated Europe is going to give you a say. As I have said before, by 'loosing' some national powers, you actually gain a voice. Just like you give away £2 a month to Oxfam instead of spending £2 a month yourself in trying to solve world hunger.

It is fine to be honest and say you want your country and Europe to play an ever decreasing role in international affairs, coupled with home grown culture decreasing under the increasing burden of four superpower cultures, at a proxy war with each other. Furthermore it is also fine if you don't want Europe or your own nation playing any part / a significant part in world affairs, and merely being shaped by them, but in that case shut up. I am, to be honest, sick of people who snipe on the sidelines, both nationally and internationally. If you are not going to play a part, you are not interested in doing anything which contributes, then shut up. If I am again showing some 'hate' for democracy and other peoples say, you are misjudging the situation. What is the point of a democracy if it is not to give people a voice to act upon their convictions - democracy is not listening to people who don't participate and perpetually make the lives of those who do, far worse. Anyway, this is relevant because it is those who are most vehmently against the EU, somehow still want a significant say in world affairs. As I say, it is fine to be against the EU and the treaty and whatever, but shut up about world affairs and forever hold your peace. If you want a say, get involved, shape the EU change the direction be a part of it, don't snipe.

Furthermore the article ellaborates on something I tried to say here before, but I got roundly jumped on for being 'undemocratic'. The EU wouldn't be half of what it is if it wasn't for certain people - who would have thought they might even be described as leaders.- taking the bull by the horns. Democracy is not listening ot the will of the people and following it, it is about - sometimes - making decision and following through, making a case and getting supported or kicked out of office because of it. Every nation on this planet would have the death penalty if it was down to popular vote, so lets not cry about how undemocratic and how the EU 'elite' don't listen, they are listening and leading, it is a shame people don't understand it - but then again some people wouldn't know if a guy came up and slapped them round the face with a fish.

... rant, rant, rant ... could go on forever.

[Tribesman]

Well thas a turn up , poor Jag who lambasts superpowers and their culture and proxy wars wants to be part of a superpower so he can play proxy wars
I do like your views on democracy and debate though "shut up shut up shut up":laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


The EU wouldn't be half of what it is if it wasn't for certain people
Yeah them people have a lot to answer for .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well thats no surprise Mars , they don't want a more powerful Germany as part of Europe just a bigger more powerful Germany , they didn't want Poland to be part of the EU , they just want part of Poland .

I've got no problem with a more powerful Germany, and I agree with them when it comes to the EU. My issue with them is that I'd be voting for them on a single issue I agree with them on. It's really a little confusing - vote for a party who you agree with some of the time, but is driving an issue you hate and despise (CDU) or a party you agree with less, but is completely on your side when it comes to that issue (NPD).

EDIT: Oh, and I don't mind European cooperation, but any more unity than we have now is a bit much.

[JR-]

All those people who don't think what he has to say - opinion or not - is credible or valid have to seriously think why they believe that. What has he said which is so disgusting, other than plain reality / future reality. Do people think that there will not be multiple superpowers in the near future. Do you actually think your nation will have a say in world affairs? You think the situation for your nation will be better under the multipolar situation? You are kidding yourself if you think anything other than a federal, fully integrated Europe is going to give you a say. As I have said before, by 'loosing' some national powers, you actually gain a voice. Just like you give away £2 a month to Oxfam instead of spending £2 a month yourself in trying to solve world hunger.

It is fine to be honest and say you want your country and Europe to play an ever decreasing role in international affairs, coupled with home grown culture decreasing under the increasing burden of four superpower cultures, at a proxy war with each other. Furthermore it is also fine if you don't want Europe or your own nation playing any part / a significant part in world affairs, and merely being shaped by them, but in that case shut up. I am, to be honest, sick of people who snipe on the sidelines, both nationally and internationally. If you are not going to play a part, you are not interested in doing anything which contributes, then shut up. If I am again showing some 'hate' for democracy and other peoples say, you are misjudging the situation. What is the point of a democracy if it is not to give people a voice to act upon their convictions - democracy is not listening to people who don't participate and perpetually make the lives of those who do, far worse. Anyway, this is relevant because it is those who are most vehmently against the EU, somehow still want a significant say in world affairs. As I say, it is fine to be against the EU and the treaty and whatever, but shut up about world affairs and forever hold your peace. If you want a say, get involved, shape the EU change the direction be a part of it, don't snipe.

Furthermore the article ellaborates on something I tried to say here before, but I got roundly jumped on for being 'undemocratic'. The EU wouldn't be half of what it is if it wasn't for certain people - who would have thought they might even be described as leaders.- taking the bull by the horns. Democracy is not listening ot the will of the people and following it, it is about - sometimes - making decision and following through, making a case and getting supported or kicked out of office because of it. Every nation on this planet would have the death penalty if it was down to popular vote, so lets not cry about how undemocratic and how the EU 'elite' don't listen, they are listening and leading, it is a shame people don't understand it - but then again some people wouldn't know if a guy came up and slapped them round the face with a fish.

I did spend quite some time above stating why I thought what he wrote to be rubbish, i will refer you to that first.
Yes there will be multiple superpowers, but how does that affect Britain?

We are not Belgium, whom everyone else uses as a convenient battle ground, nor too are we France or Germany who seem to start a great deal of wars with their neighbours, the result of which is both countries getting repeatedly trampled upon. This is Britain, an island nation that has done very well, thank you very much, at keeping people off our shores for nearly a thousand years.

We will continue to have a say in world affairs, again because we are Britain and not Italy. We have the worlds fifth largest economy by absolute measure, and sixth biggest even when PPP is taken into account. We are the worlds second biggest (official) military spender, and we sit at thew head of the commonwealth of 53 nations spread around the world. Better still we are part of the anglosphere which between it accounts for the vast majority of the worlds military and economic power.

