Euro Area

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

Yeah... invading Iraq.

See - lack of public support, didn't go well.

[SoFarSoGood]

Well I had briefest of searches for examples on these 'ammendments' and guess what?

"In March last year, MEPs voted to try to save at least some money by cutting the number of visits to the French city of Strasbourg to 11 a year. The man who suggested the move, Tory MEP Ashley Fox, said it would save almost £12million a year and cut down on emissions of carbon dioxide, which the vast majority of scientists believe are causing global warming.

But yesterday, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, a senior official, said that the move would breach EU treaties. Judges from the ECJ will make a final judgment in October."

[Conradus]

Of course your amendments can't go against the original Treaties. And to assure that, there is judicial control. It's pretty common in any country that has a constitution (or any set of laws that are considered above normal laws)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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?

Let me answer this by example - in 2010 Parliament (the Commons and Lords together) passed a Bill which fixed the term of the Commons to Five Years, after which Parliament would be disolved and elections called - the monarch signed the Bill into Law.

So - not the Commons are elected every five years (unless certain circumstances are met) but the next parliament can (and quite possibly will) repeal this law by introducing a new Bill of repeal, which the monrach can sign into Law.

We have a Constitution - and the Constitution says that we cannot pass a Law which binds a future Parliament. It is theoretically impossible for the United Kingdom to ever have a Constitution.

Ironically, this does not pertain to our former Colonies because their Constitutions were passed by as higher body, in westminster, so their governments can be bound.

Of course your amendments can't go against the original Treaties. And to assure that, there is judicial control. It's pretty common in any country that has a constitution (or any set of laws that are considered above normal laws)

You have to wonder though - how could visiting one particular city less often violate an EU treaty if it were properly framed.

[Fragony]

Of course your amendments can't go against the original Treaties. And to assure that, there is judicial control. It's pretty common in any country that has a constitution (or any set of laws that are considered above normal laws)

Can, that is exactly what Germany is doing with the ESM treaty, investigating if it's against their constitution. If so they can reject it.

[gaelic cowboy]

Let me answer this by example - in 2010 Parliament (the Commons and Lords together) passed a Bill which fixed the term of the Commons to Five Years, after which Parliament would be disolved and elections called - the monarch signed the Bill into Law.

So - not the Commons are elected every five years (unless certain circumstances are met) but the next parliament can (and quite possibly will) repeal this law by introducing a new Bill of repeal, which the monrach can sign into Law.

Why would they bother though?? sure it's only fixing the length of a Parliment, the government can still decide to go to the people sooner if they so wish.

We have a Constitution - and the Constitution says that we cannot pass a Law which binds a future Parliament. It is theoretically impossible for the United Kingdom to ever have a Constitution.

We have the same and we wrote it ourselves that's why we had to have a referendum for the ESM treaty.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why would they bother though?? sure it's only fixing the length of a Parliment, the government can still decide to go to the people sooner if they so wish.

Not without either repealing said law or getting a 2/3 majority in the Commons - which is different to Tony waking up one morning and thinking the poll numbers look good.

We have the same and we wrote it ourselves that's why we had to have a referendum for the ESM treaty.

The difference being, of course, that because we have no fixed Constitution there is nothing to alter in the face of the EU, which allows the government of the day to avoid referenda.

[gaelic cowboy]

Not without either repealing said law or getting a 2/3 majority in the Commons - which is different to Tony waking up one morning and thinking the poll numbers look good.

Eh?? not sure I understand you here are you saying a Parliment cannot be disolved inside a 5 yr term

If Parliment can be dissolved then surely the law merely sets a maximum length which has historically been fuzzy in the UK.


NB maybe misstook my use of the term go to the people over here it means to have an election.

If Clegg wakes up one morning and decides to pull out of government then Cameron can only continue as a minority government, which likely means an election.

Even if you couldn't dissolve parliment on your own it will be no problem to get the 2/3 majority to dissolve a parliment as the opposition will vote for it too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eh?? not sure I understand you here are you saying a Parliment cannot be disolved inside a 5 yr term.

That's correct - without a 2/3 majority in a Commons vote it is no longer possible to dissolve Parliament inside the 5 year term.

[gaelic cowboy]

That's correct - without a 2/3 majority in a Commons vote it is no longer possible to dissolve Parliament inside the 5 year term.

But sure the opposition will vote for an election so you will easy have the votes taking the government and opposition together.

[Conradus]

What's the problem with that? Our regional (Flemish) parliament can't be disbanded either. They have to sit their term of 5 years. It creates some kind of stability at least.

[Fragony]

What's the problem with that? Our regional (Flemish) parliament can't be disbanded either. They have to sit their term of 5 years. It creates some kind of stability at least.

I thought they had to form a governemt without hauling shoes at eachother in 5 years

[gaelic cowboy]

What's the problem with that? Our regional (Flemish) parliament can't be disbanded either. They have to sit their term of 5 years. It creates some kind of stability at least.

Because the government may need a new mandate if they were to enact something very radical.

It's not enough just having the votes in Parliment is it, the last Fianna Fail government should have called an election before anyone signed the bailout treaty.

if your system is not stable due to too many election then it's the voters fault for voting in weak politicians.

[Cecil XIX]

First Scotland, then Catalonia, now Venice.

As reported, Venetian independence enjoys a 70% approval rating.

[SoFarSoGood]

The point is that any law made at Westminster (5 year electoral cycle or anything else) can be repealed in future. No law can be passed that is binding on future Governments or Houses of Parliament. In Europe the opposite is the case; the process is "irreversible", which a. insane as different times call for different solutions and b. undemocratic.

[SoFarSoGood]

Seems even 'Dave' Camerons MPs 'get it' now...: "Nothing he (Cameron) says on Europe is going to be believed. The promises that this time he is really going to kick butt on the EU budget are just window-dressing,” says a Tory MP. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...year-itch.html

[Fragony]

Happy ESM-day! First day 7.600.000.000 byebye

[Greyblades]

Happy ESM-day! First day 7.600.000.000 byebye

7.6 Euros? That's not so bad.

[Fragony]

7.6 Euros? That's not so bad.

With interest! My devious plan, screw back the EU. Have a bankrun in the Netherlands, the ESM will have to recapitalise our banks, than we deposit it back an leave the EU.

I kinda feel smart

[Furunculus]

the man with the (wolfson) plan is back with more;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...etter-off.html

[Conradus]

The point is that any law made at Westminster (5 year electoral cycle or anything else) can be repealed in future. No law can be passed that is binding on future Governments or Houses of Parliament. In Europe the opposite is the case; the process is "irreversible", which a. insane as different times call for different solutions and b. undemocratic.

I take it any law is binding your future governments unless they decide to revoke it. Otherwise you'd have to pass every previous law again when you elect a new House.

Where is it specified that the EU can't make a regulation/directive/... which annuls/revokes/changes a previous one. Cause I've seen lots of changes to EU-law already.

[Kralizec]

The point is that any law made at Westminster (5 year electoral cycle or anything else) can be repealed in future. No law can be passed that is binding on future Governments or Houses of Parliament. In Europe the opposite is the case; the process is "irreversible", which a. insane as different times call for different solutions and b. undemocratic.

The only example I can think of an "irreversible" limit on what a country's government/parliament can do is the German constitution. There's a clause that Germany is a federal republic and always will remain so. (arguably, there historically was a way to legally get around that too, but that's a little to in depth to explore here)

There may be other examples, but they're not the norm. Generally speaking constitutions can be amended by a special procedure: qualified majorities, ratified by two successive parliaments, etc.

It is arguably more "democratic" in one sense to give whatever party has 50% +1 votes in the elected assembly a free check to do whatever they please. But I know which I prefer.

I take it any law is binding your future governments unless they decide to revoke it. Otherwise you'd have to pass every previous law again when you elect a new House.

Where is it specified that the EU can't make a regulation/directive/... which annuls/revokes/changes a previous one. Cause I've seen lots of changes to EU-law already.[/QUOTE]

Regulations and directives can be changed and revoked. They can't, however, go against the treaties that established the EU. I'm a little puzzled at what SoFarSoGood is complaining about here. He pointed out earlier that the ECB buying up government bonds on the secondary market is a violation of the treaty. I don't agree on it being an actual violation, but it does make me somewhat uneasy because it goes against the intent of the treaty. Apparently violations are only bad when he doesn't agree with the action.

(I agree that it's a dumb tradition to have the EP gather both in Strassbourgh and Brussels so many times a year, but it's a dumb idea that's inshrined in the treaties and therefore should be respected)

[Conradus]

Regulations and directives can be changed and revoked. They can't, however, go against the treaties that established the EU. I'm a little puzzled at what SoFarSoGood is complaining about here. He pointed out earlier that the ECB buying up government bonds on the secondary market is a violation of the treaty. I don't agree on it being an actual violation, but it does make me somewhat uneasy because it goes against the intent of the treaty. Apparently violations are only bad when he doesn't agree with the action.

(I agree that it's a dumb tradition to have the EP gather both in Strassbourgh and Brussels so many times a year, but it's a dumb idea that's inshrined in the treaties and therefore should be respected)

Well yes, but that's quite normal isn't it? Here we have quite a lot of laws that form the foundations of the structure of our state that can only be changed by certain majorties/procedures. The EU has the same imo, only is the procedure for changing the Treaties much harder since reaching those Treaties was such a hard task. So I don't consider this a real argument.

[SoFarSoGood]

Regulations and directives can be changed and revoked. They can't, however, go against the treaties that established the EU. I'm a little puzzled at what SoFarSoGood is complaining about here. He pointed out earlier that the ECB buying up government bonds on the secondary market is a violation of the treaty. I don't agree on it being an actual violation, but it does make me somewhat uneasy because it goes against the intent of the treaty. Apparently violations are only bad when he doesn't agree with the action.

(I agree that it's a dumb tradition to have the EP gather both in Strassbourgh and Brussels so many times a year, but it's a dumb idea that's inshrined in the treaties and therefore should be respected)

So this 'irreversible' issue... Let me put it this way: Can Ireland have another referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? No... Once you've said 'yes' once it's 'irreversible'; and by the way it's not me that uses this word but the Barrusos and Rumpuys of this world who say the movement to single State is and must be 'irreversible', whether people like it or not apparently! Even if I 100% agreed that such a thing was a good idea I would have reservations about allowing a 'Government' that has not it's accounts signed off by auditors for 18 years to run such system.

Of course when it comes to changing the rules when it suits them they do it all the time... Under both Maastrict and Lisbon NO bailouts were permitted. Now the ECB proposes to buy government bonds on the secondary markets to any limit - once a country has surrendered it's financial sovereignty and of course surrender that and your vote to a 'national parliament' basicly ceases to count: The last Greek election was ONLY about electing someone to negotiate with the 'Troika'.

the man with the (wolfson) plan is back with more;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...etter-off.html

I don't think RB goes far enough in this article. Yes he's correct in his analysis that the fundamental problem is the unit labour cost variance between the euro member states. This is the reflected in balance of trade deficits for Mediterranean countries but the balance of trade variances are caused by the basic unit labour cost differences; a symptom of the disease. In a normal system this would be rebalanced in currency devaluations so German exports would become more expensive as the Greek currency devalued and Greek exports to Germany become cheaper etc... Alas they are 'glued together' by the euro so basicly unit labour cost in all the rest of Europe have to catch up with Germany. Even in France this amounts to a 20% reduction in wages. As Merkel said "Europe must discuss the growing differences in economic strength between France and Germany". (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...h-economy.html)

That is why Germany should leave.

[Fragony]

All northern countries should leave the international-socialism, for that Flemish ferret who looks like an owl who just fell out his tree, his Portugese waitor and a german booksalesman this crisis is a great tool to further the destruction of the nation-state

[Beskar]

I think Europe allows for greater regionism and getter control of areas by the people, instead of a enforced nation state. There is a lot less hassle and trouble gaining independence through a European framework. I don't think Scotland, Catalan, Scania, Venice, etc being far more autonomous and independent as a bad thing at all.

[rvg]

Scania too? What's their problem?

[SoFarSoGood]

I think Europe allows for greater regionism and getter control of areas by the people, instead of a enforced nation state. There is a lot less hassle and trouble gaining independence through a European framework. I don't think Scotland, Catalan, Scania, Venice, etc being far more autonomous and independent as a bad thing at all.

Seriously...? Well I presume you are serious so let me give some basic problems (without going into details).

1. The old addage "Divide and Rule" ring a bell?
2. This is a bit more complex so let's take Scotland as an example. If Scotland leaves the UK what currency does it use? The UK is a member of the EU but 'Scotland' as such is NOT. Legaly it must apply to join the EU (same would be for true Catalonia etc also). Now if Scotland apply to join the EU they are obliged to join the euro - but even the hairbrained Scottish Nationalists don't want to do that; they sensibly wish to keep the £. That though is NOT an option...
3. IF you are part of a Single European State you may have broken away from an "enforced nation state" but you are already in part of an 'enforced superstate'; out of the frying pan and into the fire! IT does not matter anymore! Your taxes and laws all come from Brussels and are mostly 'directives' which you have to obey. You vote means NOTHING regionaly because someone beaurocrat in Brussels dictates where your taxes will be spent. Did you elect him? No. Can you get rid of him? Well there may be ways that will occur to some but they are not 'legal'. Can your MEP do anything about it? Only refuse time and again what he is asked to vote on... so no. He cannot repeal any laws or create new ones. That's it pal... end game and LOSE for you.

[Conradus]

Yes, that sounds like a bunch of hogwash.

The UK inns apparently about 570 billion pounds in taxes. They give about 6.5-12 billion to the EU. (Depending wether or not you take into account the VATpercentage that the EU has a right to and the rebate Thatcher got for you) Yes, the EU is clearly dictating where your money is being spend.

Taxes are an area where the EU has no direct say. The only thing the European Union forces member states to do is not to discriminate other European citizens with your national tax system.

[Fragony]

Taxes are an area where the EU has no direct say. The only thing the European Union forces member states to do is not to discriminate other European citizens with your national tax system.

Wut, the whole idea behind it is that they do