Europe

[Louis VI the Fat]

@Banquo - the Treaty hasn't changed*, the world has changed. What made sense last time, is not automatically in the interest of Ireland any longer.

Ultra-liberalism provided excellent opportunities for Ireland, which it seized. But between the two referenda, ultra-liberalism has crashed Ireland into a severe economic depression.

Perhaps a rethinking of economic strategy, re-stabilizing Ireland in a larger framework, and the empowerment of states to protect the common good against private gain again, are just the right course for Ireland.


*It has changed a bit. The meddlesome influence of the Roman church and of American companies on Ireland have been guaranteed, at the behest of the 'sovereignty for Ireland!!1!!' camp.

@Maniac - there were no modern nations or nation-states before 1800. In 1780, it took seventeen days to travel from
Paris to Toulouse. You'd pass a dozen different languages, time zones, peoples, tribes, customs and toll zones, dishes, standards of measurement.*
Then nationhood was beaten into the populations of the new nation-states in the course of the 19th century. Then it all went wrong in the twentieth century. Nationalism thus discredited, Europe is trying to find a new balance between the local and the supra-local, on whatever level - region, state, EU, global.

*Asterixed for Furunculus, whose hands are no doubt itching to post 'That's all well and fine, Louis, but none of this applies to Britain'. I refer my honourable anti-EUist to Hobsbawm, 'Nations and Nationalism', for a sobering description of just how recent nations are, including the UK.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I know the theories of nationhood, and I don't want to get into the debate right now as I stated before. Thanks though.

[Beskar]

I said that many times, Menedil.

The clincher is, he loves the USA! Which is a bigger nation, however the idea of an USE is very bad.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The clincher is, he loves the USA! Which is a bigger nation, however the idea of an USE is very bad.

I love how you can't see a difference between the two.

[Beskar]

Oh that's easy.

USA - A world hyper-power which shapes the very world we live in, brought and instituted many operations from false-flag, CIA coups, installation of puppets, pretty much unrestraint power, ditacting European (and world) policy and using Europe (and world) as its own pawns and installing 1984 mindset at home and aboard.

USE - Something that doesn't exist, except on paper with a long way to go.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This is better than watching German comedy on TV I guess.

[Beskar]

Point out anything false in my statement.

I am sorry, sort of a trick question, because there wasn't anything false. Would take me 2 seconds to show evidence of every single point I made.

[Banquo's Ghost]

@Banquo - the Treaty hasn't changed*, the world has changed. What made sense last time, is not automatically in the interest of Ireland any longer.

Ultra-liberalism provided excellent opportunities for Ireland, which it seized. But between the two referenda, ultra-liberalism has crashed Ireland into a severe economic depression.

Perhaps a rethinking of economic strategy, re-stabilizing Ireland in a larger framework, and the empowerment of states to protect the common good against private gain again, are just the right course for Ireland.


*It has changed a bit. The meddlesome influence of the Roman church and of American companies on Ireland have been guaranteed, at the behest of the 'sovereignty for Ireland!!1!!' camp.

Hi Louis - I was wondering when you might turn up. Nice balloons.

The guarantees you note are not worth the hot air used to lie about them. As you well know, they have not been incorporated into the Treaty. Given that Ireland now has much less say over the governance of the EU, who exactly is going to uphold the guarantees when they conflict with greater interests? Sops to a vassal.

Of course, I don't disagree with your analysis of why the vote changed and the causes of Ireland's woe. My vote did not change however, because I was asked to vote again on a Treaty that had not changed, and my reasons for rejecting it backalong had similarly remained unsullied. I think it is disingenuous to change one's mind merely because the country has flushed itself down the u-tube. (As a side note, ultra-liberalism was never my thing and since I am now richer than the rest of the country combined, I have been proven correct in my stubborn conservatism).

You know well from our conversations the first time around that my objections are not at all to do with the European project itself, but derive from the anti-democratic nature of the Lisbon Treaty and the unwillingness of the project to trust and engage the people which it plans to rule. Subsidiarity is the heart of the original vision of the EU - the removal of petty nationalism and the enhancement of democracy at the lowest level practicable.

I find it endlessly amusing that we, of all people, should clash on this: the French revolutionary, truest proponent of equality, fraternity, liberty and the wisest man on this forum, upholding the right of unelected elitists to trample over the Rights of Man in an unseemly rush to establish an empire of corporate governance for their playground - against the crusty Old World aristocrat steeped in estate and riches sucked from the people's very veins arguing for their right to be consulted, engaged and empowered.

Indeed, this beautiful irony why Europe is such a wonderful, diverse and magical thing. And why it would be easy, if we had the courage of our convictions, for us to persuade most citizens of our great future together without resorting to subterfuge, lies, bullying or fear of the dark.

[Furunculus]

[

*Asterixed for Furunculus, whose hands are no doubt itching to post 'That's all well and fine, Louis, but none of this applies to Britain'. I refer my honourable anti-EUist to Hobsbawm, 'Nations and Nationalism', for a sobering description of just how recent nations are, including the UK.

but it doesn't, it simply doesn't.

i have a feeling that the next six months will see cameron very vague on the EU:

Tory sources suggested that if Lisbon was ratified when they came to power they could, instead of holding a referendum on the Treaty itself, stage a public vote on whether powers should be taken back from Brussels. The potential move was being dubbed a "blame it on Blair" plan.

Oh that's easy.

USA - A world hyper-power which shapes the very world we live in, brought and instituted many operations from false-flag, CIA coups, installation of puppets, pretty much unrestraint power, dictating European (and world) policy and using Europe (and world) as its own pawns and installing 1984 mindset at home and aboard.

USE - Something that doesn't exist, except on paper with a long way to go.

the US only influenced european policy because at the time the worlds other superpower sat on their doorstep with hundreds of motor-rifle and armoured divisions facing west....................... while europe refused to pay for its own defence.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

i have a feeling that the next six months will see cameron very vague on the EU:

I'm giving it a 50-50 chance based on this.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm giving it a 50-50 chance based on this.

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

The treaty has now been ratified by all member countries' legislatures (well, not the Dáil on vote 2 yet but they're now bound) - it is only a couple of presidential signatures that are missing. These cannot be with-held without sparking constitutional crises in the respective nations.

Cameron is trying to find a line that won't get him hung during his own party conference. The truth is, the British Parliament ratified the treaty and it has obtained Royal Assent. That means there is nothing he can do. (Unless he plans to leave the EU altogether, which rather amusingly, Lisbon now allows him to do).

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

The treaty has now been ratified by all member countries' legislatures (well, not the Dáil on vote 2 yet but they're now bound) - it is only a couple of presidential signatures that are missing. These cannot be with-held without sparking constitutional crises in the respective nations.

There is still the Czech constitutional court, which may deliberate for up to six or nine months. If they do delay it for that long (or rule the treaty unconstitutional) then Klaus may be able to safely withhold his signature for another month or two. That being said, it'll be interesting to see how a referendum would change anything - other than showing the EU that what they've been doing is against the will of the people, which they really don't care about.