Euro Area

[Conradus]

That is the difference I was hinting at Kraz, the law of the contitutional monrachy are not he same laws of the nation state. i don't know who was the last descendant he supposedly broke his neck when his horse aurevoired him 300 years ago, don't care either

Frag where are you reading that? Your Constitution says that the monarch should be a lawful successor to Willem I, nothing about some Orange dude 300 years past.

Het koningschap wordt erfelijk vervuld door de wettige opvolgers van Koning Willem I, Prins van Oranje-Nassau.

[Furunculus]

Greece wont be leaving anytime soon when there trying to put out a fire in Spain and Italy.

They would have to explain how you could leave and that would end up meaning Spain would have to go due to market pressure, so basically they wont be doing that.

The likelyhood for my money is that Spain will try to limp on till ESM/ECB comes to the rescue outside troika control.

Everytime I read about this stuff I just depress myself more especially when I read a moronic comment like this

In other words there is a fire next door so were going to worry about what sort of fireproof materials the neighbours are putting in.

the eurozone is going to get smaller, it is just a question of when.

[Fragony]

Frag where are you reading that? Your Constitution says that the monarch should be a lawful successor to Willem I, nothing about some Orange dude 300 years past.

Constitution yes it does that's the point I am making

[Kralizec]

Then what is the other law you're talking about?

[Fragony]

Then what is the other law you're talking about?

The constitutional monarchy

[Kralizec]

That's a form of government, not a law.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's a form of government, not a law.

He may be talking about "House Law" which defines succession and who the House can marry.

[Conradus]

Constitution yes it does that's the point I am making

I thought your point was that all the laws signed by your monarchs were unconstitutional. That is clearly not the case. So I don't really know what point you're making except that the Dutch Royal Family isn't related to Willem De Zwijger. Which doesn't matter according to your constitution.

[Kralizec]

He may be talking about "House Law" which defines succession and who the House can marry.

Those aren't remarkable either, AFAIK. They define the succession order, and state that a member of the royal house can't marry a person without permission of parliament, otherwise they lose their royal status and associated benefits.

It would be helpful if Fragony gave us more insight into what he's talking about because I really, really have no idea.

[Kralizec]

Governments are elected on manifestos though - every UK party offered a referendum on Europe prior to the last two elections, so the voters can't be accused of voting for the status quo.

I appreciate that you can't run everything via referenndum - but the signing of treaties and transfer of competencies are not "everything", they are a very specific thing.

At the risk of sounding elitist: EU treaties are preceded by intricate, lenghty negotiations. While I think that every adult should be able to vote on his or her representatives, I don't think that the average bloke has either the intelligence or the knowledge to make an informed judgement about these treaties. Or any treaty at all, frankly. The Irish voted down the Lisbon treaty and only voted for it after they got promised all sorts of opt-outs and garantues. That is simply not a workable way to do things in a union of 27 member states.

I'm not opposed to holding referendums, but they should be about EU membership, with a simple yes or no. I could agree to a two-speed Europe; but it's simply not fair that a single member state who refuses gets to stop the entire process for everyone.

[SoFarSoGood]

Statutes cannot be challenged in court. English judges simply do not have the constitutional power to do so, under any circumstances. They can only interpret them narrowly so that the scope of a statute is restricted. I admit I know almost nothing about equity; except that it's often used to dodge the limitations of common law.

Governments interpretation of Statute Law is often challenged in Court; it's called a Judicial Review. Basicly you argue that a Minister has misapplied the Law (like the West Coast line franchise). How on earth you can argue that it is right for a Government to ignore the wishes of 84% of the population is beyond me; you appear to be apologising for dictatorship.

It is not necessary to read all the various European Treaties and 'Directives'. Most of the Treaties have in any case been broken by the EU itself. At the very beginning of the euro they said there would NO bailouts... They make up the 'rules' as they go along which amounts to saying that there are no rules. They claim that you have to be democratic to join the EU yet the very people who propose all eu 'rules' are NOT elected. All this is done on the unspoken threat that to do anything different will bring about another war in Europe... So if Greece leaves the euro Germany is obliged to invade Poland? Far from preventing another war in Europe by flying in the face of the democratric will of the majority of European peoples they laying the grounds for a future conflict.

You can ignore the people only so long. The danger is clear and the clock is ticking.

[Kralizec]

Governments interpretation of Statute Law is often challenged in Court; it's called a Judicial Review. Basicly you argue that a Minister has misapplied the Law (like the West Coast line franchise). How on earth you can argue that it is right for a Government to ignore the wishes of 84% of the population is beyond me; you appear to be apologising for dictatorship.

Crucial point: misapplied the law. The law itself, as enacted by parliament, is sacrosanct. There's no standard that acts of parliament ahve to adhere to.

[SoFarSoGood]

Not so with Europe... Treaties are broken time and again but of course we cannot unelect the unelected.

[Conradus]

Crucial point: misapplied the law. The law itself, as enacted by parliament, is sacrosanct. There's no standard that acts of parliament ahve to adhere to.

The UK has no constitutional control on their laws? Ow, no constitution?

It is not necessary to read all the various European Treaties and 'Directives'. Most of the Treaties have in any case been broken by the EU itself. At the very beginning of the euro they said there would NO bailouts... They make up the 'rules' as they go along which amounts to saying that there are no rules. They claim that you have to be democratic to join the EU yet the very people who propose all eu 'rules' are NOT elected. All this is done on the unspoken threat that to do anything different will bring about another war in Europe... So if Greece leaves the euro Germany is obliged to invade Poland? Far from preventing another war in Europe by flying in the face of the democratric will of the majority of European peoples they laying the grounds for a future conflict.

The European Parliament is elected. The European Commission isn't, but then again no goverment in the EU is elected by the public. You elect the Parliament which will in turn appoint a group of ministers (most of the times those who won the elections, but that's never been a conditio sine qua non).
If you disagree with an Eu-act, you can always challenge it in front of the Court of Justice.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

At the risk of sounding elitist: EU treaties are preceded by intricate, lenghty negotiations. While I think that every adult should be able to vote on his or her representatives, I don't think that the average bloke has either the intelligence or the knowledge to make an informed judgement about these treaties. Or any treaty at all, frankly. The Irish voted down the Lisbon treaty and only voted for it after they got promised all sorts of opt-outs and garantues. That is simply not a workable way to do things in a union of 27 member states.

I don't think it matters - if you can't explain the treaty to the people who elected you it's too complex. The Irish voted the treaty down, yes, but it wasn't popular in Britain, France, or the Netherlands either. The UK is one of the largest countries in the EU - how many rejections makes the difference between "a few people spoiling it" and "lacks popular support"

Anyway - the key point is that if these treaties had been explained to the Germans and put to a vote, they might not have got through, and if they had then Merkel et. al would have the authority to insist Germany support the rest of Europe.

I'm not opposed to holding referendums, but they should be about EU membership, with a simple yes or no. I could agree to a two-speed Europe; but it's simply not fair that a single member state who refuses gets to stop the entire process for everyone.

So, just because a country doesn't like the current treaty, they should either leave or be thrown out?

If that principle was applied EU membership would fluctuate wildly.

The UK has no constitutional control on their laws? Ow, no constitution?

No - no Constitution, the Parliament cannot be bound - except by the sovereign

The European Parliament is elected. The European Commission isn't, but then again no goverment in the EU is elected by the public. You elect the Parliament which will in turn appoint a group of ministers (most of the times those who won the elections, but that's never been a conditio sine qua non).
If you disagree with an Eu-act, you can always challenge it in front of the Court of Justice.

It is the Commission that originates ALL legislation, which makes the parliament a rubber stamp revising chamber. In the UK, we elect the body that originates the legislation, provides the executive, etc. and the revising chamber is appointed.

[Fragony]

I thought your point was that all the laws signed by your monarchs were unconstitutional. That is clearly not the case. So I don't really know what point you're making except that the Dutch Royal Family isn't related to Willem De Zwijger. Which doesn't matter according to your constitution.

Yes it really does

[Conradus]

No - no Constitution, the Parliament cannot be bound - except by the sovereign

I can see where some problems come from then. Here in Belgium we have a Constitution to which every law can be compared by any judge (and a very specific Court). EU-legislation takes on the aspect of 'constitutional laws', meaning they surpass our national laws in most cases, yet they too have to uphold certain principles.
How does that binding the Parliament by the sovereign works?

It is the Commission that originates ALL legislation, which makes the parliament a rubber stamp revising chamber. In the UK, we elect the body that originates the legislation, provides the executive, etc. and the revising chamber is appointed.

Ever since Lisbon that's not true anymore. Parliament can come up with proposals of legislation and effectively block any proposal from the EC.

Yes it really does

How then? Your article 24 clearly states the monarchs have to be related to Willem I. Now if you could prove they aren't related to him, you might state that your monarchy is unconstitutional. What does the other Willem have to do with it?

[Fragony]

Nope, the constitution of the nation-state of the Netherlands is not the same thing as the statutes of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Dutch queen's position is inconstitutional because she has less royal blood than the cheese-royale at the Burger King. She knows that perfectly well and that is why she furiously refuses any DNA tests.

[SoFarSoGood]

Ever since Lisbon that's not true anymore. Parliament can come up with proposals of legislation and effectively block any proposal from the EC.

The Parliament cannot innitiate new legislation; only the commission can. Ask your Euro MP.

[Conradus]

The Parliament cannot innitiate new legislation; only the commission can. Ask your Euro MP.

Yeah sorry about that I was mixing some things up. They still have veto powers in the ordinary procedure though.

[Conradus]

Nope, the constitution of the nation-state of the Netherlands is not the same thing as the statutes of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Dutch queen's position is inconstitutional because she has less royal blood than the cheese-royale at the Burger King. She knows that perfectly well and that is why she furiously refuses any DNA tests.

Can you please come with any coherent explanation/sources/whatever for this? Because I really can't see what your point is. What are those statutes and why is your queen's position unconstitutional? If she is a descendent of Willem I, she is your constitutional queen. But you're saying she isn't connected to a previous Willem which doesn't matter according to your constitution.

What I get so far is this:

Beatrix is an unconstitutional queen.
She's unconstitutional because she's not related to the original Orange-Nassau family.

But your constitution does not demand she'd be related to that family, she only has to be a lawful descendant of your first king. So you have to argue that she's not. But that has never been your point?

[Kralizec]

I think Frag is talking about the "Statuut voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden". The Netherlands has its own constitution, but for the entire kingdom (including those islands in the Antilles) there is the Statute.

Even so, there's nothing special in there. It defines the King/Queen as Juliana and her successors, because the Statute was created after WW2.

The Parliament cannot innitiate new legislation; only the commission can. Ask your Euro MP.

Even in national parliaments the vast majority of proposals come from the government/executive. Most of the proposals from lone MP's end in failure, at least over here - either being rejected or rendered obsolete because the government launches its own proposal to compete with it.

That said I agree it should be possible.

[Conradus]

Never heard of that Statute before but it makes sense.

[Fragony]

Kewl, extremist party's in Greece are on the rise, the international-socialism knows, for a fact, that the international-socialism is the answer. Nigel Farrage might be hated in the EP because he understands things better than a Flemish ferret who looks like an owl who just fell from his tree, his Portugese waitor and a German booksalesman. Oh so easily just dismissed and even fined because he understands things better than a Flemish ferret who looks like an owl who just fell from his tree, his Portugese waitor and a German booksalesman

[Sarmatian]

I don't think it matters - if you can't explain the treaty to the people who elected you it's too complex. The Irish voted the treaty down, yes, but it wasn't popular in Britain, France, or the Netherlands either. The UK is one of the largest countries in the EU - how many rejections makes the difference between "a few people spoiling it" and "lacks popular support"

Anyway - the key point is that if these treaties had been explained to the Germans and put to a vote, they might not have got through, and if they had then Merkel et. al would have the authority to insist Germany support the rest of Europe.

This is a fair point. Too many dictatorships have used the "we know what's best for the people" mantra, but it is also true that people never think long term and that they loathe to give up something now even though they will get more of it in the future. Kind of like asking the Greeks whether they want those extreme saving measures on the referendum - now, irrespectively of why it happened in the first place and who's to blame, the only way forward is saving now and more money in the future when the economy recovers. If you actually ask the people, they're gonna say NO overwhelmingly so the only way to do it is not to ask people.

It's a fine balance. Another example could be British involvement in Iraq. Invading another country and putting British lives at stake, with or without official declaration of war, is a very serious matter, something that may not have gotten support from the electorate if it was put to a vote, but the government went ahead and did it anyway.

[SoFarSoGood]

Yeah sorry about that I was mixing some things up. They still have veto powers in the ordinary procedure though.

The European Parliament is basicly like Ireland that if it says 'no' once, twice, even three times, continues to be presented with same basic law with minor changes to get a few more 'onside' until it passes, after which of course it does not have the power to repeal the law.

[Conradus]

That's a very cynic view imho. Too cynic for me. And the same argument can be made about national parliaments in our current democracies.

[SoFarSoGood]

No because back bench legislation is made... If the vote had been for a referendum on Europe it would have happened even though the Government did not support the motion.

[Conradus]

Here, if the goverment doesn't want something, there's little chance it'll ever get through parliament.

[Kralizec]

The European Parliament is basicly like Ireland that if it says 'no' once, twice, even three times, continues to be presented with same basic law with minor changes to get a few more 'onside' until it passes, after which of course it does not have the power to repeal the law.

Got any examples?

They can make their own amendments.