Everything you say sounds reasonable.............. if i were a citizen of Luxembourg, but it has zero relevance to the UK, but if the continent wishes to federate then let them get at it, far be it for me to stand in the way of their wishes.

However, as I said before; I believe the level of political union and democratic dis-articulation that will be necessary for the EU to function as a valid nation-state will be verging on an authoritarian dictatorship, simply because there is so little confluence between the goals and aspirations of the various european nations.

p.s. i am all in favour of the death penalty.

[Incongruous]

Ah I see JAG.
We must be able to throw our collective weight around the world, because that is what democracy is all about.
But those stupid people who vote, citizens, just don't understand. So what then? Shall the elite decide what Europe wants? Who are the elite? Those with a degree?
You can't hide what you really think anymore, you clearly have dreams of an authoritarian and imperial europe, you show a disdain for you're fellow citizens, because after all they are just idiots. Perhaps they should go to university and get a degree? Read up on Marx and laugh with disdain at everyone else?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Now, as I understand it, for the Treaty to come into force, it had to be ratified by. Every. Single. Country.

This has obviously not been done. Yet the EU continues to encourage the ratification by other countries. What possible use could this be, other than to ignore their own laws?

Now JAG and Louis seem to have taken a new tact of 'we've got to join up so we can get in pissing matches with the USA and China and not lose all the time'.

JAG says the combined EU will grant countries a bigger voice than the sum of their parts. I would clarify that; the individual countries, the people of, oh, Ireland will not get a bigger voice. The EU in Brussels will get a bigger voice. Each country will get a smaller voice, as Brussels will speak for them, and decide what to say.

Now it seems to me that the current EU policy of trying to bully Ireland and continue on with treaty ratification does not bode well for future respecting of individual countries or the people of Europe.

The pro-EU people excuse this because they support the goal - the treaty coming into force. But it seems to me they are encouraging a supranational government that is not accountable to the expressed democratic will of the people.

CR

[Fragony]

bit of topic but a look in the kitchen

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/bruno_waterfield/blog/2008/06/27/euromps_fear_and_loathing_on_the_gravy_train

At least they care, funny stuff, didn't know germany still has journalists

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Now, as I understand it, for the Treaty to come into force, it had to be ratified by. Every. Single. Country.

Theoretically correct. Unfortunately...


This has obviously not been done. Yet the EU continues to encourage the ratification by other countries. What possible use could this be, other than to ignore their own laws?

The European Parliament rejected Amendement 32, the text of which is, word for word, that the European Parliament "undertakes to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland."

I've heard the argument, from people like JAG, that if only 0.9% of the European population had a "no" answer to the treaty, then why should the other 99.1% be forced to go along with that 0.9%? Surely that is not democracy? Well, the answer is quite simple - when that 0.9% is the only part of the population that had a chance to vote, democracy is obviously not in play in the first place.


JAG says the combined EU will grant countries a bigger voice than the sum of their parts. I would clarify that; the individual countries, the people of, oh, Ireland will not get a bigger voice. The EU in Brussels will get a bigger voice. Each country will get a smaller voice, as Brussels will speak for them, and decide what to say.

Completely correct. Even countries like Germany, who are supposed to be the most influential members, have less of a voice than they would as individual states. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21MlrowJqqc)


Now it seems to me that the current EU policy of trying to bully Ireland and continue on with treaty ratification does not bode well for future respecting of individual countries or the people of Europe.

Also correct.


The pro-EU people excuse this because they support the goal - the treaty coming into force. But it seems to me they are encouraging a supranational government that is not accountable to the expressed democratic will of the people.

I'll answer this with another quote:


Would the people of Europe support such a treaty? I believe they would not, and perhaps that's why they're not being asked.

I was born a German. I am a German. I will die a German. I will not have my rights as a German eroded. In the German Basic Law, there is one article that is more important to me than any other. Section II, Article 20, Point 2. It states:


Alle Staatsgewalt geht vom Volke aus.

All state authority originates from the people.

How can the people be in control of a state that ignores them?

[Adrian II]

Of course in this issue it does , currently we are screwed by Dublin and Brussels , after the constitution we would still be screwed by Dublin and Bussels but Brussels would have become more powerful and less accountable .https://img518.imageshack.us/img518/2775/arbus6us9.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

[rory_20_uk]

...when that 0.9% is the only part of the population that had a chance to vote, democracy is obviously not in play in the first place.

Quite.

~:smoking:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6QmH-7fu68) should be posted here. Daniel Hannan is awesome.

[Marshal Murat]

I believe that the EU will transform into a government.
It's a move from the loose federation into a confederacy, then into a governmental entity. India is a fine example of numerous and different ethnic, religious, and social groups, combining into one entity. The Indian government isn't so corrupt (whose isn't?), it doesn't express totalitarian or authoritarian tendencies, and maintains regional sovereignty. Many nations maintain authority over different ethnic groups while also exerting control. The EU might harden if faced with a significant outside threat, or will coalesce into a union as people realize that this great authoritarian, corrupt, fascist, communist threat of the 'European Union' is simply an attempt to unify Europe.

While some herald this as the loss of national sovereignty in relation to supranational authority, it'll eventually form into an EU in maybe 25, 50 years. Old politicians move out, younger politicians move in, and attempt to bring their fellows into line, and will eventually form the European Union.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The government isn't so corrupt

:laugh4:


it doesn't express totalitarian or authoritarian tendencies

:laugh4:


and maintains regional sovereignty.

:laugh4:


Or were you talking about India?

[JR-]

I believe that the EU will transform into a government.
It's a move from the loose federation into a confederacy, then into a governmental entity. India is a fine example of numerous and different ethnic, religious, and social groups, combining into one entity. The government isn't so corrupt (whose isn't?), it doesn't express totalitarian or authoritarian tendencies, and maintains regional sovereignty. Many nations maintain authority over different ethnic groups while also exerting control. The EU might harden if faced with a significant outside threat, or will coalesce into a union as people realize that this great authoritarian, corrupt, fascist, communist threat of the 'European Union' is simply an attempt to unify Europe.

