President of precisely what?
Imagine drafting a controversial proposal. Among its key recommendations is a new job. With a mixture of persuasion and muscle the proposal is accepted. The job has an attractive title but it turns out there is little agreement over its precise role. So only after the signature pens have been put to paper do the real discussions begin as to how the job will be defined.
This is the curious case of the president of the European Council.
As European leaders expect the last country, the Czech Republic, to sign the Lisbon Treaty, attention turns to not just who will fill the post of president but what this person will actually do. The job spec, as laid out in the treaty, is spare on detail. The president of the council shall "chair it and drive forward its work". He/she "shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the EC".
It's all very bland, and on that basis you would not expect a stack of applications. It sounds like a post for a bureaucratic ringmaster. But then comes something a little more enticing and intriguing: "The president of the EC shall... ensure the external representation of the union on issues concerning its common and security policy."
That last sentence has been taken to define the post. The president will be the face of the European Union. He/she will raise its profile around the world. It used to be
said, apocryphally, that the president of the United States never knew who to call in Europe. Now he will. Europe would no longer be just a place "to fly over". It will have a president.
As the moment of decision draws closer it all becomes murkier. Firstly there are the big-leaguers like Sarkozy and Merkel. The French president is honest, suggesting that no one has decided what job it should be: "Should there be a strong and charismatic President or one who searches for consensus and organises the agenda?"
There is a big difference between the two. One will attract those, perhaps like Sarkozy himself, who can bestride the world stage. Angela Merkel seems less enthusiastic about having a big player out there. She inclines towards a "business manager" or a "referee". She is uncomfortable with a president who is a symbol of the EU.
And if the German chancellor is uncomfortable with a big figure, the little-leaguers are even more uneasy. Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands argue that the president should be someone from a smaller state. They fear the large countries carving out the role among themselves. Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg is stating his claim to the job on the fact that he's a little-leaguer. His opponents, diplomatically, brief that the whole point of the job is to boost Europe's clout on the world stage.
Then there is the simple equation of power. If someone's power increases, then usually someone else loses out. The president will replace the rotating presidency of the EU, currently held by Sweden. For many leaders the rotating presidency was time in the limelight and much savoured. Member governments will continue to take turns chairing ministerial meetings, but it won't be the same - particularly if there is a strong president who gradually becomes "president of Europe".
So, perhaps incredibly, after years debating what became the Lisbon Treaty, Europe does not know whether it wants a "strong, charismatic" president who symbolises the continent or a low-profile manager. The other will probably not. The job spec matters; one will attract more ambitious names like Tony Blair, the other won't.
There is another twist to this story. The other big job to be filled is the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security. He/she will be the global trouble-shooter. There are some who want this post to have more power than the president. It could well be that the EU "foreign minister" will, in reality, be the face of the union on the international stage. For as the haggling begins in earnest an old truth re-emerges that no-one likes to see their own power and influence weakened.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
As an anti-European, it will be gratifying to see Tony Blair get the job. After all, he's already messed up the country - he's messed up the Middle-East "peace process" - he'll now mess up Europe. And I suppose after that he'll be given a world role combatting climate change and he'll mess that up as well. At least he's very consistent. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
re the comment+spam @ #1:
Fortunately, for the EU, Blair is by no means a certainty for this position of "President of the European Council", for many of the reasons you mention, the exact same reasons why you want him to get this position! Anyway, in reality the position is all but meaningless (in terms of how the EU is run), being more of a figure head, unless/until the EU becomes a federal entity - by then an inadequate unpopular EU president will damage the EU no more than inadequate unpopular US presidents have damaged the economic position of the USA in the past...
Complain about this comment
The rotating presidency is only abolished for the heads of government (European Council) meetings, not for the council of ministers.
Complain about this comment
....For as the haggling begins in earnest an old truth re-emerges that no-one likes to see their own power and influence weakened.
*************
Gavin. That last sentence from your blog says it all really.
All the EU leaders have rushed in to sign the Lisbon Treaty, which is very specific about taking power away from individual Nations, and they now have doubts about their influence being weakened.
To me this only reinforces the view that Governments should have taken a lot more time to consider all the implications of Lisbon. Even giving their people a referendum if necessary. But no, so intent were they on being 'decisive' that they were blind to the fact - or ignored it - that Lisbon is only the next stage in the erosion of individual Nations ability to run their own Countries.
The EU is hell-bent on being the ONLY voice of signifance in Europe and it won't stop its power grabbing tactics until it has achieved that.
Complain about this comment
More nepostism, more jobs for the boys. The EU is full of failed labour politicians. Kinnock and Co. None have achieved what they were briefed to do.All they do is cost millions.Employ their families and probably clock up lots of air miles.In the private sector all these jobs would be perfermnace related. EU? it doesn't matter. Just keep producing unintelligable reports and protocolls. That's enough.
Complain about this comment
If Toady Blair gets the job it will be "no time for soundbites."
We'll feel the hand of Dubya on our shoulders.
Complain about this comment
So if (and I stress 'if') Blair gets the job, what do we expect next? A nice cosy number for Gordon Brown, with the promise that Blair will 'step aside' for him to take over in 30 months time? Now that would really scupper the EU for once and all!
Complain about this comment
May I just say to all the 'pro-EU' lobbyists who have been propounding the view that the European Union is the be all and end all of 'democratic' values and traditions: Should Anthony Blair, former PM of the UK, become the first official EU President, you will have got exactly what your deceitful, duplicitous, venal, corrupt, undemocratic EU deserves as its foremost representative.
For those of us who have long propounded 'anti-EU' views 'EU President Blair' will be the most exquisitely delicious irony of ironies!
Truly a match made in the Paris-Berlin-Brussels EUrocrat gallimaufry!
Complain about this comment
That Tony Blair becomes the EU president should be the dream of all anti-EU-minded people. He told the public that it is "absolutely certain" that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that they can be launched within "45 minutes". Only someone who wants to harm the EU can even think of someone who lacks credibility as much as Tony Blair becoming a EU president. While in Britain, Tony Blair is hated on the left and on the right, people still remember good and bad actions during his government (though his emphasis really seems to have been much more on propaganda and spin doctors that on real political action), but outside Britain, Tony Blair is almost exclusively remembered as Bush's poodle who lied about alledgedly conclusive evidence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to get some part of the population to support the war of aggression against Iraq, and therefore, outside Britain, the idea to appoint Tony Blair president of the EU seems even more ludicrous than in Britain.
Complain about this comment
- Those of us in favour of the cooperation can see how the nation states and their politicians are blocking the transfer of power to the bodies of the union. The opponents can only see the transfer.
Complain about this comment
The word president has no meaning unless president of what is defined. There is rather a big difference between President of the Little Wattling Golf Club and the President of the United States of America. The United States is unusual for a democracy in combining the roles of Head of State and Chief Executive Officer. In every country in the European Community the Head of State is either President of the Republic or King or Queen of the Kingdom. So far so good, it the CEO role that leads to confusion, Prime Minister in Great Britain, Chancellor in Germany, President of the Government in Spain. The last give rise to much confusion, particular the the USA.
The future President of the Council of Europe will be just that. His mandate will be restricted accordingly.
Whatever the EU is it is not a Federal State. No Federal State, no Federal President Blair or anyone else. So I agree with CalendonianComment but for the opposite reason.
Complain about this comment
In trying to define the precise role you are haggling over irrelevant details. Don't the roles of President vs. Prime Minister of Russia change as Vladimir moves around? Just sign on the dotted line and Tony will take care of the rest.
Complain about this comment
4. At 11:22am on 19 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
"....For as the haggling begins in earnest an old truth re-emerges that no-one likes to see their own power and influence weakened.
*************
Gavin. That last sentence from your blog says it all really."
Well obviously, do you truly think that President Bush (that is George Bush, not George W. Bush) liked loosing the second term of his presidency to Clinton. If you were told to take a demotion at work would you be happy?
Complain about this comment
5. At 11:25am on 19 Oct 2009, karsiyka59 wrote:
"More nepostism, more jobs for the boys. The EU is full of failed labour politicians...//..."
Chris Pattern anyone, a 'failed' UK politician (lost his Westminster seat), first given a plum job (as governor) in Hong Kong and then given a plum EU commissionaire job within the EU - this by the last Tory government, never mind all the other officials that the last Tory government sent to the EU...
Obviously the 'in-power' government will send it's own kin, that is hardly nepotism, just a political fact of life.
Complain about this comment
Blair & Brown gave up a big block of our rebate, and agreed not to hold a vote on the treaty.
Both actions i beleive were done to pave the way for either or both to become president
Complain about this comment
11. At 11:59am on 19 Oct 2009, MikeE-BCN wrote:
......The future President of the Council of Europe will be just that. His mandate will be restricted accordingly.
Whatever the EU is it is not a Federal State.............
**********************
But, by hook or by crook, it will be!!
Complain about this comment
12. At 12:00pm on 19 Oct 2009, Jim1648 wrote:
"In trying to define the precise role you are haggling over irrelevant details. Don't the roles of President vs. Prime Minister of Russia change as Vladimir moves around? Just sign on the dotted line and Tony will take care of the rest."
Much the same is true in the USA (and no doubt other countries besides), the predident can refuse to sign into law what congres has passed, and can use executive powers to sign into law what congres won't pass...
Complain about this comment
13. At 12:14pm on 19 Oct 2009, Boilerplated wrote:
4. At 11:22am on 19 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
"....For as the haggling begins in earnest an old truth re-emerges that no-one likes to see their own power and influence weakened.
*************
Gavin. That last sentence from your blog says it all really."
Well obviously, do you truly think that President Bush (that is George Bush, not George W. Bush) liked loosing the second term of his presidency to Clinton. If you were told to take a demotion at work would you be happy?
********************
Which begs the question, if you don't like the result, why sign up for it?
The reaction of some of the EU leaders really beggars belief. They prove that turkeys will vote for Christmas given the right bribes!
Complain about this comment
An unelected (by the people) President of Europe, sounds about right in our undemocratic world of today, after all in the UK we have an unelected PM and unelected Ministers with huge power and influence over the running of the country.
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments made @ #18.
"Zydeco", you do your 'argument' no good what so ever by resorting to libel and deformation. Of course if you have the evidence...
Complain about this comment
"So only after the signature pens have been put to paper do the real discussions begin as to how the job will be defined."
First the execution, then the trial.
Writing the EU constitution seems to be a process of "winging it." If the EU Presdient has power, it will be obtained through usurpation, the result of a conspiracy of those who demand that the central power be invested in an even tighter knit smaller more secretive group than it already is. And if he doesn't have power, it's just one more useless expensive job for the taxpayers to foot the bill for, another monument to Europe's ego.
As I've pointed out in the past, comparing the EU constitution or what passes for it in some nebulous conglomeration of treaties, edicts, and whatever other string, chewing gum, rubber bands, pocket lint, and Scotch Tape the Eurocrats can ball together (just like the UK's so called constitution) to The Constitution of the United States of America is like comparing a 747 carved out of stone by those who only saw one at a distance to the real thing. That lead balloon won't get even one inch off the ground.
Complain about this comment
20. At 12:44pm on 19 Oct 2009, Boilerplated wrote:
In reply to comments made @ #18.
"Zydeco", you do your 'argument' no good what so ever by resorting to libel and deformation. Of course if you have the evidence...
*****************************
The EU call them 'opt-outs' such as those given to Ireland to get their 'Yes' vote.
p.s. I take it you used 'deformation' deliberately. Or did you mean 'defamation'? The former actually sounds more appropriate.
Complain about this comment
I suspect President Tony Blair was part of the deal to sell Britain out over the rebate and other matters. We shall see. It would be... appropriate to the organisation.
Complain about this comment
21. MarcusAureliusII
Good post Marcus.
Why, I wonder, is it that sensible people can see what is wrong with the EU project, but others, such as those who lead their Countries can't or won't)
Complain about this comment
7. At 11:34am on 19 Oct 2009, Andy-in-France wrote:
So if (and I stress 'if') Blair gets the job, what do we expect next? A nice cosy number for Gordon Brown,.......
********************
Hmmm!. Food for thought there Andy. The EU have never had their accounts signed off by the auditors.
With Gordon's undoubted ability to muck up any budget, he might just be the ideal man to look at the EUs books.
Complain about this comment
#19. At 12:43pm on 19 Oct 2009, Oustnulabour wrote:
"An unelected (by the people) President of Europe, sounds about right in our undemocratic world of today, after all in the UK we have an unelected PM and unelected Ministers with huge power and influence over the running of the country."
What do you mean "these days", what you describe has been so for hundreds of years, we have never directly elected either PM or Ministers (or their respective shadows), all we have ever done is elect members of the public to be our political (parliamentary etc.) representatives, be that at Parish, local, county council, Westminster or EU level...
Complain about this comment
The euro sceptic bile masquerading as informed comment on this page is beyond despair. THe UK needs to be involved in the political construct of Europe because it is our closest neighbour and our biggest trading partner. It, as a block, will have a set of treaties covering how it does business in the future and even if we are outside it - if we removed ourselves- it could force us to prove that we are behaving in a way it finds acceptable - ipso de facto - be in it to try and have an influence, in fact try and lead the debate.
The Lisbon treaty is very little more than the cobbling together of a whole variety of previous agreements - pretty much as MA describes above. The position of president is pretty much a ceremonial one, trying to bring whole group of nations together in the same direction, but with little power. So Tony Blair may well be a very good candidate as someone who can get a whole load of people to think they are all agreeing to the same thing when really they are not. However what is unclear is the extent to which his support of George Bush, rather than sticking with the old Europe line has damaged his chances. It is also difficult to call if the smaller newer states think he is great because of his alliance with the US.
Finally of course is the UK's inherent arrogance in thinking the whole world revolves around us. For all we know there may well be a whole bunch of more appropriate politicians in other countries which we simply never hear of in the UK.
My guess however is that most politicians are politicians because of an inbuilt need to be loved, to be loved they need to be centre of attention, if someone could have a bigger personality than them, and detract attention, I don't think they would vote for him. So my money would be on a quiet Swede or Latvian.
So thats it then you will be seeing a lot more of Tony.
Complain about this comment
#22. At 1:17pm on 19 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
[in reply to the comment @ "20.]
"The EU call them 'opt-outs' such as those given to Ireland to get their 'Yes' vote."
So we will take that as meaning that you have no evidence...
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments @ #25:
"Food for thought there Andy. The EU have never had their accounts signed off by the auditors."
Nor has that discredited auditor [1] managed to prove any wrong doing, the only issue she seems to have been able to lay her finger on is the computer software used by the EU, well if using that brand of software means that by definition any accounts produced on it can't be signed off, should not be signed off and that fraud has or is highly likely to have taken place then many companies the world over are in the same boat - if not worst, should their accounts have been signed off!
[1] This is the same person who, believes that the UK should leave the EU, thus removing it's self from the EU law that allows people from any EU member state to work in any other member state (without the need for visas and permits), so how come she is a MEP for the UK and not her native country - total hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
@21. At 1:16pm on 19 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII
What you and other British eurosceptic hysterics don't seem to grasp is that the so called 'Eurocrats' don't have a say in all this.
Who wrote the treaty in the IGC?
Representatives of the Member States.
Who decides on the post of president of the European Council?
The members of the European Council by QMV (hence again the Member States).
Newsflash:
Your Empire has collapsed and you no longer rule the waves. In the 21st century you are a small country. Time to get a reality check, get in line with the rest of the EU (no opt outs, rebates, special unmerited treatments) or get out of the Union. Oh wait, you tried that with the EFTA and afterwards you guys begged to get in the EEC!
Complain about this comment
#27. At 1:50pm on 19 Oct 2009, balancedthought wrote:
"Finally of course is the UK's inherent arrogance in thinking the whole world revolves around us. For all we know there may well be a whole bunch of more appropriate politicians in other countries which we simply never hear of in the UK.
I doubt that any eurosceptic would get very good odds against that statement in any bookmaker taking political bets, it's all but a given!
Complain about this comment
#21 MA II Marcus, for once I find myself totally in agreement (rather than disagreement) with you. Good post!
Complain about this comment
"The euro sceptic bile masquerading as informed comment on this page is beyond despair. THe UK needs to be involved in the political construct of Europe..."
What construct? Are you referring to the transfer of wealth from the relatively more affluent Western European nations that are hanging on to the edge of the cliff by their fingernails to the newer Eastern European members that have already fallen over the side to cobble together a safety net so that they don't crash at the bottom completely now that the USSR is no longer around to do that for them? For what purpose? To create a new aristocricy that will be built on the egos of 500 million people who feel that they have created a political entity to challenge the USA which they have all been taught to hate?
There's much more to a society than numbers tallied in economists' and demographers' ledger books. There is a sense of place. That among other things is what I went to live in Europe for from 1972 to 1974 to experience, to feel its sense of place. Old, tired, tight, and downright gloomy, there was a pervasive sense of hopelessness about it that made me finally happy to leave. About four years later when I read Kafka's novel "The Castle" I kept thinking, I know this place. I've been to this place. I've breathed its air. I've tasted it first hand. Perhaps that's what the French students were rebelling against in 1968. But like all youth rebellions, time and life corrupted them and they became their parents, the very thing they rebelled against. That eternal truth has been observed at least since Roman times. No matter what the superficial trappings of the moment, Europe remains eternally Europe, there is no escaping that reality.
Complain about this comment
#30. At 2:13pm on 19 Oct 2009, Me_rijn wrote:
[in reply to something MarcusAureliusII wrote @ #21]
"Your Empire has collapsed and you no longer rule the waves. In the 21st century you are a small country. Time to get a reality check, get in line with the rest of the EU (no opt outs, rebates, special unmerited treatments) or get out of the Union. Oh wait, you tried that with the EFTA and afterwards you guys begged to get in the EEC!"
Just for the record "Me_rijn", the comment you replied to was from our American 'friend' (some would say troll), but funnily enough your reference to 'his country' not ruling the waves and being a small country any more is still spot on...
What some, outside the EU, might not realise is that (as a whole) the total population of the EU 27 is vastly more than that of the USA and that the GDP is greater;
Population
EU 2009 estimate: 499,794,855
US 2009 estimate: 307,737,000
GDP (PPP) 2008 (IMF) estimate
EU Total $15.247 trillion
US Total $14.441 trillion
Complain about this comment
rijn tin tin;
I am not British, I'm American. I am not a Euroskeptic in the sense you think. I'm not merely a skeptic at all, I'm already convinced. And it's not the EU I'm convinced about, it's all of Europe whether in the form of an EU superstate or in its current transitional from. I merely point out its inherent self contradictions and absurdities it deliberately refuses to acknowledge. The European pot has been calling the American kettle black for the longest time. This is a response from the kettle back to the pot. I don't claim there are any solutions to them, there probably aren't. But if there is a way out, the EU as it is evidently conceived won't provide it, it will merely compound the problems. The EU superstate papers over the real issues which go to the very core of the European mentality that is deeply rooted in a mendaciously romanticized past. The EU superstate as I see it is an effort to return to that past that never existed by creating what it imagines to be a Utopia. That Utopia will likely far more resemble Orwell's nightmare than anyone imagines. The UK already is putting in place enough TV cameras at a rate that will have them in every rooom of every building before much longer just as they were in Orwell's story. The EU IS Big Brother and he's also growing fast.
Complain about this comment
I said in comment #34
Just for the record "Me_rijn", the comment you replied to was from our American 'friend' (some would say troll), but funnily enough your reference to 'his country' not ruling the waves and being a small country any more is still spot on...
That should have read "......but funnily enough your reference to 'his country' not ruling the waves any more and being a small country is still spot on..."
Complain about this comment
35. At 2:54pm on 19 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"The EU IS Big Brother and he's also growing fast."
Funny that, many have said that of the USA...
Looks like a case of pots, kettle and mirrors on the wall, everything Marcuus makes out as being wrong with the EU can also be reflected back at his own country.
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn and #30..
It speaks volumes for your acutely unreliable and and unaware knowledge of what is or is not pertinent fact/reality concerning the UK/England and your beloved EU that you would mistake a Comment by an American, and Marcus AureliusII of all contributors, as being something written by a Briton.
I am sure the following from a Briton will be far more appropriate to your list of "..British Eurosceptics hysterics.." comments:
Re, ".. your Empire has collapsed..". No! Blow me! You mean the Colonies that almost no Briton under the age of 60 could have ever visited in their lifetime (Hong Kong being the exception and handed back entirely peacefully to China in 1997).
The remaining Colonial attachments use a fairly unique way of expressing their Political Free Will choice to remain inside the UK/England umbrella: This will be an unusual idea for an EU-lover such as yourself - - the remaining British Colonies VOTE to stay in (e.g. Gibraltar and even Northern Ireland is making a peaceful transition) - - it is called DEMOCRACY.
Re, ".. you no longer rule the waves.." Now come on! Are you suggesting Her Majesty's Royal Navy with its approx 70 ocean-going ships is NOT sending gunboats up the Orinoco?
Stop the press: You mean Great Britain has not launched a seaborne campaign since 1982 when it reclaimed the illegally occupied Falkland Islands for the people who had VOTED DEMOCRATICALLY to remain with the UK/England!
Re, "...time... reality check.. get in line with the rest of EU.. or get out.."
Sorry, but do you have a single DEMOCRATIC principle or are you like the EU itself just totally UNDEMOCRATIC?
The UK/England is in the EU as a full member: If within the rules of the EU the UK/England like Denmark, Spain, Sweden etc. is able to have some EU Regulations/Directives deferred or amended to suit its particular needs then that is also its DEMOCRATIC ENTITLEMENT - - we 'hysterical Eurosceptics' realise it is annoying that UK/England occasionally exercises some regard for the British Citizens, unlike the stagnant, unaccopuntable, undemocratic European Union, but that is something 'pro-EU' lobbyists such as yourself will have to put up with for so long as the rules allow.
Of course, you could do us all in a favour in UK/England, and lobby your MEP to support a British Referendum on Membership of the EU! That way we might actually have this issue resolved once and for all - - unlike your EU (e.g. see Eire compulsory 2nd referendum), on Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon (Constitution markII) I would go along with the DEMOCRATIC CHOICE/VOTE of the British Citizens - - a Referendum on any EU Treaty would be a really significant step toward convincing Britons the EU is not just a stitch-up by Paris-Berlin-Brussels of the entrepreneurial, financial and individualistic skills and talent of the 60,000,000 Citizens of 4 Union Nations of the UK.
Complain about this comment
BP;
You can put 27 small fish together and try to make them look like one big fish the way an ad for IBM that appeared on American TV some years ago did but in the real world it won't fool anyone. These fish aren't even of the same species, they just merely swim together. Your obsession with size is exactly the mentality I'm talking about. The US isn't rich and powerful because it is large, it didn't emerge that way full blown, it evolved into what it bacame because it was inherent in its nature, a consequence of how it was conceived and structured by its founding fathers. Their judgements and wisdom not only came from what they'd read by John Locke and other Europeans but was equally tempered by the uniquely American experience of surviving in an impossibly harsh, dangerous, unforgiving, endless wilderness and the reality of an overbearing tyranny they wanted to prevent from ever ruling their progeny. This is not the European experience. Europe cannot be and never will be a carbon copy of America. You can taste the oldness of Europe in the smoke and ancient earth of the terroir in Bordeaux wines which is why they fascinate. Their subtle flavors and aromas that can only be perceived after decades of maturation mimic the Byzantine intrigues and hidden plots that are perpetually played out in European politics. Perhaps the French are right after all about the concept of terroir but it goes to more than the land itself, it goes to the very people who now live and have in past millenia lived on it.
Lots of people in the past have bet against America. But it was John D. Rockerfeller I think who first said that anyone who bets against America will go broke. So far he's been right every time and if you listen to the conclusion of BBC's admittedly badly flawed series "America Age of Empire" that I think is still accessible on their site, that seems to be their conclusion as well.
Complain about this comment
#33,
MAII,
'What construct? Are you referring to the transfer of wealth from the relatively more affluent Western European nations that are hanging on to the edge of the cliff by their fingernails to the newer Eastern European members that have already fallen over the side to cobble together a safety net so that they don't crash at the bottom completely now that the USSR is no longer around to do that for them?'
Actually, you should be glad for that 'transfer of wealth'. It is in place to support the countries, which the US of A uses as radar and missile sites, and as 'allies' in Afghanistan/Iraq.
Since Uncle sam was very willing to 'bring democracy' to Eastern Europe and inplement his own economic model, perhaps it is time for him to reach in his pockets and help them, now that they are 'fallen over the edge'? Don't you think that the $1 billion for reconstruction, promised to Georgia by the EU, should in fact come from your Union's coffers? After all, it was your foreign policy which was the reason for Gerogia to require reconstruction.
Complain about this comment
Cue more hand wringing about loss of the special relationship with the US and even more tabloid nonsense about hoe the nasty foreigner EU president selling Britain down the drain.
On no hang on the next one will pssibily be a Brit. You know... the spineless lapdog to the US lunacy in illegally invading Iraq, rather than ooo I dont know giving the smackdown on Saudi Arabia where the real fundamentalist nutters came from.
European President? Pah! The man was too cowed to take on Murdoch and his europhobic tabloid attack drones and now, his former party are reaping the fruits of that supine faustian pact that has kept the British public hoodwinked with outright lies and disgusting xenophobia based on events that happened over 50 years ago.
In British advertising its is still ACCEPTABLE to refer to a german as a KRAUT. Thats the measure of the nation's psche when it comes to conntinental europeans.
They cant let this charlatan get the job. The president must be made to disavow their nationality and swear that he will act in EUROPEAN intrests only.
I can only imagine who intrest Blair acts. I cant imagine it was ever Britain's or Europe.
Complain about this comment
Please, Please, don't let Blair become President of whatever they call it now. He will turn it into a super state and have himself crowned as king and she as queen. Evil will stalk the Earth.
Complain about this comment
Blair shopuld be in the tower for treason not linked with the EU Presidency the mans a complete liability and has been proven to be a liar.
Complain about this comment
@ 11:
"In every country in the European Community the Head of State is either President of the Republic or King or Queen of the Kingdom. So far so good, it the CEO role that leads to confusion, Prime Minister in Great Britain, Chancellor in Germany, President of the Government in Spain."
Erm how about France or Italy?
Me_rijn:
Marcus idioticus 2 is just here because he got booed at too much in his American blogg. Everyone already hates him there too much so he jumped over here to make even more foes. Funny thing is that some eurosceptic british writers here usually seem to agree with him until he breaks up with them again telling them how useless Britain is and ever was to the US and that they should be sooooo grateful to even have a coast on the same ocean the US does etc.
Boilerplated:
"Just for the record "Me_rijn", the comment you replied to was from our American 'friend' (some would say troll), but funnily enough your reference to 'his country' not ruling the waves and being a small country any more is still spot on..."
Only some?? Are you kidding me? I don't own an encycloppedia with more than 5 volumes, but if you had a real one and the word "forum troll" was in it, I would seriously expect to see a picture of MI2 right next to it!
I think Mr Junker would be more suitable btw, actually nearly everyone would be more suitable than Tony Blair due to his anti EU history.
Complain about this comment
34. At 2:47pm on 19 Oct 2009, Boilerplated wrote:
#30. At 2:13pm on 19 Oct 2009, Me_rijn wrote:
[in reply to something MarcusAureliusII wrote @ #21]
....What some, outside the EU, might not realise is that (as a whole) the total population of the EU 27 is vastly more than that of the USA and that the GDP is greater;
Population
EU 2009 estimate: 499,794,855
US 2009 estimate: 307,737,000
****************
US 2009 estimate: 307,737,000 Most of them consider themselves to be American.
EU 2009 estimate: 499,794,855 Many of them don't consider themselves to be European.
Complain about this comment
38. At 3:33pm on 19 Oct 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
"Me_rijn and #30..
It speaks volumes for your acutely unreliable and and unaware knowledge of what is or is not pertinent fact/reality concerning the UK/England and your beloved EU that you would mistake a Comment by an American, and Marcus AureliusII of all contributors, as being something written by a Briton."
Why, unless "Marcus AureliusII" states that he is an American (in every comment) how would anyone know, especially considering that it was apparently "Me_rijn" first comment to any BBC Blog - again you fire from the hip without checking your facts, just like you do with anything EU...
Complain about this comment
41. At 3:39pm on 19 Oct 2009, Ford Mondeo wrote:
....I can only imagine who intrest Blair acts. I cant imagine it was ever Britain's or Europe.
**********
Blair has only ever acted in the interests of one T Blair. And will continue to do so.
Complain about this comment
39. At 3:36pm on 19 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"You can put 27 small fish together and try to make them look like one big fish
A bit like the USA does with it's 50 states you mean...
"These fish aren't even of the same species, they just merely swim together."
You do mean just like the USA!...
Might I suggest that you learn something of your own countries history before trying to meddle with others.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII makes a number of perfectly valid, if chauvinistic points about the U.S. v. Europe (old or new). But he misses the big point. Europe will be in range of the Iranian nuclear missiles long before the U.S. is. Therefore, the EU President will have much more importance than the size or importance of the countries, or the EU itself, otherwise would.
Complain about this comment
youisatinhorn;
"Don't you think that the $1 billion for reconstruction, promised to Georgia by the EU, should in fact come from your Union's coffers?"
NO! American taxpayers have wasted too much money on Europe as it is. YOU pay for it. BTW, the American radars and anti-missile missiles that would have been installed in Eastern Europe were cancelled just in case you were off in a cave somewhere and haven't been following the news for the last few months. If Iran launches a missile with a nuclear warhead at Europe, there will be no stopping it.
Complain about this comment
@35
No idea what you are rambling on about.
On the UK camera issue and the resulting EU big brother: If the UK (local?) governments are heavily investing in CCTV it isn't because of EU directives. So how in God's name can you deduce a EU Big Brother from that fact (if it indeed is a fact)?
@38
Concerning the first part of your comment: stop insinuating the EU works undemocratically and stop presenting nation states as heavens of democratic principles.
Stop and think about what democracy means. It is no end in itself, only a means. The institutional mechanisms to secure the real end we pursue are imperfect, both at EU level and at national level.
Re "Sorry, but do you have a single DEMOCRATIC principle or are you like the EU itself just totally UNDEMOCRATIC?
The UK/England is in the EU as a full member: If within the rules of the EU the UK/England like Denmark, Spain, Sweden etc. is able to have some EU Regulations/Directives deferred or amended to suit its particular needs then that is also its DEMOCRATIC ENTITLEMENT"
Again, you have a very poor view on democracy. And concerning your legitimate national interests which you are entitled to defend: which part of the following treaty clause don't you understand on your little isle "an ever closer union". It means that what we are accomplishing goes beyond the mere economic. It's not because you British managed to get the world 'federal' scrapped that the federal vocation of the project is lost. This was obvious before you joined, so you should have made up your mind in the 60's. Your EFTA experiment failed!
Re "Of course, you could do us all in a favour in UK/England, and lobby your MEP to support a British Referendum on Membership of the EU! That way we might actually have this issue resolved once and for all - - unlike your EU (e.g. see Eire compulsory 2nd referendum)"
No sir, if your nation state respects those 'democratic' principles as perfect as you claim, you'd have no need of interfering Europhiles!
Regarding the second referendum: the decision to hold it was an Irish decision, not a Brussels one. And those two referendums perfectly demonstrate why simplistic 'democratic' arguments don't work. The first referendum's outcome was negative: people voted against their national government. The second one's outcome was positive: the people think that by voting yes the economic crisis will end. Both times people voted, misinformed, because of false motivations. How can you defend this derailed manifestation of democracy? You can not.
Complain about this comment
Sara Phlegm;
"...until he breaks up with them again telling them how useless Britain is and ever was to the US"
What do you mean "until?" That's my first statement.
"...and that they should be sooooo grateful to even have a coast on the same ocean the US does etc."
Our top scientists are working on fixing that problem. They say it won't be much longer before they have a cure for it :-)
Complain about this comment
Ford Mondeo and #41.
Re, "...advertisements.. 'kraut'... still psyche of Britons.."
Sorry, must have missed the advertisement: Could you please point to an advert in the UK in the last decade that has referred to 'kraut' or any other National group in this victimising short-hand?
I am concerned because it is illegal to do so and I cannot understand how any such derogatory terminology could have got by the UK Advertising Standards Authority?
Such euphamisms have been part and parcel of the 'english humour', but even there, it is on the decline (incidentally, same humour on mainland Europe, e.g. gros boeuf of France etc.).
Complain about this comment
Zydeco;
"EU 2009 estimate: 499,794,855 Many of them don't consider themselves to be European."
Some consider themselves Pakistani...and they've never been closer to Pakistan than Bristol.
Complain about this comment
The last thing we need is a 'Wannabe Winston' like Blair.
Three wars in 11 years - Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Blair was so lucky in Serbia and Kosovo - in fact, it seems like it 'went to his head'.
What was the behind the scenes deal with Bush, if any (I'll say 'if any' so as to be extra nice for the BBC) for creating a story about weapons of mass destruction so that Blair could pay back USA for saving both the situation and Blair's reputation over a near disastrous Balkan crisis?
It seems we have already paid a high price for one with a massive ego - Can we really afford to pay any more?
I for one would like to see the inquiry into the Iraq war get under way and finished before we hear any more about 'you know who'
Complain about this comment
I don't think that the Germans or the French will allow Phony to be their president. Were that to be the case I will cease to believe in whatever remains of the European dream... and might consider Australia, if they let me join them that is!
Complain about this comment
56. findegorgorito
"and might consider Australia, if they let me join them that is!"
But Tony might follow you there! :-)
Complain about this comment
#45. At 3:58pm on 19 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
"US 2009 estimate: 307,737,000 Most of them consider themselves to be American.
EU 2009 estimate: 499,794,855 Many of them don't consider themselves to be European.
It doesn't matter 'two figs' what they consider themselves, it's what their Birth certificate says and what passport they get issued with that matters - anyway, even if there was no EU they would still be European, obviously geography wasn't your strongest subject at sckool "Zydeco"?!...
Complain about this comment
"Europe will be in range of the Iranian nuclear missiles long before the U.S."
It probably already is. If not this generation of Iranian missiles, then surely the next. The EU strategy seems to be to talk the Iranians to death. That strategy might work...if anyone were foolish enough to actually listen to the EU for any length of time, say more than a minute. I think talk both verbal and in print is by far Europe's number one product and it's number one export. You don't need missiles to get nuclear weapons to targets...when you have a worldwide terrorist organization like Hezbollah at your command. They'll find a way to get them wherever the Iranian government wants them to detonate. All it will take is a few to change the entire world as we know it. Meanwhile, the United States government sits on the sidelines watching the menace grow and doing nothing effective to slow or stop it...just as it did in the events leading up to WWII. The consequences will of course be the same just as Santyana said they would be.
Complain about this comment
One of the problems that I and I suspect many others in the UK have with the EU, is that it has been populated by too many failed, disreputable or incompetent ex-politicians. Mandelson, Kinnock etc and now Blair.
To me, this gives the impression of an organisation being run for the benefit of its politicians and not for the good of its populations.
Complain about this comment
#50. At 4:22pm on 19 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"NO! American taxpayers have wasted too much money on Europe as it is. YOU pay for it."
Typical USA policy, mess it all up and then walk away, they have done it in the Middle East, Asia, Russia, the Balkans and no doubt they will do it in both Iraq and Afghanistan - every time they just walk away...
Complain about this comment
@ Marcus idioticus 2
""...until he breaks up with them again telling them how useless Britain is and ever was to the US"
What do you mean "until?" That's my first statement."
Hmm may that be beacuse I stopped to care what claptrap you spread? (Unless announced to me sometimes)
""...and that they should be sooooo grateful to even have a coast on the same ocean the US does etc."
Our top scientists are working on fixing that problem. They say it won't be much longer before they have a cure for it :-)"
I see and as your top scientists have a long history of working on useless projects and wasting a shitlot of money on it such as landing on the moon, or those satelites that should destroy flying nukes with giant laser beams, I assume they'll come up with a solution in no longer than 10 years ;)
Complain about this comment
#38. At 3:33pm on 19 Oct 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
"Of course, you could do us all in a favour in UK/England, and lobby your MEP to support a British Referendum on Membership of the EU!"
Oh look, a europhobe has suddenly discovered a wish for a Federal EU, hypocrisy or what?!
Complain about this comment
Me-rijn and #51.
Oh dear, oh dear! Got caught out with your previous post (#30) and unable to substantiate it you develop another thread of points as is so typical of the 'pro-EU' lobbyists.
I do not have to "..stop insinuating the EU works undemocratically..": It is now 4 pan-European elections since the European Union Parliament managed to secure above 50% Voter Turnout - - at this year's election of MEPs the voter turnout fell to less than 45% - - across UK and mainland Europe no MEP was returned to Brussels with a Voter support above 35% as no Constituency in the elections (except compulsory voting nations, e.g. Belgium) attained even 4 out of 10 voters going to the ballot!
"Undemocratic"! It doesn't get much more undemocratic than that!
Eire Referendum: Sorry, but, did the EU abide by the first Referendum result? No! Did the EU decline a second referendum? No! Will the EU be offering a 3rd Referendum? No!
So, if the vote goes against the EU it is to be repeated but if it goes in favour it is set in stone! And that is your version of 'democracy'!?
I never did present "...nation states as havens of democracy.." You have just written that!
I did and do suggest that 'Democracy' operates much better at National than at supra-National level: I have challenged before and do so now for any 'pro-EU' lobbyists to explain how 1 Individual Citizen among 60million Britons or 49million English is going to be better represented by 750+ MEPS among 450,000,000 Citizens of the EU?
As for "... which part of 'ever closer union' do you not understand?" Well, as I understand it at present it is about the same as for those Danes, Spanish etc. with opt-outs, or for that matter, the Dutch, Swedish, Czech, Austrians who according to National opinion polls wanted a Referendnum on the Lisbon Treaty, but according to you it is the English alone who have misunderstood!?
I note that typical of the Federalist-EU supporter the idea of the European Citizens expressing their Free Will is confined to when it is suitable to the EU'S 'EVER CLOSER UNION': Do share with us exactly which part of the following you simply do not understand is the basics of 'Democracy':
People Have a Right and Responsibility to Express Their Views in a Democratic Ballot on a 'Union' that has fundamentally changed in every aspect of its relationship to the Political-Social-Economic-Police-Judicial-Military commitments over the last 27 years since Maastricht.
It is not for me to defend the indefensible which is clearly what the EU is by any yardstick of 'Democratic' analysis.
You favour the Citizen having the right to be told their place in society. I favour the Citizen having the right to choose their place in society.
To my dismay and chagrin it is your version that has prevailed: It will be to your and my children and grandchildren's unutterable misery that it will fall to them to oust this uniquely unequal Federal institution, with its Economic strait-jacket and yoke of centralizing authority based in Brussels.
This EU will end in tears because it is just the most recent version of Augustus Caesar, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Stalin etc. and Europeans will reject it in time: How much blood is shed is for history to determine.
Complain about this comment
54. At 4:41pm on 19 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Zydeco;
"EU 2009 estimate: 499,794,855 Many of them don't consider themselves to be European."
Some consider themselves Pakistani...and they've never been closer to Pakistan than Bristol."
Just as some (US citizens) consider themselves Chinese....and they've never been closer to China than their local Chinese take-out - your point was what exactly Marcus?
Complain about this comment
58. At 5:08pm on 19 Oct 2009, Boilerplated wrote:
#45. At 3:58pm on 19 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
"US 2009 estimate: 307,737,000 Most of them consider themselves to be American.
EU 2009 estimate: 499,794,855 Many of them don't consider themselves to be European.
It doesn't matter 'two figs' what they consider themselves, it's what their Birth certificate says and what passport they get issued with that matters - anyway, even if there was no EU they would still be European, obviously geography wasn't your strongest subject at sckool "Zydeco"?!...
************************
I'll ignore the 'defamation' slur and presumptions you make about my education. At least I had the opportunity to study geography - something that kids today don't get to do. Apparently Citizenship and Diversity has a higher priority than learning about the World in which we live.
I digress however. My passport says I am British not European. Once I have to give up my British Citizenship for Europeanship then I wil give up carrying a passport. Until then I am British not European.
That's why, referring to Marcus' earlier post about British born Pakistanis seeing themselves as Pakistani. Good. I respect their right, as I do , to acknowledge their origin and ancestry. Something I feel that the EU and the British Government would like me to give up.
Complain about this comment
BP Zoom;
"It doesn't matter 'two figs' what they consider themselves, it's what their Birth certificate says and what passport they get issued with that matters"
That's right. That's how al Qaeda sees it too. By being European citizens who have a legal right to be there and travel freely though it, it makes them far more reliable agents, far less likely to be pre-empted before they complete their missions.
"Typical USA policy, mess it all up and then walk away, they have done it in the Middle East, Asia, Russia, the Balkans and no doubt they will do it in both Iraq and Afghanistan - every time they just walk away..."
Again almost correct. The US did not instigate Georgia's policy, Georgia did that on its own against America's advice. But having America as an ally may have given them the hubris to effectively fight the Russian bear. Of course Georgia was being attacked in many subtle and some not so subtle ways by Russia before the US arrived so it's hard to say.
Yes in these other areas the US was almost entirely responsible all by itself, guilty as charged. For destroying the USSR. For engineering the creation and survival of Israel thoughtlessly preventing Europe's surviving Jews from being wiped off the face of the earth altogether by providing them with their own haven. For creating China as a modern industrial society overnight when it had been a feudal agrarian society only a few decades ago. Same for the other East Asian "tiger economies." For bringing an end to Serbia's reign of terror stopping them once and for all in Kosovo. For wiping out Saddam Hussein's regime and pushing the Taleban out of power. Against European perceived self interest and ego, America is guilty, guilty, guilty as charged on all counts... and most Americans are proud of it. Me, I'm just a spectator observing it.
Complain about this comment
64. At 5:34pm on 19 Oct 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
Me-rijn and #51.
************
Well said.
What Me-rijn and others seem to forget is tha Blair and Brown also supported a referendum for the UK, in fact they felt so strongly about it they promised we would have one! Until, that is, they realised that the DEMOCRATIC vote of the British people was going to give the wrong answer.
EU Democracy - an oxymoron if ever there was one.
Complain about this comment
59. At 5:10pm on 19 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"It probably already is. If not this generation of Iranian missiles, then surely the next. The EU strategy seems to be to talk the Iranians to death."
Whilst the right wing in the USA would have bombed (some of) them (Iranians) to death by know had it been left to them, never mind the fact that whole swaths of the Middle East and Europe would probably also have been consumed in the resultant war...
Complain about this comment
"This EU will end in tears because it is just the most recent version of Augustus Caesar, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Stalin etc. "
those nasty continental europeans again..will they ever learn...perhaps they can set aside their selfish national impulseses to try and dominate each other so that no one nation rules another and realise they share have to sovreignty and power that their lots is a common destiny...
Oh no hang on. Six of them initially figured that out in 1957. England on the other hand is still trying to figure it out. Fed on a diet of Zulu and battle of Britain they still have their backs against the wall a full years after the rest of them ended that nonsense.
Complain about this comment
#60. At 5:11pm on 19 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
"is that it has been populated by too many failed, disreputable or incompetent ex-politicians. Mandelson, Kinnock etc and now Blair."
On whose/what criteria have they 'failed'?
Oh, and don't forget to add the names of all the ex Tory MPs that have found jobs in the EU.
Complain about this comment
Sara Phlegm;
"I see and as your top scientists have a long history of working on useless projects"
Yes an utter waste. Transistors, Integrated Circuits, The Human Genome Project, the internet, personal computers, nuclear energy, the Salk and Sabin vaccines and other new drugs and medical treatments, color television, yada, yada, yada. How clever of us to get you Europeans to waste your time, energy, and money copying them when you could be off doing the kind of valuable things you used to do...like philosophising and making oil painting, buiding castles....oops, I forgot you still do build castles in the air...like the Millenium Dome.
BP Zoom;
"Just as some (US citizens) consider themselves Chinese....and they've never been closer to China than their local Chinese take-out"
Er....wrong Zoom. I see you've probably never met an American of Chinese heritage in your life. If you had and told the truth, you'd know that assimilation is 100% effective by the first generation born of foreign parentage in the US. We ourselves can't tell the difference because there is none. Only physical appearance and a name suggest where their ancestry came from...and not even how many generations ago.
Zydeco;
"That's why, referring to Marcus' earlier post about British born Pakistanis seeing themselves as Pakistani. Good. I respect their right, as I do , to acknowledge their origin and ancestry."
Some do a lot more than that Zydeco. They go to Afghanistan or Pakistan, train with al Qaeda, and return to execute a mission of terrorism against their own fellow British citizens. There's a name for that, treason. The correct punishment is death. But you can't impose a death sentence on someone who is already dead having martyred himself for Allah and Osama Bin Laden.
Complain about this comment
#8 ikamaskeip
As one of those pro EU persons who have been arguing the case for the Lisbon Treaty on various of Gavin's blogs I would like to record my absolute disgust at the thought of Tony Blair (Mr Bliar) being made president of anything. We had have quite enough Words of Mass Deception for a lifetime. It is an appalling error of judgment to put forward his name and I can only hope that the EU heads of state who have the final say will consign his choice to the poubelle.
I urge all of you UK nationals to email [Personal details removed by Moderator]
and record your opposition to this outrageous idea.
Complain about this comment
68. Zydeco
"....What Me-rijn and others seem to forget is that Blair and Brown also supported a referendum for the UK..."
Try asking these forgetful people if any original text out of the Constitutional Treaty made it into the Lisbon Treaty.
Not read a sensible answer yet.
Complain about this comment
In general...
The job of a president should go to a person...
a) that comes from a Eurozone country: shows positive commitment to EU integration
b) that comes from a small country: shows that this is not just about big countries
c) that comes from an ex-socialist country: shows that the transformation is done
With these criteria the person should come either from Slovenia or Slovakia.
Or then we could just elect the person by personal criteria purely which would be even better. If so, then for one thing is sure, Blair doesn't cut for the job, nobody who took part in the fiasco called Iraq can do that. "If you are not with us, you are against us" shouldn't be forgotten or forgiven.
To MarcusAureliusII (59):
And exactly why would the Iranians send nuclear missiles, or equipt terrorist with nuclear weapons, to strike Europe? We are not there, we don't hold a gun to their head, instead we have diplomatic relationships to them, we have trade and co-operation with them and tend to talk and discuss with them. Plus if they would nuke Europe, from where then would they get their luxury cars and other luxury products? The same goes with other middle-Eastern countries.
I would also add that Iran isn't a aggressive state. It hasn't attacked or threatened its neighbors. Actually, Iran has been quite passive if you remember some context, for example that British and Americans overthrew their democratic government in 50s and instituted the regime of Shah and of course western countries were arming and helping Saddam Hussein to develop WMD and US gave intelligence information to Iraq to aid them at their war against Iran. Against this context they have been quite peaceful.
I think we should let the Iranians short out their business by themselves and instead of threats, try build a meaningful, honest and respectful relationship with them that with trade, diplomacy and co-operation would benefit all participants.
Complain about this comment
#64 ikamaskeip
Splendid a rant almost on par with MAII
Complain about this comment
BP Zoom;
"Whilst the right wing in the USA would have bombed (some of) them (Iranians) to death by know had it been left to them, never mind the fact that whole swaths of the Middle East and Europe would probably also have been consumed in the resultant war..."
I'll bet that's exactly what Neville Chamberlain said in response to any proposal that would have pre-empted Nazi Germany with military force while it would still have been not only possible but relatively easy. As a consequence, whole swaths of Europe and North Africa might have been consumed in the resulting war. So aren't we fortunate that Chamberlain's cool calm negotiating talking skills avoided all of that mess?
Complain about this comment
#60 Zydeco
I would have to disagree with you there Peter Mandelson is generally felt to have done a very good job in his stint with the EU. So much so in fact that the French allowed him to negotiate for them after first saying that they didn't want him doing so. Not all politicians that go as commissioners are failed and on the 'gravy train'.
Complain about this comment
71. At 5:59pm on 19 Oct 2009, Boilerplated wrote:
#60. At 5:11pm on 19 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
"is that it has been populated by too many failed, disreputable or incompetent ex-politicians. Mandelson, Kinnock etc and now Blair."
On whose/what criteria have they 'failed'?
Oh, and don't forget to add the names of all the ex Tory MPs that have found jobs in the EU.
**************************
My largesse knows no bounds.
Failed, disreputable, disgraced politicians from all sides of the political spectrum..
Happy now BP?
Complain about this comment
74. At 6:05pm on 19 Oct 2009, rg wrote:
68. Zydeco
"....What Me-rijn and others seem to forget is that Blair and Brown also supported a referendum for the UK..."
Try asking these forgetful people if any original text out of the Constitutional Treaty made it into the Lisbon Treaty.
Not read a sensible answer yet.
************************
I've said it before but I'll say it again. The author of the EU Constitution, M. D'Estaing, said that the Lisbon Treaty was the same document. Repeated by the German Chancellor and the Spanish President among others. I presume they all knew what they were talking about.
Complain about this comment
#50 MarcusAureliusII
Those wonderful missiles of US design and that wonderful anti missile system never worked. The only time they managed to get one of them anywhere near target was when they adjusted the firing of the target to make it a sitting duck. The whole thing was a waste of money and Obama cancelled because of that. Which cave have you been living in Marcus?
Complain about this comment
Zydeco;
72. At 6:02pm on 19 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
66. At 5:40pm on 19 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
"That's why, referring to Marcus' earlier post about British born Pakistanis seeing themselves as Pakistani. Good. I respect their right, as I do , to acknowledge their origin and ancestry."
Some do a lot more than that Zydeco. They go to Afghanistan or Pakistan, train with al Qaeda, and return to execute a mission of terrorism against their own fellow British citizens. There's a name for that, treason. The correct punishment is death. But you can't impose a death sentence on someone who is already dead having martyred himself for Allah and Osama Bin Laden.
**********************
Point taken Marcus. My comment was made to establish the fact that everyone has a right to acknowledge their origins and ancestry.
Would they do as a result of or because of their background is obviously up to them. Some use it for good others for evil.
Complain about this comment
#41 Ford Mondeo
I won't even try to top that, perfectly put. Might be a good idea to send a copy of it to Glenys Kinnock. I won't put her email address on here. Tried that but the moderators weren't happy. It's easy enough to find though.
Complain about this comment
78. At 6:08pm on 19 Oct 2009, T1m0thy wrote:
#60 Zydeco
I would have to disagree with you there Peter Mandelson is generally felt to have done a very good job in his stint with the EU. So much so in fact that the French allowed him to negotiate for them after first saying that they didn't want him doing so. Not all politicians that go as commissioners are failed and on the 'gravy train'.
**************
Mandelson was kicked out of Government twice for 'dodgy' dealings. That makes him a disgraced politician. The fact that he then, according to you, does well in what some consider to be a 'dodgy' political arena should therefore be no surprise.
'Horses for Courses' springs to mind.
Complain about this comment
Ford Mondeo and #70.
Not another reference to ye old Englande...!
What the heck are you on about!?
My remarks to Me-rijn (#64 and #38) equally apply to you.
How can you suggest that UK/England is filled with people harping back to World War Two and worse... Rorkes Drift!?
How do you have the nerve to come on here and write as though only the Brits cannot move on? If your pseudo analysis of the British mentality is still stuck in the time-warp of Ealing Comedies and monochrome DamBusters films then for goodness sake get out more and stop watching those late night John Mills film-shows!
What about the rest of EUROPE?
It was the Polish PM who said Poland deserved more MPs because of its WW2 losses. It was France's Chirac said the "new countries" should "mind their place". It was Czech and Slovak who split in 2 despite their history. It was Netherlands and France that rejected the Constitution. It was Germany referred Lisbon to its Constitutional Courts... And so it goes on!
Nobody under the age of 60 in the UK knows anything except the basic history book version of 'empire' etc. anymore than under-60s French, German, Poles, Dutch etc. know about WW2 or 'empire'!
If you cannot come up with a logical, rational, 'modern' argument for Britons accepting membership of the EU then you are admitting it is not a good idea for the UK/England.
Yes, the 6 original Nations followed Schumann's lead and formed the European Coal and Steel Community and from it developed the Treaty of Rome: That is 50+ years ago and it is some 34+ years since G.B. Citizens were asked a direct question on the emerging European Union - - you cannot seriously be arguing that nothing has changed for Europeans, Britons etc. that need concern them since those momentous first steps to a Common Market of Trade?
I realise from your Comment that your understanding of historical development varies from mine, but surely, even you will concede 1 Referendum on the EU is not 'Democratic' or the proper way to conduct Political-Economic-Social-Judicial-Military development of European and British affairs in 2009-2010.
Complain about this comment
Juka Boxa;
"And exactly why would the Iranians send nuclear missiles, or equipt terrorist with nuclear weapons, to strike Europe? We are not there, we don't hold a gun to their head,"
In case you don't already know it...let me be the first to break it to you....they Iranian government doesn't like you. They especially don't like Britain. Not just for Salman Rushdi. Have you forgotten that just a couple of years ago they kidnapped 15 British Royal marines right off a British warship in broad daylight? They take every opportunity possible to make Britain look stupid and impotent. And they don't like the French if for no other reason than that the French oppose what their surrogates in Hezbollah are doing to Lebanon.
"instead we have diplomatic relationships to them,"
Is that what you call it? Europe talks, they ignore. I guess that is Europe's idea of diplomacy. It's not the result that counts, it's the experience of talking. Now where have I heard that before?
"we have trade and co-operation with them and tend to talk and discuss with them."
I'm sure Europe illegally circumvents any embargo with Iran just as it did with Saddam Hussin in Iraq. You don't have to tell me Europe is thoroughly corrupt. I was convinced of that a long time ago.
"Plus if they would nuke Europe, from where then would they get their luxury cars and other luxury products? The same goes with other middle-Eastern countries."
From Japan. Lexus is the equal of Mercedes and BMW. Much more reliable than Mercedes since the Chrysler fiasco too.
I would also add that Iran isn't a aggressive state. It hasn't attacked or threatened its neighbors.
Complain about this comment
It's funny, reading the posts of MarcusAurelius I find myself in agreement with so much of his analysis (the sentence "There's much more to a society than numbers tallied in economists' and demographers' ledger books." is particularly resonant) and yet come to precisely the opposite conclusion.
The economists, who seek to measure everything by giving it a monetary value; and the demographers who reduce people to statistics, are shaping a society without human values (no soul if you'll allow). But then, that is not a uniquely European process - and it is no less dehumanising that a society based on the ruthless and competitive pursuit of money.
For my part, I see something of value in the European (including the UK) model in which the state provides a social infrastructure in terms of a basic standard of welfare, health case education etc. However, there is also a challenge to prevent this becoming an open ended (and ever more expensive) commitment - and to prevent people taking it all for granted (and dropping out of gainful employment).
Whether we can strike this balance will depend, far more on whether we can retain a sense of non-monetary "values" than it will on whether we can "afford" to provide the necessary services.
For the time being this is not looking too hopeful.
Complain about this comment
To T1m0thy (81):
Actually the US missile defense system is still going on strongly. You see what Obama scrapped were the missile defense bases in Eastern Europe, which either because of technical, diplomatic or tactical reasons. Instead the US is spending money to develop and deploy both a laser based defense against ballistic missiles and a see fared missile defense system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System
Defense against ballistic missiles can be build and should be build. In some time-frame Europe, or the rather more likely, the future version of the European Union has to develop and deploy a missile defense system that will take care of the threat caused by our neighbors be it Russia, Israel or Iran.
Complain about this comment
#60 Zydeco. Has an excellent point why should I take the EU seriously when the national parties, regardless of country, don't send anyone serious to Brussels? It seems to me that the politicians use Brussels as the Bahamas, where they flee to when they're not popular at home (see Barrosso, maybe Balkenende if he gets the president job) or it's a Château d'If where politicians are exiled to by their parties.
Which is odd really, isn't Brussels the centre of power? And yet no popular politician wants to go there...
Complain about this comment
@ 72 Marcus idioticus wrote:
"Yes an utter waste. Transistors, Integrated Circuits, The Human Genome Project, the internet, personal computers, nuclear energy, the Salk and Sabin vaccines and other new drugs and medical treatments, color television, yada, yada, yada."
Neither the first transistor nor the first nuclear power plant was American. Since you seem to have made that list up I don't actually care to research on the rest just to prove you wrong there as well.
Transistor: Pantent went to Julius Edgar Lilienfeld in the year 1925 (austrian-hungarian)
Nuclear Powerplant: First built in Russia, second built in England and if you get started now that you thought of it first then you should probably go far further back to Antoine and Marie Curie who were both French if I am not completely wrong about that.
Well since all you produce here is utter nonsense, why do I even wonder that the "facts" you present are as well?
Complain about this comment
T1mothy:
"Those wonderful missiles of US design and that wonderful anti missile system never worked. The only time they managed to get one of them anywhere near target was when they adjusted the firing of the target to make it a sitting duck. The whole thing was a waste of money and Obama cancelled because of that."
Couldn't agree more ;)
Complain about this comment
66. Zydeco
"My passport says I am British not European. Once I have to give up my British Citizenship for Europeanship then I wil give up carrying a passport. Until then I am British not European.
That's why, referring to Marcus' earlier post about British born Pakistanis seeing themselves as Pakistani. Good. I respect their right, as I do , to acknowledge their origin and ancestry."
My passport identifies me as being from the European Union, and further designates me as a British Citizen. I'd rather not be a British Citizen, but the passport is pretty useful for travel.
Many Scots of Pakistani origin, identify themselves as "Scots of Pakistani origin" and are active in the SNP because they are also happy to see themselves as "European and Scots of Pakistani origin".
We are all allowed to celebrate our multiple identities, and seek the political structures which reflect them.
Complain about this comment
Jukka wrote something about Iran:
Their president denied Israel the right to exist! Not peaceful at all! (I initially wrote more but some weird profanity filter blocks it though there is not a single bad word in it :-/
Complain about this comment
Sara Phlegm. I guess Shockley didn't really invent anything. And the Curies discovering radium is from your perspective the same as designing and inventing a nuclear power plant. Indian point wasn't the first anything either then. That's what must appear in European history books.
You are right, the American ABM system as it has been described, hitting a bullet with another bullet won't work. The only way to have an effective ABM system that does work is for the interceptor missiles to detonate nuclear warheads of their own far enough away so as not to damage the incoming missile's intended target. The US had such a system planned in the 1960s, the Nike X system. Whether the current system actually would have small nuclear devices that have not been disclosed to the public for political reasons or whether American military scientists actully believe they can make their bullet hitting a bullet system work is unknown. Personally...I'd bet on the former. America loves nukes.
Complain about this comment
92. At 6:55pm on 19 Oct 2009, oldnat wrote:
.....We are all allowed to celebrate our multiple identities, and seek the political structures which reflect them.
****************************
Which is exactly the point I was making at *66. Each individual can use their origins, ancestry, birthright and citizenship in whichever and in whatever combination they choose. Long may that right remain.
My view, right or wrong, is that our individual national identities will eventually be taken from us in order to further identify us as Europeans.
Complain about this comment
Chris W that is far too sensible a post for this blog - you have to be raving with spittle or get caught up in an irrelevant argument to take part in this blog.
So on an irrelevant subject
For my part before we take part in a, Isn't Iran a dangerous nation rant, as a Brit you have to read up a bit on our (historically) incredibly appalling behaviour in that country. They should by rights never believe a word we say or trust any of our actions. I was amazed to find out that they even have an expression about us in their everyday life.
Complain about this comment
To Seraphim85 (93):
Ahmadinejad accepts Israel's right to exist
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/29/iran.israel.ahmadinejad
The speech...
"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world"
"The translation presented by IRIB has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". He says that the Iranian government News Agency IRIB/IRNA translation is the source of the confusion"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
I would add that regime changes in history have been common and in modern times regimes of those countries that have committed crimes against humanity have not been allowed to stay. In case of Israel there are lots of sins that would necessitate a change of regime, for example ethnic clenching of large number Palestinians when the state of Israel was created, various wars that have lead to millions being refugees, and keeping millions of Palestinians in occupied territories in practice without human rights.
The Third Reich was wiped off the map, and it was replaced by the FDR and GDR, both much better states than the Third Reich and first, FDR, is now one of the best places in earth for people to live. While I'm not suggesting to wipe out the state of Israel, I would suggest wiping out those causes that would necessitate replacement of the current Israel state with a better one: in essence stopping the occupation, either granting all Palestinians citizenship of Israel including refugees or withdrawing from the occupied territories to pre 1967 borders and letting Palestinians to create their own fully independent state.
Complain about this comment
"The economists, who seek to measure everything by giving it a monetary value; and the demographers who reduce people to statistics, are shaping a society without human values ..." (from chriss-w at #87)
This is a silly proposition. That objective science does not include human values in its equations does not mean that the (human) scientists who apply its results do not have human values.
Economics does not necessarily deal with monetary value. Suppose, for example, that one is interested in solving the problem of supporting human civilization with sustainable resources, i.e. getting along without fossil fuels. Evaluating the alternatives in terms of energy inputs and outputs is an economic problem:
economics of biofuels
Similarly, demographics is merely the science of documenting the characteristics of human populations statistically. It provides information. The data are reduced to statistics, not the people. The human values come into play in what use is made of the statistics, such as where to allocate resources to meet human needs.
I don't see how any policy maker could solve human problems effectively without accurate, objective data. People who think that humankind can solve its problems by merely "winging it" on the basis of an intuitive grasp of human values are ignorant fools.
Complain about this comment
Incidentally, Ford Mondeo and your #41.
Still awaiting the relevant example of a UK Advertisement from this decade using the word 'kraut' - - I will make it easier for you - - I will accept an advert as far back as say Maastricht in 1992!?
Or was that claim rather like your 'Zulu' reference? Just a rather silly and inelegant erratum about some 60million Citizens of whom many millions will never have seen, heard 'kraut', still less understood the comic content of 'Ello, Ello'!
Bet you did though.
Complain about this comment
Marcus idioticus wrote:
"That's what must appear in European history books."
Oh so wikipedia is now an European history book? Though I actually doubt that everything in it is pure truth it is by far far far (...) faaar more unbiased than Foxnews or whatever sources you may have to think the opposit. Probably an AMERICAN history book wasn't it? Well I heard they tell you americans invented the car as well - enough said!
Complain about this comment
While we are getting (as usual) somewhat far off the topic of the EU presidency, I get the impression that neither the U.S. right-wingers nor the European lefties grasp the current defense situation. The right-wingers are no longer in a political position to get anyone invaded anywhere for a long time. So the European lefties need not worry themselves about that at all. But Europe is now in the unprecedented situation of having to defend itself, if it chooses to do so. Simply objecting to the U.S. plans won't do it any more. It is a new game.
Complain about this comment
A Czech footnote in the LT is likely to be joined by a Slovak footnote according to media reports from Bratislava. Foreign minister Miroslav Lajcak says that the Slovaks are prepared to block the Czech opt-out from the civil rights unless Slovakia gets the same opt-out.
The background is that the Slovakia expelled Hungarians just like the Czech expelled Germans after WW2.
It is safe to say that the enlargement of the European Union with a large number of countries from Eastern Europe has added many new questions and unexpected characters to the cooperation.
I assume we should expect the leaders to solve the Central European problems on the meeting later this month. If they do not, it will not be necessary to deal with the outstanding questions on the political staff. Among these also Tony Blair so we might even expect a contribution from London this time. But Blair is of course long forgotten in this debate about everything and nothing.
Complain about this comment
The job title in the past was: Holy Roman Emperor.
Complain about this comment
#66. At 5:40pm on 19 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
"I digress however. My passport says I am British not European.
Were you born and are you resident in either one of the UK's protectorates or colonies were you are still entitled to a "British" passport, otherwise if you were born within the UK (that is England, Scotland, Wales or N.Ireland you are European. As I said you don't seem to have been very good at geography (or perhaps I should say geology) at school if you think Britain is not part of Europe!
"That's why, referring to Marcus' earlier post about British born Pakistanis seeing themselves as Pakistani. Good. I respect their right, as I do , to acknowledge their origin and ancestry. Something I feel that the EU and the British Government would like me to give up."
But if they were born in the UK they are British Europeans of Asian decent...
Complain about this comment
74. At 6:05pm on 19 Oct 2009, rg wrote:
"Not read a sensible answer yet.
Still lying then "rg", you have read many sensible and 100% correct answers, the problem is that you have not read what you want to hear yet. An important, if subtle, difference...
Complain about this comment
79. At 6:09pm on 19 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
[in reply to comments at #71]
"My largesse knows no bounds.
Failed, disreputable, disgraced politicians from all sides of the political spectrum.."
Oh right, so this was your personal opinion, not some expert political/journalistic judgement then?...
Complain about this comment
80. At 6:16pm on 19 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
"I've said it before but I'll say it again. The author of the EU Constitution, M. D'Estaing, said that the Lisbon Treaty was the same document. Repeated by the German Chancellor and the Spanish President among others. I presume they all knew what they were talking about."
...and I'll say this again, he would say that as the author of the failed constitution wouldn't he, considering that he wants to be seen as the Father of the modern EU. Last chance saloon for him and all that...
The fact remains, the Lisbon Treaty does not create a 'constitution for Europe'.
Complain about this comment
84. At 6:29pm on 19 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
"Mandelson was kicked out of Government twice for 'dodgy' dealings."
At least he wasn't jailed like a couple of Tories, one who still refuses to give his politically motivated peerage back...
Mandelson must be doing something right though, for a supposedly 'has been' politician the Tories don't half spend a lot of time and 'dosh' trying to rubbish him at every turn, and I say that as someone who has never particularly liked the man as a person!
Complain about this comment
95. Zydeco
"My view, right or wrong, is that our individual national identities will eventually be taken from us in order to further identify us as Europeans."
I understand your concern, but honestly it's just a crisis in your national confidence. We went through that too about 30 years ago.
Scotland has been part of a more Incorporating Union than the EU will ever be for over 300 years. If you hadn't noticed - we're still Scots!
Indeed in the late 20th century, we became more and more Scots as the UK Parliament interfered more and more in our internal affairs. There is a useful dynamic tension in a Union. While power naturally tends to accrete to the centre, centrifugal forces drive peoples to assert their individuality.
The reason that the UK will lose Scotland is that London dominated too much. The current devolution settlement was an attempt at rebalancing - but probably too little too late. If the EU followed the UK model, it will splinter and collapse - and rightly.
However, it is difficult to imagine any EU "central government" being quite so inept as the UK has been over the last 65 years in managing the tension between national identity and centralised power.
Hence the political balance tends to be
Complain about this comment
@64
Re "I do not have to "..stop insinuating the EU works undemocratically..": It is now 4 pan-European elections since the European Union Parliament managed to secure above 50% Voter Turnout - - at this year's election of MEPs the voter turnout fell to less than 45% - - across UK and mainland Europe no MEP was returned to Brussels with a Voter support above 35% as no Constituency in the elections (except compulsory voting nations, e.g. Belgium) attained even 4 out of 10 voters going to the ballot!"
Since when does turnout determine the democratic character of elections? It doesn't. Besides holding the elections is a NATIONAL responsability.
Re "Eire Referendum: Sorry, but, did the EU abide by the first Referendum result? No! Did the EU decline a second referendum? No! Will the EU be offering a 3rd Referendum? No!
So, if the vote goes against the EU it is to be repeated but if it goes in favour it is set in stone! And that is your version of 'democracy'!?"
Time out. What do you mean by "did the Eu abide by..." The 'EU' as you use it doesn't exist. It's the NATIONAl representatives that write the Treaty (so don't go complaining about nasty 'Eurocrats'). It's NATIONAL governements that decide to hold referendums and to rehold them. So tell me, how does the 'EU' (whatever you specifically mean by it) influence all this.
Re "I did and do suggest that 'Democracy' operates much better at National than at supra-National level: I have challenged before and do so now for any 'pro-EU' lobbyists to explain how 1 Individual Citizen among 60million Britons or 49million English is going to be better represented by 750+ MEPS among 450,000,000 Citizens of the EU?"
That's why the principle of subsidiarity is written into the Treaty. What a pity your national government in London didn't think along the same lines concerning the revenues from the oil fields on the scottish coast. You fail to see that your national entity (UK) is as artificial (or as natural) as a European entity.
Re "As for "... which part of 'ever closer union' do you not understand?" Well, as I understand it at present it is about the same as for those Danes, Spanish etc. with opt-outs, or for that matter, the Dutch, Swedish, Czech, Austrians who according to National opinion polls wanted a Referendnum on the Lisbon Treaty, but according to you it is the English alone who have misunderstood!?"
Again, holding a referendum or not is a national issue. The EU institutions don't have a say in this. "Ever closer union" means you knew from the start the project has a federal vocation.
Re "People Have a Right and Responsibility to Express Their Views in a Democratic Ballot on a 'Union' that has fundamentally changed in every aspect of its relationship to the Political-Social-Economic-Police-Judicial-Military commitments over the last 27 years since Maastricht."
Nice defintion of democracy, but make that "express their INFORMED views". And the union hasn't fundamentally changed at all. It's vocation had been proclaimed already when the ECCS was established. You (the british) didn't like it, so you founded the EFTA. But in a matter of years it was evident that your 'solution' of combining economic progress and maintaining national sovereignty didn't work. So than you came begging to join the club. Once part of the club you still refused to lay down your island mentality, acting as if you are still a world power with bigger priviliges than other countries.
@68
Re "Well said.
What Me-rijn and others seem to forget is tha Blair and Brown also supported a referendum for the UK, in fact they felt so strongly about it they promised we would have one! Until, that is, they realised that the DEMOCRATIC vote of the British people was going to give the wrong answer.
EU Democracy - an oxymoron if ever there was one."
Hold on a minute. You are blaiming the 'EU' (an entire international organization) for Blair and Brown not keeping their promise to their national constituency? How about not shifting the blame. Ironically, if the EU (whichever institution you mean) would have obliged member states to hold referendums, you would all be saying the Eu is interfering in matters that are not it's bussiness and overstepping it's competences and guess what? You'd be 100% right! So you want to give the EU (e.g. the Commission) the power to OBLIGE national member states to hold referendums? I am curious about your answer!
@74
re "Try asking these forgetful people if any original text out of the Constitutional Treaty made it into the Lisbon Treaty.
Not read a sensible answer yet."
Of course. Lisbon is 90% the same as the constitution. Only the symbolic clauses have been scrapped. Is that sensible enough for you?
Complain about this comment
#80. Zydeco wrote:
“The author of the EU Constitution, M. D'Estaing, said that the Lisbon Treaty was the same document. Repeated by the German Chancellor and the Spanish President among others.”
It is very unlikely the chancellor Merkel has said this. Do you have any source for this? The same goes for “the Spanish president” and I suppose you mean the president of ministers Zapatero. Do you have any sources in his case?
Complain about this comment
To Mathiasen (102):
For crying out loud. What is wrong in both Czech Republic and Slovakia? If things that happened during the years post-WW2, including ethnic clenching and other crimes against humanity, would and could be settled in a court of law, they would have been done already. Again, I'm going to say that all this is about having a bad conscience and wanting a moral get out of jail card: "Look here, it says we didn't do anything wrong! Look at the pretty paper!".
Actually, I would speculate that these both things, and especially Klaus refusing to sign the Lisbon Treaty and the Czech public in polls supporting of his decision are all due to hidden hatred against Germany and Germans. We have to remember that after the WW2, all communist regimes brainwashed their citizens to hate all things German and that hate and hatred can still be found deeply woven into the culture of these societies.
My father made a note about the relationship of Czechs and Germans, when he and my mother attended the 1978 Prague World Ice Hockey Championships, my mother tried to buy mineral water from a shop by asking for "mineralwasser" the shop lady got very angry, shouted at her that "no mineralwasser!" and almost attacked her. That was the level of hate there. The thing is, it is now 2009, there is no place for hateful people in the European Union, if Czechs or Slovaks can't make up with their past then there is another union for them, CIS better known as the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Then again why not... I would say that it is about the time that Germans demand also an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty. How about Germans demand that no Nazi jokes, no reminding of holocaust and no mention of Hitler and the Third Reich nor any comparison of Nazi Germany and the current Germany can ever be made!
Also we Finns could demand an amendment made too that would ban Italian prime ministers on making rude comments about our food culture and church architecture. That sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
Complain about this comment
#101 Jim1648
Yup, couldn't agree more Jim. So we had better get this non federal camel(that is of course a horse designed by a committee) usually known as the European Union organised so that we can mount our own defence.
Europhobes please note.
Complain about this comment
#102 Mathiasen
Oh no he's not. Not a chance That man must not become president.
Complain about this comment
105. Boilerplated
[me in 74] Try asking these forgetful people if any original text out of the Constitutional Treaty made it into the Lisbon Treaty…Not read a sensible answer yet.
"…Still lying then "rg", you have read many sensible and 100% correct answers…"
Boilerplated you have a twisted interpretation for the word lying (to say the least)
On another thread this evening you wrote "…no one has ever said that elements of the old and abandoned constitutional treaty have not been included in the Lisbon Treaty…"
So was that a 'yes' or a 'no'?
Complain about this comment
MAII
I have just changed a couple of words and then added a few of my own.
"was equally tempered by the uniquely American experience of surviving in an impossibly harsh, dangerous, unforgiving, endless wilderness giving the American mentality that is deeply rooted in a mendaciously romanticized past created by Hollywood and assiduously nurtured by the US education system."
The above statement is as much rubbish as your statements from which it was taken.
When if ever are you going to say something useful or even vaguely sensible?
Complain about this comment
"High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security"
I do hope they come up with a more elegant title, I would have trouble keeping a straight face if saddled with that pompous mouthful. It sounds a bit Gilbert and Sullivan n'est pas?
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn and #110.
That's a good EU-lobbyist: Whenever the awkward details of facts and figures come up you and the EU pass the fault-line onto someone or something else!
My reply alludes to and considers one example from your #110: ".. since when does turnout determine the democratic character of elections? It doesn't. ...organising.. its NATIONAL responsibility."
Therefore the complete absence of a MAJORITY of the Electorate voting and the complete absence of any MEP having a MAJORITY of the possible votes, and the European Parliament completely without an ELECTORAL MANDATE to create any Legislation does not matter at all.
So, in your EU version of the 'Democratic process' what is the purpose of the European Elections if those who end up in the EU Parliament even with Proportional Representation selection of Candidates do not represent/do not need to represent the Citizens of the EU Nations!?
You have a very strange and outlandish view of the fundamental purpose of One-Person-One-Vote!
Taken to its logical conclusion this could mean with ever diminishing numbers of Voters in EU Elections an MEP could be decided by 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 votes being cast... or the return to the Factory/Office owner who buses in his few hundred employees to vote on the day in return for cash, gifts or day-off gets to pick the MEP!
In Britain and across Europe during the 18th and 19th Centuries this was generally known as 'rotten borough' politics: I submit to you that that is how many MEPs came to their present positions and are presently viewed by the hundreds of millions of disillussioned EU Citizens.
The second part of your view on the meaning of 'Democracy' is, if anything even more alarming and confused: Apparently you would introduce the keyword 'INFORMED' view into my definition of 'Democracy' - - so, if those 300,000,000+ voters were so 'informed' then clearly what they were 'informed' about the EU did NOT impress them at all as some 55% of them did NOT VOTE at the last MEP Election - - which is a very odd thing as you claim throughout all your contributions that the EU is a very good thing for Europe. Yet it seems almost 180million European Citizen-voters did not agree with your assessment! Even more remarkable when one recalls that unlike UK/England the EU predominantly gets a GOOD PRESS/MEDIA COVERAGE in mainland Europe!
It would seem even after being INFORMED of all those wonderful things the EU is doing for them the vast MAJORITY of EU Citizens do not believe a word of it!
Now before you start telling me how 'low' or 'no' voter turnout cannot be taken as a sign of Citizen discontent, but more likely APATHY, I must tell you I agree: Apathy it is! Colossal, damaging apathy by EU Citizens grown lazy of their Rights and Responsibilities in relatively benign 'democratic' States post-WW2; except, of course that only applies to us lucky souls in the 'west' of Europe. It does not explain the Voter apathy in the 'east' which only came out from under Soviet control less than 20 years ago (2 nations registered voter turnout under 25%!!!)? How is it possible that Citizens freed from the dull yoke of communism are not eager-beaver Citizen-Voters for the fabulous, new, invigorating venture called the EU? They are as INFORMED as anyone by their Governments who all cherish the handouts from the rich EU club members that set them back on their feet: Maybe, just maybe, they have quickly come to realise the European Union is just another form of Soviet?
True, the EU has glossier packaging, smoother delivery of the political message and far less encroaching on the individual (prior to Lisbon coming into effect), but, all that INFORMed view has done is make them aware they still mean nothing in a gigantic centralizing conglomerate created and designed for big-business/big-government/big-EUrotocracy.
And how would these relatively new Citizen-Voters (alongside their cynical-sophisticated 'west' Citizens) ever arrive at such a negative position on the EU?
Well, you may recall you wrote: "Since when does turnout determine the democratic character of elections?"
How right you are! Only the Citizen-Voters take that to mean 'since when does turning out to vote' have any effect on their all-powerful ruling elite?
And clearly and very unfortunately for you and the EU the great MAJORITY have concluded there is no point at all.
Complain about this comment
T-moth;
You don't know much about American history it seems. Nor about European history as it also seems. You do know how to express yourself on the internet though. Aren't you glad an American invented the typewriter?
"Christopher Latham Sholes The accredited father of the typewriter was Wisconsin newspaperman..."
(for unbelievers;)
http://inventors.about.com/od/indrevolution/a/newspaper_2.htm
Complain about this comment
8. At 11:46am on 19 Oct 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
"For those of us who have long propounded 'anti-EU' views 'EU President Blair' will be the most exquisitely delicious irony of ironies!"
Dream on :-)
Your anglocentricism really blinds you into believing that the EU will nominate the man that broke it to drag its own country in the Iraqi morass.
Fortunately, for EUs, Blair will never become EUr President: he's just been endorsed by Berlusconi. That's the Italian equivalent of the Kiss of Death.
I'm betting on an outsider, or J.C. Juncker. After all tiny Luxembourg has contributed to the EU hundreds of times more than good old Blighty. Blair is staying in Jerusalem for a while.
He may want to move to Basra or Baghdad later in the decade, but he knows he has to keep his hands off Brussels.
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip
" Incidentally, Ford Mondeo and your #41.
Still awaiting the relevant example of a UK Advertisement from this decade using the word 'kraut' - - I will make it easier for you - - I will accept an advert as far back as say Maastricht in 1992!?"
No need to go that far...Sorry Ive been out for hours after work coaching some children who have come very close to trying my patience.
Anyway my example comes from 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1617445.stm
Its even more astonishing that it still has not been repealed.
Complain about this comment
#120. lacerniagigante
I definitely do not think Jean-Claude Juncker is an outsider. On the contrary! I would also much prefer him for Blair, but as you will know it is a complicated pattern of interests.
Complain about this comment
President of what? I know it isn't the British Association of Orthondontics.
Complain about this comment
107. At 12:39pm on 19 Oct 2009, ADVOCATUS-DIABOLI wrote:
"There is a saying in mainland Europe that to be British, well English actually, one has to be either an actor or a hypocrite. ... "
SB2: I lived in continental Europe for eleven years and I never heard that. I did have people have a go at me, but I never heard that. Surely it is racist?
" Their pompous moral self-indulging righteousness (like the Americans) and duplicitous play acting which intentionally or unintentionally stirred up hatred and violence, instigated conflicts, religious lunacy and untold suffering around the world ..."
SB2: I do not believe thqt to be true.
" Geert Wilders represents the views of fair thinking Europeans and if some Muslims are deeply offended by his views, tough. Of course the British wouldn't like that, he is stealing their show. "
SB2: Bullproduct!
Complain about this comment
112. At 9:48pm on 19 Oct 2009, Jukka_Rohila wrote:
"To Mathiasen (102):
...
We have to remember that after the WW2, all communist regimes brainwashed their citizens to hate all things German and that hate and hatred can still be found deeply woven into the culture of these societies...."
After what the Germans did in WWII, I don't think they needed a lot of brainwashing.
The Dutch also tend to hate the Germans and yet they were not occupied by the Soviets.
I do not hate the Germans.
Complain about this comment
If he/she is not elected then he/she does not represent us. He/she would have to be elected by a majority of the British population to represent the people of the UK.
It isn't going to happen. The "EU" is not legitimate and will not become legitimate.
It is important that we make it clear to people in foreign countries that the ""EU" does not represent the people of Britain or Europe and that any treaties signed in our name are waste paper.
Complain about this comment
The new "EU"-embassies will be an opportunity to protest peacefully against the existence of the "EU".
Complain about this comment
For the Lisbon Treaty to be forced upon the British people two things were necessary:
1) The British political system to fail the British people, which it did.
2) The "EU" to engage in an anti-democratic conspiracy against the rights of the British people, which it did. The "EU" interferes repeatedly in "member countries." It could and should have demanded a referendum in the UK. The Pontious Pilate act will not work.
Complain about this comment
BRITISH CITIZENS!
Work on your martial arts so that you can defend yourselves against illegal fascist violence by continental policemen operating in the UK.
Complain about this comment
# 49. Jim1648 wrote:
" Europe will be in range of the Iranian nuclear missiles long before the U.S. is."
but of course Iran is already well within range of our nuclear missiles.
# 50. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"If Iran launches a missile with a nuclear warhead at Europe, there will be no stopping it."
Greece or Italy should stop it pretty effectively, of course then we'd have the inconvenience of having to find alternate holiday destinations.
Complain about this comment
# 67. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"That's right. That's how al Qaeda sees it too. By being European citizens who have a legal right to be there and travel freely though it, it makes them far more reliable agents, far less likely to be pre-empted before they complete their missions."
In the UK we seem perfectly happy to have them as "residents" even if they're not citizens.
Often it seems the rights of those who want to come to the country to stay here, even if they are considered a threat, outweigh the rights of the country's citizens to security.
Complain about this comment
#125., SuffolkBoy2
You are quoting me for something I have not written. Please search the blog to see that I did write #102 but it does not contain the remark “all communist regimes brainwashed their citizens to hate all things German”.
Actually, I am not sure if the generalisation is absolutely justified. Recently I read an interview with Mr. Gorbatjov – he will be an invited guest here in Berlin, when we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the wall, and he used to opportunity to say a couple of approving words about the GDR. Concerning the German unity Mr. Gorbatjov was very instrumental, and today there is probably no other country where he is so popular as in Germany.
In any case: I fully understand if people were angry after WW2, but we are not having a war anymore in Europe. The European integration has been the alternative. It was by the way an idea chancellor Adenauer got already in the autumn 1945, when he considered what to do about the disastrous situation, and French foreign minister Robert Schumann developed some years later. It was a way back to rational reasoning, which has many advantages against the opposite, including hate.
Complain about this comment
# 132. Mathiasen wrote:
"In any case: I fully understand if people were angry after WW2, but we are not having a war anymore in Europe. The European integration has been the alternative."
So someone either "integrates" Europe via military force or via diplomatic arm twisting.
Admittedly the diplomatic route takes longer and involves less bloodshed, but the need for integration has never being explained.
Canada and the US don;t seem to go to war very often and they're neighbours, so "the EU moving toward federalisation is better than a war" seems like a rather weak argument, driven by the usual scare tactics.
I keep seeing pro-EU posts stating the risks of lost trade upon leaving as a reason someone should remain within the organisation and "surrender" to the desire for greater integration.
However, there seem to don't seem to be many arguments presented that emphasise the benefits of integration.
It seems such things are given a momentum without really being questioned and debated, with veiled threats being used to ensure compliance.
Surely an actual open debate, devoid of such threats would allow people to better understand the benefits that are offered and as such, to achieve greater buy in.
(and I don't mean benefits such as a list of hand outs, they're not a benefit to a net contributor).
Complain about this comment
Suffolk boy 2
Have a lie down.
Complain about this comment
#133 Reaper_of_Souls
You wrote: “the need for integration has never being explained.”
Since I have just mentioned Adenauer and Schumann I must say, I have great difficulties in understanding why you write this.
Reasons have been of political, economic, historic and cultural character, and recently I discovered that in the academic world, where previously much scepticism has been voiced against the European integration, it is now turned against nationalism.
Better late than never.
Complain about this comment
Ford Mondeo and #121.
I am as astonished as you that such an epithet is still permissible. Point to you.
That said, it is I notice an article which goes on to address the issue by presenting the views of a less than pleased German embassy spokeperson and of UK stereotyping of 'foreigners' in general: The content suggests it at least does not approve as the ASA clearly and foolishly had done.
The Embassy official apparently states, "...outside of Balkans.. UK is the only one thinks it acceptable.."
However, I am left wondering what kind of sheltered life some people lead because any implication that this 'stereotyping', legal or otherwise, is an entirely British affair is nonsense. That the Brits are not alone in condoning this puerile stuff, especially in the 'sporting' context, is a matter of record.
E.g. the Manager of Spain infamously geeing up his players by calling the France master of football Thierry Henry a "bl#k ar#ehole..." etc. and their fans throwing bananas at the black English players as recently as 2006.!!?
E.g. the Italian press in 2007 and 2008 covering stories on 'flood' of illegal immigrants describing the boatloads as "..hordes of unwashed, unclean, ignoramus... incestuous by nature.."!!?
E.g. the Ford car manufacturer "whitening" the hands and face of a black car engineer for advertising in Poland as recently as summer 2009!!?
E.g. the use on this very Blog of the phrases "..little Englanders.." and "..Empire lovers.." to describe those of us opposed to the EU whilst hardly earth-shattering do hint at a stereotypical view of Brits which when considered against the truly diverse multi-cultural society of the UK does suggest some 'foreigners' really have not got over school history lessons from several decades ago about the image of Britain!!?
So it goes! Disgraceful, sad and hopefully on the wane - - that the EU is at the forefront of pan-European anti-racism efforts is to its credit - - and as the UK was among the first European nations (circa 1969 to 76) to introduce anti-racism laws for advertising/sale/rent of goods, houses etc. plus rights to equal pay etc. suggests there are people of good intent both sides of the Channel.
However, I reiterate, I was unaware and am deeply cross that the UK still has such dubious ideas as 'krauts' is legitimate language (except in historic terminology) - - And entirely endorse your condemnation of same.
Complain about this comment
@118. At 10:52pm on 19 Oct 2009, ikamaskeip
I don't simply pass the fault line. Read this carefully: if you want to blame someone, blame the one who's responsible. If you don't like the Lisbon Treaty, blame the NATIONAL representatives and not Commission Eurocrats, because they had no deciding vote on the text.
Because of the principle of subsidiarity (written into the treaty in Maastricht BY the member states and at THEIR request, to protect their national interests), the European elections get organized at the national level. Therefore, if voter turnout is low this is probably because the EU is a far away political entity AND national governments haven't bothered to inform their citizens properly.
On the addition of INFORMED in you definition of democracy: Take your argument further and you come to the conclusion that people are not informed about the EU. Because you actually state that the EU is a new soviet union. So if this is true why is voter turn out so low? Why don't all EU citizens vote for parties that want their national state to leave the EU? Instead people are apathic to the EU, therefore uninformed. If the EU is as evil as you say, an informed citizen would vote and vote against the EU. He would not sit home and be apathic.
As I already mentioned the referendums in Ireland, France, Netherlands showed this clearly. In june last year, the irish voted against Lisbon, because they didn't like their prime minister (INFORMED citizen you say?). This october the voted for Lisbon because they thought it is a miracle solution to their economic crisis (INFORMED citizen??). On both occasions the major incentive to vote yes or no was completely off. To me the second yes vote was as stupid as the first no vote, even though the result is 'in se' the good result.
One last remark: I took the effort of commenting all your arguments: you just picked one of my arguments, the one you thought easiest refutable. Are you shying away from a real discussion (as europsceptics always do? ;)).
If not, please answer my previous question: As you complain about the EU not abiding by the result of the first Irish referendum. What do you mean by this? Where is the official statement of 'the' EU ('the' EU doesn't exist of course it's just the result of eurosceptic oversimplification and scaremongering) that it doesn't accept the result of the referendum? I AM very curious about your answer! WHere is the question of 'the EU' to hold a new referendum?
P.S. Have a look at this site http://www.idea.int/ and look up voter turnout for the CEE countries. Their turnouts are GENERALLY significantly lower than in western democracies (also for national elections). So there goes your little argument about former socialist states. Why don't you start discussing on the basis of facts and not sentiments. Oh wait, you can't you're a eurosceptic! ;)
Complain about this comment
123. At 01:05am on 20 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"President of what? I know it isn't the British Association of Orthondontics." (sic!)
Try then the British Association of Orthographic. It might help you improve the spelling of complicated words that you like using to impress us ;-)
Complain about this comment
129. At 03:54am on 20 Oct 2009, SuffolkBoy2 wrote:
"BRITISH CITIZENS!
Work on your martial arts so that you can defend yourselves against illegal fascist violence by continental policemen operating in the UK."
Are you suggesting that the non-British will enjoy ales and good company English pub, while the natives will have to go to Kung-Fu gyms in their afterhour time?
PS: May I suggest you read the Don Quixote. Despite your (self)hate for things European, and it being written by a Spaniard more than 400 years ago, I think you can find some fine English translation. I think you'll like it.
Complain about this comment
136. At 08:17am on 20 Oct 2009, ikamaskeip:
You may be interested in adding this link to your "Racism made in Europe" list:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/25/microsoft-sucks-at-photoshop/
Do you think that's a reason for Poland's Kaczinki & Kaczinki to ask for an opt-out from the Human Rights chapter in Lisbon Treaty. (Mind you the only other country asking for that is the UK...)
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn and #137.
Keep ducking and diving!
Now its the "INFORMED" Citizens that have NOT been informed by their National governments!
What? 28 National governments have failed to INFORM and all that at the time of Election of MEPS!!!!? Oh come on! You cannot blame Sweden to Hungary to Malta for lousy turnout of European Voters!
It is your EU, your supra-National entity, your centralized, bureaucratic, undemocratic institution that has utterly failed to inspire the trust, loyalty or even the vaguest interest (except to berate its corruption and unaccountability) of European Citizens.
Now, you "..read this carefully..": The EU Commission is an unelected body that since Maastricht has been lawfully able to generate its own Directive/Orders etc. and it is an unelected, untouchable European Court of Justice that has primacy over any National Government legislation. That is the Commission and ECJ which have no MANDATE along with 750+ MEPs with less than 35% electoral MANDATE are creating, making and enforcing LAWS and REGULATIONS on 450,000,000 Citizens who at NATIONAL level did not Vote for those Policies at all!
That is your EU democracy!? That is your idea of the 'informed' Citizen!?
My "..little argument.." about Voter turnout whether in the 'west' or 'east' of Europe stands as clear, indisputable fact - - and you again resort to moving the argument elsewhere as typical of your EU you cannot ever accept reality - - the fault-line for low turnout lays squarely with the EU which is entirely separate from National elections according to your own interpratation of its importance. At National level the EU is either seen by Citizens as effective or ineffective - - they Vote according to their knowledge/informed views of the EU assisting their lives. Plainly, low voter turnout shows the EU is hardly considered effective in any way, shape or form.
I chose to answer ONE of your points as I had already dealt with 3 in my previous post (as you well knew because you were responding to my comments) - - "...shy away.."!!!? Have you looked at the 5 contributions I have made or are you so typically EU that you don't need to know my opinion as a Citizen because of course the EU knows better than the Individual what is good for that individual!?
I have no idea what you are going on about with the Eire referendum on the Lisbon Treaty: Suffice to say, President Barroso personally stated immediately the first Referendum result was in that there would need to be another Referendum or the EU could not proceed - - how you could have missed the entire EU fraternity launching their campaign for a 2nd Referendum is only a deceit that an EU-fanatic could attempt to perpetrate - - Eire was negotiated with by the EU for 3 specific Protocols protecting Eire's 'neutrality' and 'constitution', how else do you suppose they could propose a 2nd Referendum?
You and your wretchedly undemocratic, unaccountable, venal EU are in the ascendancy now, but, it will fall, the only questions are from how high and at what cost to the European Citizens?
Complain about this comment
#136 ikamaskeip
Guilty as charged, I use the phrase "little Engerlanders" (note spelling) to denote a particular offensive and aggressive kind of 'English' nationalist. It's not racist by intent it's about a particular nationalistic mental attitude. As an Englishman myself I think I have the right to use the phrase, they would probably call me a 'froggie loving traitor' but c'est la vie.
Complain about this comment
#115. At 9:58pm on 19 Oct 2009, rg wrote:
"Boilerplated you have a twisted interpretation for the word lying (to say the least)"
If that is correct then you have a twisted interpretation of what the truth is, the truth is not propaganda from the latest eurosceptic loony fringe, they are simple lies and if you repeat them you are repeating the lie.
Did anyone else hear that UKIP MEP trying to blame the EU for the UK's decision to adopt the ISO metric measurement system back in 1966, as happened on the "Today" programme yesterday?
Complain about this comment
111. At 9:46pm on 19 Oct 2009, Mathiasen wrote:
#80. Zydeco wrote:
“The author of the EU Constitution, M. D'Estaing, said that the Lisbon Treaty was the same document. Repeated by the German Chancellor and the Spanish President among others.”
It is very unlikely the chancellor Merkel has said this. Do you have any source for this? The same goes for “the Spanish president” and I suppose you mean the president of ministers Zapatero. Do you have any sources in his case?
***********************
Good morning Mathiasen.
You asked for scources of my comment. If you want more, there are many press reports , especially in the run up to the first Irish referendum, which will give you more of the same, not only by those mentioned but also by many of the other European leaders or members of the EU Parliament.
These are ust a few of the many, many quotes saying that the Lisbon Treaty is the same as or similar to the EU Constitution.
The Spanish PM Jose Zapatero was being more honest than our own Government when he said:”A great part of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties…. We have not let a single substantial point of the constitution treaty go..It is without doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a Treaty for New Europe (El Pais 23 June 2007 and speech in Parliament 27 June 2007)
“The fundamentals of the Constitution have been maintained in large part” Angela Merkel, German Chancellor. Quoted in El Pais (25 June 2007)
Even Gordon Brown has said it: After a meeting with the Irish PM Bertie Ahern, he said; ”We have discussed the European Constitution and how that can move forward over the next few months.” (press conference in Belfast, 16 July 2007)
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments made @ #119 by "MarcusAureliusII":
"Christopher Latham Sholes The accredited father of the typewriter was Wisconsin newspaperman..."
I think you will find that all he did was prefect the layout of the keys (for the English language typewriter), the QWERTY keyboard that we still use today.
[quote]
No single person invented the typewriter. As with the automobile, telephone, and telegraph, a number of people contributed insights and inventions that eventually resulted in commercially successful instruments. In fact, historians have estimated that some form of typewriter was invented 52 times as tinkerers tried to come up with a workable design.[1]
In 1714, Henry Mill obtained a patent in Britain for a machine that, from the patent, appears to have been similar to a typewriter, but nothing further is known. Other early developers of typewriting machines include Pellegrino Turri, who also invented carbon paper. Many of these early machines, including Turri's, were developed to enable the blind to write.
[unquote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter#History
Complain about this comment
134. At 07:45am on 20 Oct 2009, balancedthought wrote:
"Suffolk boy 2
Have a lie down...."
...sleep it off and then have a strong black coffee to settle the hangover when you wake from your (IMO) drunken stupor SB2...
Complain about this comment
Re "Keep ducking and diving!
Now its the "INFORMED" Citizens that have NOT been informed by their National governments!
What? 28 National governments have failed to INFORM and all that at the time of Election of MEPS!!!!? Oh come on! You cannot blame Sweden to Hungary to Malta for lousy turnout of European Voters!
It is your EU, your supra-National entity, your centralized, bureaucratic, undemocratic institution that has utterly failed to inspire the trust, loyalty or even the vaguest interest (except to berate its corruption and unaccountability) of European Citizens."
Read my post again. I said it's also because the EU is a faraway political entity. It's a simple rule: the farther away the political level is, the harder it is to 'reach' citizens. And yes, national governments also have their responsability. On THEIR request, and YES it's quite obvious they don't fulfil their duties. Why should they? What do they lose in the short term when the EU becomes unpopular? National governments have no short term incentives to inform citizens about the EU, so they don't although it IS their duty.
Re 'The EU Commission is an unelected body that since Maastricht has been lawfully able to generate its own Directive/Orders etc. and it is an unelected, untouchable European Court of Justice that has primacy over any National Government legislation. That is the Commission and ECJ which have no MANDATE along with 750+ MEPs with less than 35% electoral MANDATE are creating, making and enforcing LAWS and REGULATIONS on 450,000,000 Citizens who at NATIONAL level did not Vote for those Policies at all!
That is your EU democracy!? That is your idea of the 'informed' Citizen!?"
Let me refute:
1. The commission can not 'generate' directives. It proposes legislation. That's all. As it doesn't have law making powers it doesn't need to be elected. Your national government (Brown) isn't elected either. It's legitimacy is derived from a majority support in the Commons. Oh no! an unelected government in the UK: dictatorship!
2. The ECJ isn't elected, that's true. When you look at other judges in other western jurisdiction you'll notice that judges are never elected. You'll also notice that judges are very well protected, to maintain their neutrality. However no judge is 100% untouchable, and this goes for the ECJ judges as wel.
3. Those 450 000 000 citizens were ALL given the opportunity to elect their MEP's. So your point makes no sense. Apart from that, those citizens are also indirectly represented through the Council of ministers (where individual ministers are responsible to their own national parliaments). Ouch! You forgot that didn't you? That national governments also have a decisive say on EU legislation in the council of ministers. Therefore nothing happens at EU level without the consent of national governments.
Mind you, the role of the ECJ and the EC have been the same ever since 1957. You knew this before you joined, so don't go complaining afterwards. The supremacy of EC law was also established by the Court in 1964 (Costa v. Enel case), well before the 3d application of the UK. Again, don't start complaining now.
Re "My "..little argument.." about Voter turnout whether in the 'west' or 'east' of Europe stands as clear, indisputable fact - - and you again resort to moving the argument elsewhere as typical of your EU you cannot ever accept reality - - the fault-line for low turnout lays squarely with the EU which is entirely separate from National elections according to your own interpratation of its importance. At National level the EU is either seen by Citizens as effective or ineffective - - they Vote according to their knowledge/informed views of the EU assisting their lives. Plainly, low voter turnout shows the EU is hardly considered effective in any way, shape or form."
Than your voter is not informed but irrational. In the situation you spell out an informed voter would vote against the 'ineffective' EU because it would be irrational to uphold an international organization that costs money. Your informed citizen would not be apathic.
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the citizen is not informed (correctly) but holds too simplified or plain wrong views about the EU. Or isn't that possible? Judging from the nonsense you write about the Commission and the ECJ I'd say it is.
Re "
I have no idea what you are going on about with the Eire referendum on the Lisbon Treaty: Suffice to say, President Barroso personally stated immediately the first Referendum result was in that there would need to be another Referendum or the EU could not proceed"
Aah there we have it. This is of course something completely different from Barosso demanding another referendum. He just remarked correctly that there were two options left: a new referendum or the end of the reform.
Re "You and your wretchedly undemocratic, unaccountable, venal EU are in the ascendancy now, but, it will fall, the only questions are from how high and at what cost to the European Citizens?"
Emotional hysterical scaremongering. Just as we know eurosceptics best!
Complain about this comment
#144. At 09:38am on 20 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
"The Spanish PM Jose Zapatero was being more honest than our own Government when he said:”A great part of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties"
Sorry but that doesn't back up your assertions (that the Lisbon Treaty is the same as the abandoned constitutional treaty), much of the original Treaty of Rome is also captured too, so does that make the LT the same as the Treaty of Rome also?....
Complain about this comment
I am struck by the photograph of Blair. He was never a comely man to look at, but these days he looks positively evil and wretched. His face looks like it is under constant strain, as if it always feeling different emotions to that which it is trying to display to the public.
I suppose his life cannot have been easy since he became renowned as a war criminal and a liar in service to the Bush regime. Everything has social consequences, and Blair must have been shunned by decent people ever since. The only people who would tolerate the company of a man like him now are the morally bankrupt UK party members, and their european and american equivalents. And that has got to take its toll on a person.
Note that I do not distinguish between political parties, rather only between decent and indecent politicians from THE political party. I think this is fitting for the new EU regime. Like the soviet union, we now have factions within the polit-bureau, but the centralized party is the one body who decides matters for everyone else.
And just like in the soviet union, the centralized political party making all the decisions will call the factional infighting of its official members "democracy". And they will see absolutely nothing odd about that, either.
Complain about this comment
148. At 10:15am on 20 Oct 2009, Boilerplated wrote:
#144. At 09:38am on 20 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
"The Spanish PM Jose Zapatero was being more honest than our own Government when he said:”A great part of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties"
Sorry but that doesn't back up your assertions (that the Lisbon Treaty is the same as the abandoned constitutional treaty), much of the original Treaty of Rome is also captured too, so does that make the LT the same as the Treaty of Rome also?....
************************
Good morning BP.
Please do as I have done and do a bit of 'Googling'. You will find many reports where politicians from both national and European bodies have said how similat the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are.
If you wish to be pedantic with the actual words used, we can play that game all day. I actually have a life outside of the blogosphere and will use most of today enjoying that.
BTW I notice you didn't refer to the Merkel quote. Was that too specific for you to refute?
Complain about this comment
#144, Zydeco
It does indeed not back the assertion that the Lisbon Treaty is the same as the abandoned constitutional treaty. And there is no source to Angela Merkel.
Anybody with knowledge about the verdict of the German constitution court and the succeeding changes of the German constitution or with knowledge about the Danish constitution for instance will know that it is written into these treaties that the transfer of powers from the nation states to the union as well as legislation at the union level must be endorsed by the national parliaments.
As I have already mentioned once in this blog and others have mentioned to: It is the fundamental character of the cooperation in the Union.
The claim that the LT is a constitution is not making it to a constitution. It is just a claim the obscures the political or legal realities.
Complain about this comment
#121 ikamaskeip
I hope you will now concede the point. To me the interesting thing about that particular epithet is that it is of US origin not UK. Brits of the WWII era referred to the Germans as Jerries, the Hun or the French term Boche, Kraut is an import from the US and wasn't to my knowledge used in the UK much before the end of the 70's. It is offensive and I can see where the Germans are coming from, the war having now been over longer than the life times of more than 75% of the European population.
Complain about this comment
151. At 11:27am on 20 Oct 2009, Mathiasen wrote:
#144, Zydeco
It does indeed not back the assertion that the Lisbon Treaty is the same as the abandoned constitutional treaty. And there is no source to Angela Merkel.
************************
“The fundamentals of the Constitution have been maintained in large part” Angela Merkel, German Chancellor. Quoted in El Pais (25 June 2007)
Not only scourced from El Pais, but several other European papers also reported her remarks. Not the only occasion she said it either.
Google 'Merkel+EU Constitution+Lisbon Treaty'
You can do the same with a number of other EU and National representatives and get equally enlightening quotes.
Complain about this comment
Tony Blair and consort Cherie becoming Mr and Mrs EU President has one advantage to the poor downtrodden disenfranchised UK tax payer.
We will not have to pick up the bill for their security? Or will we still have his property portfolio to oversee?
How many pensions will this new post give them?
Whatever powers are "given" to the EU president the Blairs will expand them to theur own agenda.
Complain about this comment
#153, Zydeco
It is no source. It is instruction for a search.
And you do not seem to understand the legal implications neither. In Germany we have one constitution: The German.
Complain about this comment
143. Boilerplated
"…the truth is not propaganda from the latest eurosceptic loony fringe, they are simple lies and if you repeat them you are repeating the lie…"
Can you give a detailed example? Also can you state the newspaper and post number in your answer? We will try and get to the bottom of this.
Complain about this comment
#145 Boilerplated
Thanks for that, I knew about the QWERTY bit but not the rest. I do know, however, that I am, as Marcus says, using the Internet (thanks by the way for the compliment, backhanded though it may have been) and that the internet runs on code and protocols specified by one of us much maligned useless Brits. No less a person than Sir Tim Berners Lee.
Moving on, and off topic, for which I apologise, I would like to counter the ill researched nonsense posted by MAII on an earlier of Gavin's blogs. This concerns the Pacific theatre of WW2 and his assertion that it was an all US effort and the contributions of others were negligible. I am not going to address the massive effort of the combined British Indian Imperial armies that drove the Japanese out of South East Asia that is an arena on it's own. I will merely stick to the contribution of the Royal Navy in the Pacific theatre and try to keep it short.
In October 1942 after the battles of Midway and Santa Cruz the US fleet found itself without any aircraft carriers. Roosevelt asked Churchill for assistance, requesting one, or if possible, two carriers. Bearing in mind that Britain was still in process of destroying the German Navy and fighting the U boat war this was very difficult but by March 1943 HMS Victorious arrived in Pearl Harbour. Immediately after D Day Brtain turned it's attention towards Japan and despatched the 'British Pacific Fleet' grouped round the three aircraft carriers 'Illustrious' Indefatigable' and 'Formidable'.
The US Pacific fleet command was initially sceptical of these ships feeling that their heavily armoured decks restricted the number of warplanes they could carry and made them of little use. This attitude was made worse by Admiral King's Irish background and dislike of all things Brit. The sheer indestructibility of the three carriers soon showed with all three taking direct hits to the fully armoured flight decks and continuing to function. So much so in fact that one US observer based on Illustrious after it had been hit on the flight deck with a 500lb bomb remarked 'When a Kamikaze hits a US carrier it's six months repair in Pearl. In a Limey carrier it's "sweepers man your brooms".
Towards the end of the campaign the US admirals understood very clearly the value of the British force to the point where admiral Nimitz stationed them to the prestigious position of covering the right flank of the combined fleet.
I am sorry if this has been so long but I just can't let MAII keep altering history for his own vainglorious purposes and devaluing the efforts of those who lost their lives.
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn and #147.
Re, "...your National (Brown) government isn't elected either.." Well, there we are!
A complete travesty of the reality stated as a fact by a 'pro-EU' lobbyist, so used to bending truth they will write anything to fit their undemocratic principles/argument.
To keep you INFORMED: The New Labour Government was formed from the Elected MAJORITY of MPs following the June 2005 General Election when New Labour Party by the First Past The Post system of Enfranchised Citizens' Votes had 60 or so more MPs returned to Parliament than the other Political Parties combined. As leader of the successful New Labour Party Tony Blair became Prime Minister of the UK for the 3rd time in a row: When Blair resigned in 2007 the New Labour Party MPs elected from their ranks Gordon Brown as the new leader of the Party and therefore as Prime Minister of the UK: There is nothing in the unwritten/statute/custom of UK Constitution that required a General Election simply because a PM gave up office - - this is infact the reality in at least 12 other European Nations that I have quickly looked up inc. Germany. The PM in the UK is the head of the Cabinet Ministers responsible for National/International Policy of the UK subject to the Devolved powers and authority of Parliaments/Assemblies within the 4 Union Nations.
This UK 'Democratic' system undoubtely has its faults and is going through a very testing time at the moment (that said, there has been remarkable 'constitutional' reform under New Labour, e.g. Devolution, but, it does seem to have petered out); nevertheless, it bears no relationship to the examples I gave of the 'unelected' aspects of the EU plus 'unmandated' MEPs.
I simply don't know how you could have even thought to write it is not an "elected" Government!? Truly, deeply worrying that you attempt to pronounce on the Rights and Responsibilities of 450,000,000 within the EU when you can make such a MISINFORMED statement (especially from someone trying to promote 'INFORMED' Citizens!)! Absolutely astonishing error!
Re, ECJ judges: This is a supreme International Court whose Judgements affect everyone of the 450,000,000 Citizens - - they are untouchable - - they are remote and where the UK/England is concerned they are also completely out of touch with the Judicial-Legal system which has evolved and operates in an entirely different manner from that on mainland Europe. The ECJ subverts National Law in all 28 Member Nations: Its decisions have primacy over Nationally elected Governments and Law Courts - - they do not reflect in any way the Free Will of Citizens of member States as expressed at National or indeed European elections. As I wrote in a previous comment, how many Citizens or Governments realise that when/if Lisbon is ratified and comes into effect the ECJ will have the power to prevent referendum, reverse referendum results and deny a State the right to withdraw from the EU?
This is a dangerously uncivil and undemocratic path the Federalised EU is taking and it will end in grief.
Re, "...your voter is irrational..": So, 180million irrational non-voters because they do not Vote the way you want them too, and worse they do not Vote at all for your EU. An EU they do not feel any part of or hold any attachment for!?
They are "irrational" whereas your faithful attachment to an entity that has changed beyond all recognition from that body the Citizens of the first 6 and later 12 chose in Referenda to join is not not a form of mental instability!? Look at the great EU founder nations - - France and Netherlands - - when the Citizens were given Referenda they Voted 'NO' to the plans and policies proposed/introduced by the EU, and so it was with Denmark and then Eire. Your EU is full of these 'irrational' Citizens who when rarely given the opportunity have demonstrated everytime they do not like your EU at all!
"Irrational"? It is almost too revelatory of the unprincipled attitudes and inclinations of the European Union and its supporters that you could conceive of writing in such a dismissive manner about the Citizens of the EU!?
re, "...hysterical, emotional scaremongering.."? Would that it were that easy to surmount the deep-seated doubts and mistrust found amongst Citizens across the entire EU.
You and other 'pro-EU' maybe right and the European Citizens may fall into line and obsequiously continue to surrender every Right and Responsibility garnered by blood, sweat, toil, tears and not a little political negotiating over centuries of struggle against oppression: I may be completely misjudging how the historical evolution of the British Isles and mainland Europe has made a sea-change towards a unification of all the peoples.
However, if you are wrong and I am right that the resentment of the EU crushing individualism and enterprise will grow and build into a determined resistance - - well, then we shall see what we shall see - - the EU is not an organisation that responds well or positively to Public challenge (the last 3 MEP elections show how it just marches forward irrespective of dislocation/disconnection from those Citizens it seeks to rule).
I do not know when or how or even why the 'spark' of Civil resistance will turn from pen to sword, but, it will come unless the EU completely reverses its present undemocratic trends.
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy and #152.
See my #136.
Frankly the term is wholly unacceptable.
My late father served from Dec '39 to Sept '45: He was at Dunkirk and D-Day plus 1 hour - - couldn't swim at Dunkirk but had learnt by Normandy - - he 'liberated' and married my late mother, a Belgian of Dutch-German descent. Point being they both showed the utmost respect for all the Nations involved in the conflict.
My mother lived through the occupation and in later years always distinguished between the 'les boches/les soldat allemagne' (the Wehrmacht) and 'les Nazis' by whom she meant the SS and the Gestapo.
As you, I and I'm quite sure the majority of Britons and Europeans know if the chanting sport fans, BNP supporters and their ugly replicants across the channel had ever lived through anything like the carnage and misery of that now rapidly diminishing 1930s - WW2 generation they would know to keep their ignorant, ill-informed nonsense to themselves.
Complain about this comment
@ 110 Me_rijn
"Hold on a minute. You are blaiming the 'EU' (an entire international organization) for Blair and Brown not keeping their promise to their national constituency?"
Some here blame the EU even when it rains or when the wind comes from the wrong direction. So easy to pick scapegoats!
@ 119 Marcus Idioticus 2:
"Aren't you glad an American invented the typewriter?"
BEEEP wrong again. Wow Marcus I more and more get the impression that every word you type here is far more likely to be wrong than right!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter
The first typwriters were probably made in the 17th century, but there seem to be no remains left of those. So the first ever typewriter made was either English or Italian. If you however refer to the first commercially sold typewriter then it was danish and not amercian either.
edit: damit Boilerplated was faster than me blowing up your lies this time Marcus :-/
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy:
"I am sorry if this has been so long but I just can't let MAII keep altering history for his own vainglorious purposes and devaluing the efforts of those who lost their lives."
Thank you for sharing that knowledge. I didn't know about that. But theere is hardly any chance that Marcus will stop spreading lies around . He was proven to be wrong countless times yet the most funny thing about him is that whenever someone confronts him with facts he doesn't like or that won't fit to his ultra patriotic world view he fails to reply towards the topic just to start a new one elsewhere and telling everone how often he outsmarted others already. I guess thanks to free speech etc. we have to live with the crap he spreads here and rely on most humans being relatively fast at figuering out how little truth in his post is.
Complain about this comment
#150
"Please do as I have done and do a bit of 'Googling'. You will find many reports where politicians from both national and European bodies have said how similat the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are."
That in it's self doesn't make it the same document, that is, it creates a "Constitution for Europe".
"If you wish to be pedantic with the actual words used, we can play that game all day. I actually have a life outside of the blogosphere and will use most of today enjoying that."
Then you are admitting that you are talking from a position of ignorance then, you either understand or you don't! You are also demonstrating just why it would be so disastrous to hold a referendum, if Brown accepted the eurosceptics calls for a referendum for a months time just when did you plan to spend the time to actually understand the issues, to be pedantic with the facts and fiction?...
"BTW I notice you didn't refer to the Merkel quote. Was that too specific for you to refute?
Not at all, it's just such an open comment it's hard to know what she meant (and without having her full comment or speech...), just because the same issues are covered by the LT it doesn't mean that the LT creates a constitutional entity - for example a "Constitution (for Europe)" could protect someone's rights to 'freedom of travel' beyond their own countries borders, on the other hand a EU directive could do the same, would that make the directive a constitution too?!
Complain about this comment
Re "To keep you INFORMED: blablablablabla"
I case you didn't notice I used your own arguments. You said the Commission isn't elected. I said the Uk government isn't elected.
Now you reply that the UK government (like most European governments) is backed by a parliamentary majority.
And I'll answer you that the Commission is supported by a parliamentary majority in the European Parliament. The European parliament (our elected representatives) that can always make the Commission abdicate in a vote of (dis)trust.
So there you go, your government is as 'elected' as the Commission. Am i saying your government is undemocratic? No. So how can you say the Commission is 'undemocratic'.
Re "This is a supreme International Court whose Judgements affect everyone of the 450,000,000 Citizens - - they are untouchable - - they are remote and where the UK/England is concerned they are also completely out of touch with the Judicial-Legal system which has evolved and operates in an entirely different manner from that on mainland Europe. The ECJ subverts National Law in all 28 Member Nations: Its decisions have primacy over Nationally elected Governments and Law Courts - - they do not reflect in any way the Free Will of Citizens of member States as expressed at National or indeed European elections. As I wrote in a previous comment, how many Citizens or Governments realise that when/if Lisbon is ratified and comes into effect the ECJ will have the power to prevent referendum, reverse referendum results and deny a State the right to withdraw from the EU?
This is a dangerously uncivil and undemocratic path the Federalised EU is taking and it will end in grief."
Wow you are a genius! Do you mean that the rulings of the highest court of the EU affect all EU citizens? Quickly tell the press!
You need to reread my post. There is nothing shocking about the primacy of EU law, it has been a principle since 1964 (=BEFORE UK accession). Since when do rulings of English courts reflect the free will of citizens? They just reflect the law. If you disagree, why don't you read "L'esprit des lois" of Montesquieu, Mr Democrat?
I have no idea how you can claim the ECJ would be able to prevent or reverse referendums. The ECJ only has attributed competences. It is bound by the principle of subsidiarity. So tell me, in which circumstances will the ECJ be able to prevent or reverse referendums?
Concerning the right to withdraw from the EU: this is actually made possible by the Treaty of Lisbon. For the first time clearly written into the Treaty. Stop spreading flagrant lies.
Concering mainland Europe legal system being out of touch with british legal system: Guess what my friend, it was your country that asked to join the EC (a continental European organization). It was not the other way around. Pretty nice expression of your arrogant imperialist island mentality to demand that 26 continental legal systems adapt themselves to your common law system.
Re "So, 180million irrational non-voters because they do not Vote the way you want them too, and worse they do not Vote at all for your EU. An EU they do not feel any part of or hold any attachment for!?
They are "irrational" whereas your faithful attachment to an entity that has changed beyond all recognition from that body the Citizens of the first 6 and later 12 chose in Referenda to join is not not a form of mental instability!? Look at the great EU founder nations - - France and Netherlands - - when the Citizens were given Referenda they Voted 'NO' to the plans and policies proposed/introduced by the EU, and so it was with Denmark and then Eire. Your EU is full of these 'irrational' Citizens who when rarely given the opportunity have demonstrated everytime they do not like your EU at all!"
You really need to learn to read. I said that if what you postulate is true, Eu citizens are irrational instead of apathic. I never said they ARE irrational. UK education that bad that you have hard times reading simple texts, huh?
Complain about this comment
# 135. Mathiasen:
Hardly stating a case, when the reasoning you put behind it was opinion based supposition which is so easily refuted.
The "the alternative is war" argument is absurd in the extreme.
(Although it may have been an over-riding driving fear in a post war climate).
As are most arguments based on the flaws in the status quo, or based on fear.
Surely its not so difficult to present a clear positive case for why further integration is desirable and beneficial for all parties.
Although I am yet to see such a case be presented, at least to the people of Britain.
As far as I can see, bigger organisation = more consistency, economies of scale, potentially increased power and influence (if pulling in the same direction).
Smaller organisation = more responsive, more able to adapt to individual needs, avoids potential dis-economies through getting too large, greater visibility.
Admittedly as I favour small government, its a hard sell.
The perils of forcing integration on people with differing cultural backgrounds can be seen in failed states (often created by drawing lines on a map in the colonial / post colonial era) around the world.
So the question remains, why is further European integration a good thing?
Complain about this comment
larceny #138
Orthodintics is the branch of dentistry that deals with straightening out teeth.
http://www.bos.org.uk/
That's the British Orthodontists Society (I made the other org up, too unimportant to find out what they call themselved.) Lots of ingnorance from Europe on display here on this thread.
Boiled and Plated, to hear you Europeans tell it, nothing was invented in America....except me. That's what I am talking about, unmitigated European hubris combined with unmitigated European ignorance always ends up in hatred, war, disaster. I'll admit there were some things invented in Europe. Nazism, Communism, Fascism. All of these were European inventions and all of them led to the largest bloodbaths in human history. Too bad Hugo Chavez can't read. If he had read the history of the USSR and Eastern Europe during the later half of the twentieth century, he might not be plunging his country into the same bottomless pit they fell into. So far the only thing that's kept him afloat is oil. I think many Europeans are still captivated by those failed dogmas and others such as socialism, absolute monarchy, aristocricy. This is why the EU finds such resonance there. Like a moth helplessly driven to fly into a flame, Europe flirts with a new disaster every time it recovers from the previous one. If imperialism hadn't been invented before the rise of European civilization, they'd have invented that too. They merely perfected it and enslaved much of the world with it. Next time you go into a cathedral or one of your other monuments, look at all the gold and wonder what part of the world it came from and how many natives died when Europeans stole it. That's what I kept thinking when I visited Toledo Spain, this gold was almost all stolen from the Americas.
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments made @ #158:
"The New Labour Government was formed from the Elected MAJORITY of MPs following the June 2005 General Election"
So the government was not elected then, just the MPs, isn't that what Me_rijn said!
Brown could resign his government tomorrow, Cameron could be invited to form a new (minority) government by the Queen - assuming that a case could be put forward for not having an election. In the UK we elect Members of Parliament, we no not elect the "Government".
Historical case: 1974 (February) election, Wilson formed a minority Government;
634 seats plus the Speaker
Con 296 (-34);
Lab 301 (+14);
Lib 14 (+8);
Plaid 2 (+2);
SNat 7 (+6);
UU 9(+1)
Others 5 (nc)
(Source: http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge74a/results.htm)
No party had an overall majority, Labour formed a minority government.
Complain about this comment
"President of precisely what?"
A crock of ...
Complain about this comment
139. At 09:02am on 20 Oct 2009, lacerniagigante wrote:
" Despite your (self)hate for things European, and it being written by a Spaniard more than 400 years ago, I think you can find some fine English translation. I think you'll like it."
I certainly do not hate everything European. You don't say exactly that I do, but I think you mean to say that.
I think that the idea that people who hate the "EU" hate everything European is an "EU"-lovers myth. There are some people like that, but you don't have to be like that to hate the "EU".
I am trying to learn Italian but find it more difficult than I thought I would. I am tenacious. I hope to be able to watch some of those wonderful Italian films without reading the subtitles, to be able to read "The Name of the Rose" in Italian and to be able to get about in Italian.
I can' be bothered to read Don Quixote.
I think there could be as sudden almighty bust up between the UK and the "EU". I suggest that Brits should sell their homes in Spain and get something in Australia, New Zealan, the USA or Canada.
Complain about this comment
How will slaves of the EU superstate know when the trap has been sprung? That's easy, for one reason or another they will find it impossible to leave. As the requirement to transfer wealth from those who are productive and can sustain themselves to those who aren't and need help becomes greater, those with marketable skills, the technocratic and managerial classes will find that they can live better quality lives in other parts of the world and will be prompted to emigrate. When the government sees this happening to any significant degree, it will slam the door shut to keep them in. Whether it is through higher taxes, wage controls, or some other mechanism the government will find a way. When journalists begin reporting this both internally and to the world, censorship will sharply increase to suppress it. Sooner or later it happens in every totalitarian dictatorship. It's happening in Venezuela now.
Complain about this comment
#158 ikamaskeip
While I agree your point about the legitimacy of the Brown government I take issue with your following point
"Look at the great EU founder nations - - France and Netherlands - - when the Citizens were given Referenda they Voted 'NO' to the plans and policies proposed/introduced by the EU."
As it stands a true statement, at face value they most certainly voted NO but (there is usually a but) in the case of the French the no vote was against the then Government. The constitution referendum was just a vehicle for a vote of disapproval for the Government that had introduced it. I know that for a fact in the case of France and have been told by Dutch friends that the same thing happened in Holland. It was certainly the case with Ireland for the first Lisbon Treaty vote where those pushing for a NO vote tied all sorts of unrelated issues into the need to vote NO. That is one of the many problems with referenda in general they are very easily hijacked, in addition to which the complexity of both the constitution and the treaty are, I would suggest, too great for a referendum. Lastly on the subject of referenda it is always easier to vote NO if you don't understand or are unsure than to vote YES. The dice are always loaded towards a NO vote. Which is why, I suspect, they are so popular with those of the sceptic tendency.
A second point you make.
"As I wrote in a previous comment, how many Citizens or Governments realise that when/if Lisbon is ratified and comes into effect the ECJ will have the power to prevent referendum, reverse referendum results and deny a State the right to withdraw from the EU?"
While I don't attempt to deny this. To be honest I don't know whether you are correct in that assertion or not. I do, though, have a simple question. If I accept what you say as the truth just who is going to resort to asking these judges to prevent or reverse such things? It makes no sense. Who would benefit?
Complain about this comment
163. Me_rijn
"26 continental legal systems adapt themselves to your common law system."
Actually 27. Scots Law is within the European mainstream.
Complain about this comment
#161 Seraphim85
I completely agree, and for the most part these days I ignore him, but there does sometime come a point when you have to go on record to stop him. Not all the time neither you, I or, I suspect, all the bloggers on all the BBC blogs together have time to refute all the rubbish he purveys.
Complain about this comment
Reaper_of_Souls, You wrote:
In #164: “So the question remains, why is further European integration a good thing?”, while in # 133 your remark was that “the need for integration has never being explained”.
It is two quite different things.
“the need for integration” has been explained numerous times, but in different ways, because this is *politics* and behind it are *interests*.
If you are interested you can go back and see if you think Great Britain missed the train in the 1950s. In any case: Adenauer was the first to explain the need for integration and Robert Schumann was the man, who finally gave it a structure in the 1950s.
You give me an opportunity to add this: The Italian writer Magris, a most agreeable man who has just received a major book prize in Frankfurt am Main, is a strong advocate of European integration. You can find brand new arguments in his literature.
Complain about this comment
#165 MarcusAureliusII
"look at all the gold and wonder what part of the world it came from and how many natives died when Europeans stole it."
Rather like the poor Native North Americans who had your European ancestors stealing their land, and very nearly succeeded in committing genocide, but no, come to think of it, by then you had become the USA and so it wasn't us Europeans it was you Americans wot dun it. You are on very dangerous ground MAII, as usual.
PS Pacific War. No comment I see.
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated and #166.
Re, "..so the Government was not elected then, just the MPs, isn't that what Me_rijn said!"
Well yes, but if you are going to be as obtuse about the purpose of a United Kingdom General Election as him/her then you can forget any chance of my trying to explain it all again! Quite apart from which he specifically put 'Brown' in parenthesis as if there was something significant about a PM not being directly elected by the general enfranchised populace.
I am not remotely concerned with your example which simply is not applicable to anything concerning this debate with Me_rijm about the 'democratic' strength/weakness of the EU.
I am surprised at this unjustified intervention by you which is beneath your usual quality irrespective of whether I agree with them or not.
Complain about this comment
Me-rijn and #163.
Re, "...blablablablabla..."
Erm, have you nothing more that reveals even a modicum of respect for another's point of view!?
Surely you realise that that is exactly how I and others could refer to your 'contributions'.
However, we 'anti-EU' generally choose to engage in debate: I cannot help it if you do not like the content of the arguments because they do not suit your version of how the world should be.
There is not the remotest similarity between the UK Cabinet and the EU Commission: This is just so much ducking from the reality of the way the EU 'democracy' works (or does not as I and millions of others see it) - - that you continue to press forward with this total red-herring is symptomatic of the 'pro-EU' lobbyist methodology - - what is the point of debating the value of the EU if you fail to see any differences between its supra-national organisation7administration and the various 28 National Governments?
I am not "..spreading flagrant lies.." We all know and I have acknowledged before that Lisbon codifies the Right to withdrawal which has existed all along (a 2 year process): My point is the ECJ can reverse such a referendum - - you, need to look at the 'subsidiarity' clauses you are so proud of - - the ECJ has supreme/primacy of making Law within the EU and that means it can introduce/amend/counteract any decision by any National Government, and that of course includes a decision to 'withdraw' from the EU.
I must say I cannot see the ECJ ever taking such an unwise step, but, the power of this Court is such that in Law it is entirely feasible.
As for the ECJ being 'out of touch' with the UK Legal system - - why is it so wrong to point this out - - it is surely a reason for some of the UK Citizens concern? No one can deny (not even the EU) the historical-cultural-political-social evolution of the British Isles has been markedly different from that of mainland Europe. The ECJ is a very pertinent part of that difference - - there is nothing wrong with and I did not suggest European Legal systems (incidentally, it was 6, not 26 when the UK joined) are wrong, only that they differ so much from the UK.
Re, "..UK education that bad you have hard time reading simple tecxts, huh?"
The last refuge of the scoundrel is... well, in your case, I will assume that along with, "...wow you are a genius.." and, "..Mr Democrat?" plus, "... arrogant imperialist island mentality.." added to by ".. you really need to learn to read.." are all expressions of a person who has run out of legitimate argument and has fallen into feeble insult.
Shame, it was good until your #163 when the true EUrophile contempt for any challenging voice finally came to the fore.
I have stuck to the points of debate: I have expressed shock at your attempt to compare the UK Cabinet Ministers with the EU Commission but at no time have I called into question your intellect. Frankly, there is no more to be said as to prolong this particular debate would allow you to consider your recent style and content is acceptable.
I wish you well. I wish all Europe well, which is exactly why I oppose the EU just as you support it. That you resort to name-calling only reinforces those of us who see an ever-widening gap between the Federalising EU and the Citizens it claims to serve.
Complain about this comment
In #170. T1m0thy, you wandered:
when/if Lisbon is ratified and comes into effect the ECJ will have the power to prevent referendum, reverse referendum results and deny a State the right to withdraw from the EU?
Nothing of this is correct. For those countries that allow for referenda in their constitutions at all - Germany does for instance not - there will be no changes. I can guarantee the LT will not annul paragraph 20 of the Danish constitution!
Secondly, it will not reverse one single referendum made under the auspices of a constitution, and thirdly it will not deny a state the right to withdraw from the EU. It is out of the question too. Contrary to this, there will be a formal procedure for an exit.
It is actually a reason why some should be looking forward to this treaty.
Complain about this comment
T1-MOUTHY
"You are on very dangerous ground MAII, as usual."
What's usual is the typical European response. When you can't argue the facts, change the subject. When you can't attack an argument, attack the messenger. We know the full painful complex story of the history of the Native Americans far better than you do and it is far more complex than you'd make it out to be. The story of European imperialism that enslaved the world and committed mass murder and piracy in every corner of the globe for century after century is far simpler. No defense to it whatsover. The conquistadors burned their ships so there'e be no thoughts of going back among the conquerers until their savagery was complete. Britain ruled more than the waves, it ruled one quarter of the human race in an atrocity upon which the sun never set....until Britain's empire was wrecked by two world wars over the spoils of empire.
Complain about this comment
Marcus idioticus wrote:
"...As the requirement to transfer wealth from those who are productive and can sustain themselves to those who aren't and need help becomes greater, those with marketable skills, the technocratic and managerial classes will find that they can live better quality lives in other parts of the world and will be prompted to emigrate..."yadada blabla
Well talking about tranfering wealth - the companies that had to be saved by government money are not allowed to pay any bonuses until they pay it all back - Wall Street doesn't seem to like this rule and give a wet rats ass about tax payers money - and so does the White House seemingly.
T1m0thy:
He yet did it again :). He again ran out of valid arguements and only thing he could do is laying words in our mouths that never anyone has said such as that "nothing was invented in the US´" crap. Is "confession of failure" or "evidence of incapacity" more frequently used to ascribe this kind of acting?
I don't like crushing your hopes, but there were so so many points which he ignored when he ran out of gunpowder (usually after the first post contradicting his position) that I fear there won't be a reply on that pacific war point. (Is it just me or does Marcus' posting reflect the American war agenda to some point? "Nevermind just start the war we haven't thought about how it could all end but the bombs are paid for - let's find a way to use them!")
Complain about this comment
#178 MarcusAureliusII
Re TI Mouthy
You really are a lout are you not? Your first and last resort is to be abusive. That won't work so you then change the subject or rant. Try me on this complex subject of the near genocide that your forebears were involved in against the North American natives. Let's see if us poor old Europeans can cope with a little bit of US complexity.
Complain about this comment
@ 64, 176 and a long etc. ikamaskeip
"However, we 'anti-EU' generally choose to engage in debate"
An example of the Europhobes "engaging in the debate"
" "Undemocratic"! It doesn't get much more undemocratic than that!
Eire Referendum: Sorry, but, did the EU abide by the first Referendum result? No! Did the EU decline a second referendum? No! Will the EU be offering a 3rd Referendum? No! So, if the vote goes against the EU it is to be repeated but if it goes in favour it is set in stone! And that is your version of 'democracy'!?"
Is this "engaging in debate" or is this reciting the Book of Revelation according to the Anti-EU brigade?
You, and the rest of the Anti-EU brigade and your unelected tabloid bureaucrats are, of course, entitled to your opinion but the way you express it and go about it is not as if it was not just an opinion but rather the new gospel.
For the benefit of the "debate" kindly explain to us, whether Europhobes or Europhiles, what is SOOOO undemocratic of a second Irish referendum that fulfils the following requirements:
- It has been agreed by 27 elected heads of government of the 27 EU members sitting around a conference table (or rather 26, in fact, as I think El Gordo was the only unelected head of government but that is for another "debate"), INCLUDING the Irish government
- It has been scheduled, not on the basis of the same and identical issue as the first referendum but rather on the basis of the same treaty PLUS the issuance of legally binding guarantees to address each an every one of the concerns that were deemed to determine the No in the first referendum, including reversing the previous decision to do away with the current system of one commissioner per country.
- It was understood by all parties with any shred of common sense that there would be absolutely no chance of having a third referendum if the outcome of the second one, with all the new legal binding guarantees in place, was again a No.
Please enlighten us with your "engagement in the debate". Of course if you are just going to recite another page of your Anti-EU Book of Revelation please don't bother.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mathiasen and #177.
Sorry to disagree but the ECJ does have the power to recind any National Government decision: It therefore has the authority to reverse a referendum decision were a National Government to act upon its result and the 'law' whatever we care to call it was referred to the ECJ which in its judicial capacity viewed it as contravening some aspect of the charters etc. by and for which it was created to uphold.
If it was not so then the ECJ could be challenged at any and every point of Law: There is no appeal beyond the ECJ unless to International Tribunal founded by the U.N.O and such bodies do not at present exist.
As I have written in a previous comment I believe this would be an incredibly unlikely event: Nevertheless, what all 'pro-EU' and 'anti-EU' (i.e. every Citizen of the EU) needs to be aware of and come to terms with is that under the Lisbon Treaty there is NO LIMIT to the authority of the supreme EU Judicial body - - the European Court of Justice will be the final arbiter of any and everything that is made Law in any of the 28 Member States - - there is no opt out for Germany's 'constitution' or even Eire's infamous and recently negotiated 3 Protocols from a final Judgement of the ECJ.
Frankly, when I read how you all blithely write about 'democracy' within the EU and have all that faith in the primacy of the EU's legal systems I start to wonder anew how you could possibly have fallen under the spell of the EU!?
To draw comparisons: The Soviet regime was covered in Law and Civil Rights and not a single Citizen outside the elite-establishment ruling clique was able to insist on one of them when it did not suit those who held the 'legal authority'.
This European Union is not what the Citizens of Europe envisaged: It is only a matter of time before it dawns on the many that they are in a constitutional-political trap which in many ways is of their own making.
Complain about this comment
Focusing on the specific topic of the EU president I keep reading stuff in the British media about Blair being the runaway favourite for the post.
I must be very thick and shallow but I fail to see where the evidence is.
I agree with Lacerniagigante at 120. If there is a shred of common sense left in the EU, the EU leaders won't nominate Blair.
Not only because of the Irak war, where he handed British sovereignty on a silver tray to a NeoCon across the Atlantic under the deafening cheers of the Anti-EU brigade and their unelected tabloid bureaucrats. But also, and primarily for this reason (luckily there are still some heads of government in the EU with common sense):
"Governments in Benelux and Austria oppose Mr Blair for other reasons. (...) They object, in principle, to any British figure taking the post while the UK remains outside the euro and the common, passport-free borders established on the continent by the Schengen agreement. "
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/president-blair-loses-sarkozys-support-1804354.html
My personal take on this:
- No British politician should be offered the job of EU president for the reasons expressed by the "Governments in Benelux and Austria"
- If it was compulsory to have a British EU president, Neo-Con-Blair should be the last choice (on a par with El Gordo)
Besides, which EU leader other than Berlusconi (and El Gordo) has formally endorsed Blair for the job?
I would hope the BBC reports more insightful information on this topic as I find a lot more insight in media outlets (e.g. the Independent) that do not enjoy even a tiny fraction of the lavish funds the BBC has at its disposal.
Complain about this comment
181. JorgeG1
"...For the benefit of the "debate" kindly explain to us, whether Europhobes or Europhiles, what is SOOOO undemocratic of a second Irish referendum..."
Would a second referendum have been held if the Eire electorate had voted 'yes' first time round?
Complain about this comment
The last resort, when you lose every which way there is, refer the posting to the moderators, especially one that proves that the USS Enterprise fought nearly the entire war in the Pacific and a replacement for the Hornet wasn't all that long in coming.
Here's a list of current US Navy ships, President Obama's boats;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy
I wonder what the US charges Britain to store its nuclear weapons for it.
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy and #170.So, the Eire referendum that voted 'No' to Lisbon was a vote by Irish people who found it easier to vote no, those who voted against the government and those who didn't understand.
Lo and behold some months later enough of those same Eire voters have voted 'Yes' to Lisbon and now they are intelligent, thoughtful, reasoning human beings who clearly know a good thing when they see/hear it.
Then we have your 'fact' that the France Referenda vote against the 'constitution' designed by a former French President with France wholly in mind was because they did not like the Government!?
Same, it appears, with the Netherlands vote of 'No': That was according to your friends a vote against the Dutch Government!?
Whilst I do not doubt the veracity of the anecdotal evidence of what determined the outcome of the 2 Referenda, frankly, none of it would stand up in a court of law, and especially not infront of the EU's ECJ!
Honestly! If you put that scenario into a Monty Python sketch we'd be saying now that really is pulling the other one (3 referending times over!!!).
Complain about this comment
To: Ikamaskeip 187
Re the above:
France - YES Paris loves putting a finger in the eye of the elite and the rest of the country ditto to Paris.
Netherlands - YES but a bit more complicated. The government was not exactly popular and had put an unrealistic rate between the Guilder and the Euro. This meant the Government could blame the EU for the apparent inflation on the introduction of the Euro.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 and #181.
Well, of course we 'anti-EU' all bow before your superior debating skills!
If only!
At least Mr_rijn had the grace to engage in an exchange of views for qite a few posts befoe typically 'pro-EU' he started lashing out at the intellect etc. of those who did not agree with his line of argument.
You, on the other hand, JorgeG1, just leap straight in with the insults!
It is a bit unrealistic to suddenly leap after 5 of my Comments and latch onto one paragrpah from over 60 to point a negative finger at me!
I could take the opening para of your #181 and refer in like manner to you.
I wont. I cannot be bothered.
Complain about this comment
Original subject of this blog
Justin used the phrase - bureaucratic ringmaster. Near the mark in my opinion.
Firstly: I cannot see the Government of any of the member states giving actual power to Tony Blair or any other holder of the post.
Secondly: Looking from it from the other end. Can anyone seriously believe that the President of the United States, for example, is going to phone up the President of the Council when he wants to talk business? When I have a pain in my back I do not want to discuss it with the Practice Manager. I want to speak to my Doctor, like now.
Complain about this comment
Are activist moderators are taking offense at my postings that are negative about Britain and Europe? Do you suppose it was my comment about how nice it was that the UK could make at least some contribution to winning WWII (unlike the French resistance whose importance was enormously overmagnified) and in the cold war, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Was it my comment about how it took about 6 months (at least it seemed that way) for the British aircraft carrier to reach the Malvinas from the UK during the Falklands war? What could it have been? Just saw a British economist from Money magazine on Yahoo finance talk about how the US dollar will soon no longer be the world's reserve currency and how the rise of China will signal an end to "The American Empire." Hope does spring eternal.
Complain about this comment
Spain and the Lisbon Treaty.
The Spanish Constitution requires the Government to hold a National Referendum on any proposal that will have a Constitutional Impact.
Spain voted YES to the proposed European Constitution in a referendum. Zapatero, as Head of Government, said that as the Treaty of Lisbon did not introduce any further constitutional changes a further referendum was not required. This could have been disputed in the Constitutional Court, whose ruling is binding on the Government. Zapatero did not say whether it was substantially the same or not. He did not need to.
I hope this helps.
Complain about this comment
Would a second referendum have been held if the Eire electorate had voted 'yes' first time round?"
What has that got to do with the question I asked?
I asked, for the benefit of the "debate" if the Anti-EU brigade can point out to exactly what was undemocratic in the procedure to have a second referendum. I.e. was it ordered by unelected Brussels bureaucrats, perhaps, against the wishes of the Irish government, the 26 other heads of EU government and the EU parliament (other than UKIP)?
What you are saying by asking that question is:
"The EU heads of government have no right to WISH for a Yes vote and therefore have no right to democratically work to try and address the concerns raised and go back for a second (and last) time, having offered legally binding guarantees to the Irish. They have no right because we, the Anti-EU brigade, say so!"
Now that is totalitarian.
Complain about this comment
185. At 6:24pm on 20 Oct 2009, rg wrote:
"Would a second referendum have been held if the Eire electorate had voted 'yes' first time round?"
Will the British electorate get a second (rerun) election should either the Tories or UKIP be elected 'first time round' in the UK next May...
Complain about this comment
#183, ikamaskeip
You wrote: the ECJ does have the power to recind any National Government decision.
I have a couple of relatively comprehensive dictionaries that cannot explain what “recind” means, probably because it is a legal expression. But about international courts there are two things to say:
Firstly I do indeed not mind if a verdict of an international court has consequences for the member countries. I actually welcome this in a number of cases, and I wish the verdicts of the court in Haag had consequences for the USA.
Secondly: You repeat, “It therefore has the authority to reverse a referendum decision were a National Government to act upon its result.”
You are obviously not informed about the character of the Danish opt-outs, but they can only be abandoned through referenda, and the union as such would welcome such decisions.
There is NO COURT in the European system that reverses, annuls or bans any referendum in Denmark. You can take my word for it: If there were as much as a tiny glimmer of correctness in this, the EU would receive a withdrawal form before anybody could count to 100.
Complain about this comment
#187 ikamaskeip
Tres drole but it doesn't alter the fact that so far the greatest achievements of those against the EU within the UK are firstly to marginalise the power of the UK within the EU and secondly to keep the UK out of the Euro. Congratulations on both pyrrhic victories achieved at no small expense to the people of Britain. The cost of debating points over democracy and the small print of whether it is a constitution or a Treaty are no doubt in your eyes worth it. I wonder if the people of Britain will see it that way in the long term
Complain about this comment
#191 MarcusAureliusII
You are just a sad old bore. Get a life. the Arabs are now talking about replacing the dollar as the pegged oil currency they want it to be replaced by a weighted basket of currencies by 2011.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 and #193.
Re, "I asked for the benefit of 'debate'...":
Apparently if you 'ask' you are a genuine provider of all that is factual and seek only clarification, whereas, if we 'ask', we are only doing it because we want stir up trouble!
Now as my old Sergeant used to say to every new recruit, "When I want your opinion I'll tell you it, in the meantime, shut it!"
Re, "What has that got to do with the question I (you) asked?"
So, that's a 'No' then, there would NOT have been a 2nd Referendum had the Eire Citizens Voted 'Yes' to Lisbon in the first referendum.
You are right of course, the result of the first Referenda did NOT matter because it was NOT what the EU demanded and so there was a 2nd, and no doubt there would have been a 3rd, 4th.... until the EU got its way.
You are 'pro-EU', so, you neither recognise nor acknowledge that 'our' question about a 2nd referendum exposes everything that is duplicitous about you and your EU's 2nd referendum response!
Complain about this comment
#198 ikamaskeip
I'm sorry but at this point I have to say blah blah blah blah. This is truly pointless. The only hope I have been able to glean from the whole blog is that no one, be it for or against the EU, wants Mr Anthony Blair to be our President. Please write to Mrs Kinnock with regard to this, I can't tell you her email address, I'm afraid the moderators told me off when I tried, but here is a hint try Glenys Kinnock MEP and you'll find her email address on the first google page, Obviously very confidential.
The reason I ask you to write is that maybe she'll withdraw the nomination and save us Brits suffering the ignominy of being rejected. Lol.
Good night
Complain about this comment
195. Mathiasen
"There is NO COURT in the European system that reverses, annuls or bans any referendum in Denmark. You can take my word for it: If there were as much as a tiny glimmer of correctness in this, the EU would receive a withdrawal form before anybody could count to 100."
I think the problem that the English have is that their sovereignty is vested in Parliament and not the people. The English Parliament (even when it is acting as the UK Parliament) can do anything it likes - even against an individual and do it retrospectively. Of course, there are practical limitations on Parliament exercising that power, but England seems concerned that some EU institution would do what English Parliaments have done in the past, because it is unrestrained in its power. They really haven't got their heads around the fact that the people can and would limit such power - everywhere but England.
Complain about this comment
@ikamaskeip
Re "There is not the remotest similarity between the UK Cabinet and the EU Commission: This is just so much ducking from the reality of the way the EU 'democracy' works (or does not as I and millions of others see it) - - that you continue to press forward with this total red-herring is symptomatic of the 'pro-EU' lobbyist methodology - - what is the point of debating the value of the EU if you fail to see any differences between its supra-national organisation7administration and the various 28 National Governments?"
Tell me than, what is fundamentally different between the Commission and a national government that makes that the commission is undemocratic (although it IS controlled by a democratically elected Parliament), whereas the UK national government is democratic, because it is controlled by a democratically elected parliament.
Re "I am not "..spreading flagrant lies.." We all know and I have acknowledged before that Lisbon codifies the Right to withdrawal which has existed all along (a 2 year process): My point is the ECJ can reverse such a referendum - - you, need to look at the 'subsidiarity' clauses you are so proud of - - the ECJ has supreme/primacy of making Law within the EU and that means it can introduce/amend/counteract any decision by any National Government, and that of course includes a decision to 'withdraw' from the EU.
I must say I cannot see the ECJ ever taking such an unwise step, but, the power of this Court is such that in Law it is entirely feasible."
Again: the EU only has attributed competences. It does not have general competences. Therefore the ECJ can not make a ruling against a member state whatever the subject case. It needs to be in community competences. Judicially technically speaking, the court doesn't even annul a national measure. It simply states the non conformity of the national measure with community law.
So, please (second time I ask) give me an example of a hypothetical national referendum which the ECJ would reverse.
Or do some reading: In the Tobacco case (C- 491/01) the ECJ decided that with the directive on the ban on tobacco products, the community institutions overstepped their competences. It upheld that the Community could only act to the benefit of the functioning of the internal market. The lisbon treaty doesn't fundamentally change this. So please argument from where the ECJ would get the GENERAL powers you claim it has under Lisbon. Again, please ARGUMENT instead of POSTULATING. I am VERY curious about your answer.
Re "As for the ECJ being 'out of touch' with the UK Legal system - - why is it so wrong to point this out - - it is surely a reason for some of the UK Citizens concern? No one can deny (not even the EU) the historical-cultural-political-social evolution of the British Isles has been markedly different from that of mainland Europe. The ECJ is a very pertinent part of that difference - - there is nothing wrong with and I did not suggest European Legal systems (incidentally, it was 6, not 26 when the UK joined) are wrong, only that they differ so much from the UK."
So what is your point than? You just pointed out some difference between the Uk and mainland Europe. There are many more, but I don't see the point in naming all of them.. I am saying those differences were there before the UK decided it wanted to join the EC (It was not the EC that asked the UK to join!)
Re "Shame, it was good until your #163 when the true EUrophile contempt for any challenging voice finally came to the fore.
I have stuck to the points of debate: I have expressed shock at your attempt to compare the UK Cabinet Ministers with the EU Commission but at no time have I called into question your intellect. Frankly, there is no more to be said as to prolong this particular debate would allow you to consider your recent style and content is acceptable."
Perhaps you have stuck to the points of debate. But you have not elaborated your postulations. Which means there isn't a debate. You simply postulate that the Commission is undemocratic and different from the Uk government. I give you simple and sound arguments why their differences aren't fundamental. You just re postulate that they are different, without saying WHY they are different. Nice debate!
Re "At least Mr_rijn had the grace to engage in an exchange of views for qite a few posts befoe typically 'pro-EU' he started lashing out at the intellect etc. of those who did not agree with his line of argument."
I guess you misunderstood me. I have no problem whatsoever with other opinions. I only have a problem with people that proclaim things that are manifestly untrue. Just like you do when you talk about the Commission and the powers of the ECJ. I have a problem with people who postulate things, without giving evidence. I myself have given arguments and caselaw to argument my claims. You did nothing of the kind.
So tell me, why is the Commission undemocratic (although under control of the EP) and from where does the ECJ get the general powers you claim it will have although the Lisbon Treaty states that the EU (and therefore the ECJ) only has ATTRIBUTED (therefore not general) competences. Don't just state these things, give me arguments and references to treaty/case law/academic writing/whatever
Complain about this comment
MikeE-BCN and #188.
Just like TiM0thy in a previous post whilst your opinion for the reasons French and Dutch voted 'No' to the D'Estaign 'EU Constitution' are interesting they are hardly proof of anything.
Fact. Netherlands and France Electorate were asked did they accept the proposed EU Constitution? Fact. In both Nations the Majority Voted 'No'.
Fact. EU lost the Vote twice in Nations that were founders of the original EEC.
Will not add to that as I do not have to conjecture about the Referenda results.
I can surmise that for the Dutch and French Citizens their negative Votes suggest the EU was out of line with their Citizens' perspective and ambitions.
I can also suggest that the EU went blindly ahead after those 2 Ballot box defeats and reinvented the 'Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty: The one Member State that then gave its Citizens a Referendum on Lisbon promptly rejected it. Fact. For the last 3 of 4 referenda the EU was clearly defeated by Citizens who would normally be expected to support it.
Fact. Unsurprisingly with the EU style of 'democracy' the only 1 of the 4 referenda result that the EU accepted was the 'Yes' vote for Lisbon!
Fact. Thus the EU has its 'Constitution', markII, because if Lisbon really were not a constitution Brussels and Dublin would not have had to negotiate 3 Protocols for Eire's National 'constitution'.
Complain about this comment
194. Boilerplated
"…Will the British electorate get a second (rerun) election should either the Tories or UKIP be elected 'first time round' in the UK next May..."
Yes by 2015 at the latest. Would the Eire electorate had a second vote on the Lisbon Treaty had they voted 'yes' in 2008? Any takers?
Complain about this comment
193. JorgeG1
"…[Would a second referendum have been held if the Eire electorate had voted 'yes' first time round?] What has that got to do with the question I asked?..."
Your question was "...For the benefit of the "debate" kindly explain to us, whether Europhobes or Europhiles, what is SOOOO undemocratic of a second Irish referendum..."
It seems to me that the opportunity for the Eire electorate to express their opinion for a second time was conditional upon the answer they gave in the first poll?
That can't be right can it? It is like loading a dice.
Complain about this comment
#202 ikamaskeip
"Fact. Thus the EU has its 'Constitution', markII, because if Lisbon really were not a constitution Brussels and Dublin would not have had to negotiate 3 Protocols for Eire's National 'constitution'."
This is blatantly not a fact. Having negotiations over a treaty does not make it a Constitution.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen and #195.
My humble apologies. In my haste and poor spell-checking I left the 're (s)cind out of my key-word!
Grr, almost gives Me-rijn evidence for his unwarranted rudeness earlier on.
Suffice to say 'reScind' means to "abrogate, revoke, cancel" (Oxford Dictionary).
So, there we have it: You believe and apparently your Danish compatriots are under the same impression, that the supreme Legal entity of the European Union cannot 'abrogate, revoke, cancel' the result of a referendum - - I am not too sure of the Danish 'constitution', so, please accept that I just mean the following as the possibility after Lisbon has been ratified.
It is of course not the actual referendum result the ECJ could in theory refute, but, any resulting Law passed by a National Government that stemmed from any such referendum. The ECJ has absolute authority to decide whether or not any Law/Regulation at National level is acceptable and all 450million of us need to realise that includes Jurisdiction over any and all 'Constitutional' legislation - - now, in the future, it is very likely the ECJ will be much involved in Final Adjudication of Citizen v State Rights/Responsibilities (as happens now) when interpreting the implications/impact of EU Legislation upon the State and Citizen, but, the ECJ has and will no doubt increasingly step into the State/National Governance issues because it has and is the Final, Supreme Arbiter of what is right and wrong.
Those of you 'pro-EU' who for years have been under the illusion that this is a benign power/influence need to grasp the idea that the ECJ is not there to protect Individual Citizen's Rights and Responsibilities. Supreme Courts do not act in the interests of anything except the Law as those serving on the ECJ interpret it - - be prepared - - if, as I think is likely, an interested group begin an action for, e.g banning termination of pregnancy, or, state funded schools for different faiths etc. those cases will now end up at the ECJ - - a lot of European Citizens are in for very difficult times. The most Politically charged case will come if a sufficiently wealthy and driven Citizen or group decides to pursue a case for a Referendum for withdrawal from the EU (that would not be the terminology) which a state like the UK refuses and it goes to the ECJ.
I would suggest you and your friends start filling in those EU cancellation membership forms forthwith.
Complain about this comment
To: ikamaskeip again - re 198
The second Irish referendum was held under the Irish Constitution. As far as I know, only the UKIP Party tried to influence the result. In my opinion, the fact that Ireland has the worst ratio of overseas debt to notional GDP of 10 times of any Western Country. This compares with 3 times for Great Britain and about equal for the USA. Also the Irish economy is heavily dependant on American banks, pharmaceutical and software companies. In addition the Irish also have high levels of mortgage and personal indebtedness.
It cannot be proved but in my opinion, the Irish were aware that they needed of the Euro and the EU rather badly.
Perhaps it is time the fact of the Lisbon Treaty should be accepted by all of us and we should move on.
By the way - if Marcus wants to write his own version of history, that fine be me. I do not have to read it do I?
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn and #201.
No, I did not "misunderstand" you.
You were rude, insulting and offensive.
I "postulated" that opinion from the following which I shall repeat as you were careful to leave each one out of all those quotes you gave.
"blablablablabla..", "..wow you are a genius..", Mr Democrat..", "..your arrogant imperialist mentality..", "...learn to read.." and finally, "..UK education that bad you have hard times reading simple texts, huh?"
I choose not continue this debate with you because as I explained previously I postulate you would think such style of argument is acceptable.
It isn't.
Complain about this comment
Behefactor and #205.
Alright, waht do you call it then?
Eire holds a Referendum because under its National 'Constitutional' Laws amendments to its 'Constitution' must be put to Referendum.
Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by Eire would have amended the Eire 'constitution'.
The 1st and 2nd Refrendums were each about 'amending' the Eire Constitution. The 3 Protocols added to the Lisbon Treaty specific to Eire's 'constitution' are there for no other purpose than to protect Eire from the 'constitutional changes' Lisbon will bring about across the National Governments and Citizens' Rights and Responsibilities to act within the European Union.
So, go on, what is that if it is not a Constitution for 28 Nations?
Complain about this comment
209. ikamaskeip
"…So, go on, what is that if it is not a Constitution for 28 Nations?.."
I suspect our picky friends would argue that a constitution is typically formed by one document (as in 1215 or 1776) whereas Lisbon cross references other paper.
Same difference of course, it's just that the shelf is a different length.
Complain about this comment
210. rg
"a constitution is typically formed by one document"
The English should be pleased! The EU have copied them by having a written (but uncodified) constitution.
Complain about this comment
rg and #210 and oldnat and #211.
No doubt the cost of reinforcing the supports for that extended 'constitutional' shelf will run into unaccountable millions as with every EU initiative - Dublin, London and Bucharest designs rejected at the outset for having too Nationalistic conception, so original design contract is awarded to Prague for finally giving Lisbon the nod, forwarded to Brussels, returned via Lisbon for alterations, meanwhile Brussels receives alternative design sent in from Valletta, Budapest and Rotterdam but Brussels calls for a multi-national agreement, both designs go to Stockholm, back to Brussels for final costing, and then the actual manufacture contract is put out to tender, but there's an error in the documentation which takes 4 months to correct, finally Brussels gets in the bids, but is under pressure from Paris, Berlin and Rome who all have Trade Craft Exhibitions underway and want the prestige, which means the Brussels opts for a 3-way decision - - shelving from Paris, Brackets from Berlin and Screws (well, it is Berlusconi's bid, afterall) from Rome - - however, the French want mahogany and only after the shelves have been made is it realised mahognay is a protected hardwood, so, its back to the Spanish forest for a decent softwood (meanwhile the Elyssee Palace gets another very decorative mahogany desk-top for the President), and then it all comes together... A triumph of Europeanism with everyone posing for the cameras as the EU Constitution Documents are placed on display in the European Parliament - - but wait! What's this? The Danes and the Hungarians are lodging a protest as they did not receive the second round of 'tender' papers, so, after much deliberation Brussels agrees a second shelf-unit will be built by those 2 nations assisted by Poland and Portugal - - this shelf-unit will have the documents on display for half a year, 3 months in Warsaw and 3 in Lisbon with the other 6 months in Brussels.
Phew! "That was easy," said the new EU Presidency chairperson, Anthony Blair to Cherie, but she replied, "On behalf of women's rights across the EU I am lodging a formal complaint with the ECJ that no female craftspersons were involved in the design or manufacture of this important symbol of EU unity."
Cue music... Sibelius' Finlandia Suite...
Complain about this comment
212. ikamaskeip
OK You got me there. The EU would do it better.
The English constitution, on the other hand, is scattered across a number of IKEA units that Gordon Brown tried to assemble by himself, but mislaid the essential components. :-)
Complain about this comment
58. At 5:08pm on 19 Oct 2009, Boilerplated wrote:
#45. At 3:58pm on 19 Oct 2009, Zydeco wrote:
"US 2009 estimate: 307,737,000 Most of them consider themselves to be American.
EU 2009 estimate: 499,794,855 Many of them don't consider themselves to be European.
It doesn't matter 'two figs' what they consider themselves, it's what their Birth certificate says and what passport they get issued with that matters - anyway, even if there was no EU they would still be European, obviously geography wasn't your strongest subject at sckool "Zydeco"?!...
================
Will Turkey be European then as well? Or are we too frightened to tell them they ain't?
Complain about this comment
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100014239/vaclav-klaus-the-last-european/
Complain about this comment
Gavin Hewitt:
(The) proposed President will have a job with limited powers
and, will be able to proposed not much in his job; Because, the national governments will purposely stopped the new President of the European Union from making any major changes...
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
#206. ikamaskeip
Apology accepted!
There are many reasons why the Danes, even the Danes!, have no intention whatsoever to leave the union. The opposition against the membership has been shrinking all the time.
The Danish constitution has a couple of rules concerning referenda. They are generally a kind of consultation between the politicians and the electorate, and the parliament will always act in accordance with the result. But a referendum is a quite seldom thing in Danish politics, and it belongs to a legal area where the ECJ has no authority. The nation states are protecting their sovereignty as the headline of this article, “President of what”, is also indicating.
Actually, instead of discussing here you should be campaigning and tell the British voters to elect a government, which takes the country right out of the union, when you have had general elections within 7-8 months.
Complain about this comment
@ 208. At 11:01pm on 20 Oct 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
No problem my English imperialist friend. :D
For the record, let me note that you refuse to elaborate your bold statements on the EU and the powers of the Commission and ECJ.
As is quite common when debating eurosceptics, they hysterically spread lies and half-truths. And when you ask them to back it up with facts and sound arguments, they refuse on whatever pretext they can find.
Nice try, but fail:
You obviously have a very biased view of the Commission and no knowledge whatsoever on the competences of the ECJ. So why don't you stop postulating such nonsense and stop making yourself ridiculous.
And let me ask you again (because I won't stop the debate ;)): explain to me how the ECJ can reverse or annul national referendums, given it's limited competences. Explain to me as wel how the democratic legitimicy of the Commission is different from a national cabinet.
Thank you very much!
Complain about this comment
I have waited for the whole of this blog for someone too make the obvious comment, but no, and so I'll stick my neck out and do so.
If you commissioned two groups of engineers and gave them the brief to design a personal transport system for up to four persons (motor car) I guarantee that their final designs would to be within 90% the same. The functionality defines the design.
The same is true of the content of the 'Constitution' and/or the Lisbon Treaty. The need for a framework to enhance the internal working of the enlarged EU has been obvious to all for some time and if a you ask a team of lawyers/administrators to come up with a workable framework you will get the same design. I would argue then that all of this paranoid comment of the 'it's the Constitution with another name' is just that, paranoid. Of course it's the same, it's designed to do the same job.
Much of the anti EU comment I see on these blogs is similar to that I hear and see in the US from the extreme right who are convinced that the FEDS are out to take them over.
My final comment is, it is over 'Santa Klaus' will sign in the next couple of weeks and the EU will move on. I just hope that the UK Europhobes can move on and stop their Luddite behaviour which merely serves to marginalise the UK within Europe. 'Get over it'.
Complain about this comment
@#209. At 11:14pm on 20 Oct 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
Re "Behefactor and #205.
Alright, waht do you call it then?
Eire holds a Referendum because under its National 'Constitutional' Laws amendments to its 'Constitution' must be put to Referendum.
Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by Eire would have amended the Eire 'constitution'.
The 1st and 2nd Refrendums were each about 'amending' the Eire Constitution. The 3 Protocols added to the Lisbon Treaty specific to Eire's 'constitution' are there for no other purpose than to protect Eire from the 'constitutional changes' Lisbon will bring about across the National Governments and Citizens' Rights and Responsibilities to act within the European Union.
So, go on, what is that if it is not a Constitution for 28 Nations?"
1. We only have 27 member states. What do you mean by 28 nations?
2. If you would have any notion of ECJ caselaw (you know, that diabolical institution!), you would know that the discussion on the constitutional status of the Treaty is very relative. Already in 1986 in the Les Verts case (Case 294/83) did the ECJ hold that the EEC Treaty had the character of a "CONSTITUTIONAL CHARTER" and as the ECJ is the only one competent to interpret the Treaty, the status of the Treaty has been decided upon since then. So you're a bit late debating this... :D
Complain about this comment
To: Mathiasen, T1mOthy, Boilerplated, oldnat, rg, MikeE-BCN, JorgeG1, Benefactor, SuffolkBoy2.
Is my English in #208 now so poor that the person comment/replying at #218 and #220 just does not get it!?
Talk about thick skin!
Complain about this comment
@At 09:36am on 21 Oct 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
No my friend, your English is ok.
I am just proving the other readers that it is you who has backed down from the debate, because it is you who can't back up his hysterical emotional statements with simple and sound facts, whilst I can and have given sound arguments.
No need to point at my mockery of you, you would have find a pretext to stop debating anyways.
It's quite obvious to all the other readers, I'm sure.
So tell me:
explain to me how the ECJ can reverse or annul national referendums, given it's limited competences. Explain to me as wel how the democratic legitimicy of the Commission is different from a national cabinet.
and
1. We only have 27 member states. What do you mean by 28 nations?
2. If you would have any notion of ECJ caselaw (you know, that diabolical institution!), you would know that the discussion on the constitutional status of the Treaty is very relative. Already in 1986 in the Les Verts case (Case 294/83) did the ECJ hold that the EEC Treaty had the character of a "CONSTITUTIONAL CHARTER" and as the ECJ is the only one competent to interpret the Treaty, the status of the Treaty has been decided upon since then. So you're a bit late debating this... :D
Thank you very much!
Complain about this comment
#221. ikamaskeip
I think the time has come, where I would like to see a text quotation with a source reference concerning the ECJ, which substantiate the authority of this court on referenda in the member states of the EU.
I guarantee one thing: If there is anything essential in it, I shall immediately bring it to the Danish government as well as the Danish public.
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy 219
I agree fully with you. Please, please let us move on. In order to move on we must of course know exactly where we and the other players are now and in which direction they are moving. I could well be wrong but this is my take as a Londoner who has lived in Spain for the last 12 years.
The continental EU countries are looking towards Russia, China and South America as well as towards the United States.
The Americans have too many problems of their own to worry about to be concerned with the rest of the world. The one exception being Afganistan and to a decreasing extent Iraq.
The special relationship between Britain and America has been dead at the political level for many years and President Obama has buried it for good and all.
On to the next blog please Justin
Complain about this comment
Zydeko... oh dear, you really do seem to get into a tizzy regarding the EU and you show all the signs of someone from Britain who laments the passing of their empire.
1. In the English language, there is no such country called Éire. It is called Ireland. Please remember that. It is only called Éire in Irish. Or do you refer to Deutsland, Sveirge, Suomi, España, etc.
2. You are a British citizen as well as a European one. If you look at your passport, it will say European Union, or European Communities, depending on when it was issued, as well as saying the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Complain about this comment
#224 MikeE-BCN
It's going to be interesting because Europe has as one of it's many strengths the language links with South America via Portugal and Brazil which many of us Brits forget. The Germans seemed to have formed a reasonable working relationship with the Russians and once the ex Soviet bloc states get over their understandable paranoia I'm sure they'll do the same. The French are strong in Africa and the Middle East and the UK has some superb links to China.
So all in all not bad, and as you say next please ?Justin? a small touche de Freud perhaps. Over to you Gavin.
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy (219): EU-sceptics have won the debate over the EU Constitution/Lisbon treaty. The ignored (France, Netherlands), re-run (Ireland) and canceled (UK plus many more) referendums are the proof. The response of the current political incumbents may have been to impose Lisbon regardless, but that is a testament to their vanity, and the imperfection in parliamentary democracy as it is practiced in Europe which allows the 27 heads of government (with the sole exception of the Irish) in the EU Council to use the majorities they command in national parliaments to rubber-stamp the ratification of whatever they agree between themselves in Brussels. There will be a fresh generation of political leaders, less tainted by direct involved in the writing of the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty, who will have to correct this mess and who will have the incentive to do so, not least because they will not appreciate being locked into decisions by their discredited and out-of-office predecessors.
We EU-sceptics may have temporally been denied the fruits of our victory, but we are certainly not going to 'get over it'; the legal reality of EU treaties will have to be changed in future (certainly regarding the UK-EU relationship) to reflect that we EU-sceptics reflect the majority opinion, which ultimately is decisive in democracies. In the mean-time please insulting us; I would rather hear that than an effective counter-argument, which in two years on this blog i have yet to hear from any EU-supporter, and which i am coming to believe does not exist.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen and #222.
First, I do not know how I came to be writng '28' instead of 27 in recent posts - - and its just stuck there, until now.
My delay has been because I was trying to be careful as to the content and it also took a lot of precis to get it anywhere near sensible proportions for this Blog (and even now it is very lengthy).
I must add that my use of 'CAPITAL' letters is because I do not have the IT skills to know how to highlight KEY PHRASES within my text on this BBC Blog! Apologies, I am not shouting at you or anyone.
So, to begin:
There is a European Commission which acts as the Executive branch of the EU/EC (abbrev, EPN) and amongst its functions it enforces EPN Law with direct affiliation to the European Court of Justice (abbrev, ECJ).
Yes, I know you know that, bear with me.
The EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE has a variety of functions under the various EPN Treaties dating back to the early 1950s. Primarily the ECJ provides the LEGAL - JUDICIAL framework, and ultimate decision-making that sets the relationship of all CITIZENS and all INSTITUTIONS within the EPN COMMUNITY.
There can only be one view of this ECJ role - - it is providing the JUDICIAL PROTECTION within the EPN - - effectively this is 'policing' the Rules and Regulations of the EPN and thereby affirming and establishing by Jurisprudence a EPN CONSTITUTION.
The ECJ is the highest Court within the EPN and has these basic roles - - ECJ is the court that VALIDATES any and all Secondary COMMUNITY Law (only Foreign and Security Acts are outside its remit, though this area remains to be tested in 'law', see Article 46); ECJ is the final ARBITER between COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS (e.g. ECJ Jurisprudence defines Community Institutional balance and the correct choice of Legal basis for Community Acts); ECJ Represents and Reinforces all the National Legal systems whilst Regulating the same; ECJ is the EPN CONSTITUTIONAL Court, entrusted as it is by EPN Treaties (inc. the amalgamted forms set by Lisbon - if ratified), to give INTERPRETATIONS on the CONFORMITY OF NATIONAL LAW with COMMUNITY LAW.
According to Judicial Reviews by Lord Slynn and others of the ECJ's actions "..where an ECJ Judgement determines a Member State's Legislation contravenes EPN LAW... whilst not a binding order.. nevertheless.. Relevant findings by the ECJ create an OBLIGATION of the Member State not to apply the inconsistent piece of National Legislation and it should be set-aside or even abolished... Hence the ECJ Jurisprudence has ultimate weight and authority and will AFFECT the Law of the Member State... within the COMMUNITY this ECJ Ruling is final.. as Legality stems from the ECJ, Member States in practise... cannot fail to comply..".
ECJ also allows access for Individuals to the ECJ as pertaining to the EPN Convention on Human Rights and it scrutinises Member States adherence and by ECJ jurisprudence establishes degree of Individual Protection under EPN and International Law.
ECJ was conceived and has become the counter-balancing agent for the still prevailing 'Democratic defecit' within the Community and is increasingly using its powers as ARBITER between EPN Institutions and between the Individual and Institutions where more 'democratic' practises are OBLIGATORY under EPN and/or National Law.
Hope you have stayed this far!
From the era of the EC Treaty there has been no question that COMMUNITY LAW has primacy over all National Law. Every ECJ decision has in time been accepted and undertaken by the relevant Member/s State/s.
The ECJ has reserved to itself the RIGHT and POWER to declare COMMUNITY and NATIONAL Acts INVALID.
Thus, as an example as early as in 1987 in the Foto-Frost v LHBeck, Case 314, as a part of ECJ Judgement it stated, ".. conflicting NATIONAL decisions on VALIDITY would place in jeopardy the very UNITY of the COMMUNITY LEGAL ORDER.."
The authority of the ECJ was further enhanced by articulation of Maastricht's "SUBSIDIARITY NORMS" (Article 3BEC - 1992): These were interpreted for the COMMISSION and the ECJ, again by Lord Slynn (on behalf of the UK Law Lords and in Judicial review to the ECJ) as meaning ".. NATIONAL and COMMUNITY actions may call for POLITICAL and LEGISLATIVE DEFINITION, however, those in turn may be TESTED BY REFERRAL to the ECJ... no NATIONAL or EPN Policy is without the JURISDICTION of the ECJ.." (1997).
This Maastricht 'Legal justification' for the ECJ's claim to ultimate responsibility for any and all EPN/NATIONAL Legislation can be found in its Article 231 where the ECJ is granted powers to declare EPN measures VOID - - this ECJ authority was always likely - - the original inception documents in 1952 make clear that the ECJ is anticipated to act as the on-going and increasing arbiter of any EPN development (see Articles 173 and 177B from the Acts of COMMUNITARIAN INSTITUTIONS and MEMBER STATES, later supported by Aricle 236 of the Act of Union).
It is to all the above and Article 236 (soon to be converted into a ratified Lisbon Treaty) that I attribute the final evidence of the power of the ECJ to re(S)cind a National Law on anything from Eire's recently negotiated 3 Protocols (worth nothing but cosmetic paper) to Denmark's access to Referendum on Constitutional affairs, and to the unlikely event of a UK Government in response to a referendum Voting for withdrawal from the EPN passing a Law to that effect.
Article 236 allows JUDICIAL REVIEW of the LEGISLATIVE ACHIEVEMENT of the POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL NORMS OF THE TREATY OF UNION.
In other words, the ECJ can set itself up to reconsider any National or EPN decision from whatever branch of the tree!
As has been written and I loosely interpret for all who are concerned with these matters:
The historic, unfettered PARLIAMENTARY (that is in UK and mainland EUROPE) SOVEREIGNTY is now proscribed and/or curtailed by the ECJ. What the National Courts long took as not their role (intervening to strike down Legislation enacted by a lawfully elected National Parliament) is seen by the ECJ as ABNEGATION of JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITY. It is no longer for the PARLIAMENTS to interpret the FREE WILL of the CITIZENS who have ELECTED THEIR POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES on the basis of whomever most suits the CITIZENS' UNDERSTANDING of what should be GOOD GOVERNANCE (for the allotted period of any Parliament). According to the ECJ it is for the COURTS to decide in the far narrower LEGAL sense what IS MOST IN THE INTERESTS OF THE CITIZENS at NATIONAL and EPN level. The ECJ will claim it is acting with the intention of offering/setting out PROTECTION of the ECONOMIC-SOCIAL-POLITICAL structures of the Member States, EPN and CITIZENS. This may or may not be true, however, there is no doubt at all that a fundamental shift of AUTHORITY and POWER has been effected (if Lisbon is ratified ** with ONE proviso**) in which LEGISLATURES have lost out to LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS in Courts of Law who now have EXTENSIVE RIGHTS of JUDICIAL INTERVENTION.
None more important than the 'legal right' of 'intervention' by the ECJ on any legislation of any description irrespective of its support or otherwise among the Citizens or body-politic.
** One proviso**: From my reading I understand that even after Lisbon if all 27 Member States unanimously decide on something an ECJ Judgement can be overturned. This raises some interesting scenarios - - 1) When have all 27 agreed anything of substantive import (see opt-outs / derogation etc.) and (2) would it ever be likely the other 26 would all concur 1 State might quit and thus open the flood-gates for others? More likely they will turn to the ECJ for a Judgement re(S)cinding the 'quit' measure!
It is difficult to address specifics of a 'withdrawal' versus ECJ authority as nothing of that description or relevance has ever been considered by the ECJ: That may change in the future as the ECJ flexes what views as its CONSTUTIONAL WATCHDOG legal muscles. I have addressed the LEGAL perspective of what Rights and Responsibilities the Citizen, Nations and EPN have re the ECJ and the Powers it has IN LAW whether they be used or not by it.
It seems clear to me and has done for some considerable time that People have misinterpreted/misguidedly taken the gradual erosion (as I see it) of National authority to make Legislative changes, encouraged by the ever increasing Federalist agenda of the EPN, as a benign movment in which the Individual Citizen is seen as PROTECTED from big-Government by the advance of the agencies of the supra-National EPN when in the reality of the LAW it is having the CONTRARY effect. Now that power of the ECJ is at a point where it may overturn National Government Policy no matter from whence its popularity.
UK, Denmark and all Europe is at risk: Wrong or Right there is nothing "hysterical" or "emotional" about fearing for mine and your children and grandchildren's future within this legally binding trap.
Complain about this comment
#191: "Are activist moderators are taking offense at my postings that are negative about Britain and Europe?"
Marcus, I'd suggest it's just because your comments can seem so interminably boring old boy. Best advice is to keep quiet until you have something new or historically accurate to add.
amcbru: "In the English language, there is no such country called Éire. It is called Ireland. "
But Ireland is also the name of the island of Ireland, is it not? So Eire is a lazy way of distinguishing between the two.
Complain about this comment
Further to my corrections to various peoples' postings in #225, there are 27 Member States in the EU. I don't know where so many of you are getting 28.
Sheesh!
Complain about this comment
#227 Freeborn-John
Here we go again, more unprovable declarations. you have no evidence for either of the two statements below, they are your opinions and as such are no more valid or less valid than my opinions
"EU-sceptics have won the debate over the EU Constitution/Lisbon treaty".
"to reflect that we EU-sceptics reflect the majority opinion"
If EU sceptics are so strong in the UK prove it, vote for UKIP and take the UK out of the EU. You know that the moment you try that the majority in the UK whose attitude to the EU is 'oh god not that again leave it alone' will run a mile. It's the great big EU sceptic lie, you haven't majority support, what you have is general unease stoked up by yourselves banging on endlessly about how bad it is and a hostile press which is hostile for it's own very selfish reasons.
I repeat my statement all you have succeeded in doing so far is to marginalise the UK within Europe which is bad enough in itself, and worse because of your hostility to the Euro the UK didn't join. The result of that piece of Nationalistic foolishness is that you have cost yourselves and your fellow countrymen vast amounts of money which you can ill afford.
I repeat 'get over it'.
Complain about this comment
#228 ikamaskeip
That's very impressive. I am not going to attempt to attack it, I wouldn't no where to start. I will, however, ask two questions:-
1. Are you a lawyer by profession?
2. If this legislation actually means what you say why have we not had clear synopsis of these dangers posted before on these and other blogs by those of your persuasion and in the mainly anti EU press?
I don't recall seeing any of it during the Irish referendum debates , nor during the British Parliamentary debates.
Is this not maybe another more complicated red herring than the Europol scare that ran at the end of the last blog? Please note I am not accusing you of lying but you may be as confused as the rest of us by that mas of words above.
Complain about this comment
@At 1:24pm on 21 Oct 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
Re "Article 236 allows JUDICIAL REVIEW of the LEGISLATIVE ACHIEVEMENT of the POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL NORMS OF THE TREATY OF UNION.
In other words, the ECJ can set itself up to reconsider any National or EPN decision from whatever branch of the tree!"
Ok, which article 236 of which document are you talking about?
Article 236 TEU (Lisbon) doesn't exist.
Article 236 TFEU (Lisbon) reads:
"The European Council shall adopt by a qualified majority:
(a) a decision establishing the list of Council configurations, other than those of the General Affairs Council and of the Foreign Affairs Council, in accordance with Article 16(6) of the Treaty on European Union;
(b) a decision on the Presidency of Council configurations, other than that of Foreign Affairs, in accordance with Article 16(9) of the Treaty on European Union."
Article 236 EU (current Treaty on EU) doesn't exist.
Article 236 EC (current Treaty on EC) reads:
"The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between the Community and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations or the Conditions of employment."
Please give an EXACT reference to the document where we can find your article 236 that gives the ECJ unlimited powers.
Re "** One proviso**: From my reading I understand that even after Lisbon if all 27 Member States unanimously decide on something an ECJ Judgement can be overturned. This raises some interesting scenarios - - 1) When have all 27 agreed anything of substantive import (see opt-outs / derogation etc.) and (2) would it ever be likely the other 26 would all concur 1 State might quit and thus open the flood-gates for others? More likely they will turn to the ECJ for a Judgement re(S)cinding the 'quit' measure!"
Judgements of the Court can never be overruled. This is because the ECJ is the sole interpretor of the Treaties. If there is a discussion on a legal issue within community competence and ALL 27 Member States say "A", but the court says "B", the right answer IS B.
If the Member States wish to change this, they will need to change the Treaty itself in a way that excludes the interpretation the ECJ gave. So if the Treaty provides that country X has an opt out, the ECJ will respect this. The ECJ is ALSO bound by the Treaty and doesn't delete or write it's own clauses.
Re the European Commission:
You haven't explained yet what makes that the democratic oversight by the Uk parliament over the cabinet means the Uk government has democratic legitimicy where the democratic oversight by the European Parliament over the Commission doesn't result in a democratically legitimate institution.
Complain about this comment
Timothy (231): The referendum results in France and the Netherlands in 2005, and Ireland in 2008 are the evidence that this is not just my opinion. I would suggest it is blindingly obvious that governments have not been able to carry public opinion on the EU Constitution/Lisbon and chose instead to bypass it. If you have a contrary opinion, it is not merely your personal opinion but one that all the available evidence indicates to be wrong.
As to your opinion that staying out of the Euro has cost Britons money, that is frankly impossible to believe. The UK has outgrown the eurozone in almost every year of its existence. After leaving the ERM in 1992 we had the longest period of stable growth in 300 years. Had we been in the eurozone we would have had too low interest rates, borrowed more as a result, had higher inflation and seen an even bigger property boom and bust than did occur. After the bust we would have had no ability to adjust exchange rates or interest rates to get us out of recession, with all the pain of adjustment falling on unemployment instead. This is not my opinion either; we only have to look at Ireland (experiencing the deepest recession in the developed world) to see how bad things could have been in the UK should have subordinated the stability of the real economy to the myopic dogma of European integration.
Complain about this comment
T1mOthy and #232.
No legal qualifications.
No red herring.
No content except that I drew from selected reading in the past and over-night.
No one else I care to reply to, however, for your illucidation: I did inadvertently write Article 236 when I meant '226' of the Consolidated Treaty Establishing The European Community circa 1956 - '58 that allows for the ECJ to consider 'Constitutional norms of the Treaty of Union', plus, the Maastricht Treaty Article 231 allows the ECJ Judgement to "void" any National Law contrveneing EPN Law.
I do not know why this critical issue has not been raised. I have certainly referred to it in previous Blog Comments over the last 12 months at least (though nothing like this detail).
It seems to me there are 3 CRISIS issues facing the European/British Citizens in the next decade:
Global Warming
Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism
European Union
I would not put them in any order of importance as I suspect all 3 will need resolving by ironically a 'COMMON EFFORT'.
It may be this European Union issue of the 'authority and power of the ECJ' over National and indeed EPN Legislation will come to the fore now that Lisbon is upon us. Some on here seem to view it as strange or even comical that it has not been brought to the debate before now: However, I would suggest that is because over several decades now the European Union is an evolving political entity and as such other aspects have taken precedence in the past. Which has primacy: Legislature or Judiciary? It is a very difficult and challenging consideration which is not easily put into the famous 'tabloid' headline (though personally, I have never been a follower of tabloid or any other press, I do suspect some others on here having merely accessed such 'red-top' editorials have ascribed certain components of any 'anti-EU' voice as being based only in such unstable and fast-fading print).
I guess it will be for others on this Blog, far, far cleverer and eminently more educated, and obviously steeped in EPN/ECJ 'lore' to determine the truth of matters.
I merely put the issue out there for debate:
Could a European Court of Justice at some future date be asked to consider whether it is LEGAL for a Member State to withdraw from the European Union?
It has been evident to me for years that that is the scenario we are headed for given the Authority and Power the ECJ has been granted by International Treaty, by precedent/convention, and has taken to itself as part of its processes.
My answer is an unequivocal 'Yes' the ECJ could deliberate on that question and 'Yes' the ECJ could in its LEGAL framing of LAW decide "withdrawal" from the EU is 'legal' or an 'illegal' measure by a State.
What may follow from that Judgement is anybody's guess. 148 years ago, so we need not consider it as the exact path, in the USA it took 650,000 lives and 1,350,000 casualties over 4 years to determine the answer! Whereas, the Soviet Union came apart at the seams without anything like that violent watershed although the subsequent decade of social disorder may have cost even more than the Americans' 4 year tragedy.
Complain about this comment
#234 Freeborn-John
Interesting answer, the £ has tracked the € for most of the existence of that currency in terms of interest rates, and would now seem to have no choice but to continue to do so.
As far a a huge loss of real worht is concerned I can only point to the fact that at it's inception the Euro was worth 62p it is now worth 90p. That's rather a large loss I would suggest. I have no doubt you will tell me that the £ can rise again and that is of course true but historically since WW2 the history of the £ has been of slow but inexorable decline.
with regard to the Irish recession while I agree it is severe it is no where near as severe as that of Iceland which is outside the EU and was, until a couple of years ago, being held up as a shining beacon of how to do it outside the EU.
Complain about this comment
amcbru (#230) "I don't know where so many of you are getting 28."
There are 28 member nations in NATO, so some confusion of the two might occur.
Complain about this comment
@ ikamaskeip:
I am not a lawyer to understand all those words but when the treaty you refer to was set up in the late fifties then why wasn't it considered in the British referendum when you decided to join the EU? Looks to me as if it is nothing that just fell from the sky recently or was set up lately, so that British citizens could actually have considered it when they decided to join us?
Btw: be as angry and disappointed by the EU for its laws as you wish, but if you want to be angry at anyone for Britain being part of it, then you should blame your present or past government and not the EU itself, which offered you to join it but never forced you to.
I think the chances of a meteor hitting us and eradicating all live on earth is much much higher than those of a civil war because one nation decides to leave the EU. One of the primary goals of the EU is to preserve Europe peaceful - enforcing that by war would by nothing but pointless (well unless you live in the US where starting a war to have peace seems to be a valid option).
Complain about this comment
amcbru (#225) "1. In the English language, there is no such country called Éire. It is called Ireland. Please remember that. It is only called Éire in Irish."
Not quite true. "Ireland" refers to the entire island. The "countries" are The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (a part of the U. K.).
"Eire" comes up occasionally in American crossword puzzles, so many American Anglophones are familiar with it, even if it is not used in other contexts.
Complain about this comment
paulcrossleyiii @ #229. Ireland is the name of the country. The island is also called Ireland yes. But as the island is divided, nobody would assume when talking about countries that anything but Ireland (the Republic) is being referenced.
Even by calling it the Republic of Ireland (or even RoI) would be better than Éire.
But at least it isn't being referred to anymore as the Free State.
Complain about this comment
Seraphim85 and #238.
Who is "angry"? Why have you suddenly moved the goalposts, like any 'pro-EU', as if my Comments contained some loudly proclaimed annoyance?
I have set out that I believe the EU itself to be an 'undemocratic' (at Commission and EU Parliament level - - e.g. no Mandate for legislation), unresponsive/unaccountable (e.g. 15 of 17 Budgets failed but annual hike of monies to EU), and 'corrupt' (e.g. in the Political sense of Eire referendum, Lisbon Treaty as Constitution markII despite denials etc.).
I have also raised the issue of the possible 'authority and power' of the European Court of Justice supplanting any and all National level Legislation upto and inc. declaring an Act of Withdrawal as 'illegal'.
This is not anger, not hatred, not Brit imperialism, not hysterical... Why and where do you 'pro-EU' keep coming up with this drivel?
Kindly give my views/perspectives the respect that I always try (being human I fail at times) to afford to those like yourself who come at things from another angle.
Re, "... meteor hitting planet earth.." Erm, according to NASA 'meteors' of various sizes strike the earth everyday!
Now being charitable, I assume you mean a 'Comet' - - in which case I do not disagree about the chances (ooops, one of your 'pro-EU' called me a Dinosaur! DUCK!!!!!!) - - nevertheless, Civil War is very common in Europe as Ireland, Balkans, Spain's Basques, Georgia-Ossetia etc. clearly demonstrate.
Complain about this comment
T1mOthy and #236 and Freeborn-John and #234.
In a former role I was an Economist. I can assure you as much as you assured me on the Dane's independence, the Value of the Pound is not measured by the rise of the value of the Euro against it.
That is a common fallacy: A Currency fluctuates and the desirability of the Pound is only relevant when it affects the 'cost' of Imports/Exports - - e.g. at this moment the relative 'low' value of the Pound and Dollar is preferred by the UK and USA Fiscal managers and Governments - - it reduces Imports (as they cost more) and increases Exports (as they cost less) which helps alleviate pressure on the Balance of Trade.
Thus, despite enormous International Pressure for Revaluation of the Yuan upwards the People's Republic of China has steadfastly held back from a proper 'value' although the Chinese Economy is now 2nd only to the USA.
That said, the Dollar is quite secure as the number 1 International Currency for pricing things - - yet another curiosity (Marcus AureliusII plainly misunderstood the Yahoo Financial expert) - - as to Transfer the hundreds of billions International Monies presently held in Dollars is an undertaking no Nation or other Currency could contemplate in the foreseeable future.
Complain about this comment
@235. At 3:53pm on 21 Oct 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
Current article 226 reads as follows
"If the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations. If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice."
Which doesn't entail what you say it does. And it has been in the Treaty since 1958. Since then the ECJ would have had the powers you say it has and never used them since then. Is it a mere coincidence? Or is it because what you say actually is a load of bull?
It's the second of course. Article 226 enables the commission to start proceedings against a member state, if that member state doesn't honour it's duties under the treaty: e.g. no or bad transformation of EU law into national law.
The EC, neither the EU have much competences on procedural law, so when would the ECJ rule against a member state for holding a referendum?
The only bizarre situation that could occur is the following:
Member state X (like any other member state) needs to tansform directive y into national law. Concerning directives, member states are ALWAYS free to use the legal instrument they see most apt, the only thing which is important under EC law is that the member state fulfills the objectives of the directive.
So if Member state x would chose a referendum to pass a law, transforming an EC rule into a national rule, and the referendum is negative THEN the ECJ would rule against that member state, saying "You did not transform EC law into national law as you should have done". That's it, it would even mention the referendum in it's dictum! It couldn't care less about HOW you transform EC/EU law, only that the Member states fulfil their duty to reach a given result (written in EC law)
Article 231 of the current EC treaty reads as follows:
"If the action is well founded, the Court of Justice shall declare the act concerned to be void. In the case of a regulation, however, the Court of Justice shall, if it considers this necessary, state which of the effects of the regulation which it has declared void shall be considered as definitive."
It refers to article 230 that deals exclusively with COMMUNITY ACTS, not national acts. This would be impossible, because the ECJ doesn't have competence to declare a national act void.
Article 231 has also (like 226) been in the Treaty since 1958, and (surprise surprise!) it was never used against a national act.
So everything you said so far comes down to poor reading of the Treaties. This is no surprise, because Treaties are incomprehensible unless you have legal qualifications, that's also why holding referendums on Treaties is a silly idea: the vast majority of a population doesn't have legal qualifications
BTW, I DO have legal qualifications. And you will not find any legal scholar to back up your interpretation of those treaty articles.
Hope I have helped to temper some of your fears about the EU superstate and the all powerful ECJ (which as now is evident, isn't all powerful)
Complain about this comment
#242 ikamaskeip
All of that is true as far as it goes, but the simple fact is that if Britain joins the Euro now the total value of UK inc is going to be valued at a rate of 90p/€ whereas if Britain had joined in 2002 you would have had a valuation of 62/€ a minor difference of 45%. OR to put it this way if I sold my house now and moved back to the UK I could afford a lot better house than I could have bought in 2002, without taking into account the fall in UK house prices.
Your gamble is this "will the £ rise again" and I have made the point that historically the £ has been relentlessly falling in value for the last 60 years.
Complain about this comment
#243 Me_rijn
Thank you for throwing some light on that I was developing a severe headache.
So it's back to the sceptics then
Complain about this comment
@ Ikamaskeip:
Looks like I should have left out that paragraph that I added last to my previous post (anger - disappointment one) and hit that post button a few moments earlier. However I miss any comment of you revealing how the British still voted for such a treaty in their first referendum.
And yes I meant Comet and not Meteor :P
While you have found some prime examples of civil wars in Europe, which I never doubted that they would exist, I precisely said that there won't be one because any nation may try to leave the EU - - and I assume you will agree that neither of those on your list fits to that criteria don't you?
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy: If the pound has gradually declined in value relative to the euro (and before it, currencies like the Deutsche Mark) it is because the UK has ran a current account deficit where as some major eurozone economies have ran a trade surplus. The exchange rate change does not in itself cause the loss of money. That has already occurred in the real world when the UK buys more goods and services from overseas than she exports. The only question is how to compensate for this reality. The UK, with an independent currency is able to allow the exchange rate to adjust to correct the imbalance. Without this pressure release mechanism, something else would have to adjust instead. In Ireland that is a combination of reduced salaries (as Irish public sector workers are being forced to accept, and many in the private sector) or lost jobs when competitiveness cannot be restored. I would suggest these types of adjustment are a lot more painful for the real people experiencing them than a floating exchange rate.
P.S. Icelanders borrowed about 12 times GDP and that is why they ran into trouble. If they had been eurozone members and able to borrow at low eurozone interest rates they would have borrowed even more.
P.S. 2 (On the discussion going on here about referendums in the EU). No country that is a member of the EU can hold a referendum on any issue where EU law exists because it would be a fruitless exercise. If such a referendum were held and the people voted for something contrary to EU law, their national government could not enact national legislation contrary to the EU law while remaining an EU member, nor change the EU law on its own. The only people who could alter the EU law (e.g. the EU Commission, who have the monopoly on all proposals for changes to EU secondary law, or the other governments for treaty changes) are under no obligation to listen to the results of a national referendum in another country so would not do anything either. The people would have spoken, and the political system would not respond. This is one of the main reasons Switzerland stays out of the EU; joining would mean the end of their direct democracy.
Complain about this comment
If a State does not comply it (the Commission) "..may bring the case before the ECJ."
Thus, I read and wrote it, but included the fact this is likely after Lisbon is ratified (and included that the competencies go back to circa 1956-'58) to start to encompass more 'political-constitutional' issues.
Article 226 enables the Commission "..to start proceeedings against a State".
Thus, I read and wrote it, but included the proviso that it is within the ECJ power to develop/extend its 'authority' and act independently of the Commission as it has done through evolution of its powers over decades.
Nothing precludes the ECJ taking its decison-making/judgement role further than it has already done - - there is no area of the EPN or National legislation outside its remit and no 'competencies' that exclude the ECJ from involvement - - as I wrote it may not have happened yet but that does not mean it will not in the future.
To try to state otherwise is to misread the Treaties and to deliberately mislead Citizens as to the ECJ's overall 'authority and power' if it chooses to act .
I completely confirm that from my analysis the ECJ does have the power to declare Void Community and National Laws - - how else could the ECJ have overturned National Laws in the past decade alone - - that National Governments have cooperated with these findings by the ECJ is still further proof its power to rescind a National Law. Nothing in the Treaties and most certainly written on this Blog in any way shows that the extension of ECJ involvement is an impossible development.
There is nothing too incomprehensible in the Treaties that some studious application cannot overcome.
As I wrote in #235 I leave it to those "... far, far cleverer, and eminently more educated... steeped in EPN/ECJ 'lore'.." and who clearly have an opinion of themselves beyond the the pale (or is that bull?) which ordinary folks like me just find deeply concerning for its lack of veracity (backed-up by 'legal' or otherwise hohohoho!).
Complain about this comment
Seraphim85.
Re Yours and my #238, #241 #246.
think we both got it wrong!
For Meteor read Comet... for Comet read Asteroid!
Anyway, according to my NASA Fvourite web-site that is the 'biggest' spacial threat to Planet Earth outside of Mr_rijn's head size!
Complain about this comment
"The other big job to be filled is the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security. He/she will be the global trouble-shooter. There are some who want this post to have more power than the president. "
Just a quick note on the power of the High Representative. What has not been mentioned in the article is that the High Representative for Foriegn Affairs and Security will also be the vice President of the Commission. Now if the High Representative was to be the 'voice of the EU' and be more powerful than the President of the Council. Then what follows is a Vice President of the Commision that is more powerful than the actual President of the Commission. I therefore doubt the High Representative will be anything more than a global trouble shooter and that the role of the President of the European Council is the one to be watched!
And we were told the Lisbon Treaty was going to simplify the EU....think again!!!
Complain about this comment
@248. At 6:13pm on 21 Oct 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
Re "If a State does not comply it (the Commission) "..may bring the case before the ECJ."
Thus, I read and wrote it, but included the fact this is likely after Lisbon is ratified (and included that the competencies go back to circa 1956-'58) to start to encompass more 'political-constitutional' issues."
Tell us than which NEW clauses (introduced by the Lisbon Treaties) give a (possible) competence to the EU on national political-constitutional issues.
Re 'Thus, I read and wrote it, but included the proviso that it is within the ECJ power to develop/extend its 'authority' and act independently of the Commission as it has done through evolution of its powers over decades.
Nothing precludes the ECJ taking its decison-making/judgement role further than it has already done - - there is no area of the EPN or National legislation outside its remit and no 'competencies' that exclude the ECJ from involvement - - as I wrote it may not have happened yet but that does not mean it will not in the future."
You constantly seem to forget that the Ec/EU (after Lisbon only EU) only has attributed competences, therefore also the ECJ only has attributed/limited competences. You portray the ECJ judges as power hungry politicians, but they are the best jurists of Europe and they are preoccupied with legal and not political issues.
I am not saying that your scenario is impossible, it's just highly improbable and seeing how the past 50 years your scenario hasn't occured, I think it's relatively safe to say it's a very unrealistic conspiracy theory.
Re "To try to state otherwise is to misread the Treaties and to deliberately mislead Citizens as to the ECJ's overall 'authority and power' if it chooses to act ."
Heh, again this is emotional talk. What you are saying about the ECJ goes for all of the national highest courts, including the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. In fact that's the whole point of having a SUPREME court. You just have to make sure the judges on such courts belong to the best and brightest.
Re "I completely confirm that from my analysis the ECJ does have the power to declare Void Community and National Laws - - how else could the ECJ have overturned National Laws in the past decade alone - - that National Governments have cooperated with these findings by the ECJ is still further proof its power to rescind a National Law. Nothing in the Treaties and most certainly written on this Blog in any way shows that the extension of ECJ involvement is an impossible development."
I simply don't get this point. If all member states agree to cooperate on an issue and afterwards one of them doesn't honour it's commitments, is it that insane that the Treaty authors (=member states) have provided for a court that can rule against an uncooperative state?
Anyways, as I said before, legally speaking the ECJ NEVER declares nationale laws void. It simple doesn't have the power to do so. What it does is simply oblige a member state to conform to EC law (The political consequence being that a member state needs to pass new legislation).
Re "There is nothing too incomprehensible in the Treaties that some studious application cannot overcome."
I won't contradict that, but your reading of the Treaties is simply false and as I have stated, you will find no legal scholar backing up your claims.
I am also still waiting for your arguments about the fundamental difference between the democratic oversight on the Commission and that on the UK Cabinet.
Complain about this comment
#239 GH1618
Not quite true. "Ireland" refers to the entire island. The "countries" are The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (a part of the U. K.).
Not quite true. Ireland refers to the country. And Ireland also refers to the island of Ireland. If you look at Article 4 of the Irish Constitution, and you will see that it says: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."
"Eire" comes up occasionally in American crossword puzzles, so many American Anglophones are familiar with it, even if it is not used in other contexts.
Just because they come up in American crossword puzzles doesn't mean that they are right.
Complain about this comment
"Just because they come up in American crossword puzzles doesn't mean that they are right."
The only question about "Eire" is whether it is part of the English language, not whether it is "right" (whatever that means in this context). Perhaps "Erin" (which is a variant form of Eire) is better considered to be part of the English language, as it is used in English poetry.
Complain about this comment
By the way you discuss what excactly is to be understood with Ireland or Eire I am actually thinking MI 2 is not the only troll around here....
If someone says Ireland I would always assume he is talking about the nation not the island unless he states different.
I would also never think anyone means Taiwan when he says "China"...
Ikamaskeip:
Seems as the difference between Comets and Asteroids is where they come from rather than their size.
Kuiper Belt and Oorts cloud: Comet
Inner Asteroid belt: Asteroids
Meteor: Debris of a Comet
Complain about this comment
The Irish Constitution of 1937 also says:
"Article 2 [Territory]
The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas."
This is obsolete (since 1998), and it has been replaced with:
"2. It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.
3.1. It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, ... "
"Ireland" does refer to the island or the nation, but note that the revised constitution does not relinquish the claim on Northern Ireland, but still considers the nation to comprise the entire island and its adjoining islands and seas. The language of the constitution quite naturally reflects the Irish point of view.
Obviously, there are some political realities to be taken into account, and careful users of the English (or American) language will want to make clear to what they refer, when there is a possibility of ambiguity. Americans commonly use "Ireland" casually to mean either the republic or the island, but can use "Republic of Ireland" or "Northern Ireland" when necessary to distinguish between the political entities.
Complain about this comment
Then there's the Republic of Ireland Act of 1948, which starts with the preamble:
"IN ACT TO REPEAL THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY (EXTERNAL RELATIONS) ACT, 1936 , TO DECLARE THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE SHALL BE THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND, AND TO ENABLE THE PRESIDENT TO EXERCISE THE EXECUTIVE POWER OR ANY EXECUTIVE FUNCTION OF THE STATE IN OR IN CONNECTION WITH ITS EXTERNAL RELATIONS.
[21st December, 1948.]
BE IT ENACTED BY THE OIREACHTAS AS FOLLOWS:—"
and which opened the question of the distinction between the name of the state (in the constitution) and the description of the state (above).
European politics is fascinating.
Complain about this comment
#254,255,256
And here I was thinking that MAII could go off topic.
Complain about this comment
#228. and ikamaskeip
Thank you for this answer. First I must say I do not have to alarm the Danish government or the Danish public since the basic contents of this account is already very well known there. It has actually been subject to a political discussion for the last twenty years.
The European integration implies transfer of power from member states to union authorities.
Putting it very short it for instance means that Germans control things in the Netherlands (ugh), but principally more important is that the Dutchmen also control things in Germany.
The legal implications of the power transfer are described in parts in your account (the court system). You also once again raise your voice against it. To me this transfer of power is not a principal problem. On the contrary, I actually see various economic and political advantages of the arrangement.
When we, the citizens of the member states, have decided to have a common set of rules we also need a common court to control that the member states abide by the rules – the latest example is the case of Opel, which involves a group of member states as well as an quite important part of the common EU rules (about government aid to companies).
Finally about referenda. I cannot know exactly what you think is taking place, but it seems to be comparable to things in Switzerland, where various numbers of citizens are voting for or against a law. This is not quite analogous to the situation for instance in Denmark.
The country is a 50 percent de facto member of the Euro zone. To change it into 100 percent the electorate must approve it through a referendum. It has already said no once. It can do so again, and ECJ can do nothing about it. The electorate can also say yes, and ECJ can do nothing about it. It is the sovereign decision of the Danish electorate, but once the Danes join the Euro, there are a number of new rules and the central European bank is in Frankfurt am Main. The construction is (somewhat) equivalent to that of the ECJ.
Looks just like the Swiss example, but actually the opt-out referendum is an exception from the usual situation. I shall here not go into the Danish constitution, but as I have already stated: in DK referenda are seldom and in relation to the EU they are usually about sovereignty. The ECJ does not tell the Danes when to transfer power to international organisations and when not, and this is where your understanding is wrong, BUT the moment they have decided to join, the rules must be observed, and that is where your understanding is correct.
Complain about this comment
@ 227 FBJ
"EU-sceptics have won the debate over the EU Constitution/Lisbon treaty.
We EU-sceptics may have temporally been denied the fruits of our victory, but we are certainly not going to 'get over it' We EU-sceptics may have temporally been denied the fruits of our victory, but we are certainly not going to 'get over it'"
Excuse moi!! That is the most bombastic assertion ever heard from the Europhobe brigade.
You, FBJ say that you have been denied the fruits of your victory????!!!! Come now, you are pushing your luck. You are greedy, aren’t you?! On the contrary, thanks to the Europhobes and their unelected tabloid bureaucrats the UK is the only EU country that has rejected both the euro and Schengen, the two key pillars of the EU par excellence, one established by the Maastricth Treaty, the second by the Amsterdam Treaty. Lots of people like me have suffered greatly as a result (and no, I am not going to go into detail about that here).
Remind me FBJ please, when did the vote take place for those opt-outs to have democratic legitimacy? Or you give them democratic legitimacy on the basis of opinion polls?
Did the British people not vote in referendum in 1975 to become members of the EU or did that vote also lack democratic legitimacy? Assumedly, any reasonable person (sigh) would assume that this affirmative vote would give democratic legitimacy to *opt-in* to what the EU (i.e. the heads of the member countries) would reasonably agree to do in the future, but not to *opt-out*. In order to opt-out of key pillars of an organisation that the people voted to become members in the first place, the people would have had to be consulted, with two options:
"This is the route this organisation that you voted to become members in 1975 is taking. They want to adopt a single currency and establish a border union. Do you, people of this Great ex Empire accept this?
1. Yes. Ok, that's fine and dandy, let's get on with it.
2. No. OK chaps, that means we have to leave the EU.
Is that not double standards? I.e. if the Europhobes don't like something that the EU is doing they demand a vote, but if politicians opt-out of something far more important and they agree, then no vote is necessary as the opinion polls suffice.
Of course not, this is not double standards, as the Europhobe brigade have their own standards. After all they have "won the debate" and are backed by powerful, foreign and unelected tabloid bureaucrats.
Complain about this comment
I thought the following from Tim was erudite and interesting:
"The functionality defines the design.
The same is true of the content of the 'Constitution' and/or the Lisbon Treaty. The need for a framework to enhance the internal working of the enlarged EU has been obvious to all for some time and if a you ask a team of lawyers/administrators to come up with a workable framework you will get the same design. I would argue then that all of this paranoid comment of the 'it's the Constitution with another name' is just that, paranoid. Of course it's the same, it's designed to do the same job.
Much of the anti EU comment I see on these blogs is similar to that I hear and see in the US from the extreme right who are convinced that the FEDS are out to take them over.
My final comment is, it is over 'Santa Klaus' will sign in the next couple of weeks and the EU will move on. I just hope that the UK Europhobes can move on and stop their Luddite behaviour which merely serves to marginalise the UK within Europe. 'Get over it'."
I think Tim must be right here.
This "thing" is designed to do a job. A specific tool for a specific task. Quite so.
But what seems to escape Tim (I suspect he just doesn't care, as he is clearly not dim) is that the debate is not about whether the "thing" is or should be different.
The debate is about the fact that this "thing' is being rammed down the throats of European citizens by dominant political parties and their corporate sponsors.
Is the process, not the content, the offends people so grievously. After all, a government is a government is a government. All governments can be good or bad, depending on the folks and the policies they employ.
Sure, you need a document to outline the design of your government. YOUR government. Not ours, but YOURS.
How do we know it is not ours?
Because it was rejected. Twice. Three times, even!
To no avail. This design MUST BE. It is written. There is no possibility that the dominant political parties will not have their way. They own Europe. It is theirs, because they are the party. They are the holders of truth and wisdom, protectors of the idiot masses.
The political parties got their way eventually, and they rammed their government blueprint down the throats of the European people in a pathetic display of soviet style power. The people said NO. So they were circumvented. No problem for the party, the party is expert at circumventing the troublesome will of the people. "Get over it".
Tim, what this long and sordid ratification process shows us all clearly and without any hint of doubt is that the will of the party members who staff the EUSSR will be carried out as faithfully as the designs set forth by the soviet polit-bureau in the former soviet union. And the will of the non party members will be circumvented and perverted into "show elections" that claim to give democratic legitimacy.
It is not the document itself, Tim. It is the way it is carried through. It is the brazen contempt for negative referenda results. It is the perverse and bold arrogance and disdain shown towards common non party members.
I don't hate the lisbon treaty, but I despise and passionately hate party members who think they rule over me because they have a party membership card. I don't care if they are communist fascists or socialist fascists or green fascists or capitalist fascists or religious fascists.
It is the fascism which is the issue, Tim. It is the demand that common folk bend to the will of the party, and not ask questions, or have a negative opinion. It is the arrogance and the contempt shown to me which earns my hatred, not the document itself.
Remember Tim, the NAZI party was not a fascist organization. Oh no. If you were a card carrying party member and you understood the need for party rule, you understood that NAZISM was not fascism.
It may have been an abuse of democratic principles that lead to a draconian and brutal society, but it certinly wasn't fascism. Oh no. Fascism is bad, you see. But what the EU party wants, well that is good. See the difference?
Get over it.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat and #260.
Well, in a so far 6 decade life I've not had myself linked with the 'extreme right' before, but, being familiar with a lot of the USA 'political' thought processes I can see how you might draw comparison of us 'anti-EU' to those who want 'smaller government' and 'less central government'.
All the same it would make me exceedingly disappointed to be lumped in with the 'crazy' end and their 'survivalist' camps - - I'd like to think 'anti-EU' views at least were considered as 'republican' (small 'r') and 'Citizen-first' (less National or supra-National).
I've written about the dangers of the Federalist EU leading to a point where some sort of 'armed' resistance may come about, but, I sincerely hope that never arises - - it is an extreme end of a very long evolution of People disquieted by being told to be quiet by a powerful central entity - - and it is far more likely the internal machinations of that 'federal' body competing within itself will break it apart in time.
To that end the second part of your Comment was more-or-less spot-on. The 'pro-EU' who call us 'ranters', 'hysterics', 'imperialists': They just don't appear to read, see or hear themselves in their true light. Not that you or most 'anti-EU' consider them as 'fascist' by nature (anymore than my previous comments to 'soviet' meant real 'communist'), but, it is the idea that they alone have the answers. If we poor, ordinary folk from the herd have alternatives and are off-message then we are seen as too stupid or reckless to understand and must be made to get back with other Citizen-livestock.
It is a very good line (Orwell under the counter): "Fascism is bad. But what the EU party wants, well that is good."
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen and #258.
Thank you for your continued courtesy - - something others might learn a good deal from.
My response to your preference for the 'central' EPN Court will not surprise you: You seen the ECJ as a benign pan-European influential body I view it as an ever-increasing dangerously centralising entity.
In the case of Opel I am surprised any 'pro-EU' person could mention it without blushing!
In the past I have referred to the 'Paris-Berlin axis of evil intent' in which the 2 principle nations of the mainland have established an EU from the rest of Europe and the UK supplicant to their twin-requirements. The EPN Commission with its EUrocrats and the ECJ being formed entirely to comply with their perspective.
The 'Opel arrangement' is just one more in a very long line down through the decades of Paris-Berlin fixing the EPN policy in advance to suit their purposes and the rest of the Member EPN are told to take it or lump it.
Looking at Mr Hewitt's next Article on this Blog we can read how the EPN bodies have spluttered fruitlessly about the EPN 'Competition', 'Trade' and 'Fiscal' rules all being openly flouted by Messrs Merkel and Sarkozy.
The ECJ has not made a jot of difference in this regard and were the 'Opel case' to somehow end up in its chambers in Luxembourg the Judges would merely confirm Paris-Berlin as the appropriate authority.
I say again, the ECJ is not there to 'Protect' the Individual Citizen: It is set-up to decide matters of 'Law' and 'Regulation' from a Legal perspective only and as the EPN laws and regulations were entirely framed to suit the needs of Big-Business-Big-Government as seen by France-Germany there is no chance of any ruling opposing that axis of power.
Complain about this comment
@ikamaskeip
Re ""To that end the second part of your Comment was more-or-less spot-on. The 'pro-EU' who call us 'ranters', 'hysterics', 'imperialists': They just don't appear to read, see or hear themselves in their true light. Not that you or most 'anti-EU' consider them as 'fascist' by nature (anymore than my previous comments to 'soviet' meant real 'communist'), but, it is the idea that they alone have the answers. If we poor, ordinary folk from the herd have alternatives and are off-message then we are seen as too stupid or reckless to understand and must be made to get back with other Citizen-livestock."
Don't portray yourself as a victim or citizen livestock. You don't have alternatives and you aren't 'just' off-message. After several posts I managed to get arguments out of you concerning your bold statements on the ECJ. Than it was apparent that you based your statements on a very peculiar reading of articles 226 and 231 EC. To put it plain: you totally misinterpreted those articles, giving them a legal meaning that is IMPOSSIBLE.
As many folk from the heard, you didn't bring an off-message. You gave a legally unsupportable interpretation to some treaty articles in order to go hysterical on the ECJ.
Search as long as you want, you WILL NOT find any legal scholar that supports the claims you made on the ECJ (notwithstanding that there ARE eurosceptic legal scholars, although admittedly they are few, but again this cant' be a surprise)
Re "Thank you for your continued courtesy - - something others might learn a good deal from."
Sorry but when you are selling BS AND ignoring my arguments it's hard to stay calm :)
Re Looking at Mr Hewitt's next Article on this Blog we can read how the EPN bodies have spluttered fruitlessly about the EPN 'Competition', 'Trade' and 'Fiscal' rules all being openly flouted by Messrs Merkel and Sarkozy.
The ECJ has not made a jot of difference in this regard and were the 'Opel case' to somehow end up in its chambers in Luxembourg the Judges would merely confirm Paris-Berlin as the appropriate authority."
Oh oh! Again you make a fool of yourself: Article 95 EC provides that the EC doesn't have competence in fiscal matters.
And perhaps you need to look at some more caselaw of the ECJ, you'll notice how many times the ECJ has ruled AGAINST Germany and especially France (even in sensitive areas such as Agriculture; e.g. the strawberries case).
I'll also repeat something you ignored from my previous post:
Re "If a State does not comply it (the Commission) "..may bring the case before the ECJ."
Thus, I read and wrote it, but included the fact this is likely after Lisbon is ratified (and included that the competencies go back to circa 1956-'58) to start to encompass more 'political-constitutional' issues."
Tell us than which NEW clauses (introduced by the Lisbon Treaties) give a (possible) competence to the EU on national political-constitutional issues.
So what's left of your ECJ argument?
You misinterpreted current article 226 EC.
You haven't indicated new articles in Lisbon that would allow the ECJ to encroach on political/constitutional issues.
You have TOTALLY misinterpreted article 231 that ONLY refers to Community acts and not national acts.
You obviously aren't too familiar with ECJ caselaw if you claim the ECJ backs up France and Germany.
Notice the contradiction in your own argument: First it was the Eurocrats with the Commission, backed by the ECJ. Now it's the Axis of evil Berlin Paris backed by the ECJ. Or is it the big conspiracy Berlin-Paris-Brussels-Luxemburg vs. Rest of Europe?
I already put so much effort in refuting your ill constructed arguments. Do I really need to give a list of ECJ rulings that were against France and/or Germany?
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen and #258 and democracythreat and #260.
Well, as you read on you will no doubt sense something of the disillusion with certain aspects of the EU and of discourtesy amongst certain of its proponents. I am unsure as to which is the less appetizing!
No need to for me to add: It is there in plain view for all to read.
Complain about this comment
@At 10:02am on 22 Oct 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
Still waiting for proper arguments, my friend.
Where are those new articles in Lisbon that give the powers you claim to the ECJ?
What do you have to say about cases such as the strawberries case or the Cassis de Dijon case?
What is the fundamental difference between the indirect democratic legitimicy of the European Commission and that of the UK Cabinet?
What do you have to say about your (now proven to be false) claims on articles 226 EC and 231 EC? Cite me a scholar who backs up your bold claims.
Etc. Etc.
It's the difference between how I debate and how you debate. You postulate the existance of an all dominating Berlin-Paris axis (before that it was the ECJ, and before the ECJ you talked about Eurocrats).
You postulate the existance, but you DON'T back up your claims with facts. I give you facts that prove you wrong (or at least cast doubt on your statements) and you remain silent.
So give me the answers to the questions above ;)
I am dying to learn your exotic views on EC/EU law :D
Complain about this comment
I really cannot be doing with this trifling anymore.
It is now presented to all about as though a demi-God has come among us and we poor, feckless mortals must fall at his unblemished feet like so many ignoble slaves sweating all day and night long over the great Pyramid.
A poem should suffice:
According to Brueghel
when Icarus fell
it was spring
a farmer was ploughing
his field
the whole pageantry
of the year was
awake tingling
near
the edge of the sea
concerned
with itself
sweating in the sun
that melted
the wings' wax
unsignificantly
off the coast
there was
a splash quite unnoticed
this was
Icarus drowning.
(Landscape with the fall of Icarus) Gracious thanks and acknowledgement to D.H. Lawrence
Exeunt omnes, stage left!
Complain about this comment
@266. At 11:03am on 22 Oct 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
Re "Exeunt omnes, stage left!"
Well of course. I ask you to back up your claims and you can't. No pretexts to hide behind except for your ignorance.
If not, write down your arguments ;)
Complain about this comment
All that 'legal' training and no understanding of Latin!
Well, I never!!!
Complain about this comment
I am English first, British 2nd and only european by geograhpy. The sooner the EU gets disbanded the better.
Complain about this comment
Re "All that 'legal' training and no understanding of Latin!
Well, I never!!!"
Didn't know legal studies were taught in Latin? I don't claim to have expertise that in fact I don't hold. You on the other hand are writing a whole new school of legal studies, with your 'exotic' interpretation of treaty articles.
And afaik, when you say "Exeunt omnes, stage left!", you want us to leave stage, stop the discussion.
In that case my remark was spot on: I gave sound arguments, but you decide to withdraw from the discussion. There is no reason why you would do this if your statements are in fact sound and true. But they aren't, so you have to leave stage with a lot of drama, under any pretext you can find.
Complain about this comment
Now, now, temper, temper!
Complain about this comment
Now now!
Just answer these questions or back down and admit your were spreading uninformed nonsense:
Where are those new articles in Lisbon that give the powers you claim to the ECJ?
What do you have to say about cases such as the strawberries case or the Cassis de Dijon case?
What is the fundamental difference between the indirect democratic legitimicy of the European Commission and that of the UK Cabinet?
What do you have to say about your (now proven to be false) claims on articles 226 EC and 231 EC? Cite me a scholar who backs up your bold claims.
Complain about this comment
PRESIDENT OF PLANET ESPERANTO :
It is indeed ironinc that Mr Blair will be chosen to preside over Planet Esperanto - and attempt to end the dominance of Planet English. This is the way I have always felt about these developments in the context of our 321 years since 1688:
1. The special relationship: is really a bond that binds not just UK to USA but India, Canada, Australia, S Africa. The bonds are based on the fact that over 300 years since William and Mary in 1688, the winner in gloabl economics is the singular success of Planet English.
2. Notwithstanding the 1812 episode with the US, it is a fact that after the Civil War between 1868 to 1912, the contribution of the Capital from Britain in rebuilding USA led to its transformation from the "Australia" that it was.
3. The reasons for Britain to "cede" super-power status was not from choice, but because it had to. And it would not have ceded it to the US, had USA chosen to speak German, Spanish, or French. Hard truth is that the USA was seen as an extension of the English language.
4. The reasons why Britain had achieved the capacity to dominate, was because it had India - so said Churchill himself on more than one occasion. India not only provided the capital, that UK was able to deploy to build America, Australia, Canada, India also provided millions of soldiers to the cause of Empire. Without them, the Empire wouldnt even been able to dream of confronting the Europeans - Napoleon first, Hitler second.
5. So, it is appropriate to consider the 300 years as a triumph of Planet English. Both Britain and now America are in a state of megalomania, when they believe it is their individual nations that keeps them at Number one and not Number ten !
6. The Europeans have now regrouped - Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin have been trying to end the dominance of Planet English. They are aided in this effort by Latin Europe - 75 % of EU is Catholic - and the Holy Roman Empire may soon be able to end the dominance of Planet English.
7. It is time for Planet English to regroup - this wont happen as America seems to have enetered the same megalomaniacal state that caused Britains demise from Number one, each ignoring that the real reason for their Number One position was not their individual nations but the 1.8 billion strong Planet English that stands behind them.
8. Otherwise, there are three challengers waiting to end the dominance of Planet English - Planet Esperanto, Planet Mandarin, Planet Arabic - take your pick !
So, I think - happy to debate to flush out the truth; truth hurts, but is liberating, and so can lead to Perfect Wisdom
Complain about this comment
All the World's a stage:
However, each worthy player who contributed to the spectacle has long since departed.
Only a troubled stage-hand still treads the boards in mediocrity mimicking real actors' inestimable gifts.
An audience has retired from the stalls to the public houses for gentle discourse.
It is no accident such a drama failed to maintain the masses' interest. Only one plot is allowed. No matter how diverse the actual experience it is only one voice insists it knows all there is to know of the play.
For all the theatricality you are on your own - - even amongst 450,000,000 - - now that is a very bad first night!
Complain about this comment
Re "It is no accident such a drama failed to maintain the masses' interest. Only one plot is allowed. No matter how diverse the actual experience it is only one voice insists it knows all there is to know of the play."
Don't put yourself in the victim's role. Don't pretend you're not allowed to give your opinion. Don't pretend there is only one plot allowed.
I am asking you for another plot. I am desperate to know your arguments, still you refuse to give them.
Notice what a bizarre discussion this is. You say A, I say B. I elaborate, you don't. Then I BEG you to elaborate your opinion and you REFUSE.
Still you are able to depict the situation as if I allow only one plot.
So let me ask you for the fourth time, elaborate the following statements you made:
Where are those new articles in Lisbon that give the powers you claim to the ECJ?
What do you have to say about cases such as the strawberries case or the Cassis de Dijon case?
What is the fundamental difference between the indirect democratic legitimicy of the European Commission and that of the UK Cabinet?
What do you have to say about your (now proven to be false) claims on articles 226 EC and 231 EC? Cite me a scholar who backs up your bold claims.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 (259): said "Remind me FBJ please, when did the vote take place for those opt-outs to have democratic legitimacy?"
The current British government was elected in 2005 on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on joining the Euro, i.e. surrendering the Maastricht opt-out that you dislike so much. I would suggest that the Labour government has not held this euro referendum for the same reason they did not hold the other promised referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. They know that we EU-sceptics will win the debate and they would lose the referendum.
It will be interesting to see if the Labour 2005 manifesto promise on a euro referendum is included in their 2010 manifesto. Labour cannot fool the electorate twice with referendum promises after reneging on the Lisbon referendum. They lied to get elected in 2005. They must not be allowed to lie to win in 2010. The majority that do not want to see the Euro introduced in the UK cannot vote for Labour no matter what they promise in their worthless manifesto.
Complain about this comment
PLANET ENGLISH:
"PRESIDENT OF PLANET ESPERANTO :
It is indeed ironinc that Mr Blair will be chosen to preside over Planet Esperanto - and attempt to end the dominance of Planet English. This is the way I have always felt about these developments in the context of our 321 years since 1688:.."
When excactly have you last been outside your planet? There are more Germans speaking French and French speaking German than both of them combined speaking Esperanto - heck there are probably even more people speaking decent English within the EU but outside the UK than in the UK itself. Though I actually don't see that coming in the near future to have one main language in Europe, all four, French, German, English and Spanish are far more likely to get that position than Esperanto is.
Complain about this comment
At the risk of repeating and being the proverbial one-track record.
The European Court of Justice (abbrev, ECJ) is a branch of the European Union's institutions.
Its job is to make sure that the Legislation is interpreted and applied in the same way in all EU countries, so that the Law is equal for everyone (e.g. National Governments do not give different rulings on the same issue). The ECJ also makes sure that EU Member States and Institutions do what the Law requires. The ECJ has the power to settle Legal disputes between EU States, EU Institutions, businesses and individuals.
Since 2004 the ECJ's 5 most common types of Ruling on cases are:
1) references for preliminary rulings
2) actions for failure to fulfil an obligation
***3) actions for annulment (the point of real debate in case some had missed it)***
4) actions for failure to act
5) actions for damages
***annulment***:
If any member States, the Council, the Commission or Parliament believes a particular EU Law is illegal they may ask the ECJ to ANNUL it.
These 'actions for annulment' can also be used by private Individuals who want the ECJ to cancel a particular Law made at EU or National level.
If the ECJ finds that the Law in question was not correctly adopted or is not correctly based on the Treaties, the ECJ may declare the Law 'nul and void'.
The ECJ Judgements are binding on the EU Member States and Institutions. The ECJ's rulings have 'Direct effect' and 'Supremacy'.
The above is taken from the EU funded and 'pro-EU' EUROPA web-site.
From the above and a number of other readings of documents relating to the ECJ functions and activities I have to put the following forward as the likely trend in ECJ Judgements.
The ECJ has 'Ruled' in a variety of 'cases' that annulment is correct/required: This has seen a gradual transfer of Rights and Responsibilities of National Governments and the Citizens to the over-arching entity known as the EU.
This transfer has occured and coincided with the opposite gradual slide in public participation in the EU's processes, most notably at the EU Parliament elections (which for the last 3 have never attained above 48% Citizen Voter turnout). Of course it is impossible to deduce any significant correlation between the acquisition of authority and powers by the ECJ-EU, and the diminution in Public support: However, it is safe to assume there is an issue looming between the Citizens' understanding of what the EU is about and what the EU has in recent years been primarily concerned with, or why else would there be such disinterest?
Right or wrong the ECJ's decisions/rulings as a part of the EU has plainly not contributed to any improved Citizen support. It has not reached or improved the image of the EU over this same period of declining Public interest/support.
From its inception in the early 1950s through these 'rulings' the ECJ has gained authority and powers that only Nation States have previously had, e.g. in 1997 the EU Commission won an ECJ Judgement ordering France and all Member States to instruct their National Police Forces to enforce EU Law. So, in a very real sense the LAW of the Land was now answerable to authorities outside National influence; thus, an elected National Government may have proposed various Policing measures in its manifesto to its general populace, but might not be able to enact any of it should the it contravene EU Law. It is at least debateable whether or not such ECJ Legal 'Rulings' have been what the general populace of the EU actually expected or required of such a Court?
The subverting of National Constitutions of any member State to the perspective of the EU would appear not have been how the Citizens' view the future trend of the EU.
When this is placed alongside the Federalist agenda propunded from Brussels and the very disappointing European Parliament Voter turnout the move to an EU Constitution via the Lisbon Treaty is revealed as even more questionable.
Such ECJ Judgements subtly change the relationship between nation States and the EU.
Every key ECJ Judgement/Ruling over the last 2 decades since Maastricht concerning Member States' Governments versus EU has resulted in favour of and gave increased power to the EU.
When ratified the Lisbon Treaty will extend the ECJ remit to hearing and making Rulings on Justice and Home Affairs. This additional power of intervention for the ECJ efectively means it is able to hear cases in every area of National Government except for Foreign Affairs.
Thus, I write again, no matter what case Law may have been heard upto now the European Court of Justice will in future have the authority and power to Judge-Rule 'for/against' a National Government in the question of whether or not a Member State may withdraw from the EU irrespective of any result shown by a Referendum.
To deny this dangerous Constitutional issue is literally to display a fancifully unrealistic view of how the ECJ-EU has evolved and the clear trend affirming it is in control and will decide what is the correct way to procede for Member States' Citizens.
Complain about this comment
276. Freeborn-John
"...elected in 2005. They must not be allowed to lie to win in 2010..."
Manifesto commitments are not binding. The public needs to be reminded of the actions of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. After that it's up to them who they vote for.
That said there is no moral legitimacy in the UK ratification of the Lisbon Treaty IMO.
Complain about this comment
@278. At 6:27pm on 22 Oct 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
Thank you for your on topic response.
Re "These 'actions for annulment' can also be used by private Individuals who want the ECJ to cancel a particular Law made at EU or National level."
Let me quote one of the official 'EU-funded' sites on this matter (matter being article 230 EC):
"According to Article 230 of the EC Treaty, only acts adopted by the European institutions can be the subject of proceedings for annulment. Therefore, with the exclusion of recommendations and opinions, proceedings for annulment may be instituted against acts adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council, acts of the Council, of the Commission and of the European Central Bank (ECB) and acts of the European Parliament having legal effects vis-à-vis third parties."
Let me repeat the essential part: "ONLY ACTS ADOPTED BY EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS".
It is obvious that article 230 can not be used (either by EU instution, another member state or a private individual) to have a national act annuled.
Re "So, in a very real sense the LAW of the Land was now answerable to authorities outside National influence; thus, an elected National Government may have proposed various Policing measures in its manifesto to its general populace, but might not be able to enact any of it should the it contravene EU Law."
It is obvious that member states, on becoming member of the EU have shifted part of their sovereignty to the EU. The Court established this already in the 1960's. I don't know exactly which case you refere to, but it reminds me of the strawberries case. In that case, the ECJ backed up the Commission when the latter argued that the French police and judicial authorities should have acted against the organized and repeated attacks by french farmers against the transport of Spanish agricultural produce. This is because France should have taken every PROPORTIONAL (very important!) measure it could to protect the free movement of goods (in this case strawberries and tomatoes going from spain to other EC countries).
Re "It is at least debateable whether or not such ECJ Legal 'Rulings' have been what the general populace of the EU actually expected or required of such a Court?"
You seem to have a strange conception of the workings of a (supreme) court. A court should be independent and it should reflect the law, it should NOT just do what the majority of the people think should be done, otherwise we can organize popular juries for every case before any court. It's true of course that there is a problem in your society if judgements systematically do not reflect the 'will of the people', but the main tool of judges is the law. If there is a large consensus that the judgements are wrong, the law can be changed. This is also the case for judgements by the ECJ. The member states can, AT ANY TIME, change the Treaties and thereby change the law the ECJ uses to make rulings.
Re "The subverting of National Constitutions of any member State to the perspective of the EU would appear not have been how the Citizens' view the future trend of the EU.
When this is placed alongside the Federalist agenda propunded from Brussels and the very disappointing European Parliament Voter turnout the move to an EU Constitution via the Lisbon Treaty is revealed as even more questionable."
How are national constitutions subverted? Anyways, it's not realy relevant to ask if the Lisbon treaty is in fact a 'constitution'. The current treaties already ARE a constitution, as the ECJ ruled somewhere in the 80's.
Re "Such ECJ Judgements subtly change the relationship between nation States and the EU.
Every key ECJ Judgement/Ruling over the last 2 decades since Maastricht concerning Member States' Governments versus EU has resulted in favour of and gave increased power to the EU."
This is manifestly wrong. A very important example being the competences to adhering to the newly created WTO in 1994: The Commission claimed that the EC had exclusive competence on ALL trade matters (goods, services, intellectual property, etc). The member states questioned this and said the EC only had exclusive competence on trade in goods. The court ruled in Opinion 1/94 that the member states were right and the commission was wrong. This gave a huge blow to the ambitions of the commission and protected national sovereignty in this field.
Re "Thus, I write again, no matter what case Law may have been heard upto now the European Court of Justice will in future have the authority and power to Judge-Rule 'for/against' a National Government in the question of whether or not a Member State may withdraw from the EU irrespective of any result shown by a Referendum."
I have no idea how you can deduce this from the enlarged powers of the ECJ over Justice and home affairs. The two have nothing to do with eachother. Show us the article that gives this power to the ECJ.
The EU doesn't get full competences over any matter falling withing justice and home affairs. In fact, the EU competence remain very limited in this field.
Concerning the right to withdraw from the EU, which is now for the first time explicitly provided in article 50 EU:
"Article 50
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49."
There you go!
So, I hope it's clear that
article 230 EC deals only with community acts, not national acts.
the court has made (important!) rulings in favour of (short term) national interests.
the ECJ doesn't get the powers you claim it does under Lisbon.
Complain about this comment
@ 276. At 2:56pm on 22 Oct 2009, Freeborn-John
At least a good attempt to 'engage in the debate', considering your previous responses to anything I posted here.
I agree with what you say except on one small but crucial detail. The opt-outs from the Euro and Schengen date from 1992 (?) (is that not when the Maastricht treaty was signed? and 1997, when the Amsterdam Treaty was ratified. No attempt was made to put the opt-outs THERE AND THEN to a referendum BEFORE they were rubber-stamped by politicians.
Whether the result is likely to have supported the opt-out is irrelevant to my point, which is this:
1. Politicians had no democratic legitimacy to opt out from the euro and Schengen WITHOUT consulting the people in advance of doing so, given the legal position created by the vote in 1975.
2. The 'Opting-out' option from both the euro and Schengen that should have been put to a referendum should have expressed clearly the option B: "Leave the EU". Why? It is thoroughly undemocratic to expect a special treatment / status in the EU when the UK is clearly in the minority, precisely in a minority of one of having opted out of both the euro and Schengen.
3. I never heard the Europhobes demanding a referendum then to give democratic legitimacy to the opt outs.
As for people that are suffering from being outside the euro, I am not alone. Try to explain your theories to them. I am not sure if the beneficiaries of the opt out from the euro outnumber the ones who have lost out?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7221413.stm
On another but related issue, could someone in the Anti-EU brigade explain if having a different currency and keeping your own picket fences is so beneficial, why is this not applied to the four nations that make up the UK? After all, they are not benefiting from having their own currency to devaluate their way out of trouble and their own picket fences, e.g. so that illegal immigrants arriving via Heathrow or the channel are not free to enter Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn and #all your comments.
They were all very interestig and informative.
They were in error on the basic point of the authority and power of the ECJ.
You are incorrect in #280 as you have been in the others on this issue: That you and I will never agree is correct.
I am sorry I cannot continue to debate what you plainly will deny and I clearly will persist in stating.
I suggest we move on (as we've done) to other areas of interest trying not to get too uptight about these matters.
Complain about this comment
#277 Seraphim85
Exactly right - if internal migration within the EU is the litmus test of where the Capital HQ of Europe should be, London/England have won the battle already.
The Nation-state of Europe has no Capital - and I have yet to see a Nation without a capital. Of course there is the UNO in NY - but that we know is a artificial capital.
So, Mr Blair will be the President of the Republic of Esperanto - a virtual Nation with a virtual Capital.
Free Trading Europe with 5,10,15 capital cities - what was the problem with the EEC ?
All I can see see is a EUSSR - dont know how many years it will take to meltdown - and then yet more migration to sanctuaries in Planet English once again.
But I guess, that is indeed the course of history - EUSSR by Napoleon, EUSSR by Hitler, EUSSR by Stalin, EUSSR by all together now...
Until they indeed end the dominance of Planet English ... like they got the Irish yes vote finally !
And we have a political leadership intent on suicide.... refusing the people of UK even a referendum. If the EU is so wonderful for UK, why are they scared to let people vote - or is abandonment of sovereignty too trivial a matter??
Complain about this comment
The Czech republic and its president are now ready to accept a proposal from the Swedish presidency concerning the Lisbon treaty. This is a statement by president Klaus according to the press bureau Ritzau. Exactly what the Swedes have proposed is not clear yet.
I had expected that Klaus would not sign before the hearing in the Czech constitution court. We can now expect that the coming summit will declare the Lisbon treaty for ratified, and that a number of appointments will be made on the same summit, including the “president” and “the foreign minister”.
Complain about this comment
283. PlanetEnglish
"…why are they scared to let people vote…"
Why bother with a referendum when the Labour Party can decide for us?
(The referendum commitment in 2005 was window dressing).
Complain about this comment
#285 and rg
- And what do you call the promise Mr. Cameron has made concerning a referendum on the LT?
Complain about this comment
286. Mathiasen
"…And what do you call the promise Mr. Cameron has made concerning a referendum on the LT?.."
Cameron voted for the referendum.
Complain about this comment
#287 and rg:
You are not answering the question.
I could never have guessed you would try to avoid it this way.
You still have the possibility to read "Pressure for a UK vote" on this blog, if you do not understand Cameron's new problem.
Complain about this comment
288. Mathiasen
"…You are not answering the question…"
I'll try again. Cameron has voted in parliament for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (which is based on the Constitutional Treaty which was the basis of a referendum offer in all three main UK political party 2005 election manifestoes, which Labour and the Liberal Democrats reneged on).
As I understand it there has not been a General Election called and no party (including Cameron's) has issued a manifesto since 2005. In the meantime Cameron has voted for the referendum at every opportunity. What else could he do? Brown is PM for the foreseeable future.
Once Lisbon is law I can't see Cameron doing anything about it because it would set a precedent by which a future Labour government could renege on international treaties. The game was up when Eire voted 'Yes' at the second time of asking. Anything else is more window dressing IMO.
Complain about this comment
The telephones in the offices of the EU leaders are getting hot. They face a large puzzle of appointments now that it is clear that the LT will be ratified finally within a short time.
Since the will to open the treaty again is close to zero Klaus will get a concession that is just symbolic and without significance, experts say. Nevertheless, they leaders have to approve it on the coming summit.
The appointments must mirror our heterogeneous continent. They will have to balance east & west, north & south. Large countries and small countries, females and males, and that will take some time.
Apart from Tony Blair, Mary Robison from Ireland, Jean-Claude Juncker from Luxembourg and Felipe Gonzalez from Spain are candidates for the presidency. If one of them is appointed, other positions will have to go to a candidate from Eastern Europe.
The ratification will actually open a new chapter in the history of the union.
Complain about this comment
290. Mathiasen
"…The ratification will actually open a new chapter in the history of the union…"
An edifice founded on sand. It will need a special sort of leader; someone with thick skin or deaf ear, preferably both. I can see why Blair has been mentioned.
Do we all get a vote in this or will our unelected PM be the only UK citizen to cast a ballot?
Complain about this comment
#291 and rg:
You asked: Do we all get a vote in this?
I assume you are asking a rhetorical question, but I myself am looking forward to the next general election in GB, and you will get the chance of your life with the message “Save the Nation. Leave the Union”.
However, I do not expect the majority of the British voters to follow the advice. Actually I expect it to endorse the “not out, but also not entirely in”-politicy. When they have done that, they have also given the green light to the LT, and we will not have to spend more time on that issue.
Complain about this comment
Oh, sorry - it should have been policy, of course.
Complain about this comment
292. Mathiasen
"…You asked: Do we all get a vote in this?..I assume you are asking a rhetorical question, but I myself am looking forward to the next general election in GB…"
I was thinking of the post of President of the European Council.
Complain about this comment
#294, rg
Well, I will stay at the rhetorical question. The other possibility is quite uncomfortable...
Complain about this comment
295. Mathiasen
"...the rhetorical question..."
So how is the President of the European Council to be chosen? Will the UK electorate have a vote?
This is what Wikipedia says on the subject "There have been calls by some, such as German interior minister Wolfgang Schäuble[11], for direct elections to take place to give the President a mandate, this would strengthen the post within the Council allowing for stronger leadership in addition to addressing the question of democratic legitimacy in the EU. However, this might cause conflict with Parliament's democratic mandate or a potential mandate for the Commission (see section below). To give a mandate to the European Council's President would signify a development of the Union's governance towards a presidential system, rather than a parliamentary system." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Council
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn wrote:
" It is obvious that member states, on becoming member of the EU have shifted part of their sovereignty to the EU. The Court established this already in the 1960's."
If something is indeed obvious, I hardly see the need to cite a highly disputed and exceedingly complex legal judgement as the manifestation of the thing.
But putting aside issues of argumentative style, I feel you have isolated an extremely important incident in the evolution of the EU. So well done for that.
Turning to the logic and the law involved in this case, you make the claim that the ECJ, being the creation of non democratic committees of professional party politicians, somehow possesses the authority to make judgements that are binding on sovereign states.
That is a curious position. It was curious when the ECJ first claimed it, and it is still curious now, some forty years on.
What you, and they, are asking the people of Europe to accept is a manifestation of authority that "just appeared". All of a sudden. Out of nowhere, like Aphrodite springing from the forehead of Zeus.
There is a profound logically problem with the ECJ making this ruling, and that is simply that the constitutions of the member states all specifically and vehemently oppose the idea that some "foreign committee" is sovereign to make legally binding rulings upon the governments who are elected to hold sovereignty.
And this was not a technical legal argument, it was a huge issue for concern at the time among all walks of legal life. The German courts rejected the ECJ's jurisdiction because the ECJ had (by it own frank admission) no interest or competence to adjudicate on human rights law. The German constitution demanded respect for human rights law, and so the constitutional court of Germany dismissed the ECJ's bold claim to have constitutional jurisdiction over member states. So did the Italian constitutional court. So did every other member states' constitutional court where the issue was brought for comment.
Now in the UK, the high court and the lords considered the issue of sovereignty and they found, expressly and without doubt, that sovereignty rests with the UK parliament. Insofar as the UK parliament agrees to implement EU law, EU law must be applied by the British courts. But should a time come when the British parliament chooses to repeal the legislation that endorses the views of the ECJ, that will very clearly be the end of the ECJ's ability to make binding law in the UK.
That is the law, it has not changed. The reason it has not changed is because the logic of constitutional provisions demands that one parliament cannot bind future parliaments.
Consider the basic chesnut: A government comes to power and passes a law that says that it shall create a special panel of "super judges", who will rule for life and who will be replaced by folks appointed by THE PARTY. These super judges will have the power to dismiss future elected governments as they see fit.
Now clearly this is unacceptable. Yet this is what happens if constitutional law allows a current parliament to bind a future parliament. And so, it does not. If parliament is sovereign, that means it continues to be sovereign, regardless of the agreements and treaties made by the current government.
This is the indivisibility of sovereignty, Me_rijn, and it seems to escape you just as surely as it escaped the judgement of the ECJ. However it is based on logic, not law, and so it is not for a court to decide.
Now what has happened, and what clearly happened in the judgement you refer to from the ECJ, is that a group of party members from across the continent set out to take power and sovereignty from the member states and give it to the institutions they created for themselves to staff and govern.
I will repeat that, because it is worth considering in detail: A group of party members from across Europe set out to TAKE POWER and sovereignty FROM THE MEMBER STATES and give it to the institutions THEY CREATED for themselves to staff and govern.
That is what happened, and I don;t know anybody of adult intelligence who is familiar with the law and the history who disputes this fact.
Intelligent people dispute whether this was (and is, as it continues apace) a good thing. Nobody disputes that this happened. Clearly, a collection of party members got together and decided that their own vision was preferable to the idea of numerous member states exercising sovereign power.
Now if there is anybody reading this who cannot fathom a collection of like minded politicians from across Europe getting together to plot the overthrow of the sovereignty of member states, please consider the soviet union, as it was. Indeed, consider that the soviet union sponsored left wing politicians from across Europe with both finance and doctrine for decades.
But let us not trade insults when discussing this matter. Let us be frank, and argue the topic that is of real merit.
Is the new vision of Europe preferable than the old?
Is it better to overthrow the old ways, and to usurp the established sovereignty of member states in order to bring to fruition the vision of the political parties who created the EU institutions?
I should refrain from comment, if only we could have that debate. I have no love for the English class system that makes a farce of democratic principles. I could happily see the Royal family and the lords go the way of the Romanov's.
Just so, I sympathize greatly with the german people. If they are to be ruled by a sham system of foreign corporate exploitation posing as democracy, why not replace it with something new of their own creation?
And the French have every reason to be sick and tired of their corrupt and hideously class based system.
So across the board, I can see the argument for change.
But change into what?
The rule of the party? The rule of a yet another committee of wise men who belong to the one truth faith, the one true source of wisdom on earth?
The soviet union was arguably an improvement upon the semi feudal theocratic monarchy of 19th century Russia, but i do not think it is a fit model for modern day western Europe. The rule of the party is theocracy without god, feudalism without bloodlines. It is not better than what Europeans currently endure simply because it is different, and throwing away the good in search of the perfect is an invitation to chaos and misery.
The great pity of the EU, the really bitter and melancholy aspect of the whole project, is that it is the same old thinking being rehashed once more, and sold to the people as something new and vibrant. One class of rulers is to be replaced by their relatives, but the class system remains.
Hereditary Nobleman Ulyanov came from a family born to rule, and he created his own family who were born to rule. It was a party where only the right sort were invited to participate, and the justification for the concentration of legal power did not change from the mandate of the priesthood: The power was concentrated in the party because they were the saviours of the idiot and sinful masses.
I am so sick and tired of people who honestly believe they were born to rule over me. If this is what the EU promises, then let it be treated with the same contempt as the current systems of representation and exploitation.
But do not speak down to the folks on this forum, Me_rijn, because you have not even established that you understand what is at stake, or who are the stakeholders, in this debate.
Be civil, and know your place.
The rest of us have had to do so since birth, so humour us in this public fora.
Complain about this comment
It is actually difficult to find information about the procedure, but European newspapers are quoting The Times (GB) for the information that a decision will be taken on the summit at the end of this month. That is, the leaders are making the decision.
The chairman of the council will be appointed for a period of two and a half year, and let us not forget the headline of the blog article “President of precisely what?” The influence of the new chairman is uncertain at the moment.
Complain about this comment
Hopefully the following is clear to the general British public (and I believe it is, since also in the UK there are some quite able media):
1) The European integration implies transfer of power from member states to union authorities.
2) This takes place to a specified and limited extent.
Point two is a translation from the paragraph of the Danish constitution, which is the basis for the referenda in the country concerning the EU. In Germany this summer the constitutional court has ruled that the ratification of the LT could only take place after a change in the parliamentary system. Both chambers must endorse ANY legislation from the EU, and political agreements made by German politicians are not allowed to annul the German constitution. Everybody can be assured that the court as well as a number of people in Germany will keep this very clear in their mind.
Since we enjoy the freedom of speech, it is not possible to block the flood of claims that changes the above point two to “an unlimited extent”. But at least I hope the matter is clear to the general British public.
PS: My reply in #296 was addressed to #296 and rg.
Complain about this comment
298. Mathiasen
"...It is actually difficult to find information about the procedure, but European newspapers are quoting The Times (GB) for the information that a decision will be taken on the summit at the end of this month. That is, the leaders are making the decision..."
Thank you Mathiasen. The President of the European Council: It appears that we in the UK will be in the unusual position of having the decision taken for us with a PM who was not leader of his party last Election Day. (Later picked in a one horse race by his fellow MPs - not even by the membership). No wonder some might suggest that there is a democratic deficit in all this.
Complain about this comment
It is beyond my understanding that the European Union should want a war criminal as the President of the EU. Blair (along with Bush of course) were individually responsible for slaughtering thousands upon thousands of INNOCENT Iraqi men, women and children. Therefore Blair should not even be in the running as a contender for this vitally important role. His judgment is critically flaw
JC
Complain about this comment
"Tony Blair has the drive, vision and pragmatic sense of mission to shock Europe out of its ideological slumber. Can't think of anyone in Europe anywhere near suitable or enthusiastic enough to take on the task with new ideas and not stifling the Union with idealistic hang-ups, except perhaps Barack Obama. People in Britain who are so out of touch with Bruxelles are not qualified, in view of their Anglo-Celtic mindset, to make judgement on the kind of leadership most needed to strengthen Europe and make it a superpower to be reckon with."
Complain about this comment
Sorry to say the statement about the US President below is in-correct. The President has 10 days to either Sign the Bill or Veto the Bill; if He does not sign the Bill it becomes law; if he Vetoes the Bill, he must submit to congress w/His reasons. The Congress then can override His veto by 2/3rds majority in each house and it becomes law. More on Presidential Veto and Congressional Procedure:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
17. At 12:28pm on 19 Oct 2009, Boilerplated wrote:
12. At 12:00pm on 19 Oct 2009, Jim1648 wrote:
"In trying to define the precise role you are haggling over irrelevant details. Don't the roles of President vs. Prime Minister of Russia change as Vladimir moves around? Just sign on the dotted line and Tony will take care of the rest."
Much the same is true in the USA (and no doubt other countries besides), the predident can refuse to sign into law what congres has passed, and can use executive powers to sign into law what congres won't pass...
Complain about this comment
Surely there is only one person who would adequately represent both OUR parliament and the EU Michael Martin, aka as Lord Martin of wherever
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS