The Constitution of the European Union

[Divinus Arma]

I would like to gain a greater understanding of the Constitution of the EU that was rejected by France and the Netherlands.

Why is it good? Why is it bad? I read up on it at Wiki, but that just won't do. I need the voice of the people here.


:book:

[InsaneApache]

It won't happen. At least not anytime soon. As I see it, the EU constitution was/is a mishmash of ideas that attempted to combine all the national interests of the member states and so therefore appealed to none of them.

For instance; The French voted it down because they couldn't swallow the Anglo-Saxon model of a free market, whilst the British (If Tony had had the cajones to allow a vote for us) would have voted it down as we equally couldn't stomach the 'social' model that the French so adore.

The only states that voted for the constitution were/are the net recipients of cash from Bruxelles, and then, IIRC, they didn't put to a plebiscite, (Spain excepted) they just steamrollered it through the various national Parliaments.

Now that the French and the Dutch (and more than likely the British) have torpedoed the project it is unlikely that it will be implemented in it's present form.

It is also unlikely that the EU will make the mistake asking the electorate to approve any future constitution, as the voters keep coming up with the wrong answers.

For instance, when the vote for the common currency (the Euro) came up, although various electorates rejected the idea, the EU repeatedly pushed for referenda after referenda until the people came up with the right answer. Those were the lucky ones. Countries, such as Greece, never bothered to ask the people if they wanted the Drachma abolished. (As a piece of trivia the Drachma was the worlds oldest continuous currency.)

Plans are now afoot to implement to EU constitution by the back door, circumventing the will of the people, therefore not having to bother with the messiness of a democratic mandate.

Until the EU becomes more accountable and transparent, (it's own auditors have refused to sign off the accounts for nearly a decade) this British subject for one will not be a happy camper. :no:

[Keba]

It is too long and too complicated. The point of a Constitution is that it is short and to the point, outlining the basics.

The proposed European Constitution is a mammoth in size. The only other country that had a Constitution that long was the France, and that Republic lasted for a very short time before collapsing.

A Constituion that is too long needs to be changed often, therefore denying the prupose of a Constiution, to be a lasting document outlining the basic ideals of a state.

Also, it's rejection, aside from the above outlined reason is for the simple fact that the EU is currently moving a bit too fast. It is still young, and the current attempts to push it toward a state are going too fast, and many populations of the numerous countries of Europe are not quite ready or willing to lose (as they percieve it) their national identity to some formless beraucracy in Brusells.

[Fragony]

I am not going to vote for something that doesn't even know what it's supposed to be. EU is intrusive, corrupt and undemocratic, and on top of that pretty much useless. A great example is the cartoon affair, when ambassy's were being attacked they were probably discussing the prefered intensity of the color red of tomatoes, it all means nothing. Giving more power to nothing, no thanks.

Screw them.

[Pannonian]

Isn't the EU constitution merely putting all existing treaties and regulations on a single piece of paper? The "constitution" is there, whether you ratify or not, since the component parts have already been ratified. What the top brass want to do is rationalise the whole massive unruly thing.

One thing I can't understand is why the French rejected it. They pass all the EU laws as have been argued by the member states, but they ignore anything that doesn't suit them, so "imposing an Anglo-Saxon model" shouldn't really affect them, since they'll do whatever they like anyway.

The more I look at things, the more I feel that Blair and Britain are the true Europeans, unlike the statist French. We've offered numerous concessions, including giving up much of our rebate, in exchange for reforms of farming subsidies. But the French farmers won't budge an inch (or even a centimetre).

[L'Impresario]

Isn't the EU constitution merely putting all existing treaties and regulations on a single piece of paper? The "constitution" is there, whether you ratify or not, since the component parts have already been ratified. What the top brass want to do is rationalise the whole massive unruly thing.

True words indeed. Seems like it was a mistake to call it a "Constitution" and making noise about, because people started thinking in national terms and expectations changed. Ofcourse without this move, the central goal wouldn't have been reached (or at least attempted): familiarize the citizens of the EU with the whole structure and its treaties, by having a codified version of all previous ones in one document. It was also an opportunity to encorporate the European Convention of Human Rights, which was only typically in force and not in a binding documentfor all member states and european institutions.

It must be said that internal politics had a lot to do with the rejections, as well as atavistic fear of the "unknown", or at least vague, something that the EU remains for the majority of the population.


The more I look at things, the more I feel that Blair and Britain are the true Europeans, unlike the statist French. We've offered numerous concessions, including giving up much of our rebate, in exchange for reforms of farming subsidies. But the French farmers won't budge an inch (or even a centimetre).

I'm not so sure about it, because while Britain might be seeing it from a point of view based on global competitiveness, the whole agriculture issue has strong social connotations in the relevant countries and should there be a radical reform, it could cause a great deal of instability (plus, it'd be a political suicide). Ofcourse at some point a long-term solution should be found.

[Vladimir]

So does this "constitution" tell the government what it can't do or does it tell the people what they can do? I.E. free subjects vs. citizens.

[A.Saturnus]

One thing I can't understand is why the French rejected it. They pass all the EU laws as have been argued by the member states, but they ignore anything that doesn't suit them, so "imposing an Anglo-Saxon model" shouldn't really affect them, since they'll do whatever they like anyway.

The French rejected it because they hate their government and would say 'no' to whatever it may propose.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While true thats not particually helpful to the current debate. The problem with the constitution is that it codified and fixed much in the EU which is still supposed to be temporary, for instance, the current VAT system is open to fraud because it is a transition model, rather than the final model which requires harmonisation of VAT accross Europe.

Another problem was that it would have made it much harder to ever leave the EU.

The EU needs to hand the power of law-making and treaty signing from the commision to the parliament. Until it does it has no right to aspirations of nation-hood.

Personnally, I want out. If in 30 years it has sorted itself out maybe I'll want back in.

[Husar]

The French rejected it because they hate their government and would say 'no' to whatever it may propose.
That´s gotta be the reason they elected it.:idea2: :inquisitive:

Then again, people can often choose only between two evils.:no:

[The_Doctor]

Main problem is that nobody knows what it is and what it is supposed do.

The politicians don't know, I don't know, you don't, Chuck Norris doesn't know and several of the Lesser Know Divine Beings are having problems with it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would like to gain a greater understanding of the Constitution of the EU that was rejected by France and the Netherlands.

Why is it good?It is good firstly because it codifies a lot of existing treaties. And mainly because it would streamline EU decision making. Amongst others by allowing qualified majority for a lot of policy rather than having to rely on all member states agreeing on every single subject brought up.

There can be no effective EU with each country retaining a veto. The last round of enlargement brought the number of member states up to 25, members as different as Sweden and Cyprus.



Why is it bad?It isn't.

The irony is that this constitution would've repaired a lot of the shortcomings of the EU, but got rejected precisely because of exasparation at those shortcomings.

[InsaneApache]

Chuck Norris know eveything. He's just not telling. :laugh4: :sweatdrop:

[Louis VI the Fat]

It is too long and too complicated. The point of a Constitution is that it is short and to the point, outlining the basics.

The proposed European Constitution is a mammoth in size. The only other country... Yes, but the EU is not a country. It is a supranational organization. The two cannot be compared.
This EU constitution is not a constitution in the classical sense, but a misnamed treaty on the functioning of an supranational organization of sovereign states.

[L'Impresario]

The EU needs to hand the power of law-making and treaty signing from the commision to the parliament. Until it does it has no right to aspirations of nation-hood.

Generalizations I'd say. While the Parliament's role can't be compared with their national equivalent, there are certainly reasons for this, federalization and regional integration theory 101. Ofcourse from republic day #1, there is a general tendency for the executive power to collect additional functions or at least exert some influence on them. But when we 're talking about regional organisations, we 're referring to international treaties, and as a general rule the negotiations required have been the realm of government premiums for quite some time.
The EU has progressed towards a more multifaceted organisation, and the Parliament is gaining steadily functions and powers. The Constitution would 've clearly marked a move towards a general rule of co-decision and as such, criticisms of not promoting a more democratic rule are inaccurate.

Anyway, people who mourn their tax-money, currently devoured by the unrelenting Brussels-bureaucrats [filed under: corrupt], could peruse a few pages from the official EU-sites (http://www.europa.eu.int/institutions/decision-making/index_en.htm).

[Louis VI the Fat]

The EU is [...] pretty much useless. A great example is the cartoon affair, when ambassy's were being attacked they were probably discussing the prefered intensity of the color red of tomatoes, it all means nothing. Giving more power to nothing, no thanks.

Screw them.Did you consider that by your no-vote you prevented the EU from aquiring the tools necessary for any effective common policy in the first place?

[Louis VI the Fat]

The more I look at things, the more I feel that Blair and Britain are the true Europeans, unlike the statist French. We've offered numerous concessions, including giving up much of our rebate, in exchange for reforms of farming subsidies. But the French farmers won't budge an inch (or even a centimetre). The British the true Europeans? I'd say they're biggest whining whingers on the face of the earth.

Here's the outcome of last years budget negotiations, after all those 'numerous British concessions':
'the UK, France and Italy will be making a roughly equivalent net contribution to the EU budget from 2007 onwards'.

Of course, I took care to take that from a thrustworthy British source, the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4078796.stm#q4).

Oh, you'll also find an entire chapter there devoted to the question that perenially obsesses Britain: 'Did France get everything it wanted?'


One thing I can't understand is why the French rejected it. They pass all the EU laws as have been argued by the member states, but they ignore anything that doesn't suit them, so "imposing an Anglo-Saxon model" shouldn't really affect them, since they'll do whatever they like anyway.This much unfortunately is true. :wall:
France, like the UK, always takes care of her own interest first and foremost. Usually at the expense of the true real Europeans, Germany and the Netherlands.

[InsaneApache]

The British the true Europeans? I'd say they're biggest whining whingers on the face of the earth.

Here's the outcome of last years budget negotiations, after all those 'numerous British concessions':
'the UK, France and Italy will be making a roughly equivalent net contribution to the EU budget from 2007 onwards'.

Of course, I took care to take that from a thrustworthy British source, the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4078796.stm#q4).

Oh, you'll also find an entire chapter there devoted to the question that perenially obsesses Britain: 'Did France get everything it wanted?'

This much unfortunately is true. :wall:
France, like the UK, always takes care of her own interest first and foremost. Usually at the expense of the true real Europeans, Germany and the Netherlands.

I hereby revoke your honouray English status until you agree that West Ham are the worst football team ever to acquire a UEFA cup spot. :laugh4:

Where's that damn Jag when you need him :inquisitive: :laugh4:

[A.Saturnus]

That´s gotta be the reason they elected it.:idea2: :inquisitive:


They could have elected another government, but they would have hated that too.


Yes, but the EU is not a country. It is a supranational organization. The two cannot be compared.
This EU constitution is not a constitution in the classical sense, but a misnamed treaty on the functioning of an supranational organization of sovereign states.

Maybe true, still the Constitution unfortunately didn't feel like a constitution. That wasn't the main reason for its failure, but it may have contributed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That´s gotta be the reason they elected it.:idea2: :inquisitive:

Then again, people can often choose only between two evils.:no:

The other option was a French Hitler.


Generalizations I'd say. While the Parliament's role can't be compared with their national equivalent, there are certainly reasons for this, federalization and regional integration theory 101. Ofcourse from republic day #1, there is a general tendency for the executive power to collect additional functions or at least exert some influence on them. But when we 're talking about regional organisations, we 're referring to international treaties, and as a general rule the negotiations required have been the realm of government premiums for quite some time.
The EU has progressed towards a more multifaceted organisation, and the Parliament is gaining steadily functions and powers. The Constitution would 've clearly marked a move towards a general rule of co-decision and as such, criticisms of not promoting a more democratic rule are inaccurate.

The EU aspires to nationhood, don't insult my intelligence by telling me any different. The commision is composed of PMs, Chancellors or whatever else claims rights on the issue at hand. I don't want Tony Blair representing me or making these decisions for me, I want an MP.

The EU is moving towards a federal state, until the power to make decisions of law and treaty are done democratically and transparently I won't be happy.

In Britain the Prime Minister can't just sign treaties without Parliament's approval, but thats exactly what he does in Brussles.

Its not right. You can't leave these decisions to so few people so far from reality.

[L'Impresario]

The EU aspires to nationhood, don't insult my intelligence by telling me any different. The commision is composed of PMs, Chancellors or whatever else claims rights on the issue at hand. I don't want Tony Blair representing me or making these decisions for me, I want an MP.

No, the EU doesn't aspire to nationhood. What it aspires to depends on whom you ask and when. Although, generally, one can safely say that a steady course towards a federation or an ever-deepening confederation is what europhiles promote.

I don't know what you mean with "the commision". If you have something specific regarding the EU legislative procedures to blame the Commision or the Council for then better name it because it's hard to converse on a positional basis when such issues are put forward.
BTW, the EU hasn't got a clear legal personality, as outlined by the Constitution Treaty.
It's also very useful checking in which fields the EU has common policies and how they function.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I hereby revoke your honouray English status until you agree that West Ham are the worst football team ever to acquire a UEFA cup spot. :laugh4: Lol, somewhere deep down I always knew my title wouldn't survive the very first EU thread. :laugh4:

Naturally, knowing that Paris Saint-Germain after being rubbish for an entire season managed to sneak in an UEFA cup spot on the last day of the season (:wall: :furious3: ), I must decline on your offer.

I say this whole thread was nothing but a set-up by Eclectic, in a divide and conquer strategy. He knows nothing divides Europeans more than that which is supposed to bind them together.

[scotchedpommes]

I say this whole thread was nothing but a set-up by Eclectic, in a divide and conquer strategy. He knows nothing divides Europeans more than that which is supposed to bind them together.

Why did it take so long to arrive at this conclusion?

[Divinus Arma]

No. I was genuinely curious. Because of my current assignment research on Eastern Europe, I have been exposed to Europe's mix-and-match web of treaties. It appears that EU was a reasonably good idea, in so far as that it promotes economic stability (after all, a country must demonstrate some fairly rigid economic policy performace to accede to the Euro as their national currency), national security, freedom of movement, cultural integration, and all of the business benefits that come with these assurances.

I noticed that the EU is steadily advancing east. Slovenia, the first of the former Yugoslav republic, recently rose to the EU and is set to adopt the Euro by 2007. Croatia is in negotiations, as is Macedonia IIRC. These two nations and others are part of CEFTA, which is a precursor to EU accession.

I can't help wonder what the limits of the EU will be. Ukraine? Georgia? Armenia? North Africa? Russia? After all, if Turkey is a candidate, than who is not?

So, I'm not baiting at all. I am genuinely curious what the perception of the EU is, and especially of its development.

:book:

[Slyspy]

The EU is a corrupt, closed and unrepresentative entity, an insult to the democratic countries over which it legislates.

Nice idea though.

[L'Impresario]

*enter banana curvature/ baby sacrifice/voracious bureaucratic beast comment*



I can't help wonder what the limits of the EU will be. Ukraine? Georgia? Armenia? North Africa? Russia? After all, if Turkey is a candidate, than who is not?

It's a matter of priorities and time. A random example: in 40-50 years maybe Morocco could be seen as being closer to european political standards than Maghreb, Arab or North African ones. If there is enough acceptance of such a view, then I think that closer ties with the EU and eventual membership could appear as a logical continuation of converging attitudes. Ofcourse, at the moment, a candidate state needs to be willing to enter the EU plus fulfill
the Copehagen criteria.

OTOH Some cases appear improbable. First of all, as it is often said, Russia can't be part of something, only others are part of her. Countries like Georgia and Armenia at the moment can't have european aspirations; apart from the general volatility of the Caucasus area, Russia exerts significant influence in the region. With Ukraine things are more complicated. There is a strong will inside the country to upgrade the nature of partnership with the EU, and one can find quite a few comments from european officials aknowledging a further expansion towards the East, but this will also depend on the West itself and how willing it is to support pro-EU politicians like Yuschenko, likely for decades to come.

Ultimately, the question of a deepening and/or widening union rears its disfigured head. Countries like the UK and the US are leaning towards the "widening" aspect, needless to say, because it makes political integration a considerably slower process (UK) and it offers new prospects for developing countries and promotes stability in regions of strategical and geopolitical interest (US).

[InsaneApache]

No. I was genuinely curious. Because of my current assignment research on Eastern Europe, I have been exposed to Europe's mix-and-match web of treaties. It appears that EU was a reasonably good idea, in so far as that it promotes economic stability (after all, a country must demonstrate some fairly rigid economic policy performace to accede to the Euro as their national currency), national security, freedom of movement, cultural integration, and all of the business benefits that come with these assurances.

The Lira, Drachma, Escudo and Peseta hardly qualified as 'hard' currencies. It was a political decision pure and simple. A pre-cursor, if you will, from our overlords in Bruxelles forcing their concept of a political union, a superstate. Shame they then went ahead with enlargement and totally buggered the whole idea up. Well perhaps not. :2thumbsup:

[A.Saturnus]

The Lira, Drachma, Escudo and Peseta hardly qualified as 'hard' currencies. It was a political decision pure and simple. A pre-cursor, if you will, from our overlords in Bruxelles forcing their concept of a political union, a superstate. Shame they then went ahead with enlargement and totally buggered the whole idea up. Well perhaps not. :2thumbsup:


The Lira was a "hard" currency by all means. Not as hard as pound or D-Mark, but certainly hard enough. I'm not sure about Escudo and Peseta, but I think there inflation was reasonably low. Drachma wasn't stable enough, but Greece got away with fraud. But after all, what me worry? The Euro is currently one of the most stable currencies in the world.

[InsaneApache]

The Lira an hard currency?

You've not been raiding the dispensery for psycho-tropic drugs have you? :inquisitive:

[Louis VI the Fat]

So, I'm not baiting at all. I am genuinely curious what the perception of the EU is, and especially of its development. I know you're not baiting, I was only teasing a bit.~;)


I can't help wonder what the limits of the EU will be. Ukraine? Georgia? Armenia? North Africa? Russia? After all, if Turkey is a candidate, than who is not? L'imprésario gave a good rundown. I'll add my own prediction that at some point in the future we will see a multi-tiered membership, of whatever sort. The first tier will include the original six, and possibly a few others. These will deepen their cooperation.

The second tier will include the other current members. Possibly and hopefully Norway, Switzerland and Iceland will join this more limited membership too.

A third group will include most of the countries you mentioned, in a kind of associated membership. Most of the wineding of the EU will probably take place in this form.

[Geoffrey S]

Think of the way the US thinks of the UN (interfering gits who can't get their act straight, and corrupt) and you've probably got a pretty clear idea of how many Europeans currently see the EU. Nice idea, crap execution.

As long as people see little return for their investment, particularly richer (older) members, there's little incentive to support the EU.

Holland mainly rejected it due to disgust over anything political, the cabinet of the time, and intense campaigning by the opposition against (and little campaigning for) the constitution.

As with many things, I believe involved nations should make it a wholehearted effort, else it's entirely pointless since no-one agrees. Governments should show a bit more spine and either stick with the EU and give their full support, or admit they don't care.

[InsaneApache]

I believe involved nations should make it a wholehearted effort, else it's entirely pointless since no-one agrees. Governments should show a bit more spine and either stick with the EU and give their full support, or admit they don't care.

Perhaps the political elite could make a start by being honest with the voters. Instead of the manipulative, mendacious and duplicitous rhetoric we hear everyday.

[Geoffrey S]

I agree. It's exactly that kind of behaviour, particularly exhibited by Blair and whatnot, that makes everything they say fall on deaf ears.

If the EU constitution had been presented as exactly what it was on its own merits by the dutch government, people would have listened better. As it was, it was blown up out of all proportion and became more of an 'either you're for the EU, or against it' issue. That kind of overblown rhetoric ultimately favoured those in opposition more.

[Fragony]

Holland mainly rejected it due to disgust over anything political, the cabinet of the time, and intense campaigning by the opposition against (and little campaigning for) the constitution.


Que? Holland mainly rejected it because of disgust for anything europe, continious expansion, admission of turkey, the costly euro, the insane amount of money we pay a head, and all of this without ever asking. If you have a question, who do you ask? Do you know it who to turn to, because I don't. Europe just does whatever pleases it, and we should have to give them even more power to mightily screw us over? Campaigning had nothing to do with it, I really wanted to rip of some heads when the campaigners congratulated eachother for a job well done, arrogant pricks won nothing, they just picked the winning team.

[Geoffrey S]

Holland has usually been rather generous with regards to the EU (certainly under Paars), even the public, and if the campaigning had been handled better I could well imagine the result swinging the other way. As it was, Balkenende and co pretty much threw in the towel instantly while most political elements, ranging from Wilders to SP worked against the constitution, inertia did the rest; though admittedly, you're probably correct in saying opposition had little direct influence on the result and just hitched a ride on a sure win.

Certainly everyone disliked Balkenende and anything he and his cronies supported enough to vote against what could be seen as "their" referendum largely out of spite. I'm certain any decent politician and cabinet could show benefits, or at least have the spine to get something from the EU rather than constantly conceding on any issue. Balkenende doesn't have that spine, nor does his cabinet.

I agree with your statement about there being little return for investment, as I stated in an earlier post. What with all the decisions being taken over our heads, with most money spent going elsewhere, it's easy to see a number of reasons people would vote against more EU presense in dutch politics.

It's all good and well wanting to expand the EU and support poorer nations, but that has no use whatsoever if you alienate the people actually paying. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened.

[Fragony]

Balkie has spine, just a rather strange and [understatement alert] slightly uncharasmatic head attached to it. He is the first PM to actually have a referendum about a most serious issue, and he has honoured the results while the EU-blitzexpansioncrew insisted he shouldn't.

Not everybody dislikes Balkie, the man has integrity and the guts to do what needs to be done, maybe you should cut back on your daily nova/zembla/netwerk doses ~;)

[Geoffrey S]

Point taken. No doubt he does have integrity. What I mean about lack of spine is that he is continually pushed about by other coalition partners, and is constantly reacting to, rather than shaping, events. He can barely keep his own cabinet in check, let alone parliament.

The point about him actually holding a referendum is a good one, however. That's more than most did. However, if the official line was that the government supported the constitution the least he could have done was stand behind that decision in the face of opposition. As it is, it makes it look like he doesn't really stand for anything and gets going when the going gets tough.

Though all that bitching from the media about his lack of style must dent his confidence.

My statement about everyone disliking Balkenende was over the top rhetoric. Shouldn't do that, really. :no:

Not everybody dislikes Balkie, the man has integrity and the guts to do what needs to be done, maybe you should cut back on your daily nova/zembla/netwerk doses
Don't watch dutch media, barely read it either (AD doesn't count, it's crap). Bad ongeïntergreerde allochtoon, me. ~;)

[Fragony]

Point taken. No doubt he does have integrity. What I mean about lack of spine is that he is continually pushed about by other coalition partners, and is constantly reacting to, rather than shaping, events. He can barely keep his own cabinet in check, let alone parliament.

Polderen :balloon2:

Yet he keep it together, not his fault that a politically bankrupt party is being an attentionwhore. Viezeloes and chucky Pechtold are oppertunistic populists who think blowing up the coalition will put them back on the map, but for dutch media tradition's sake we will just call it 'maatschappelijk betrokken'


My statement about everyone disliking Balkenende was over the top rhetoric. Shouldn't do that, really. :no:

Indeed, I hate draconian rhetoric :laugh4:


Don't watch dutch media, barely read it either (AD doesn't count, it's crap). Bad ongeïntergreerde allochtoon, me. ~;)

Inburgerking will have to do then ~;)

[BDC]

It was a bloated monstrousity. The EU needs to be gutted and entirely remade. It will never happen though, not without it completely disintegrating first. Too many vested interests, civil servants, red tape, champagne etc.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know you're not baiting, I was only teasing a bit.~;)

L'imprésario gave a good rundown. I'll add my own prediction that at some point in the future we will see a multi-tiered membership, of whatever sort. The first tier will include the original six, and possibly a few others. These will deepen their cooperation.

The second tier will include the other current members. Possibly and hopefully Norway, Switzerland and Iceland will join this more limited membership too.

A third group will include most of the countries you mentioned, in a kind of associated membership. Most of the wineding of the EU will probably take place in this form.

Now you see thats exactly what I don't want. The first tier members will be the most powerful, likely the only ones with full veto while the third tier will be stuck with no power and little benefit.

This is my idea:

Every country elects MEPs based on its population, those MEPs pass European legislation and nothing happens unless it passes a mjoriety vote. The Commission can propose and frame new bills and treaties and control the executive functioning of the EU but the power to chose the direction of the EU is solely with the parliament.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Now you see thats exactly what I don't want. The first tier members will be the most powerful, likely the only ones with full veto while the third tier will be stuck with no power and little benefit.

This is my idea:

Every country elects MEPs based on its population, those MEPs pass European legislation and nothing happens unless it passes a mjoriety vote. The Commission can propose and frame new bills and treaties and control the executive functioning of the EU but the power to chose the direction of the EU is solely with the parliament.Ideally, that's exactly what I would want too. But I don't think we'll see enough support for that in at least the foreseeable future.

I'm not so sure if I want a closer union with mobster states like Bulgaria and Rumania, both set to join next year. Or with fundamentalist Catholic Poland, or with any of them fringe countries where the police refuses to protect gays from being beaten up in broad daylight.

Also, I don't think the UK and the Nordic countries will ever want a deeper EU, like France does. So why be stubborn about it? Let France move together with countries like Italy and Germany towards a closer union, and let the British and Nordics have it their way. We've got that channel tunnel, young French can work in London, and retired Brits can buy their house in the Provence.

I personally would join with Britain in a single currency, single foreign policy, agricultural policy, anything really, save of course a common football team. (I don't ever want to lose the delight of seeing England represented by football gods like Neville and Crouch...)

The free movement of goods, people and capital across the channel will never be reversed anymore. That much will stay, but if we can't find a common ground for further unity, then let's not be a fool about it indefinately.

[cegorach]

[QUOTE=Louis VI the Fat]Ideally, that's exactly what I would want too. But I don't think we'll see enough support for that in at least the foreseeable future.

I'm not so sure if I want a closer union with mobster states like Bulgaria and Rumania, both set to join next year. Or with fundamentalist Catholic Poland, or with any of them fringe countries where the police refuses to protect gays from being beaten up in broad daylight.




Hey, hey, hey maybe give me an example of a gayman beeing beaten with the police not reacting to it ! The gay marches are protected by police against anti-gay protesters, but they are offending each other rather than attack ( I don't remember anything like this :inquisitive: ) .

I don't like the current conservative government, but Poland isn't and never was fundamentalistic.:inquisitive:




Here is a short description of the Polish politics

Left wing SLD and SDRP - have around 6-8 % of support,

Liberal-conservative (my choice) Civic Platform - has about 31 %

currently in power Law and Justice 28 %

their crappy allies

populists 5-6 %

LPR (nationalists) - 1-2 %

Since LaJ ( PiS) faces huge competition from CP it generally tries to dominate completely over their allies and blackmails them with the possibility of an earlier election ( populists and nationalists would most likely lose the elections, even disappear). PiS tries to get more votes from the most conservative part of the society, but it cannot go too far because they would lose more liberal minded.
In Poland church is separated from the state and catholic clergy do respect it, besides we are strong minded and do not like beeing 'advised' when voting that is why any party trying to show themselves as 'catholic' generally doesn't get too much support, sooner or later they all lose - there is no Christian Democratic party here after all.
Already they face heavy criticism in all areas and I hope they will lose the incoming local elections, their later defeat in 3 years will be much more striking I think and the Civic Platform will finally get the power. The current government embarasses us like Chirac France for example - if you need to know what kind of shame I mean.

Regards Cegorach

[InsaneApache]

(I don't ever want to lose the delight of seeing England represented by football gods like Neville and Crouch...)

Barthez. :sweatdrop: :wall: :no: :embarassed: :laugh4:

[L'Impresario]

I wonder if what terms like "codecision", "consultation", "assent" etc mean to people.
And how they think each policy sector is allocated under the various procedures and the logic behind such move.

Nah, why talk about such things, it's easier bunching all things together and blaming the politicians. And the bureaucrats, what a wonderful word, I could use it in all sort of nice sentences and exclamations containing "shove", "stick", "pull" and dozens of niceties.

Power to the People I say. Everything else is demagogic grandiloquence.

[Vladimir]

Also, I don't think the UK and the Nordic countries will ever want a deeper EU, like France does. So why be stubborn about it? Let France move together with countries like Italy and Germany towards a closer union, and let the British and Nordics have it their way. We've got that channel tunnel, young French can work in London, and retired Brits can buy their house in the Provence.

The free movement of goods, people and capital across the channel will never be reversed anymore. That much will stay, but if we can't find a common ground for further unity, then let's not be a fool about it indefinately.

Another good post by Louis. Why does the whole of Europe have to agree on a single foreign policy? Perhaps other countries with similar values can come together first and maybe (a long time from now) these regions of Europe can come together to form a whole. The only issue I forsee is if these regions drift apart, Europe might face another war, but I don't think that's likely.

The EU should be about slowly eliminating borders between the various nations allowing them to think, and act as a whole. Not some oligarchy which currently wants to run the continent.



Liberal-conservative (my choice) Civic Platform - has about 31 %


I'm sorry, but from an American political standpoint, this party just seems so...Polish. :laugh4:

[cegorach]

I'm sorry, but from an American political standpoint, this party just seems so...Polish. :laugh4:


:inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive:

Perhaps you do not realise that people can have conservative attitude towards certain subjects like economy and ethical or religious issues ?

so ... American:wall:

[Vladimir]

So why do YOU hate freedom? :laugh4:

[cegorach]

Default answer, I presume...:juggle2:

[InsaneApache]

:inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive:

Perhaps you do not realise that people can have conservative attitude towards certain subjects like economy and ethical or religious issues ?

so ... American:wall:

Too true. I'm right of center on economic issues, and left of center on social ones.

[A.Saturnus]

The Lira an hard currency?

You've not been raiding the dispensery for psycho-tropic drugs have you? :inquisitive:

I couldn't find any exact figures, but this source (http://morevalue.com/glossary/restrict/FX-Italian%20Lira.html) tells me the Lira's inflation was lower than the Pound's after 1995. Who'd thought it? Of course, one might argue that the Pound isn't a "hard" currency.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Thanks for your rundown on Polish politics, Cegorach. I think I can see why a political party named 'liberal-conservative' is funny to American ears though. :balloon2:

Hey, hey, hey maybe give me an example
With 'fringe countries' I actually meant countries east and south of Poland. I did however call Poland a fundamentalist Catholic state, and as always, I'll honour any request to back up my claims. So here's an article from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/opinion/11sun2.html?ex=1307678400&en=d4b8c04cf569eff5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss):

Poland's Bigoted Government

Some formerly Communist countries that eagerly joined the European Union are balking at the social policies that come with democracy. They are led by the union's largest new member, Poland, which is now run by a right-wing nationalist government that seems intent on violating the rights of minority groups, beginning with an attack on gays.

The government is led by the conservative Law and Justice Party, founded by the identical twin brothers who now run Poland: Lech Kaczynski, the country's president, and his brother Jaroslaw, who leads the party. Law and Justice got its parliamentary majority by aligning itself with two dangerous fringe parties: Self-Defense, a peasant party whose leader openly admires the dictator of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko; and the League of Polish Families, an ultra-right-wing Catholic party.

Human Rights Watch reports that a League parliamentarian, Wojciech Wierzejski, accused homosexuals of running pedophile, drug-trafficking and other criminal organizations. At his urging, the state has instructed local prosecutors to investigate homosexuals for pedophilia.

President Kaczynski banned gay rights marches when he was mayor of Warsaw and members of the League's youth wing have attacked gay rights marchers. Mr. Wierzejski said that people who marched in a gay rights demonstration planned in Warsaw this weekend should be "bashed with a baton."

The problems go well beyond homophobia. The preferred broadcasting outlet of Poland's government is Radio Maryja, a Catholic radio station with millions of listeners that is openly nationalist, anti-Semitic and anti-foreigner. It has resisted admonishments from Pope Benedict to stop talking about politics. Radio Maryja's support was crucial in Lech Kaczynski's presidential campaign and Jaroslaw Kaczynski is a frequent guest on the radio station.

In late May, Poland's chief rabbi, Michael Schudrich, was punched in the chest and sprayed with what appeared to be pepper spray by a young man shouting "Poland for the Poles." President Kaczynski personally apologized to Rabbi Schudrich and condemned anti-Semitism. But the rest of the government's actions give an official wink to bigotry.
Or try this. (http://transatlanticassembly.blogspot.com/2006/06/compromising-eu-policy-of.html)

[Louis VI the Fat]

And now for something completely different...

I thought this was funny:


England T-shirt giveaway for forged French passport

NICOSIA, July 24 (Reuters)

An England football shirt gave away a Senegalese man attempting to enter Cyprus on a forged French passport, police on the Mediterranean island said on Monday.

Suspicions were aroused when the man appeared at a checkpoint supervising crossings from the Turkish Cypriot north to the Greek Cypriot south of the divided island, wearing the England shirt and presenting a French passport.
"Being a football fan, the officer found it highly unlikely that a Frenchman would want to wear an England football jersey," a police source said.

"That was his first suspicion prior to the proper check on the passport, which turned out to be a fake," said the source.
The 22-year-old man, who has not been charged, was remanded in custody for six days pending further inquiries.
:laugh4: ~D :laugh4: ~D :laugh4:

[Pannonian]

I couldn't find any exact figures, but this source (http://morevalue.com/glossary/restrict/FX-Italian%20Lira.html) tells me the Lira's inflation was lower than the Pound's after 1995. Who'd thought it? Of course, one might argue that the Pound isn't a "hard" currency.
The only way to settle the argument over whether the Pound or the Lira is the harder currency would be to invite an Englishman and an Italian, representing their respective currencies, to step behind the bike sheds and use their fists to see which was "harder", with no hair pulling. And after the argument is settled, the headmaster will arrive and give both a detention. The French, Germans, Spanish and others in the audience will of course have scattered on the whistled warning, legging it down the road or climbing over the fences into nearby gardens (where the neighbouring Ukrainians and Moroccans would shout at them for trampling on their lawns).

[InsaneApache]

ROFLMFAO....:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

[cegorach]

[QUOTE=Louis VI the Fat]Thanks for your rundown on Polish politics, Cegorach. I think I can see why a political party named 'liberal-conservative' is funny to American ears though. :balloon2:
With 'fringe countries' I actually meant countries east and south of Poland. I did however call Poland a fundamentalist Catholic state, and as always, I'll honour any request to back up my claims. So here's an article from the


Ehhh New York Times still suprises me, incredible.:laugh4:

Some formerly Communist countries that eagerly joined the European Union are balking at the social policies that come with democracy. They are led by the union's largest new member, Poland, which is now run by a right-wing nationalist government that seems intent on violating the rights of minority groups, beginning with an attack on gays.


========> Rubbish, it is hard to call the banning of their parade an open attack - gays aren't expelled from their jobs, beaten or imprisoned - it is more a political conflict with the left wing organisations supporting their campaigns.

The government is led by the conservative Law and Justice Party, founded by the identical twin brothers who now run Poland: Lech Kaczynski, the country's president, and his brother Jaroslaw, who leads the party. Law and Justice got its parliamentary majority by aligning itself with two dangerous fringe parties: Self-Defense, a peasant party whose leader openly admires the dictator of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko; and the League of Polish Families, an ultra-right-wing Catholic party.


=========> That is why I call them crappy allies, besides there is consensus (except this shameful self-defence) that we should do everything to help Belorus. Self-Defence leader is an idiot, but presently is silent about any radical ideas he expressed before - even the withdrawal from Iraq seems to be of little importance to him. Generally the fringe parties avoid more controversial issues completely with few exceptions.


Human Rights Watch reports that a League parliamentarian, Wojciech Wierzejski, accused homosexuals of running pedophile, drug-trafficking and other criminal organizations. At his urging, the state has instructed local prosecutors to investigate homosexuals for pedophilia.


======> Wierzejski is a moron and object of numerous jokes now, he stays silent presently to avoid further embarassment. The prosecutor stuff - a stupid mistake made by some only too eager to please anyone in power - it was oficially denounced as false rumours anyway.


President Kaczynski banned gay rights marches when he was mayor of Warsaw and members of the League's youth wing have attacked gay rights marchers. Mr. Wierzejski said that people who marched in a gay rights demonstration planned in Warsaw this weekend should be "bashed with a baton."

========> Agian this clown. The LPR youths did attack the gay marches VERBALLY not phisically and police was present to divide both demonstrations anyway. I am not even sure if eggs or tomatos were thrown, so much about the attacks.

The problems go well beyond homophobia. The preferred broadcasting outlet of Poland's government is Radio Maryja, a Catholic radio station with millions of listeners that is openly nationalist, anti-Semitic and anti-foreigner. It has resisted admonishments from Pope Benedict to stop talking about politics. Radio Maryja's support was crucial in Lech Kaczynski's presidential campaign and Jaroslaw Kaczynski is a frequent guest on the radio station.

========> Millions - 1 or 2 of usually old too devout grandpas - the horrible radio is a problem, but it never was in any position to challenge the policy of the Catholic Church - it is even more unlikely thanks to John Paul's II teachings ( i.e. the REAL face of Polish catholicism) and the popularity of the new Pope - see he is German, yet he is more popular in Poland than for example in Germany.
The appearances of the senior PiS officials there is somehow shocking and disgusting, yet it is their idea to win some support from former LPR voters ( the party is dissolving ). In my opinion it won't work well and besides PiS cannot go any further because they will lose most of their voters who are much more open minded.
Finally the radio isn't openly anti-semitic, there are anti-semitic remarks or maybe rather there were.


In late May, Poland's chief rabbi, Michael Schudrich, was punched in the chest and sprayed with what appeared to be pepper spray by a young man shouting "Poland for the Poles." President Kaczynski personally apologized to Rabbi Schudrich and condemned anti-Semitism. But the rest of the government's actions give an official wink to bigotry.


This atack on the rabbi was isolated incident. There is no rise in xenophobia or anti-semitism - rather much opposite.
Simply anti-Semitism doesn't work in Poland, especially in politics - if you start this kind of ranting you will surely lose - the last presidential candidate who is known for his anti-Semitism got 0.05 % of votes - is it much ?

True I think that some nationalist morons are more bold now with LPR in the government, but you also have much more activity from anti-nationalist protesters which hopefully affect the incoming local elections.
But the politics are trying as much as they can to cut off any links to their actions in the past - they might have their ideas, but is neither possible to implement these in Poland nor worth expressing with much higher probability to lose if they would try.

I dislike the present coalition and wish them all the worst, but when reading foreign press I am still suprised how easy is to write such nonsense - maybe it is because Poland rarely has good PR and certainly the present government doesn't help in any way.

I am waiting for the incoming elections already - it won't be a total defeat of the ruling coalition - economy is fine and getting better after all - but one step closer to end this embarassment.:shame:


Finally it is unreasonable to call Poland fundamentalistic - actually there are no reasons to justify the statement - otherwise maybe I should call USA fascist as some 'better informed people in this forum' ( it is not about you of course, as we know).

Polish government is conservative, but the chance that Poland will become fundamentalistic are lower than the possibility that Israel will be anti-Semitic.

Regards Cegorach

[A.Saturnus]

========> Rubbish, it is hard to call the banning of their parade an open attack - gays aren't expelled from their jobs, beaten or imprisoned - it is more a political conflict with the left wing organisations supporting their campaigns.

Banning a gay parade (without valid reason), is a violation of human rights because the right to demonstrate is a basic right of all people. However, the rest of what you say is reassuring.

[cegorach]

The reason given was that it is hard to guarantee safety of the protesters because of the anti-gay protesters there as well blah, blah, blah... rubbish anyway.

Besides these parades did happen anyway and were protected by the police - so much about the whole thing.

I have nothing against those parades, unless it turns into something like in Berlin ( I don't like any mockery).

As it was said by Josef Pilsudski - 'in Poland you cannot rule with a lash' - extremists is a marigin here and the whole story about the 'rise of nationalism/xenophobia' here is a joke.
BTW If I am correct Poland is the only one country in the EU where so called hate crimes are on steady fall from small level already.:juggle2:

[Vladimir]

Banning a gay parade (without valid reason), is a violation of human rights because the right to demonstrate is a basic right of all people. However, the rest of what you say is reassuring.

Oh that's weak. You're saying that because you don't *feel* that there was no valid reason to ban the parade is a violation of human rights? What rights do they have to stage such a parade? Under who's code of laws? Some amorphis feel good ideology?

Flippant responses like that marginalize real abuses of human rights. If Polish 'gays' were rounded up and forced into ghettos, that would be an abuse.

Edit: As stated, the police were very actively involved in protecting those who did march any way.

[L'Impresario]

Well, accusations of discrimination are numerous, a few examples coming from human rights NGOs :

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/05/poland13510.htm
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/poland/document.do?id=ENGEUR370012006

[cegorach]

But based on the same statements made by some idiots - Wierzejski for example - the fact that the former and the present PM do not support Gay movements doesn't mean there is or will be any discrimination unless not supporting equals discrimination.

Besides - the march which the both letters concern did happen after all and without any serious incidents.:book:


BTW I find it interesting that such a country as Poland can be seen by anyone as fundamentalistic or undemocratic - it is in opposition to anything with had in history and it is simply impossible to change it just because someone needs couple of votes in the parliament and allows some fringe parties to go inside the government given offices of minor importance...

[Slyspy]

Well, accusations of discrimination are numerous, a few examples coming from human rights NGOs :

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/05/poland13510.htm
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/poland/document.do?id=ENGEUR370012006

You show me a country that doesn't have negative reports on Amnesty's website. Even Sweden is there for goodness sake, and they've spent at least a century trying not to upset anyone!

Edit:
As for taking minority parties as a litmus test for a country's political leanings then I must be a fan of Welsh and Scottish independence, while simultaneously hoping for either the independence of Northern Ireland or the maintainance of the Union.

[L'Impresario]

Yes, but you'll be hard pressed to find a negative report on Sweden's stance towards homosexuals~;)