While some herald this as the loss of national sovereignty in relation to supranational authority, it'll eventually form into an EU in maybe 25, 50 years. Old politicians move out, younger politicians move in, and attempt to bring their fellows into line, and will eventually form the European Union.

Or maybe the EU's time is past?
The EU seemed like the saviour of man when French and German leaders stood in the ashes of WW2.

Now however, we are fifty years on with fifty years of disappointment grounded in the reality of a ruling clique of unaccountable and unrepresentative 'technocrats'.
More importantly we have just invited in ~10 nations who have a very memory of what it is like to be part of a Union of nations with an ineffective centrally controlled economy, a forcefully converged domestic policy, and an imposed ideological foreign policy, and something tells me they will do all they can to resist joining a second version of the same.

The EU super-state is an idea whose time has passed, and any attempt to impose it against the will of the people will result in a continent-spanning authoritarian dictatorship. It may still happen but it isn't a desirable outcome.

[Marshal Murat]

To Mars, I was referring to India, so I edited my post to clarify.

There was and is a difference between the EEU and the EU. The EEU was simply a trade coalition, something similar to NAFTA. To say that they've had any real authority in 1950 is simply baloney, and until the 1990s has expressed little ability or willingness to govern anything other than tariffs.

While it's easy to dismiss the supranational EU as some sort of behemoth of an ancient age, it's going to stay, simply because everyone else is in a trade union of some sort. Southeast Asia, NAFTA, OPEC, trade unions are springing up to get a competitive edge. So long as the EU stays, they will continue to work to make themselves permanent.

The same things about the EU could've been said for Germany in 1850s, 1860s. They were only united by some vague German language, and a mixed heritage, dominated by either France, Austria, or Prussia. They had a Diet at Frankfurt, which did nothing, and sprung from a trade union (Zollverin). The uniting influence was the skillful application of military force, diplomacy, and grand-standing to unite all German states into one.

So what the EU leaders need to do is try and stir up some trouble with Asia or Africa. Illegal immigration, hazy borders and antagonism. Make everyone in Europe care about it, lead a successful war, and unite everyone together. Do this two or three more times, and you've forged a confederacy of governments united under a central authority. Maybe it's that the EU is so split amongst French, Brits, and Krauts. It simply needs a head authority that can coerce and intimidate the French, Brits, or Germans. Russia, perhaps?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

To Mars, I was referring to India, so I edited my post to clarify.


Thank you. ~:)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Europe's nations shall be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.Hopefully, you do realize, EMFM, that the quote in your signature is a fabrication?

Monnet never said anything of the sort. Neither can he nor his policies possibly be mistaken for anything resembling the mindset of the quote,

The quote is in fact propaganda, spread on alarmist nationalist websites.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Hopefully, you do realize, EMFM, that the quote in your signature is a fabrication?

Monnet never said anything of the sort. Neither can he nor his policies possibly be mistaken for anything resembling the mindset of the quote,

The only verification I can find for your claim is a blog. However, I will remove the quote until it can be otherwise verified - and replace it with something you can hear with your own ears, if you wish.

[Louis VI the Fat]

All I'm hearing right now is the EU anthem. Alle Menschen werden Brüder! :love:

France assumes the presidency of the EU (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7482197.stm) today. Now those pesky Irish are in for it. Go get 'em, Sarko Let's hope something can be worked out in the next six months that satisfies Irish and European discontent.

Meanwhile, watch the Eiffel Tower glitter in EU blue over Paris (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7482549.stm)

Nous ne coalisons pas des États, nous unissons des hommes.
We do not form coalitions between states, we unite people. - Jean Monnet.

[JR-]

To Mars, I was referring to India, so I edited my post to clarify.

There was and is a difference between the EEU and the EU. The EEU was simply a trade coalition, something similar to NAFTA. To say that they've had any real authority in 1950 is simply baloney, and until the 1990s has expressed little ability or willingness to govern anything other than tariffs.

While it's easy to dismiss the supranational EU as some sort of behemoth of an ancient age, it's going to stay, simply because everyone else is in a trade union of some sort. Southeast Asia, NAFTA, OPEC, trade unions are springing up to get a competitive edge. So long as the EU stays, they will continue to work to make themselves permanent.

The same things about the EU could've been said for Germany in 1850s, 1860s. They were only united by some vague German language, and a mixed heritage, dominated by either France, Austria, or Prussia. They had a Diet at Frankfurt, which did nothing, and sprung from a trade union (Zollverin). The uniting influence was the skillful application of military force, diplomacy, and grand-standing to unite all German states into one.

So what the EU leaders need to do is try and stir up some trouble with Asia or Africa. Illegal immigration, hazy borders and antagonism. Make everyone in Europe care about it, lead a successful war, and unite everyone together. Do this two or three more times, and you've forged a confederacy of governments united under a central authority. Maybe it's that the EU is so split amongst French, Brits, and Krauts. It simply needs a head authority that can coerce and intimidate the French, Brits, or Germans. Russia, perhaps?

so we agree then, an EU that successfully achieves its aims in the next generation will have done so by assuming the trappings of an authoritarian dictatorship?

The parallel between Germany and europe is flimsy in the extreme, which is precisely why it would become a dictatorship, the better to enforce discipline on the disparate entities within.

[InsaneApache]

Originally Posted by Jean Monnet
Europe's nations shall be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.


We do not form coalitions between states, we unite people. - Jean Monnet.

I've tried, I really have but what's the difference between the two statements?

[Louis VI the Fat]

That oft repeated Monnet quote is not from Monnet. It is a quote from Adrian Hilton, an anti-EU conservative, who misrepresents Monnets policies. Before ideas of the EU as an autoritarian Superstate became en vogue in Europe's rightwing subcultures, the EU used to be described by them as a Catholic plot. A scheme, to undermine national sovereigntiny by those dastardly internationalists, the Catholics, forever destabilising strong states through their innate supra-national loyalty with Rome. This idea seems to have lingered on in Hilton's writings.

Here is the text from Hilton that the 'Monnet quote' is based on:


One of the founding fathers of the EU, Jean Monnet, also a devout Roman Catholic, totally rejected the idea that Europe should consist of sovereign nations. He believed in the Catholic vision that Europe should become a federal superstate, into which all ancient nations would be fused. ‘Fused’ is the word he used in a comunication dated 30th April 1952, and is wholly consistent with the language of the Maastricht Treaty. For this to be achieved without the peoples of Europe realising what was happening, the plan was to be accomplished in successive steps.
Alas, the rightwing subcultures did not even manage to quote correctly their own misrepresentation, leading to the oft-repeated 'Monnet' quote we are now stuck with, and that is repeated at nauseum on their blogs and publications.


I've tried, I really have but what's the difference between the two statements?I think that maybe because you are wary of the EU as an autoritarian superstate, you are more prone to interpret pan-Europeanism as superstatism, through any means including pre-meditated deceit.
I do not support superstatism, and so for me the two quotes express entirely different sentiments. :shrug:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Anyway, who am I kidding? I give up. I confess to being part of an international conspiracy with dreams of enslaving Europe and installing a powerful, autoritarian Superstate. All your democratically elected governments did not in the least bit out of their own free will join international organisations like NATO, the WTO, or the EU. It was all part of our autoritarian schemes. Here's what our leaders really have to say:


Through the EU, I shall do to Britain what the Spanish Armada and Napoleon couldn't. That is, subject Britain to the divine autority of the Pope
Tony Blair. Said while visiting the Jezuit headquarters in 1999.

While Russia now is free, Western Europe is enslaved by this remnant of Communism, the EU
Vladimir Putin, spoken at a Russia-EU summit in 2006

The EU is a continuation of the Gas Chambers through different means
Angela Merkel. Speaking to grandchildren of nazi-exiles, Paraguay, 2004.

[InsaneApache]

Through the EU, I shall do to Britain what the Spanish Armada and Napoleon couldn't. That is, subject Britain to the divine autority of the Pope
Tony Blair. Said while visiting the Jezsuit headquarters in 1999.

:laugh4: Nice try. Unfortunatley the one thing I admire Nappy for was his resistence to organized religion. :2thumbsup:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That oft repeated Monnet quote is not from Monnet. It is a quote from Adrian Hilton, an anti-EU conservative, who misrepresents Monnets policies.

According to two blogs...


Before ideas of the EU as an autoritarian Superstate became en vogue in Europe's rightwing subcultures, the EU used to be described by them as a Catholic plot. A scheme, to undermine national sovereigntiny by those dastardly internationalists, the Catholics, forever destabilising strong states through their innate supra-national loyalty with Rome. This idea seems to have lingered on in Hilton's writings.

You do realize I am a Catholic, but still a strong Euroskeptic?



I think that maybe because you are wary of the EU as an autoritarian superstate, you are more prone to interpret pan-Europeanism as superstatism, through any means including pre-meditated deceit.

Pan-Europeanism will result in a superstate, this is just a step. By denying the Lisbon Treaty, we are denying the European Parliament the power to create this superstate. Deceit by European pro-treaty politicians is going on all the time, including right now, and we can see it with our own eyes, so whether a quote from a few decades ago is right or not is really beside the point.

EDIT:

YES! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7482660.stm)

The Polish President won't sign Lisbon, the Czech President won't sign Lisbon, the German President won't sign Lisbon until the Bundesverfassungsgericht delivers it's ruling...

Life is good (so far).

[cegorach]

Anyway, who am I kidding? I give up. I confess to being part of an international conspiracy with dreams of enslaving Europe and installing a powerful, autoritarian Superstate. All your democratically elected governments did not in the least bit out of their own free will join international organisations like NATO, the WTO, or the EU. It was all part of our autoritarian schemes. Here's what our leaders really have to say:


Through the EU, I shall do to Britain what the Spanish Armada and Napoleon couldn't. That is, subject Britain to the divine autority of the Pope
Tony Blair. Said while visiting the Jezuit headquarters in 1999.

While Russia now is free, Western Europe is enslaved by this remnant of Communism, the EU
Vladimir Putin, spoken at a Russia-EU summit in 2006

The EU is a continuation of the Gas Chambers through different means
Angela Merkel. Speaking to grandchildren of nazi-exiles, Paraguay, 2004.

:laugh4:

Marvellous Louis. Unfortunatelly some would agree with those comments (certain Ian Paisey with the third - it is almost a quote from something he said in 1984 if I am not wrong about the year).



@Evil_Maniac From Mars



The Polish President won't sign Lisbon, the Czech President won't sign Lisbon, the German President won't sign Lisbon until the Bundesverfassungsgericht delivers it's ruling...

Life is good (so far).



I wish he wouldn't. I support the treaty, though despise the way it was 'sold' to the public, but since the person who occupies our highest office ACTUALLY CANNOT refuse to sign the treaty his decision would be a perfect reason to remove him from the office.

Unfortunatelly he knows or will learn he cannot so all he does is saying rubbish, posturing by opposing the very treaty he described as a huge success of his negotiating skills and showing 'resistence' to help his party to deal with the eurosceptics which are presently the fragile and small, but still a powerbase of this political camp.

Basically again he exports personal hatred to Donald Tusk - our PM - to the rest of the EU and as always works hard to undermine our key interests and political prestige of our country because his political camp believes it might help them to attract some voters and that as always is half insane, half pathetic and speaking about our pro-EU public support politically suicidal.

