Europe

[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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I can pick up at least four, though a socialist would naturally disagree regardless of the evidence.

[Beskar]

Nope, the fact is, I would only disagree with you because you are wrong. Nothing do to with ideology, simply facts.

[Louis VI the Fat]

This Guradian article discusses the EU and the UK, plus Ireland.

The plot by the European Union to subvert British democracy has to be one of the world's worst conspiracies. Every prime minister since Edward Heath has apparently colluded in this nefarious project, and yet, stubbornly, the UK still governs itself.

You get a much higher calibre of conspirator in Washington. They assassinate presidents and fake moon landings. Brussels can't straighten a banana without the bloodhounds of the conservative press unearthing the story.

But things are looking up for the plotters. A second Irish referendum has approved the Lisbon treaty, removing one of the last obstacles to its taking effect. This document, remember, is a European constitution in disguise, smuggled through Britain's parliament under the noses of somnolent MPs. It means that Albion's ancient powers can be whisked away at last to a dark Belgian corridor.

There is another interpretation: that there is no conspiracy; that the EU is an alliance of sovereign nations in which British prime ministers have collaborated because it serves the country's interests; that the Lisbon Treaty is just one in a parade of flawed but worthwhile compromises required to make a multinational alliance work. Dull, but true.

Full-bodied fear of the EU exercises only a small minority in Britain. But the underlying theme – that "Europe" and Britain are adversaries in a zero-sum game of power and influence – is deeply embedded in mainstream discourse. It is an idea that badly misrepresents where our national interests lie. Sadly, it is also about to become a guiding principle in our foreign policy, and at a time when the case for sensible pan-European accord has hardly been stronger.

There are various factors explaining why Ireland voted "yes" in Friday's poll, despite having declared the opposite 16 months earlier. There were symbolic concessions in the terms of the treaty and a better organised pro-Lisbon campaign. But a crucial intervention was made by the financial crisis, which threatened to hollow out the debt-laden Irish economy as it did Iceland's. The difference is that Ireland, as a member of the eurozone, was propped up by the European Central Bank.

The Lisbon Treaty actually says nothing about financial assistance. That is beside the point. The real threat of national bankruptcy put the theoretical threat of diminished national autonomy in its place. Unregulated global finance, it turned out, was more hostile to sovereignty than the EU.

Ireland's calculation describes, in essence, the whole point of the European project: negotiated political integration is a source of security, stability and strength.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nope, the fact is, I would only disagree with you because you are wrong. Nothing do to with ideology, simply facts.

If there's one thing the Backroom can show us, there are different facts and different interpretations thereof. You are more likely to take the anti-American ones, end of story.

And you still haven't managed to find the differences between American history and the history of European integration.

[Beskar]

Have you studied the history between making a pot and a kettle? End of the day, they are still black.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Have you studied the history between making a pot and a kettle? End of the day, they are still black.

They end up looking very different though, internally and externally.

[Beskar]

Would you prefer them to be identical?

No two things are exactly the same, especially on the scale of nation building. However, end of the day, both the kettle and the pot can boil water.

Just because things are different doesn't mean they are completely at odds with each other. You can still use your pot to boil the water, and still use your kettle.



Do you look at the parts or do you look at the sum of the parts?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The point is that they - and their formation is a large part of what they are - are fundamentally different.

[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.

[Furunculus]

The Grauniad once again peering myopically at the world through milk bottle bottoms:

1. The plot by the European Union to subvert British democracy has to be one of the world's worst conspiracies. Every prime minister since Edward Heath has apparently colluded in this nefarious project, and yet, stubbornly, the UK still governs itself.
You get a much higher calibre of conspirator in Washington. They assassinate presidents and fake moon landings. Brussels can't straighten a banana without the bloodhounds of the conservative press unearthing the story.

2. But things are looking up for the plotters. A second Irish referendum has approved the Lisbon treaty, removing one of the last obstacles to its taking effect. This document, remember, is a European constitution in disguise, smuggled through Britain's parliament under the noses of somnolent MPs. It means that Albion's ancient powers can be whisked away at last to a dark Belgian corridor.
There is another interpretation: that there is no conspiracy; that the EU is an alliance of sovereign nations in which British prime ministers have collaborated because it serves the country's interests; that the Lisbon Treaty is just one in a parade of flawed but worthwhile compromises required to make a multinational alliance work. Dull, but true.

3. Full-bodied fear of the EU exercises only a small minority in Britain. But the underlying theme – that "Europe" and Britain are adversaries in a zero-sum game of power and influence – is deeply embedded in mainstream discourse. It is an idea that badly misrepresents where our national interests lie. Sadly, it is also about to become a guiding principle in our foreign policy, and at a time when the case for sensible pan-European accord has hardly been stronger.

4. There are various factors explaining why Ireland voted "yes" in Friday's poll, despite having declared the opposite 16 months earlier. There were symbolic concessions in the terms of the treaty and a better organised pro-Lisbon campaign. But a crucial intervention was made by the financial crisis, which threatened to hollow out the debt-laden Irish economy as it did Iceland's. The difference is that Ireland, as a member of the eurozone, was propped up by the European Central Bank.

5. The Lisbon Treaty actually says nothing about financial assistance. That is beside the point. The real threat of national bankruptcy put the theoretical threat of diminished national autonomy in its place. Unregulated global finance, it turned out, was more hostile to sovereignty than the EU.

6. Ireland's calculation describes, in essence, the whole point of the European project: negotiated political integration is a source of security, stability and strength.

1. There is no conspiracy in Brussels, it has been the stated aim for 50 years that ever deeper union with no stated end point to integration is the aim of the game, the only conspiracy has been the british body politics attempt to deny what is common knowledge anywhere else.

2. No, it IS the european constitution rebranded, that is truth without a shadow of a doubt. And the idea of a self-amending constitution is particularly pernicious in a country where the political class refuse to admit or discuss the aims of the EU project with their electorate.

3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, if you're that confident dear grauniad, then you will be the first in line to back a referendum........................................................ oh, is that deafening silence i hear?

4. No its the problem of being a small nation being threatened with exclusion from the club, the yes vote was won by fear rather than optimism.

5. The problem was unregulated finance no doubt, why didn't ireland regulate their financial market to ensure that their liabilities didn't exceed their assets?

6. Where is the end point to that integration? The EU has a value to me that diminishes rapidly the further down that road the ever-deeper-union crew go, and while i would like to enthusiastically participate in the debate that shapes that journey I refuse to do so while their is recognition of what the EU is striving for from our political class.

[Banquo's Ghost]

For all my grizzling, it looks as if the result is very solid and based in a pretty big turnout. Final figures will be announced later today, but there's an interactive map here for those interested.

[Tribesman]

3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, if you're that confident dear grauniad, then you will be the first in line to back a referendum........................................ ................ oh, is that deafening silence i hear?

Maybe the Guardian has the brains to realise that you cannot have a referendum on something you have already approved.

[Beskar]

Maybe the Guardian has the brains to realise that you cannot have a referendum on something you have already approved.

It is like eating your cake then voting afterwards whether or not you should eat it.

The news, if you end up with a no vote, then you are pretty much screwed over, as you can't uneat the cake.

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.

There is the advantage though, since the Lisbon Treaty is not a Constitution, etc, etc, but can help unite people in Europe, everyone who was worried about Europe can all unite together to ensure a good Europe comes out of everything. Making changes from within the system.

Problem is, you need all the idiots to vote first and vote the right way. (Idiot = non-voter)

[Banquo's Ghost]

There is the advantage though, since the Lisbon Treaty is not a Constitution, etc, etc, but can help unite people in Europe, everyone who was worried about Europe can all unite together to ensure a good Europe comes out of everything. Making changes from within the system.

Have you read the Lisbon Treaty? Your hope is not included in its provisions.

[Furunculus]

Maybe the Guardian has the brains to realise that you cannot have a referendum on something you have already approved.

It is like eating your cake then voting afterwards whether or not you should eat it.
The news, if you end up with a no vote, then you are pretty much screwed over, as you can't uneat the cake.

the answer to both of your objections is the following:
1. The government has no mandate to bind its population thus, (as all three parties campaigned on providing a referendum on lisbon).
2. Sovereign nation states can do whatever they like, they are sovereign, (provided you are willing to pay the price of annoying other nations).
3. No government can bind the actions of a future government (particularly when there was never a mandate, or public support, to sign up to lisbon).
4. The Kratos has a moral duty to directly request the permission of its Demos if it wishes to give that governing authority to a third party, (admittedly only a personal objection).

referencing this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majo...pens-next.html

................. Any attempt to forge such a deal - which would amount to a lesser form of EU membership - would have to be acceptable to all 26 other member states. But, EU officials concede, if Britain voted No in a referendum, some kind of new relationship would have to be worked out......................
A senior Commission official said: "Disentangling Britain would be pretty brutal. Almost every aspect of British life is touched by the EU, certainly in terms of the economy and trade. There would be huge costs. Would people really want to pay them?"

There is always a way to get what you want (maintenance of sovereign status), and if it means forcing the creation of a two speed europe with Britain in the slow lane, then such can be achieved and iam willing to pay the price to achieve it.

[Tribesman]

the answer to both of your objections is the following:

1,2,3 and 4 don't talk crap.

There is always a way to get what you want (maintenance of sovereign status), and if it means forcing the creation of a two speed europe with Britain in the slow lane, then such can be achieved and iam willing to pay the price to achieve it.

So all you need now is a pile of fruitckes with very very big wallets who are willing to pay.
Thats a wierd one isn't it , you maintain soveriegnty by accepting without challenge the terms foriegners decide they shall impose on you.

[Beskar]

2. Sovereign nation states can do whatever they like, they are sovereign, (provided you are willing to pay the price of annoying other nations).

Yes, that is indeed correct. Though as far as I am the aware, the ramifications would be pretty severe, you cannot restore the cake to what it was.

[Beskar]

Have you read the Lisbon Treaty? Your hope is not included in its provisions.

Viva la revolution.

I will be on the picket lines next to Tribesman and Louis VI the Fat and my other European cousins, burning down those pedestals. Even maybe Evil Martain and Furunculus would be there too.

[Furunculus]

1,2,3 and 4 don't talk crap.


So all you need now is a pile of fruitckes with very very big wallets who are willing to pay.
Thats a wierd one isn't it , you maintain soveriegnty by accepting without challenge the terms foriegners decide they shall impose on you.

which of the first three (the fourth is only personal) is untrue?

everything has a value and a price.

[Furunculus]

Yes, that is indeed correct. Though as far as I am the aware, the ramifications would be pretty severe, you cannot restore the cake to what it was.

have we already eaten the cake?

i prefer to look at it as a question swapping my extant cake for ****, rather than claiming something has already been consumed (and is thus extinct).

[Beskar]

have we already eaten the cake?

i prefer to look at it as a question swapping my extant cake for ****, rather than claiming something has already been consumed (and is thus extinct).

You could do, but I am not a fan of coprophilia and tend not to want to think about it.

Personal preference.

[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).

[Tellos Athenaios]

the answer to both of your objections is the following:
1. The government has no mandate to bind its population thus, (as all three parties campaigned on providing a referendum on lisbon).
2. Sovereign nation states can do whatever they like, they are sovereign, (provided you are willing to pay the price of annoying other nations).
3. No government can bind the actions of a future government (particularly when there was never a mandate, or public support, to sign up to lisbon).
4. The Kratos has a moral duty to directly request the permission of its Demos if it wishes to give that governing authority to a third party, (admittedly only a personal objection).

(1) False. Your constitution grants the government sufficient executive powers not to seek ratification of its actions with the population. Ultimately the only one they owe any form of accountability to is your head of state who so happens to be not accountable at all. Meet your queen.
(2) Which kind of includes ignoring its nation and having its way with it.
(3) False. Unless you accept that your government (UK's) is not bound by pre-existing UK law. Which it currently is: that is the point, once accepted the Lisbon treaty becomes part of a chapter of international law applicable to all member states. It certainly isn't the same order of importance as, say, constitutional provisions; but it is still law and government life is bound to remarkably narrow margins of law.
(4) And false again: the responsibility is entirely the other way around: the demos has the moral duty to keep the kratos in check (by vote and demanding that the government accounts for its actions) and if it chooses not to give a proverbial then they shall suffer the consequence of their own negligence.

Bottom line: in a democracy election and mandate are not the same.

The first is a convenient shortcut so you can have people do your own work for you and not require to meet with the whole voting assembly (or whoever can be bothered to turn up; a pretty big issue with severe consequences in itself): you elect people to decide on matters of government and to ensure government accounts for its actions. Therefore what is and what is not silently accepted is ultimately, entirely up to them because you relinquish direct means of control over your government in favour of a more practical approach to the logistical problem.

The second is what rights are granted by law. I.e. the mandate of the voter is his citizenship right to vote and hope for the best; the mandate of the officials in government is to do as government proverbial well pleases as long as it requires no new law or as long as both houses of parliament and the Head of State are willing to say amen.

The UK is a particular striking example here because there is not an institutionalized concept of ‘seperation of powers’: formally there is little distinction between legislative and executive power giving your government a particular large mandate to do as it proverbial well pleases when it comes to international treaties and laws since they -by definition- make up a sizeable portion of the houses of parliament.

[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.

[KukriKhan]

So, the Czechs and Poles held up ratification pending the resolution of the Irish referendum. Now that the Irish have decided "yes" to Lisbon, will those 2 Presidents sign off?

What happens next on that continent (+ large islands)?

[Beskar]

What I read about Lisbon treaty, it is no where near the 'Doom and Gloom' some people here try to make of it.

What is sort of funny, I am wondering about Furunculus' opinion on the President of the European Council position. It was originally a rotating position, now it is an elected one, and there is much talk that Tony Blair is a forerunner in that race. I am curious or not having 'Britain' president as the first is a good thing or a bad thing, in his eyes.