Only 902 days left, only 902 days... ehhh :sweatdrop:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I wish he wouldn't. I support the treaty, though despise the way it was 'sold' to the public, but since the person who occupies our highest office ACTUALLY CANNOT refuse to sign the treaty his decision would be a perfect reason to remove him from the office.


That's a shame. Germany's President, to the best of my knowledge, can refuse to sign it if the constitutional court says it is against our constitution (which it is, but I'm still waiting anxiously on the verdict).

[cegorach]

That's a shame. Germany's President, to the best of my knowledge, can refuse to sign it if the constitutional court says it is against our constitution (which it is, but I'm still waiting anxiously on the verdict).


Well, he could do that, but he won't because he knows it is not against the constitution of Poland.

It is purely political-personal, though is exceptionally insane and clumsy way.

To make it simple.

Step 1 - our president returns from the negotiations screaming about a great success. The entire propaganda body of his political camp praises his negotiating skills (difficult - since he has none).
All that despite earlier promises to achive God knows what.

Step 2 - our former minister of foreign affairs refuses to describe the details of this success. One of last sensible members of this political party is suspended for asking what actually happened - the opposition is of course not worth any expnanation.

Step 3 - some minor issue is exploited to start an argument which might turn into another show of strenght (i.e. boasting and arguing for the sake of arguing) to rise approval ratings a bit (end as usual with them - so quite differently).

Step 4 - the great success, or rather The Great Success is eplotied as the example of immensely successful foreign policy of the entire party and the government.

Step 5 - the election camapign reaches is peak with a number of debates where foreign policy and its failures are very important. Lisbon treaty is seen as a limited success of the Great Success.
It is obvious that no repectable political camp opposes the treaty in Poland.

Step 6 - the error is corrected and the previous government ends its existence. Parties opposing the treaty get circa 2,8 % of votes (together - 5 of them).

Step 7 - a new strategy appears - 'we might lose the elections, but we still have the president'. He becoms the fighting arm of the entire formerly ruling political camp.

Step 8 - Approval ratings of the new government reach 60 %. The old government (now in the 'exile' in the presidential palace) will do everything to get some votes. Unfortunatelly they already slided to the margin of the politics gaining a lot of exceptionally populist and conservative voters.

Step 9 - Libon treaty gets to the parliament. Suddenly the Great Success becomes a problem since 30 % of the members of the losing camp appear to disagree with the earlier assesment. The Great Danger appears - they might create even more extreme party which will be the beginning of the end to the formerly ruling party.

Step 10 - The argument starts. Suddenly the Great Success is not great anymore - not with Special Assurances. As a result the president threatens to veto the legislation which he negotiated - the Great Success itself. There is much Confusion.

Step 11 - The Confusion continues. In a spectacular televised speech (with interesting background music) the president announces the Treaty is deemed to bring Terrible Plagues to the country - the German-Gay Alliance which will cause unbelievable destruction. Only Special Assurances can stop that from happening.

Step 12 - when the country recovers from laugher it learns that the EU Gay Alliance happens to have its HQ in Canada, the German Danger is non-existent while background music is evidently from a communist time tv series about brave communist partisans fighting the Nazis which the Evil Forces (i.e. the present government) immediatelly use to ridicule the president comparing him to Communist period general secretary Władysław Gomułka known for anti-German sentiments.
The Special Assurances happen to be either unconstituional or impossible to bring because of the unbelievable fact that... since 1997 that form of legislation doesn't exist anymore.

Step 13 - The identified (in the ackground video of the televised speech) members of the Gay Alliance
arrive to Poland invited by left-wing parties adding to the general scandal reducing the president and his staff to answering increasingly more humilating questions asked by the Evil Media.

Step 14 - the former government 'in the exile' and its political representatives in the parliament vote both for and against the Treaty , the former Great Success - right now both success/necessary legislation and the Harbringer of Doom.
The legislation goes through both houses of the parliament and only the president has to sign it to finish the show.

Step 15 - because of the failure of the treaty in Ireland the president feels it is now His Moment to Act And Make Many Important People Talking to Him Once More. To Gain Reputation to Win the Next Elections.

Step 16 (future) - He signs after Many Important People Asked Him to Do So.

Step 17 (future) - the president loses the elections to a half mad businessman who sells magical, invisible shoes - as well as 24 other candidates.

Step 18 (far future) - the former president and his actions are described in medical schools, a mental illness is named after him. He also gets a line in history books and a library in Cycowo ( 'Boobs' - 240 people) is named after him.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I knew I could count on you, Cegorach. :jumping:

So I guess that Germanophobe Kaczyński isn't the saviour of democratically minded Europe after all? ~;)

His ridiculous antics do have one upside - he hassled the EU until the EU agreed that Poland would be exempt from certain European social policies. That is, he fought for the Polish right to discriminate homosexuals and criminalise abortion. However, if the Treaty does not go into effect, these two great benefits to Poland - that Kaczyński held the entire EU ransom for - will be off the table again.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, he could do that, but he won't because he knows it is not against the constitution of Poland.


Sorry, let me rephrase that. The President of Germany is not allowed to sign the Lisbon Treaty if it is found to be unconstitutional.

[cegorach]

Sorry, let me rephrase that. The President of Germany is not allowed to sign the Lisbon Treaty if it is found to be unconstitutional.


No need for that. :yes:

I wrote he could try this, but he knows it is constitutional here.




Louis VI the Fat

I knew I could count on you, Cegorach.

So I guess that Germanophobe Kaczyński isn't the saviour of democratically minded Europe after all?

He can't save himself from constant humilation.

We are talking about a man who fell silent for almost two weeks after his political camp lost the elections - for now it seems the best period in the entire first (and only) term of this man.

Besides I actually doubt he supports a quarter of things he is supposed to say (as the Great Leader, the Sunshine the Tatra Mountains and the Smile of the Puck Gulf - Jarosław Kaczyński himself demands ).
The man who shouldn't never be the president simply. Could be a decent menager in some small town, maybe in a labour rights agency, but anything bigger is too much for this guy - especially now where the Duty Calls - to Fight Against the Evil (i.e. Donald Tusk) as the party demands, so he does... and time after time he achieves the same, 'wonderful' results.



Hey - it is 901 days left now...:balloon2:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No need for that. :yes:

I just messed up on my explanation the first time, thought I should clarify. Sorry. :sweatdrop:



I wrote he could try this, but he knows it is constitutional here.


Does Poland have a constitutional court?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Maybe I should defend the EU from a more positive angle. So, here is an example of how the EU is a fantastic instrument for enlarging France's prestige here is an example that might appeal to the high geekness level of a games forum.

'So, what has the EU ever done for us (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7482232.stm)?' (apart from roads, health laws, social regulations, peace, increased commerce, the spread of stability, democracy and the rule of law):

France plans revolution in space

More than science: Projects such as Galileo carry political significance
Ambitious plans for European missions to the Moon and Mars are being considered by the French government.

It wants to kick-start a revolution in space by letting EU politicians not bureaucrats decide on priorities for the European Space Agency (Esa). The French say that if Europe fails to change its approach to space, it will fall behind Japan, China and India. Paris is seeking an alliance with the UK to drive the agenda forward during the French presidency of the EU.

President Nicolas Sarkozy's well-known admiration for all things American now extends to space exploration. Speaking to the BBC, a senior official involved in French space policy said that it was time to shake up the European Space Agency and make it more like the US space agency (Nasa) by giving it a new, politically-led direction.

The French take over the rotating presidency of the European Union on 1 July and are planning to make space policy a key area for reform.

The official said that Europe was in danger of becoming redundant in global space terms and it needed an agency that followed a clear political agenda. "The United States, Russia, China and Japan would not do what they do in space without a political motivation; Europe has only had a scientific motivation until now. So what we are saying is, let's get the same chances as the others.

According to the French, the UK is their model partner in this endeavour. The two countries had similar views on how business should be encouraged to get involved in space to develop commercial opportunities. And the two countries were now of the same view when it came to exploration, he said.





I did spend quite some time above stating why I thought what he wrote to be rubbish Oh, nearly forgot: I read your two elaborate posts. They were in response to an article by Marquand and some comments that I posted. As Marquand had already expressed my views, I did not feel a need to respond in detail in turn. I should like to take this opportunity to say that I did indeed read your posts.

[cegorach]

I just messed up on my explanation the first time, thought I should clarify. Sorry. :sweatdrop:



Does Poland have a constitutional court?

Yes.

The problem (for the president and his political associates) is that it is certain the treaty is not against the Constitution and if he did indeed sent it to the Court he would HAVE to sign the treaty immediatelly.
Now he at least could refuse to give a date he will so that Important People Have to Call Him so he could feel important for a moment once more.

There is a loophole which in case of international treaties doesn't give a defined time in which a legislation has to be signed. Of course that is against the spirit of the Constitution, but this man has proven several times in several cases that he doesn't care as long as there is something to exploit to make him look important and appreciated even if it is against the law he is supposed to guard.

So basically - he can wait with signing, but he cannot give it to the Constitutional Court which would for sure reconise the Treaty is notagainst the Constitution and in this case he would have to sign it quickly under the threat of immediate impeachment.

[InsaneApache]

Does anyone else see the irony of a sovereign president being cajoled/forced the sign the EU constitution Amending Treaty? :dizzy2:

[cegorach]

Does anyone else see the irony of a sovereign president being cajoled/forced the sign the EU constitution Amending Treaty? :dizzy2:


Forced ? He has to sign it because it was approved by the parliament for the fraq's sake. If he doesn't he will break the Constitution and will be judged for breaking the law he is supposed to protect.


No amounts of hot air and empty words will change that, neither misguided support of people who have no idea what he can or cannot do.

[InsaneApache]

I see. Then tell me something. Isn't it the fact that the EU treaty has to be ratified by all the member states for it to become law? If it's not ratified, then it's illegal. So what your saying is that you wish your president to sign onto the statute books an illegal treaty. Very nice.

[cegorach]

I see. Then tell me something. Isn't it the fact that the EU treaty has to be ratified by all the member states for it to become law? If it's not ratified, then it's illegal. So what your saying is that you wish your president to sign onto the statute books an illegal treaty. Very nice.


I could call this sentence clever, but that wouldn't be true and I am not polite enough to say something nice.

He is supposed to sign it as the last part of the legislation process - the decision was made before any referendum anywhere happened, the man cannot refuse because it is not his decision - it was already made.
The signature has only technical siginificance. At this moment he cannot do anything else but to sign, especially - he cannot refuse - he is like a printing machine stopping to work.

In addtion such declarations as his are against the interests of our country. Regardless of the fact if the treaty is dead, it is plainly stupid to put himself in the line this way - it is worse than useless to Poland, suicidal politically and will end in another humilation of this man and undermine our position in the EU especially considering our latest initiatives in the EU and several hard negotiations we are a part.

Once more the man occupying the office of the President works against the interests of our country - he will pay for that eventually - criminal charges are unlikely, but public opinion and history will judge him really harshly.

[InsaneApache]

So you're not going to answer my question then.

[cegorach]

:inquisitive:

[Conradus]

I see. Then tell me something. Isn't it the fact that the EU treaty has to be ratified by all the member states for it to become law? If it's not ratified, then it's illegal. So what your saying is that you wish your president to sign onto the statute books an illegal treaty. Very nice.

Like you're discribing it, not one treaty can ever be ratified, because it will always be illegal?
I really don't see what you mean?

[InsaneApache]

It simple. The EU Constitution Amending Treaty has to be ratified by all member states. If not, then it should not be implemented.

Anyway, all they'll do is bring it back in another form.

[Conradus]

It simple. The EU Constitution Amending Treaty has to be ratified by all member states. If not, then it should not be implemented.


But, it not yet being ratified by one country, doesn't make it ratification by another one illegal does it?
So the Polish president doesn't have to ratify an illegal treaty.

[InsaneApache]

No. However, because the treaty was not ratified in a member state, it has become null and void. Asking the Polish president to assent to a treaty that has become redundant is hilarious. Forcing him to sign it is ridiculous.

Now then, which part of NO doesn't the EU understand?

[Conradus]

Not yet ratified. There are still means to do it, so why shouldn't the president follow his parliament and constitution. He should follow his own nation, not what happens in another one.

[InsaneApache]

the point being? :inquisitive:

[KukriKhan]

As an outsider, I must say I look with admiration and a little bit of envy at the use and power of a national (in this case, Irish) referendum.

Just look at the scrambling taking place, once "we, the people" have actually been consulted.

Over here, our individual states have Initiative, Referendum, and Recall proceedures, but our National Constitution has no such provisions. Maybe, with increased communications abilities, we should look at implementing such procedures at our federal level. Imagine being able to propose laws at the grass-roots level; being able to vote on matters of national concern; being able to fire law-makers and gov't execs at mid-term. The possibilities boggle the mind.

[Incongruous]

Not yet ratified. There are still means to do it, so why shouldn't the president follow his parliament and constitution. He should follow his own nation, not what happens in another one.

I suppose the question is this:
What's the bloody point?
The Treaty is dead!
Why continue this farce?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I see. Then tell me something. Isn't it the fact that the EU treaty has to be ratified by all the member states for it to become law? If it's not ratified, then it's illegal. So what your saying is that you wish your president to sign onto the statute books an illegal treaty. Very nice.The treaty can not go into effect unless ratified by all member states, yes. Other than that, there is nothing unlawful or illegal about anything. A Treaty does not become illegal or anything.

A member state disapproving this Treaty does not spell the end of the EU, nor of any efforts to reform it.
Tax laws, health laws, constitutions, all are subject to perennial democratic processes. One party moves in, changes them around, another takes its place, and reforms it in turn. Such is the way of ever shifting political power and preferences. Likewise, the Irish no does not spell an end to each and every effort to reform the EU. No more than that a yes to any EU treaty at any one time means a country should forever hold its peace.
Laws go into effect, or not, all the time. They are subjected to democratic processes before they gain effect. And they are subjected to democratic processes after they gained effect. And they are subjected to democratic processes if they did not go into effect. This perennial negotiating is not undemocratic, never mind illegal. It is, in fact, the very definition of democracy.
Democracy is not static. It is a perenial debate. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever undemocratic or despotic about negotiating or re-negotiating either this Treaty or any other EU reform initiative with Ireland.

What is true, is that this Treaty is off. Nonetheless, the other states are perfectly well entitled to decide through their own democratic processes if they agree with this Treaty or not. And on that basis to start negotiations with both the ratifying and the non-ratifying countries whether or not a compromise can be agreed upon, or whether the EU should remain as is, or whether any other measure is desired. Since pretty much everybody agrees that the EU is not functioning properly at the moment, an effort to break the current stalemate indeed seems prudent.

[JR-]

since there is such interest in Poland's objections, i thought this article would be interesting for you guys:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/2253172/Poland%27s-euro-scepticism--threatens-to-throw-a-spanner-in-EU-works.html

[cegorach]

since there is such interest in Poland's objections, i thought this article would be interesting for you guys:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/2253172/Poland%27s-euro-scepticism--threatens-to-throw-a-spanner-in-EU-works.html

No offence, but this article is a terrible nonsense - the person who wrote it has little idea what the president can and what he cannot do and the part where he asked Maciej Giertych the last survivor of his party's defeat in Poland ( got 1,5 % votes despite an alliance with two other eurosceptical parties) - 'the standard bearer ( of what ??) - who is sen as a madman here was quite funny, actually.


"The Polish people like the EU but they don't want to be bullied from abroad because they have had a lot of that in the past," said MEP Maciej Giertych (CRRCT), a standard bearer for the Eurosceptic cause. "The Polish people didn't like the Lisbon Treaty. There is no appetite for a federal superstate here."

Says the man who claims that the legends about the Wawel dragon contradict the Darwin's theory - the 'Polish people' do not share his objections either with their 'impressive' support of 1,5 % in October.

The text is another example of the overused cliche - Poles love Freedom, Poles fight for Freedom, Poles vs. an evil empire, Poles love Freedom Because They Love It etc.
Ohh sod off will you ?
We indeed love freedom to do what we like and that doesn't include jining some nonsense anti-EU crusade. In fact it might be shocking to some but since we see the EU as a tool to achieve OUR goals we want it working properly.
We don't share the nonsense fears that bending bananas will endanger our freedom - because I am afraid we seen far greater dangers and no fragile construct will manage what Bismarck, Stalin, Hitler and the likes failed to do.
There are REAL dangers to the freedoms we enjoy out there, as a country we seen it and still observe them in some areas of Europe so for a while let's be serious and deal with some serious people conducting serious oppression instead of a bunch of overzealous beaurocrats who cannot even 'opress' Ireland properly...

Now leave us to our own affairs unless you want to answer some uncomfortable questions about freedom loving Allies and their deals in Tehran, Yalta or Munich, than you.











BTW I have managed to find the source of this entire mess - the interview which started all this nonsense.
The journalist asked a final question and the guy responded in one meanigless sentence. As usual a sort of blunder typical for those people.
The problem with them is that in their view the voters of their political camp needs 'flawless' leaders who do not make mistakes, in fact they are not typical voters but believers so their ideal cannot make any mistakes.
Since the blunder happened and it couldn't be denied the PR team of this party decided (as usual) that an entire campaign will be launched with a number of people syaing that the president was right, that he defends the independence of Poland, that it is all an another example of this man's vision and patriotism blah, blah, blah.
Similar to the old gaffe with this nonsense about the votes deserved for the number of Poles killed during the 2nd WW made about 1,5 year ago.
It also was a nonsense stupidity but the political camp needs its believers to keep up their faith in the wisdom of the leadership - regardless of the costs for the country's image or anything else.
The Law and Justice is known to be the first political party in Poland which uses foreign policy as a weapon in the internal political struggle - to them such declarations are nothing else but a tool, even if it causes angry responses and undermines our country's image and negotiating power when we need it.

With the latest remark I am finding it really funny that the president becomes something like a martyr for some people.
Congratulations eurosceptical kids you have found an excellent champion indeed !

But just not forget to criticise this man when he signs the legislation he has to sign according to OUR constitution, OUR law so our independent legal system - something you should at least respect if you are true to your beliefs.

You might also feel odd that the entire thing was nothing but a PR campaign for the purpose of the fanatical voters of this particular party to mask the gaffe the man commited.
To lesser extent something similar is happening almost each week for example about 3-4 days ago we had a gaffe about the missile shield which is masked right now, though that will not reach the eurosceptical fanbase.

[JR-]

cheers for the response. :D

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This is the first time I've said this, and I'll probably never say it again, so enjoy it.

GO SOCIALISTS! (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/07/europe/EU-POL-Austria-Coalition-Crisis.php)

[King Jan III Sobieski]

The EU will usher in the Anti-Christ!!! :smg::wizard::hmg:

OK, I don't know what I think on that, but i defintely think it will eventually form into a centralized government - it has its own currency, after all.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Irish won't be bullied. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7509374.stm)

[rory_20_uk]

Good.

I hope we don't go the way of the USA and attack countries that don't agree with the plans. It is difficult to see how democracy can be based on opression.

~:smoking:

[JR-]

I have read a lot of Daniel Hannan's newspaper stuff, but he is an excellent speaker with a knack for remarks that cut to the bone of the issue:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2008/09/11/why_my_speeches_annoy_meps

the youtube video is well worth a watch.

[InsaneApache]

I wonder how long they can keep ignoring the electorate?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I wonder how long they can keep ignoring the electorate?

Well, since the powers that be are not directly accountable to the electorate, I would suggest a very long time indeed.

:shame:

[Louis VI the Fat]

*belligerent tone to encourage disagreement*

There's not going to be a referendum in Britain. Because the British powers that be know better. Britain's wealth, peace and stability is too dependent on the EU.

I do wish the British elite would keep their subjects in check better, or at least keep them at home. This is all getting a bit tiresome. The British are to the EU what the Scots are to the British Union: forever silent about the enormous financial benefits, past and present, yet they won't shut up about - real and imaginary - drawbacks.

The European Parliament is not a kindergarten for spoiled Brits. What a ridiculous character, this MEP, stifling all debates by repeated, tired shouts for referenda. Organise one in Britain, or not, whatever. But stop this pantomime of shouting at European MPs in one direction, while firmly looking into the camera at his British constituancy in the other.


What had annoyed him was the way that I and a group of other anti-Lisbon MEPs kept using our one minute slots to call for a referendum. Echoing the Elder Cato, I was ending all my speeches, whatever their subject, with the words "Pactio Olisipiensis Censenda Est: "the Lisbon Treaty must be put to the vote".

[rory_20_uk]

Money flows to the Scots, it flows out of the UK.

There is nothing that the EU offers that can not be equally sorted through bilateral treaties - except possibly the corruption and waste.

~:smoking:

[JR-]

*belligerent tone to encourage disagreement*

There's not going to be a referendum in Britain. Because the British powers that be know better. Britain's wealth, peace and stability is too dependent on the EU.

I do wish the British elite would keep their subjects in check better, or at least keep them at home. This is all getting a bit tiresome. The British are to the EU what the Scots are to the British Union: forever silent about the enormous financial benefits, past and present, yet they won't shut up about - real and imaginary - drawbacks.

The European Parliament is not a kindergarten for spoiled Brits. What a ridiculous character, this MEP, stifling all debates by repeated, tired shouts for referenda. Organise one in Britain, or not, whatever. But stop this pantomime of shouting at European MPs in one direction, while firmly looking into the camera at his British constituancy in the other.

well, old giscard may have a solution to you anger at the truculence of the British:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ruth_lea/blog/2008/09/11/a_new_relationship_with_the_eu_giscard_leads_the_way

[Louis VI the Fat]

well, old giscard may have a solution to you anger at the truculence of the British:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ruth_lea/blog/2008/09/11/a_new_relationship_with_the_eu_giscard_leads_the_wayI want bitter strife and insults over my post, not solutions! :whip:


...but I do sometimes wonder if a multi-layered EU would not be best indeed.
I would not want to exclude the possibility of there being lasting doubts about aspects of the EU in certain segments of British society. However irrational these doubts may be, democratic prudence implores us to cater to these feelings. British elites won't, so why shouldn't we, rational and enlightened continentals, not take it upon ourselves to see to it that these feelings of doubt are honoured?



Old VGE is of course only trying to save what's left of his 'constitution'. I blame him for the current problems. If he didn't have his immodest lust for lasting glory, he wouldn't have pompously named his cleaning up of existing treaties a 'European Constitution', and we'd have had a workable set of treaties in effect three years ago. :wall:
What imbeciles entrust a Frenchman with the task of streamlining European Treaties? Could've seen this coming, eh? I blame all of you for not resisting French lust for grandeur.

It's all your fault. :whip: