Czech president swallows bitter pill
There was no fanfare, no announcement beforehand. The euro-sceptic Czech president just went ahead and signed a treaty he dislikes intensely. Some had hoped he would hold out longer but his options had gone. He had won a concession to opt out from the charter of fundamental rights but in exchange he had agreed to sign. The last legal hurdle was overcome this morning when the Czech constitutional court ruled the treaty did not violate the Czech constitution.
So ends an eight-year journey. The treaty started life as a constitution but it was rejected by the French and Dutch. It was re-born as a treaty although it was largely the same document. It had been shorn of some references that implied Europe was growing closer to being a federal state.
The British goverment, who promised the people a vote, changed its mind. The treaty was described as a technical change that did not require a referendum. All the indications were that the British people wanted their say and most likely would have rejected the treaty.
The Irish were the last to vote a few weeks ago. They had earlier voted 'no' but fears about the economy persuaded them to change their minds.
Events will now move fast. There will be an emergency summit possibly next week to chose a President of the European Council and a High Representative for foreign affairs.
With the treaty signed Tony Blair will have to decide whether he is a candidate for President and whether he'll lobby Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, the power brokers.
If he fails then speculation will re-surface that the current British foreign secretary David Miliband may get the foreign affairs post.
Britain's opposition Tories will now have to say whether they are committed to a referendum now the treaty has been signed. All the signs are that they'll back away from a vote but try and re-negotiate, to claim some powers back from Brussels
.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~39~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"Britain's opposition Tories will now have to say whether they are committed to a referendum now the treaty has been signed. All the signs are that they'll back away from a vote but try and re-negotiate, to claim some powers back from Brussels"
Which will get them nowhere, even if they curry the favours of both the Czech and Polish euroseptics it will still be 24 against 3, his only option for a referendum will be to do the UKIP's work for them (to stay or walk away from the EU, even membership of the EEA or EFTA would be doubtful as membership still requires quite a bit of EU law to be incorporated into national law), that will almost certainly cause the Conservative party to implode - I suspect it will make the Labour in-fighting of the 1980s look like a storm in a tea-spoon by comparison...
Complain about this comment
I for one am very happy about this as I've not got my EU news from any Murdoch owned outlet. It's time we moved the EU forward as I agree with the Euroskeptics that the EU isn't perfect; far from it in fact. The difference is I'm all for improving it rather than destroying it as believe it or not there are real benefits from Britain being a key EU member.
It's about time we changed it for the better, and I think this referendum is a good first step.
Complain about this comment
#1 wrote
"Which will get them nowhere, even if they curry the favours of both the Czech and Polish euroseptics it will still be 24 against 3"
Not a foregone conclusion. Simply stop paying the billions of pounds we waste on subsidising half the EU every year and you will soon get their attention.
The treaty/constitution has absolutely no democratic mandate given the outright deceit of the "chosen few" in pushing it through against the wishes of the people of several countries.
Klaus will soon come to rue the day he trusted them on their promises of opt out which in fact have no legal basis unless included in a future treaty.
Complain about this comment
It is unfortunate that Cameron will likely have to pick up the peices, although I suspect that UKIP will now really be a force to be reckoned with at the next General election. Indeed they could cost the Conservatives the election.
What I find absolutely unforgiveable is the wanton attitude of Labour and the despicable Blair, Brown and Mandelson. Thye have sold this country down the drain to the EU in return for what: the promise of a few jobs for them and their cronies when they are thrown out of UK politics (God willing make it soon).
It makes them all traitors in my opinion, both to the UK and to the concept of demoncracy. How much more damage can they do?
Complain about this comment
Anyhow unless we assume that every UK negotiator over the last ten years did nothing else but worked against the UK, then the Lisbon treaty is nothing more than what was agreed between the UK and the other partners that make up the EU. So, what does Cameron think he is going to renegotiate. As if the other 26 have nothing else better to do that talk and talk and take opinion polls. In any case the new treaty makes the EU more democratic and it will give the national parliaments as well as the EU parliament more power to agree legislation before hand and not to get presented with fait accompli. National vetoes on foreign, fiscal and social policies stay in place.
Complain about this comment
invitager @ 3
Actually, you are wrong. Because the UK parliament is sovereign, it HAD the democratic mandate it required to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without needing to hold a referendum.
Ireland has a proper written constitution, thus its Parliament cannot make a decision like that without holding a referendum. But then Ireland has a proper democratically elected Government, unlike the UK.
Complain about this comment
As Sir Edward Grey remarked about a similarly disappointing turn of events, "The lights are going out all over Europe."
In years to come Historians will make note of the fact that National 'Democracy' took its last breath on 3rd November 2009 in the UK and Europe.
However, individual State 'Democracy' has been a tough act for the Federalist EU plotters to quell - - let those of us who mourn the passing of a Citizen's Free-will work for its resoration - - the overmighty, unresponsive, unrepresentative EU is doomed even as Barroso and the rest of its venal representatives start their celebrations.
Complain about this comment
SuperJulianR @ 6
"Ireland has a proper written constitution, thus its Parliament cannot make a decision like that without holding a referendum. But then Ireland has a proper democratically elected Government, unlike the UK."
Rubbish - Cowen was elected leader of Fianna Fáil and Taoiseach after Ahern's resignation, not by the people of the Irish Republic, in the exact manner in which Brown became Prime Minister.
Complain about this comment
#6
I do not agree.
The present government were elected on a manifesto which promised a referendum on the subject.They then lied disgracefully in an effort to pretend the treaty was very different from the constitution. They had NO democratic mandate to ignore that promise.
PS
The UK government has hardly been sovereign since we signed up to this wretched club. I see UK law over-ruled every day of the week by EU law.
PPS
The Irish were fools as they and the Czechs will never get their opt outs. They must be ratified by a future treaty to become legal and if Dave ever gives us the chance to vote on a treaty then the Irish will be left very disappointed as I am quite sure we will vote masively against it.
Complain about this comment
@7 do you undestand the concept of democracy? if yes what part of the EU is "unrepresentative" or even better will be more "unrepresentative" in your opinion when the Lisbon Treaty comes into effect? What does democracy look like to you? Are you under the illusion we have democracy in the UK?
Complain about this comment
What on earth is so wonderful about the people (British or any other), that bunch of economically illiterate racist bigots, or even national parliaments, who get themselves elected by pandering to the people? If power is seeping away from them to an élite that need not answer to the mob, so much the better.
Complain about this comment
What a sad day for us - "We will not go silently into the night!" Well, I am afraid we did just that. We let a government that had 23% of the vote, that promised us a referendum, then swapped leaders, then denied us a vote, then rushed through the ratification - we let them get away with it didn't we! Our sovereignty is now gone, without a shot being fired, and no matter what the Cons say or promise, the only option now, is a vote on leaving the EU. Nothing else is possible. That is what we all need to ask for, and DEMAND from those who would be elected next year.
Complain about this comment
invictager
re #9.
Definitely add the British and especially the English to the list of 'fools' alongside the other 450,000,000 European Citizens.
The Lisbon Treaty provides the European Court of Justice with the power to overturn a National Referendum on any matter - - not only do the Irish Protocols mean absolutely nothing in the future, so do the votes of 300,000,000+ UK/Europeans!
Complain about this comment
#10
Does #7 understand the concept of democracy you ask.
What is democratic about ignoring multiple votes against the project then either ignoring the results,i.e. France and Netherlands, or ordering countries to hold a rerun until the "correct" decision is reached.
Complain about this comment
ChrisArta
Re #10.
As weakly defined as the 'Democracy' is and however poorly 'represented' the average UK/England Citizen is by their Government whether the Westminster or non-Union legislature forms that is still immeasureably more 'Democratic' than 1 vote among 300,000,000+ in a Federal EU.
Only 1 State (Eire) actually dared opt to allow its Citizens the opportunity to execise their Free-will on the Lisbon Treaty.
Now, if you think that is what you "understand by democracy" then you are clearly one of those pro-EU who can argue black is white without blushing red or any colour at all!
Complain about this comment
@14 - That is reality, that is what politicians do, as you can read below.
Now a question to you:
What is democratic about having a poll tax (council tax) impossed on us.
What is democratic about closing down all industry?
What is democratic about having a war in Iraq that no one wanted
If you think I found any of those option democratic you are wrong. If on the other hand you think that the party in power at the time was making decisions on my behalf without my agreement you are right. If you think
I you think I find the electrol system where about 30% of the people that bother to vote select a govenment for the other 70% + the 50% that don't bother to vote plus the 20% that are not eligilabe to vote democratic, then you are wrong again.
But that's the way it is. So UK or EU goverment are not that different. So if you want to talk about democracy lets start at home before we try to teach others.
Complain about this comment
#3. At 5:58pm on 03 Nov 2009, invictager wrote:
"#1 wrote
"Which will get them nowhere, even if they curry the favours of both the Czech and Polish euroseptics it will still be 24 against 3"
Not a foregone conclusion. Simply stop paying the billions of pounds we waste on subsidising half the EU every year and you will soon get their attention."
That would in effect mean leaving the EU and making dammed sure that we could never be members of the EEA EFTA either, again they euroseptics how clueless most of them are on EU affairs...
Complain about this comment
@14 also after the France/Netherlands votes things were changed so in certain ways their views were taken into account. Same goes for the Irish.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
12. At 7:08pm on 03 Nov 2009, Britain1st wrote:
"What a sad day for us"
For the xenophobic amongst us perhaps...
Complain about this comment
Dear #13,
"The Lisbon Treaty provides the European Court of Justice with the power to overturn a National Referendum on any matter - - not only do the Irish Protocols mean absolutely nothing in the future, so do the votes of 300,000,000+ UK/Europeans!"
Could you possibly pitch an appropriate passage? I have not found it anywhere in my copy.
Complain about this comment
Invictagar: Considering the size of the EU - 500 million people - the budget is tiny; far less, in fact, than the UK domestic budget for 60 million. The total EU GDP is €12.5 trillion, while the budget is a mere €120.7 million, just about 1% of GDP. The idea that the EU is an expensive, spendthrift extra layer of bureaucracy is therefore absurd.
Complain about this comment
14. At 7:16pm on 03 Nov 2009, invictager wrote:
"What is democratic about ignoring multiple votes against the project then either ignoring the results,i.e. France and Netherlands, or ordering countries to hold a rerun until the "correct" decision is reached."
The EU did take note, they scrapped that treaty, do try and keep up!
Complain about this comment
#17
Leave the EU. The sooner the better. I can think of so many more things that we could do with all that money we waste being a member.
#18
Nonsense.The treaty and constitution are virtually identical according to everyone but Blair and Brown.
The Irish have won nothing.Their opt outs have no legal force.
Complain about this comment
"The treaty started life as a constitution but it was rejected by the French and Dutch. It was re-born as a treaty although it was largely the same document. It had been shorn of some references that implied Europe was growing closer to being a federal state."
Gavin Hewitt needs to get his facts straight - the 'constitution' was actually called the Treaty of Rome II(2) - The Treaty of Rome 1 obviously being the founding treaty of the EEC back in 1957. Some EU hacks foolishly decided to parade it as a constitution, much to the glee of the rabid Eurosceptic media both in the UK and abroad. That error was exploited to fuel opposition to the treaty. I think just about every pro-European would admit that it was a grevious mistake to call it a constitution. Make no mistake though, whatever it may have been called, it was a treaty.
When that fell through the treaty was rewritten and yes, it was based on the template of the Treaty of Rome 2. It would make sense to do that as 2/3 EU states had already agreed to the treaty and most of the rest waited to see what would happen. Rewriting the treaty meant leaving out the more controversial aspects, with amendments here and there. Effectively though, it is a different treaty.
The production of the Reform Treaty has come out of earlier mistakes and it will allow the EU to move forward and become more efficient and less bureaucratic. Of course, that's not how it will be presented. On that final note, funny how the Treaty of Rome 2 is always referred to as the Constitution, but the Reform Treaty is always referred to as the Treaty of Lisbon. Clearly 'Reform' carries too positive connotations for some...
Complain about this comment
invictager@10: The French and Dutch votes were taken into account, since the Constitutional Treaty was dropped. BTW, the vote in *my* country (Spain) wasn't: we also held a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty, which the "yes" won handsomely. Yet this was ultimately futile, like the equally successful referendum in Luxembourg. Was that fair?
Complain about this comment
May I just interject. In 1975 there was a national referendum with a great deal of open discussion and general airing of views over Britain becoming a member state of the EU. The vote was a positive YES to the principle of our entry and wholehearted membership. Since then various parties who disagreed with the vote have tried to move the goalposts and confuse the issue with the result that many people today are very confused about our position. We are full members of the EU and we voted for it a long time ago.
As to the matter of Gordon Brown's legitimacy as Prime Minister, we do not vote for a Prime Minister, we vote for local Members of Parliament and they operate in groups called parties which each have a leader. The winning party in a general election forms a government, the head of which is their leader and by default becomes Prime Minister. That is how the system works and has done for all parties for a very long time. There is no method for voting for Gordon Brown unless you are a registered voter in his constituency. To say Gordon Brown is an unelected Prime Minister is to confirm the status of all his predecessors and a complete red herring to all of these discussions. Thank you and goodnight
Complain about this comment
#19
So I am to be subject to personal insult for not agreeing with you.
Thank you because it shows you cannot hold up your side of the debate.
Classic nulabour type strategy. Label everyone racist/xenophobic to disguise your failure to persuade them by reasonable argument that you are correct.
I will not be descending to your level simply to make a point.
Complain about this comment
"It was re-born as a treaty although it was largely the same document."
"The British goverment, who promised the people a vote, changed its mind."
Mr. Hewitt, do you get your talking points directly from Conservative Central HQ? By my understanding there are some quite substantial differences between the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty, they aren't "largely the same document" (which is a pity: although the Constitutional Treaty isn't a beauty, the Lisbon Treaty does indeed compromise far too much in my Europhile eyes).
Neither did Labour just "promise a vote". They promised a vote on the Constitutional Treaty before ratifying it. Since the Constitutional Treaty was abandoned, it isn't just over a technicality that they weren't bound by that promise with respect to the Lisbon Treaty. Unlike Cameron's "cast-iron guarantee", BTW...
Finally, I'd also like to complain about the title that the link to this blog post has got on the BBC News front page: "Bitter pill for Czechs"? The Czech parliament voted for the Lisbon Treaty a long time ago, and polls also show overwhelming support among the general Czech population. The only Czech for whom this "pill" was bitter was Vaclav Klaus, and at least he has milked it for all it was worth.
Complain about this comment
I am happy to be part of europe, the economic benifits through open markets are great, there is also cases of safety in air safety, car production etc, that can only be good, it is the political intigration that scares me, I do not want to be part of a united states of europe. why is it that the main political parties and the media do not seem to have picked up on this??? havin a president of europe sounds fun, but then would there be a need for national governments???
Also "and this is not a racist comment". how would the voters of the uk feel to having a German president of Europe??? is that not what Hitler wanted!!!! he would have called it something different, but still it would have been a single europe under one government???
I don't seeing that happen, I see Europe falling apart before that
Duncan
Complain about this comment
#22
Where did you get your figure of 120 million. UK alone pays billions into the EU.
#23
Really.
Please enlighten us to exactly what changes were made to the Lisbon treaty before Ireland held it's second referendum.
The text of the treaty, not the non legally binding protocols, was exactly the same.
Complain about this comment
@15 also if you think that I'm "democratically" satisfied that my democratically elected government paid billions of GBP to their banking friends that is wrong also, if you think I'm happy that my own democratically elected government declares war without my concent that is wrong also. Forgive me for failing to care if a decision that I don't like is taken in London or Brussels. So pick another point because, the reason you don't like the Lisbon tready should have nothing to do with democracy.
Complain about this comment
#27
No. We voted to join a common market.The British were not told in 1975 that this organisation would have 27 members, make most of our laws and end up with it's own currency and President.
The "EU" did not even exist in 1975.
Complain about this comment
ChrisArta
Re #16.
What is democratic about having a Council Tax imposed - - well fair question except it was not of course imposed - - it replaced the loathed Poll Tax after an enquiry headed by Michael Heseltine and was in the Manifesto of the 2 main Political Parties at the 1992 Election so famously unexpectedly won by John Major.
What is democratic about closing down all industry - - again, fair question if it addressed facts and not fiction - - 17% of the British Economy is still entirely Manufacturing based and when the relatively new specialist hi-tech industries are included it approaches 23%. True, not spectacular but if you really think fossil-based mining etc. was the way forward for the UK in the 21st Century you have misunderstood every economic trend from Global Warming to the rise of Pacific rim nations.
What is democratic about having a war in Iraq that no one wanted - - sorry, but this really is a misconception - - you may not have wanted the Iraq campaign, and maybe many millions of others too, but, you and they are not everybody, (I, for one, agreed with the invasion and still do - - the abysmally tragic ongoing aftermath is a different matter). At the time of the Iraq invasion UK Polls suggested a majority in favour of the action (that Blair etc. may have lied/misled is about as relevant and accurate as EU Commission Pres. Baroso saying he believes the EU represents the Citizens of 27 Nations).
The Government did not make those decisions in isolation: In the case of the Poll Tax it got the heave-ho precisely because of the community response to it; the closure of Industry could be as well blamed on incompetent 'old-school-tie' management hierarchy and bloody-minded trade-union leadership as any national policy, and, as for Iraq over 500 MPs voted in favour of the participation of UK Armed Forces in support of the UK's NATO ally the USA.
True enough the UK/England Government has lamentably failed to represent the views of a fair section of British society re the EU, but, although I am wholly opposed to membership (for England) I do not know if I am in a majority or minority as no Government has had the Political courage and aspiration to Democratic principles to allow a Vote one way or the other.
The EU has shown exactly the same weaknesses, but at least at National level things can dealt with: Hence NuLab will almost certainly get a well-deserved kicking by the electorate at the next Election - - something that is impossible for the EU Citizen Electorate to do to the EU Parliament, Commission or EUrocrats no matter how unwanted their policies!
That said, the idea the Federal EU post-Lisbon ratification will allow any sort of Referendum or Ballot box adjudication by the individual National States Citizens on their future Governance is simply laughable. The EU has not had a Majority Mandate of EU Citizens votes for the last 4 EU Parliament elections - - why would the EU start caring about 'Democratic' accountability 20 years after the last time it could claim 'popular' electoral support for its existence and policies!?
Complain about this comment
Aha, my British friends, according to Gavin Hewitt this is it: either Tony Blair or David Miliband? No other candidate for EU's prime post? Whow. And then this comment: "Simply stop paying the billions of pounds we waste on subsidising half the EU every year and you will soon get their attention." Take a close look who really pays and who takes. Per capita, UK is in the ranks with Slowenia, Greece and Spain. Per absolute amount, Germany pays almost twice as much as the UK. Love you guys!
Complain about this comment
Phew!!! now I think I'll go to sleep, otherwise I'll be unpopular not only with the Europhobes at the BBC but also my girlfriend :)
Good night all and remember the EU is as democratic as any other national government :)
Complain about this comment
#15. At 7:36pm on 03 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
"As weakly defined as the 'Democracy' is and however poorly 'represented' the average UK/England Citizen is by their Government whether the Westminster or non-Union legislature forms that is still immeasureably more 'Democratic' than 1 vote among 300,000,000+ in a Federal EU."
Would you call the USA a democracy?...
Complain about this comment
David Cameron can breathe a sigh of relief. He can claim that he was always opposed to the treaty without ever actually having to do anything to prove it. Now he can say it was a done deal beyond his control. Given that all we heard was grumbling in the UK about it, no real committees, no real instigation of a national debate, no demonstrations, nothing but occasional mewling in oppositin, the anti EU people in the UK can hardly be taken seriously. Sitting back and letting George do it never worked. I did not see even one serious attempt by anyone in all those eight years to block its enactment, not even one.
In a short time the EUSSR will open its doors for business. There's a new boss in town and he won't take no guff from no local pols. You will conform, you will toe the line, and there will be punishment for those who refuse or resist. So far there's been no sign of an Exodus while the doors are still unlocked from the inside. That could one day change without notice as those in the USSR's empire found out.
Complain about this comment
I am for one am happy that the Lisbon Treaty has been signed and for the EU to progress forward. Although I must be in a tiny minority in this country, I do believe that Britain should be a key member of the EU. This country needs to be realistic about itself. We are not a major power anymore (and havent been since 1945)and our economy is not as good as either the major powers on the continent. British is a European power and therefore should act in concert with other major european countries. For all its inperfection (which I believe will improve over time), the EU is here to stay and I am happy about this. I would like to see Britain joining the euro and contributing more to European affairs than being a poodle to the US.
Complain about this comment
24. At 7:52pm on 03 Nov 2009, invictager wrote:
[ my emphasis ]
"The treaty and constitution are virtually identical according to everyone but Blair and Brown."
So they are not the same then, thus the legal meaning is not the same...
Complain about this comment
27. At 8:00pm on 03 Nov 2009, Mike Elliott wrote:
"May I just interject. In 1975 there was a national referendum with a great deal of open discussion and general airing of views over Britain becoming a member state of the EU. ..//.."
Just to clarify what Mike was probably trying to say in the above, in '75 the UK was given the choice if to stay members of what was then the EEC, the UK had been members since January 1st 1973.
Complain about this comment
Tomasz Trystula
Re #21.
As I always do may I send you my heartfelt applause for having a copy of the Lisbon Treaty to hand and being able to read its passages end-to-end in less than the 40 minutes it took to reply to my #13.
Truly you are a gifted person and one hesitates to get involved with someone of your undoubted intellectual capacity.
All the same, if you could enlighten us all by pointing to which particular piece of content of the 64 additional EU Documents the Lisbon Treaty draws upon is not subject to the supreme authority and power of the European Court of Justice we would be obliged.
For your information, the Lisbon Treaty now provides the ECJ with primacy-jurisdiction over every area of National policy except Foreign Affairs - - the Lisbon Treaty is indeed a simplifying treaty - - it really is much easier now for that Court to over-ride any Legislation passed by any National Government and hence that includes Laws enacted following Referendum results.
If you don't believe it: Ask your MEP.
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments made @ #28.
But I'm not a euroseptic liar...
Complain about this comment
Just another leg of the journey to a totally controlled Federal Europe that makes the old USSR look like a democracy. Rules made by non elected commisionares, enforced by unelected Government officials and council hit men and now the prospects of a "President" despised by many of his own countrymen and "Elected" by the unelected "Lord Meddlesome"
Utter contempt for the people of Britain and a despicable disregard for the millions who lost their lives to keep a free world.
Complain about this comment
31. At 8:08pm on 03 Nov 2009, invictager wrote:
"Please enlighten us to exactly what changes were made to the Lisbon treaty before Ireland held it's second referendum.
The text of the treaty, not the non legally binding protocols, was exactly the same."
More euroseptic lies.
If they are not you will have no problem in citing chapter and verse, will you...
Complain about this comment
#43
Again thank you for proving the weakness of your argument.
Moderator
Please do not remove #43 even though it is aimed at me, as was 19.
I am happy to let others make their judgements on what has been said by the person in response to a reasonable attempt to debate the matter.
Complain about this comment
33. At 8:16pm on 03 Nov 2009, invictager wrote:
The "EU" did not even exist in 1975.
Nor did some countries, your point being what exactly, other than just another sour euroseptic rant?...
Complain about this comment
We are now to be ruled by an unelected government (The European Commission) and an unelected president. Democracy is dead. We have lost our freedom. The only thing we can do now is leave the EU.
Complain about this comment
So this is to be Europe's epitaph. So be it.
Complain about this comment
44. At 8:42pm on 03 Nov 2009, GrumpyBob wrote:
"Just another leg of the journey to a totally controlled Federal Europe that makes the old USSR look like a democracy."
I understand that the next "Britain's got Talent" auditions are especaily looking for political satirists...
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated.
Re #37.
The United States of America has nothing at all to do with the debate of the relative merits or otherwise of a Federal European Union.
The USA version of Federal Democratic Government has been forged in legislature, supreme court decisions, oval office and civil strife over almost 250 years.
The Federal EU is without any Popular Majority Mandate in its Parliament for 20 years; at every Referendum held in the last decade prior to the 2nd Eire on LT ('2nd' and therefore not legitimate - - afterall, the 'democratic' EU wont be offering a 3rd, will it) the EU's federal expansionist policies have been rejected by the Citizens, and yet, it continues culminating in ratification of a Treaty which not 1 of the other 26 National Governments was prepared to put to a ballot and your 'democratic' EU certainly did not insist should occur.
Complain about this comment
I feel I have much to offer the people of Europe and would like to throw my hat into the ring for the position of President of Europe. How does the vote work and where do I register my nomination? When does the vote take place and how do the people of Europe make their choice for President?
Complain about this comment
#47
I would have thought it reasonably apparent to anyone( other than you obviously) that it was a direct reply to Mike Elliot writing at #27 that we had a referendum in 1975 about joining the EU.
Complain about this comment
#42 cool_brush_work
"For your information, the Lisbon Treaty now provides the ECJ with primacy-jurisdiction over every area of National policy except Foreign Affairs"
'Minor' correction: the ECJ will have jurisdiction over every area of EU competence except for Foreign affairs it only has a limited say in justice and home affairs. The EU will have no competence over referendums results so the ECJ won't be able to overturn them.
Complain about this comment
@35 and 39 I do agree with your comments. First, the UK GDP is not the highest in the EU and the UK is by far not the highest contributor to the EU budget. Second the Victorian times are over and it is unlikely that Britannia will rule any waves in the near future....mmmh did the IMF rescued the UK back in the 70's..... With its current political flip flopping and opt out attitude, either the UK will become the 51st US state, or a EU satellite state, or a Chinese colony. As a non-British pro-European I am very much in favor (US spelling!) of a referendum in the UK. However, the right question should be asked: 100% in or 100% out! If the British want to stay on the sideline, FINE, but leave the other get on with the plan and be ready to assume the consequences. You might realize that many problems you are blaming Europe for won't actually go away.
Good night.
Complain about this comment
The thesis that absolute power corrupts absolutely will again be put to the test...and undoubtedly be proved correct just has it has been every other time. This time though, the USA cannot bail Europeans out. How they finally escape this one is anybody's guess but it won't be the USA that's involved. In fact the sooner the USA gets out, the better. I'm hoping that if America's own leaders don't pull us out of NATO first, the Europeans will throw us out. Now that they are the single largest economic entity in the world as they constantly boast, they can see to their own military defense.
Complain about this comment
Richard
Re #22.
120 million Euros!
The EU Budget?
Well, you are right - - it was about that in 1975 when the UK had its 1 and only Referendum on membership.
120 million! Honestly, sometimes you pro-EU are so gullible I reckon it's possible you would even happily accept a constitution given another name that combines 64 Governing documents into less than 100 pages with hundreds of cross-references to over 3,000 sub-sections of those documents that make it impossible to actually know what you are being asked to agree to!
No, not even you pro-EU are that silly!?
Oh, hang on a moment isn't the Lisbon Treaty...
Complain about this comment
In case Cameron decides te have a referendum, it will be a referendum about EU membership. The rest of the EU will be OK with the UK leaving, as the NET budget contribution of the UK is small in the big scheme of things. I have lived many years in the UK, and like the country and people very much. But the UK (and it's citizens) must decide if they want to be IN or OUT. The fact that UK decided against the Euro, Schengen and other EU initiatives show the reluctance of being IN, actually less IN than a non-EU country like Switserland, member of Schengen and where the Euro is widely accepted. It also could explain why UK citizens are so hostile against EU, as UK politicians fight the EU instead of taking advantage of it. And for the Euro(-currency) sceptics, I can safely say that the Euro has saved many countries during the crisis, while when the crisis started, this blog was full of comments about how difficult it would be for Eurozone members to recover, and how much easier it would be for the UK. And who is still in recession now? Many continental Europeans would be happy for the UK to leave, I hope it doesn't happen, but the UK itself has to make-up it's mind so that everyone can move on. The Lisbon treaty now provides the possibility for member states to leave.
Complain about this comment
#45
"The repeat referendum is about the same treaty text, but since last year EU leaders have given specific commitments on issues which made some Irish voters nervous last time."
Source BBC News 2/10/09
In an exchange in the House of Lords on 1 July 2009, the Minister for Europe, Glenys Kinnock, confirmed the Government’s view that Ireland would be voting on the same Treaty text the second time around:
Those guarantees do not change the Lisbon treaty; the European Council conclusions are very clear on them. The Lisbon treaty, as debated and decided by our Parliament, will not be changed and, on the basis of these guarantees, Ireland will proceed to have a second referendum in October. […] Nothing in the treaty will change and nothing in the guarantees will change the treaty as your Lordships agreed it.
Source House of Commons Library 8/10/0
Complain about this comment
#45
Was #59 chapter and verse enough for you or are the BBC and Glenys Kinnock also eurosceptics?
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated wrote:
"I understand that the next "Britain's got Talent" auditions are especaily looking for political satirists..."
I would audition but I will be too busy working helping to pay the contributions to the EU gravy train for Kinnock and all the other unelected "Power Brokers"
Complain about this comment
12. At 7:08pm on 03 Nov 2009, Britain1st wrote:
"We let a government that had 23% of the vote, that promised us a referendum, then swapped leaders, then denied us a vote, then rushed through the ratification - we let them get away with it didn't we!"
It looks like Britain (not the EU) has a democratic deficit, with its outdated "first-past-the-post" voting system. Instead of obsessing with useless in/out referenda, why don't the Britain1sts ever think of demanding a reform of their own electoral system from their *own* government.
Oh, but that would deny the opportunity to moan, a national past time, of the too many that can't distinguish moaning from political debate.
Complain about this comment
Gunota.
Re #54.
No need for the 'minor' correction if you had read #42 properly.
The Lisbon Treaty provides "primacy-jurisdiction" for the European Court of Justice over "..any National Government and hence that includes Laws enacted following Referendum results."
I.e. A State holds a Referendum and the Majority vote 'yes' to withdrawal from the EU: The State may pass Legislation proposing withdrawal, but any other Stae, the Commission, EU Parliament, or Citizen may appeal to the ECJ against that Law - - the ECJ has the authority and power to hear that 'case' and view it against EU Legislative interest and it could strike down that 'Withdrawal' Legislation.
That is not say it would, but, all you pro-EU need to start facing upto the reality of the EU-Legal-tiger-by-the-tail to which you have willingly handed your futures.
Complain about this comment
Hi Wolfgang [#35],
“Take a close look who really pays and who takes. Per capita, UK is in the ranks with Slovenia, Greece and Spain. Per absolute amount, Germany pays almost twice as much as the UK. Love you guys”
I love you euro-federalists too Wolfgang; the way you argue that black is white, etc…. I see here you are repeating the myth that the UK doesn't pay its way in Europe. I see you quote 'gross' contributions not net contributions, no accident is that Wolfgang? Because you know that the UK is the second highest net contributor to the EU [behind Germany] despite only having the fourth largest economy in the EU [Germany, France, Italy, UK…] And of course it is net contributions that count… After all if member A paid a £100 subscription fee to his local working man’s club but received benefits in kind of £120, while member B paid fees of £80 but only withdrew benefits of £50; no sane person would claim that member A was making a greater financial contribution to the club's finances than member B. Except of course, that is your argument Wolfgang… isn't it.
Oh! And before you mention the UK Rebate… we are still the second highest net contributor AFTER the rebate has been deducted…. And as for your allegation that Germany pays twice as much as the UK – your argument not only fails to take account of Net contributions, you also fail to mention that Germany has a larger economy and population than the UK, so of course, you pay more in NET contributions [BTW Holland is the largest contributor per head of population].
As for Lisbon, how can you support a self-amending treaty/constitution – it's potentially a dictator's charter. Or are you happy to have an un-elected EU President and Foreign Minister speak for Germany? We are 25 sovereign independent nation states that have come together to trade, why can't we just leave it at that…. Oh and BTW now that Lisbon has become law, why is it that when German MEP's talk about opt-outs and how our opt-outs should prevent any British citizen from securing a top job in the EU – that the same rule doesn'y apply to Germans? After all, Germany has opted out from some of the provisions in the EHCR. Furthermore, wasn't Germany one of those countries that didn't grant freedom of access to workers from the first wave of accession states? I believe the UK was one of only 3 EU states that didn't take advantage of this opt-out... Ireland and Denmark were the other two... but of course they also have opt-outs in other areas... Oh dear! And before you claim that this is a trival matter - remember the EU was founded on the principle of freedom of movement… not montary union.
Oh and one more question for you Wolfgang – which GVN has the European court found to be in breach of European law the most – the UK or Germany? No not us euro-sceptics but you – the architects of Europe – but don't worry, the French have an even worse record of implementing European directives than you [and have a terrible track record in NET EU contributions] So who are the good Europeans now?
Complain about this comment
#27 - Mike Elliott
"In 1975 there was a national referendum with a great deal of open discussion and general airing of views over Britain becoming a member state of the EU".
No, that was the EEC.
There have been no referenda concerning anything EEC/EU related since but then neither should there have been. Britain was and, despite some recent disreputable behaviour and scandals, remains a parliamentary democracy by virtue of which the electors periodically mandate a government to run the country. Thus, there was no call for referenda in respect of the Single European Act, Nice or Maastricht. The governments of the day were, in each case mandated to proceed along this course and the only reason the sceptics are calling foul now is because they were promised a referendum on the abandoned Constitution (Rome II) and Lisbon was negotiated instead. No undertakings were ever given regarding a referendum on Lisbon save the Tory pledge to hold one if it had not passed into law by the time they came to power. This is no longer relevant.
Your point is well made so it is a shame to spoil it by factual inaccuracy just as the sceptics do themselves no favours by deliberately confusing Rome II with Lisbon. Our friend from Spain, RCalvo72 sums it up perfectly at #29. He is also entirely right about the 'pill' being 'bitter' for Klaus, not the Czech people as a whole.
Complain about this comment
I voted for the UK's entry into the EEC back in the early 1970s because England in particular had lost its Empire and had not yet found a new role for itself. The growing EEC was the opportunity for the UK to re-invent itself as an integral and leading component of a progressively uniting, cooperating and developing group of European countries. That process has continued over the years and will no doubt continue to do so.
The so-called "Eurosceptics" in Continental Europe are in the great part from ex-communist functionary families who had a leading role in the Soviet european colonial Empire as administrators. They still hanker for close ties with mother Russia and its power brokers in Moscow. Many of them were undercover communist agents. They want a weak Europe so that they can concentrate political power in their own hands. A uniting European Union is a major economic and thus political threat to Russian ambitions of Empire and its regional supporters.
That the Conservatives in Britain associate themselves with the Eurosceptics is frankly surprising. Afterall it was Winston Churchill who was one of the fathers of European integration and it was the Conservative Party which took the UK into the EEC, the ancestor of the EU.
If the English want to leave the EU then so be it. I am however, doubtful that the Scots, Welsh or Irish would want to leave the EU. What will England then do? It actually makes little contribution nett to the EU. Its perceived to be an American Trojan Horse in Europe. Maybe it should apply to the USA to become its 51st State. Like Hawaii.
Complain about this comment
#46. At 8:49pm on 03 Nov 2009, invictager wrote:
"#43
Again thank you for proving the weakness of your argument.
Moderator
Please do not remove #43 even though it is aimed at me, as was 19.
I am happy to let others make their judgements on what has been said by the person in response to a reasonable attempt to debate the matter."
Nice to see what you think about free speech... Again, if you are not repeating euroseptic lies you will have no problems citing your arguments, will you...
Complain about this comment
48. At 8:53pm on 03 Nov 2009, sleepytime wrote:
"We are now to be ruled by an unelected government (The European Commission) and an unelected president. Democracy is dead. We have lost our freedom. The only thing we can do now is leave the EU."
Bye-bye then, don't forget to send a postcard...!
Complain about this comment
This is great news for Europe. And better news for the UK whose national interest is now assured.
It also ties the Tories into knots. So everyone's a winner!
A great day to be European.
Complain about this comment
#53 - invictager
Oh for heaven's sake, does a referendum to stay in the EEC really sound like the same thing as a referendum to join the EU?
Complain about this comment
51. At 8:58pm on 03 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
"Boilerplated.
Re #37.
The United States of America has nothing at all to do with the debate of the relative merits or otherwise of a Federal European Union."
In relation to what I was replying to, yes it does, go look at the population figures of the USA and then try and claim the EU is not a democracy due to it's population figure.
"The Federal EU is without any Popular Majority Mandate in its Parliament for 20 years;"
More lies from the euroseptics...
If you couldn't be bothered to vote in the last EU wide elections that is your problem, not mind and certainly not the EU's.
Complain about this comment
lacerniagigante
Re #62.
You are right there is a 'democratic-defecit' in the UK: However, nowhere near as bad as the gap between the EU and its Citizens.
Despite, or perhaps because of First-Past-The-Post voting 'Democracy' has done quite well in some ways in the United Kingdom.
The British Government in the last 12 years has enacted legislation that set-up a Parliament for Scotland, and Assemblies for Wales and Northern Ireland.
Scotland is now ruled by a Party favouring full independence from the UK; Northern Ireland has a 'power-sharing' executive that has brought peace after years of conflict, and the Welsh have partial autonomy on many National Welsh issues. Northern Ireland even held Referenda on the instruments of government that emerged from the Peace Accords.
Maybe those staunch EU nations could learn from the UK?
E.g. Spain could settle Governance issues with the Basques; France with the Corsicans; Belgium's Flemings and Walloons; Sweden and Finland with the Sami; Italy with Sicily: practically all of East Europe could do better by its Gipsy (Roma) and other 'minority' populations (lets not forget what was one of Pres Klaus' biggest concerns - - displaced Germans!).
Oh, I forgot - - all those Nations think the EU is the 'Democratic' and
'Political' way forward - - yet not one consulted their Citizens on Lisbon (just like defecit-UK). Still, there is no democratic defecit in that wonderful EU, is there!?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
re #59
Try actually reading the two documents, not just taking, on trust, what some politician or confused reporter has said or reported.
Complain about this comment
I think there is only one thing to do...
Everyone, please, could sing with me... ahem!
...
We are the champions - my friends
And we'll keep on fighting - till the end -
We are the champions -
We are the champions
No time for losers
'Cause we are the champions - of the world -
...
Thank you and good night everybody!
Complain about this comment
The UKIP central office pagers have been busy tonight...
Complain about this comment
Can you tell me if the Czech government's condition that all Sudeten Germans expelled from Czechcolosvaquia after the war would have no right to demand reparations was met by the German government before the Czech president signed the Lisbon treaty?
Complain about this comment
#70
I did not say it was the same. Please read posts 27,33,47&53 again to see I was replying to a man who said we had a referendum to join the EU in 1975.
#67
At 19 you accused me of wanting to vote in a far right extremist party.This post was removed.
At 43 you implied I was a liar.I asked for this to remain to show what your idea of a debate was.
At 45 you said it was lies, from me, that the Irish voted again on the same text as before and challenged me to provide evidence.
At 60 I posted sourced comments from the BBC and The Minister for Europe which both said the Irish did exactly that. Where is your evidence they did not or do you know better than the BBC and the UK government.
#73
I have at no time said we joined in 1975. I said I had replied to a poster who did say that.
It has been obvious throughout that you are unable to hold a discussion without resorting to juvenile name calling and insults both to me and others who do not agree with your sacred opinion. It has also been obvious that despite your many posts you have in fact failed to post a single sentence that supports an argument that Lisbon is good for the UK.
I suggest you should think first and type second.
Complain about this comment
I'm losing my patience. I have lived here for a while and I have understood that most Britons do not want to be part of the European integration. Fair enough and understandable, given the enormous cultural discrepancies between the continent and this island. But what I do not understand is why the UK has not consequently left the EU. There wouldn't be any discussions about treaties and the threatened sovereignty and it wouldn't cost a penny any more. All the misery that the EU means for the UK would end instantly. Problem solved! Wouldn't that be the next best thing to heaven? So why is the UK in the EU. Why???
Complain about this comment
#74
So now you are claiming the Glenys Kinnock, the Minister for Europe, lied to Parliament. For goodness sake stop digging as you are already at the bottom of the hole.
Is there anyone you have not labeled a liar in your desperation to appear correct.
Complain about this comment
This is great news!! Now we need Cameron to be like a Prime Minister in waiting and tell his Eurosceptics to either shut up or join UKIP. It is about time the tail stopped wagging the dog!!
Complain about this comment
I really cannot fathom how this treaty affects me or anyone else in this country going about our daily lives. Maybe our Government will lose its freedom regarding foreign policy. So what!! When did Joe Public in this country ever have a say in the decison-making process in foreign affairs? The decision to go to war?? The decison to allow the Bank of England to set interest rates?? What freedoms are people so upset about losing? Please explain!!!
Complain about this comment
@79 I totally agree with you. The Lisbon treaty now for the first time provides the opportunity for member states to leave the EU. So, it's really now the time for the UK (or England) to make-up it's mind. It's better to have fewer, but committed countries than to have the current 27. And if the UK cannot make-up it's mind, then the rest of the EU may one day want to request a referendum about continued participation of countries that block every step....has anyone thought about the cost of that for all of us?
In this list, I do not include the Chezs, as their democratically elected parliament is pro and so is the majority of the population. It's their president who played a very non-democratic game, with the support of the Euro-sceptics.....in the name of democracy.
Complain about this comment
#63. cool_brush_work
Your little scenario assumes that it's against EU treaty rules for a country to leave the EU (it's not), so the ECJ would not be able to rule against it.
Furthermore let's assume your little fantasy scenario actually plays out what you're ignoring is that if a country leaves the Union, its supreme court would simply stop recognizing the supremacy of the ECJ making all ECJ judgements null and void, similar with the supremacy of EU law. So while the ECJ will be ruling against the country saying 'it can't leave', the country would simply ignore it and move on with its desire to leave the Union. Yes I'm basically saying that the supremacy of ECJ is voluntarily based and its rulings can't really be enforced (besides using fines)
Having said that, I can understand why you fear that the ECJ can overrule referendums (your example was quite poor) In fact I believe this can already happen: what if a referendum outcome contradicts an EU law? If its an EU directive or regulation the country in question would simply request the ECJ to annul it. If its part of a treaty it will request an opt-out going into force with the next treaty.
If the country doesn't get its way it would simply ignore the EU law, regulation and follow the referendum outcome.
Regardless of scenario the country gets its way, unless you think I'm wrong?
#72:
"Maybe those staunch EU nations could learn from the UK?
E.g. Spain could settle Governance issues with the Basques; France with the Corsicans; Belgium's Flemings and Walloons; Sweden and Finland with the Sami; Italy with Sicily: practically all of East Europe could do better by its Gipsy (Roma) and other 'minority' populations (lets not forget what was one of Pres Klaus' biggest concerns - - displaced Germans!)."
Why should those countries learn from the UK? All of the countries you've mentioned already have a devolved parliaments (before Britain did) with the exception of the Sumi, Roma people (the situation of Roma people in Europe seriously needs to improve, sadly there's no political will...) and Corsica (which was voted down in a referendum).
Still when one talks about democratic deficit in the UK one should start at the House of Lords, how a body appointed by party members and the Church can still exist in this day and age baffles me. :) Although to be fair its importance has been declining.
Complain about this comment
@82 RioPlata: great post! Taking your argument further....if the Lisbon treaty would have been in force, it would have been more difficult for Blair to go to war.
Complain about this comment
SuperJulianR wrote "Actually, you are wrong. Because the UK parliament is sovereign, it HAD the democratic mandate it required to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without needing to hold a referendum."
If a party goes into a general election promising a referendum on "the EU constitutional treaty" - yes, they *did* promise it on a treaty - precisely to avoid the general election being a vote on that issue, then said party has - by definition - no democratic mandate to ratify that treaty.
Nobody should ever vote for Labour again after that broken promise. And if Cameron ducks out of holding a referendum on Britain's future with Europe, then nobody should vote for him either. Or the LibDems who voted with Labour despite promising a referendum.
If we have the politicians we deserve, then God help us.
Complain about this comment
threnodio_II wrote:
"the only reason the sceptics are calling foul now is because they were promised a referendum on the abandoned Constitution (Rome II) and Lisbon was negotiated instead. No undertakings were ever given regarding a referendum on Lisbon"
May I refer you to the Labour election manifesto for 2005, chapter 7:
"The new Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively, and that Britain keeps control of key national interests like foreign policy, taxation, social security and defence. The Treaty sets out what the EU can do and what it cannot. It strengthens the voice of national parliaments and governments in EU affairs. It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a 'Yes' vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."
Note the repeated use of the word "treaty" there. You can weasel until you're blue (with yellow stars) in the face, but if there's a better description of Lisbon than "the new EU constitutional treaty" then I haven't heard one!
Complain about this comment
If you are an older European - you will have seen the way this reasonable idea of an Economic Free Trade Zone – has morphed into a Political system that primarily benefits the political elite – paid for by the people of Europe.
If you are a younger European you won’t have seen any of this.
When you hear us “old timers” trying to prevent your “young generation” being enslaved by this behemoth – please just pause for a second and ask yourself this simple question: “If the EU is such a great idea – how come so many people don’t want it – and how come the politicians are so careful not to let you vote on it”. Of course you could just dismiss us old, experienced citizens as too stupid to understand anything.
Complain about this comment
So, the wheel of the history has turned again.
mikewarsaw, you're unfair to eurosceptics, "most ardent eurosceptics are all ex-communistic party leaders under-beaten and left over in Europe" (approx.) LOL!
have met some in these blogs, didn't seem awful old Commie party to me :o))) rather, completely from another opera.
Who of these Britons wants to "re-unite with mummy Russia" is a mystery to me as well :o))))))
Simply for the record: haven't heard a word of for or against opinion all these years, in the Russian media, are we sympathysing with the EU idea, or are we against it, as potentially harming our interests. This seems to be the case of restraining ourselves, from having an "opinion".
Like when parents interfere into grown up children life, "you shouldn't marry him", "only stepping over my dead body" :o))) Whatever you say - you'll be blamed afterwards for a wrong advice. And, like, for everything. People are sorting out themselves; save God to interfere. Voluntarily or involuntarily.
When I think about it - I find it sad. It means we don't love Europe enough - Old or New. Because loving parents interfere even that they well know they'll be blamed after! For everything!
Anyway, what it is it is.
The only thing that worries me today :o) is that, in spite of keeping apart, we seem now mysteriously connected, by the magic of dates. I'll explain.
Tomorrow in Russia is a national holiday, a day off, called "A Day of Peoples Unity". 4th of November.
These 3 past years since the new hol was instituted, Russian public was puzzled, why 4th of November, which "unity", what "peoples" and, like in the joke:
- Let's be friends.
- Sure. So, against who shall we be friends?
Nobody celebrated here any thing, as it was imposed on us and we don't know what the hell for. Even for Christmas we don't have a day off, and -sudden presents, some mysterious "unity".
Now I see the empty meaningless holiday is shaping up. Apparently, Vladimir Vladimirovich, in his inexplicable wisdom, knew that if you institute a meaningless holiday and appoint a day, and just wait long enough - something will happen on that day, sooner or later :o)))
To those happy today - of course congratulations.
To those un-happy - sympathy, and consolations. And a reminder, that after the 4th of November comes the next Russian holiday - 7th of November, the Revolution day. :o))))))))
Tomorrow
Complain about this comment
HURRAY!
Hurray for the UK and Hurray for Europe!
Now we can begin to forge a stronger future together.
It´s a timeless principle - Together we are stronger.
Complain about this comment
If there is a en-masse desertion to UKIP that might not be a bad result from this latest episode in the long and pathetic saga of British prevarication and obfuscation regarding its EU membership. You know the like of "We didn't vote for a superstate", "We didn't fight in the trenches to now surrender our sovereignty to Brussels (only after our last white knight, a loose cannon in Eastern Europe, was killed by the barbaric EUSSR hordes)".
No, it wouldn't be a bad thing. It is ironic, but from a pro-European perspective, after years of hearing the lies and rubbish from both NeoLab and the Tories about the EU, the endless opt-outs, red lines and trench warfare where the EU demon is slayed at every round of negotiation and "British interests and red lines are protected" against the enemy, UKIP almost sounds like an oasis of coherence. Instead of "repatriating powers" or "reopening renegotiations" on treaties ratified by 27 countries in a tortuous eight year process, they just say: "We want to leave the EU". How simple is that!!!??? Let's forget for a minute the way they go about things, their pointless jingoistic flagwaving in a parliament (the EU parliament) that has absolutely no powers to deliver what they want in any shape or form. In their defence (acting as devil's advocate) I would say that this is mainly due to the lack of true democracy in the UK, as they haven't got a chance in the world of getting a single MP elected to represent them at their beloved British parliament.
No, the ones I fear the most are the Freeborn Johns and Tories of this world who want to "reopen renegotiations" on a treaty that has been ratified by 27 countries after an agonising eight year process. Not content with their huge collection of opt-outs from everything of any significance that the EU has agreed in the past twenty years, the euro, Schengen, the Charter of Rights, etc., they want more and more. For what purpose? Wouldn't it be far simpler, more honest, reasonable and commonsensical to just say: "The game is up, this treaty is law now. We are in a minority of one in seeking to reopen renegotiations on the treaty. We best quit and then negotiate what we actually want to be members of, i.e. a free trade area." Now, wouldn't that be democratic as well, not trying to ever increase Britain’s special status in the EU?
Impossible. I would like to know what is it they want to remain members of the EU for. They should listen to their own dissidents when they say: "We can negotiate a free trade agreement without being part of this federalist project, the devil incarnate by the way."
Ironically, this makes the Tories and NeoLab as having virtually identical EU policies, varying only in presentation and degree of antagonism but not in essence: They both want to be members of an EU that only exists in history books. The only one that exists now includes two key elements that they both hate: The euro and Schengen.
UKIP, now that's sanity... (by comparison).
Complain about this comment
I have to say, I am immensely enjoying the spectacle of what appears to be a fairly unreconstructed section of the Conservative right - if not necessarily the Conservative Party - turning on its own side in such a froth of indignation and anger at the first opportunity. If this is the behaviour we see when the Tory Party is not in power, god help us if they ever do win the Election. Even though I agree that a referendum on Europe would probably go the way of the Eurosceptics, I think that a prior referendum on 'What do you think politicians should be concentrating on and spending time on your behalf?' would reveal massive majorities for domestic results on health, education, jobs and crime, with a tiny fraction in favour of picking fights or isolating ourselves from our European neighbours ...
I think that a lot of Tory respondents to this thread should take the advice of one of their own side (albeit no doubt a bete noire), Ken Clarke...namely "go lie down in a darkened room..." Then they could possibly try to have a more rational and reasonable approach to this topic.
The truth is that European decision-making and internal politics has matured greatly and become far more complex in recent years and thinking that simply sitting on the sidelines or - even worse - running to the sidelines and shouting Yaa Boo Sucks is now neither credible, sensible or defensible.
I look forward to being shot down in flames by our Tory contributors!
Complain about this comment
Jukka, "we are the champions" - how very un-?neurotic, an American song, on such a day! :o) You've got your own Ode to Joy, don't you?
Well, if you are into American tunes, how about this:
Jo-seph went-to E-gypt land:
Complain about this comment
About #22 and all the subsequent frenzy
anyone can realize it's a typo : 1% or € 12.5 trillion is equal to 125 billions, not millions.
that said, please all passionate opponents of the UK contributions to the EU take the time to think through your arguments.
here are some numbers from a well-known eurosceptic think tank (Open Europe) about the EU budget :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union
What do we learn for the current budget (and not the ones from the past 20 years since the UK rebate in 85) ? the size is 839.5 billion euros for the period 2007-2013 (7 years)
1) an everage of € 120 billions a year from all EU countries (+ some from EFTA countries not shown in that chart)
2) a gross UK contribution that is 4th after Italy (though Italian economy is smaller) and representing
3) a net contribution per capita that is 6th after mostly germanic and scandinavian countries
4) a total contribution that is 12.2% of the EU budget ... its disappearance meaning an increase to other EU countries from 1% to 1.1% of their GDP (hardly budget-breaking)
there is much to say about the calculation methodology used by Open Europe, but at the very minimum eurosceptics should stop some of their most outlandish (and common) assertions about how the UK is robbed by the EU, and how the EU could not operate with a British blackmail.
except that either with the contributions from remaining in the EFTA (but no EU hand-outs or political weight in the decision-making process) or no contributions if by self-exclusion from the EU, the UK will still have to keep swallowing a large corpus of EU regulations and decisions ... if only to keep doing business with its number one (and by far) trading bloc.
Now, about the ECJ ability to overturn a referendum result, that is another wild myths of the most gullible of the eurosceptics.
For one, that is not among the competencies of the ECJ, even if petitioned.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) might give a ruling, though it's an atlanticist organisation and not a EU one (just check the members http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights)
Best regards,
Complain about this comment
What is all the fuss about? The treaties represent a fundamental change in the way European business is done. The second treaty (and first) removes the sovereign rights of countries in certain areas. I will not go into details as it will simply provoke arguments on detail.
If, as many assert, the new "arrangements" are supported by the majority of people in Europe then please prove it. The evidence suggests, to me at least, that based on referenda held the people polled do not want to amend the existing arrangements. It is easy to say that the architects learned from the rejection of the first "treaty" and incorporated this into the second treaty. Please cite your sources. The question was a simple "Yes" or "No" any interpretation of the Yes or No is simply Opinion or press/media comment conveniently twisted to suit the arguments of the commentator.
I would say this. I voted against remaining in the Common Market as we called it in those days. However I accepted the will of the people which was arrived at through democratic process. I now entirely reject the undemocratic imposition of the Lisbon treaty. However, if the governments of Europe had the courtesy to ask the electorate what their views are I would similarly accept the outcome. If as some people assert, the people of Europe are in favour of the treaty then please tell me why they have failed to prove this by the simple process of asking. After all if they are correct they will remove all doubt and we can all get on with business as usual. We are now faced with a situation where the outcome can be argued and we will, for the foreseeable future, be arguing whether the treaty is valid or not.
It occurs to me that maybe that is what is intended. Just as people here are arguing about detail concerning matters which are capable of being proven if enough time and effort is expended, then we will not be focusing on a matter which is relatively straightforward, that is can we prove conclusively that the people of Europe either want or do not want this treaty. There can be only one conclusion and that is, ask the people.
Whatever the outcome, I, as a democrat would accept that outcome. I will not be blindly led into the idea that what our politicians have decided is correct and that we must meekly go along with them. We are in a crisis at the moment and this is, in my opinion, the worse possible time to make such far reaching decisions.
To get to the point of the article, President Klaus was elected as President to carry out duties for which he was elected. He has now put this to the test through the constitutional court of the Czech Republic. The outcome is in favour of the duly elected members of the Czech Parliament and he has signed the treaty. But the question still remains extant simply because the treaty was not an election issue. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your views, all three parties in the UK gave commitments in their election manifestoes to conduct referenda on this issue. On 5th March 2008 they reneged on their pledge to the British people. On that basis alone the signing of the treaty is illegal in the UK.
I would also point out the following "the doctrine that Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatever . . . and . . . no person or body is recognised by the Law of England as having the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.". What this means is that a government cannot bind its successors to a course of action. It is impossible for the Lisbon treaty to change this quite simply because it is contrary to natural justice.
Complain about this comment
I think I'm going to hold a funeral ceremony for the UK. OK, I know I'm just an old sentimentalist softy at heart. I'll invite some friends over, we'll drink some Bass ale, bury a teabag in the backyard. One who plays a kazoo can do his rendition of Britannia rules the waves. Then maybe I'll play an old recording of a song they play at traditional New Orleans funerals "Oh Didn't He Ramble." There may always be an England but I don't think there will be Englishmen around that much longer. Not after the EU imposes immigration reform to create a unified European culture to replace individual national cultures as a dangerous relic of the past. Farethewell Britain. Your time has passed. Your realm has ended.
Complain about this comment
I cannot see why David Cameron avers that a referendum cannot now be held simply because the Czech Republic has signed the treaty. All treaties can be broken and if it is the will of the British people - who have been promised a say in the matter - to break it, so be it. Whichever party makes an ironclad promise to hold a referendum - even if only "advisory" - within so many days or weeks of coming to power, would gain a sizeable number of votes. If the Lib-Dems for example made the promise, they'd be in government in a heartbeat.
Complain about this comment
Dear #63 and #42,
Now that is quite a beautiful red herring you are using right there. Why should I point out something from the Lisbon Treaty while it is you who is making a statement?
It is exactly what #84 observed, enacting a law to leave the EU is not against the EU law, rather the opposite, therefore the ECJ clearly does not have a jurisdiction here. If you start with a wrong premise you get a wrong conclusion.
Furthermore, you might find it surprising that while in some cases the ECJ might strike down a law enacted after a referendum, it does not hold the power to "overturn a National Referendum on any matter", something you were explicitly suggesting in the post #13. Hope you are going to understand this subtle difference.
Complain about this comment
RachelBlackburn (86, 87): well said, a very eloquent summary.
There's more than enough evidence in the various sections of Gavin's blog to demonstrate the essential equivalence of the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty - with all that implies.
It's also worth pointing out that even if we take Labour's 2005 manifesto commitment as referring solely to the EU Constitution when it was formally known by that name, there was still a breach of that commitment. Labour won the election on 5th May that year, and the French and Dutch held their referendums at the end of May. There was no reason in principle for the new elected government not to announce a referendum date on their first day or two in office - perhaps to coincide with or closely follow those other 2 referendums. Instead, they just hung around waiting for the French and Dutch results. Hardly a burning desire to enact a manifesto commitment!
Complain about this comment
At #94 it should have read :
2) a gross UK contribution that is 4th after Italy (though Italian economy is smaller) and representing € 103 billions (less than €15 billions a year)
Complain about this comment
MA @96, "a tea-bag"! Don't be so pessimistic. I'm sure their tsar will be better than ours and all.
Complain about this comment
correction, I forgot: Britain has a tsar. And she is not the only one. What a day for the monarchy houses of Europe tonight. Review of the situation? thoughts "oh, it's technical".
Complain about this comment
"Britain's opposition Tories will now have to say whether they are committed to a referendum now the treaty has been signed."
Wha..?? I thought this was done & dusted!
It's become a national pastime now to try to stick a spoke in the wheels of Europe. Just cos Maggie didn't think of it first.
What a land of cynics. I wish you WOULD leave the EU, to the rest of us, so we can actually move forward.
And people complain about the inertia of bureaucracy!!!!!
Complain about this comment
My "EU" passport is on the floor. My foot is on it as I type.
WE WERE PROMISED A REFERENDUM.
WE DID NOT GET THE REFERENDUM WE WERE PROMISED.
IT HAS NO RIGHT TO EXIST.
Complain about this comment
103. At 01:10am on 04 Nov 2009, Kevin_on_Earth wrote:
' "Britain's opposition Tories will now have to say whether they are committed to a referendum now the treaty has been signed."
Wha..?? I thought this was done & dusted! '
SB2: No way Jose. No way hose B.
' It's become a national pastime now to try to stick a spoke in the wheels of Europe. ...'
SB2: I've seen this excuse on a German website. "People who are against the EU do it as a hobby." Bullproduct!! It is sick arrogant, dangerous, wasteful useless, worse than useless, expensive megalomaniac wotsit.
'Just cos Maggie didn't think of it first.' SB2: More bullproduct!
' ... I wish you WOULD leave the EU ...'
SB2: Well, please work to get us thrown out!!
' ... to the rest of us, so we can actually move forward. ...'
SB2: So you call the creation of a pan-European dictatorship "moving forward" !!
"Moving forward" to which cliff so you can all jump of it together?
On top of which it isn't just the Brits. 77% of Germans wanted a referendum which they did not get. The anti-"EU" comments on some Austrian websites make the stuff on this website seem mild.
Complain about this comment
WA;
A teabag is all they are worth. You wouldn't expect me to waste more than that on them. If it was Russia, it would be an empty vodka bottle instead.
Complain about this comment
I hope UKIP will not put up candidates against people like Bill Cash and the wonderful Kate Hoey
Complain about this comment
91. At 00:04am on 04 Nov 2009, JorgeG1 wrote:
' ... UKIP almost sounds like an oasis of coherence. ... they just say: "We want to leave the EU". How simple is that!!!??? ...'
It took you long enough to realise that!
Gibraltar does not wish to be part of Spain either!
Give the Basque country and the Canary Islands referenda on independence!!
The Spanish should stop their barbaric treatment of animals!!
Complain about this comment
* SuffolkBoy2 @ 104: I'd stop doing that, ol' chap. That passport is mighty expensive. And that's a BRITISH passport, not strictly an 'EU' passport; in the event that little document gives you more rights and privileges than, it seems, you care to recognise. Pity for you; that's not a pity for many others who take full advantage of said privileges.
I'd make a further point--there's only ever been one nation-wide referendum in UK history, and that was on Britain's continued membership of the European Communities to boot. But that SOLE precedent aside, that does NOT mean that your Parliament can not pass laws in any way it seems fit--referenda or no referenda. It's the way in which this country was built to begin with, since the Treaty of Union establishing the UK was itself far from popularly mandated. As a matter of law Parliament is supreme...not the people, not even the people-through-referenda, save for as mandated BY PARLIAMENTARY STATUTE.
* David_Cunard @ 97: The matter is simple--once the treaty itself is ratified and deposited its provisions simply go about amending the pre-existing treaties (Rome and Maastricht) which created the EU and the European Community, respectively. This implies the need to vote not on the Treaty of Lisbon itself but, effectively, on Maastricht and Rome--that is, to vote on EU membership. That's probably your goal; fair enough. But at least let's not mince words about it.
* MarcusAureliusII @ 96: That's a mighty heavy dose of what I'd call melodrama, not sentimentality. The former is largely a product of myth and fiction; the latter, of at least semi-factual memories.
Trouble is, if you buy (as you do) the Daily Express' view that this is the end of the UK as we/you know it--and really, you know you're in trouble when you agree with the Express--then then you're only expressing a spectacular ignorance of the Treaty of Lisbon itself.
* Alan @ 95: I will not go into details as it will simply provoke arguments on detail.
Um, and the problem with this is...?
Oh, that's right, storm in a teacup. That's what Eurosceptic/Tory/UKIP (take your pick for a descriptor these days) paranoia about Lisbon really boils down to. Everything else is just, well...details.
* JorgeG1 @ 91: Absolutely spot on. One is tempted to put it down to what it is at heart: petulance. Not only does Britain often get opt-outs, and many of them; it also has managed to get its way of doing things put at the heart of EU decision-making. Look at the tough enforcement of liberalisation and de-regulation by recent European Commissions. Look, indeed, at the Commission's draft proposals for the future multi-annual budget: drastically cut down CAP, etc. Britain might lose its rebate, sure: but that's par for the course, since for Britain to keep it would probably make it a net RECEIVER of EU funds.
* arealist @ 88:
'...how come so many people don’t want it...?'
But that's not strictly true EU-wide. The same Eurobarometers which demonstrate a strong Euroscepticism in certain European states (the UK among them) also demonstrates a lax approval of the EU in most other states, and an aggregate majority of all citizens within the Union. What's more not all referenda have gone the way of the Franco-Dutch referenda (and the first Irish one) in 2005; Spain and Luxembourg, and Ireland (redux) all voted yes in recent years--though you wouldn't remember that judging by press coverage. The history of European referenda--pre- and post-Lisbon--is definitely a mixed bag, no doubt--even so, to label all 'no' votes in EU referenda a negative vote on the whole European project altogether is rather daft.
Complain about this comment
90. At 00:00am on 04 Nov 2009, Briton_Abroad wrote:
"HURRAY!
Hurray for the UK and Hurray for Europe!
Now we can begin to forge a stronger future together.
It´s a timeless principle - Together we are stronger."
SB2: What, like Czech soldiers in the Austrian army in WWI mutinying and fighting with the Russians? Like Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan shooting their Russian officers in the back?
Complain about this comment
79. At 10:35pm on 03 Nov 2009, markus_uk wrote:
" ... So why is the UK in the EU. Why??? "
Because we do not have a functioning democracy.
Because representative democracy does not work when people get elected by pretending to be anti-"EU" when they are pro-"EU".
Complain about this comment
35. At 8:21pm on 03 Nov 2009, Wolfgang wrote:
' ...
" Take a close look who really pays and who takes. Per capita, UK is in the ranks with Slowenia, Greece and Spain. Per absolute amount, Germany pays almost twice as much as the UK. Love you guys! '
SB2:One penny or one cent would be too much.
Complain about this comment
I understand peoples worry about loosing individual power but lets think about the future - we are a small country of ever dwindling power. If we want to keep a voice on the world stage then we need to join with the millions of our fellow Europeans and provide the much needed balanced and rational voice. A future world of two superpowers - USA and China - is not a world I want to live in. Let Europe be the third - a diverse continent of people who are genuinley concerned about making the world a better place.
Complain about this comment
RCMoyle
"if you buy (as you do) the Daily Express' view that this is the end of the UK as we/you know it--and really, you know you're in trouble when you agree with the Express--then then you're only expressing a spectacular ignorance of the Treaty of Lisbon itself."
It seems to me one of the problems with the treaty as with the constitution is that it was so long, so convoluted, so crammed with legalese jargon, oblique references and cross refeences, most people couldn't understand it and were ignorant of it including most of those who supported it. They took it literally on blind faith based on what they were told, based on an appeal to their emotions rather than their intellect.
I predict Lisbon is not the end but merely one more step in a process that will continue to see power move towards the secret center in Brussels and where the approval of Lisbon is a step which will give the center the power to now take action independently from here on out, action imposing rules, codes, laws on the constituents in which they will have no say and will be forced to comply. This will be seen in retrospect as the turning point from which there was no going back. A momentus step has been taken and Europe will not be the same as the result of it. The power that corrupts has just been given a huge boost.
Complain about this comment
21 and Tomasz Trystula
42. and cool_brush_work
It is only a few blog articles back that we rejected the false account “cool brush work” is repeating here.
CBW, you make the false allegation, you provide the legal evidence. You do not stand a chance to do it.
I have no doubt that these allegations have already been repeated endlessly in parts of the British press. It is quite revealing. I suppose David Cameron will be forced to explain a couple of things to the British electorate. It can be unpleasant – to him.
Complain about this comment
65. and threnodio_II
To the discussion about the bitter pill: The blog article does not speak about the Czech people but only the president. But then he repeats a couple of other things like for instance the candidacy of Tony Blair. It is dead. Completely dead.
Complain about this comment
I think this is the best blog entry Gavin has written so far. It is clear, direct and to the point. Well done that man. Hopefully the standard will remain.
I have become philosophical about the emergence of a more powerful EU. I think the point is well made by numerous contributers that the UK political system is hardly superior to the proposed EU, and therefore it is irrational to wail and claim that the UK is losing something special and worth retaining.
Of course, I live somewhere with a democratic system that is markedly different from both the UK and the EU, so I hope and pray the EU system does not spread here. As someone who believes in the individual and in democracy, I have no desire to be part of a grand project. I take no pleasure in the idea that I might belong to a "world power" that other world powers "take seriously". But I can understand those sentiments. Once a person starts dreaming the power fantasy dream, they do not wish to wake up to the reality of the individual. In a dream even a wretched person can fly. So I understand the need to anthropomorphize, and to do it on a grand scale.
However, I find the comments on the EU passport to be ironic, in the context of democratic practice.
Alice, are you familiar with Lev Termen? We would know him as Leon Theremin. This is the guy who invented the first electronic instrument, and also the first RFID style listening device. Lev was a genius, for sure, and a really interesting guy. I recommend everyone to study his life.
Anyway, Lev Termen basically invented RFID technology. This is the technology that governments and supermarkets use to track their citizens and their produce. It is what will eventually replace bar codes, and consists of a microchip that transmits data about its hosts location and state to a central database.
So what about RFID technology and democracy? Well, pretty soon RFID tech is going to be found in all passports. That was what made me think of it. I was picturing suffolk boy standing on his passport, and at the same time I had a mental image of some ex-Stasi goon sitting in a bunker somewhere, looking at the computer report and saying to his boss "Now he is standing on it! He is standing on the EU pass! Swine."
And it occurred to me that RFID technology is not only an evil surveillance technology to be bused by the state. RFID tech could just as easily be used to make direct democracy absolutely feasible on a grand scale.
Threnodio is always proclaiming his mantra: direct democracy is not feasible in large states. But he might want to reconsider that claim, in light of RFID tech. RFID chips offer the possibility that any number of folks could have their political opinions known to a central database ... in real time. The Jungian axiom that the group has no discernible average opinion might hold, but threnodio's idea that the instantaneous majority opinion of the masses is unknowable would surely fail.
In short, RFID chips could give the state and the party the ultimate power to spy on the citizen, but it is also possible that RFID will give the citizen the ultimate power to voice their opinions to the state. The chip in your passport, the one that tells your government where you are and where you have been, and possibly what you are saying, that same chip could soon be used to tell the government whether they have your mandate to act, and indeed whether a given politician has a job tomorrow.
It seems to me that the EU has indeed evolved into a stronger, more homogenous blob. Everywhere the party hacks and the anti-democratic goons are rubbing their hands together and counting the tax money they will soon have the opportunity of raping from the common masses.
But just as the EU has become more solid, and more defined, so to has the target for those who would stalk it, and drive a stake deep into its rotten heart.
The EU party goons have, up until now, always been able to claim that they are not up to anything. The pro EU camp have always been the people with the idea, and not the power. Well, now they have the power. Now they manifested their idea into a reality.
And that reality can be broken. It can be targeted, and it can be shattered. What was once the miserable scheme of the few is now the object of attention for the many.
So i am quietly happy that we have reached this current state of affairs. Whilst the EU was merely a dream, one could never hold it accountable for its results. Now this thing has been made solid and real, perhaps we, the idiot mass outside the party, can do something to make it bend towards the light, to acknowledge the reality of the individual.
In any case, if the death of the English monarchy and the rule of the aristocratic banking class is closer at hand for the evolution of the German and French socialists dream, then perhaps we are at the middle point of a journey towards a much brighter tomorrow.
The pro-EU people are not all bad. They may scheme and they may be corrupt and they may plunder our taxes, but at least they do not claim the divine right to rule by virtue of their high birth. I suppose it is just a question of making them work for us.
Complain about this comment
As a frequent follower of the BBC News website I am always astonished to read some of the EU hostile comments which are posted.
Where does this hatred come from?
Why don't the people with this kind of hatred really inform themselves?
e.g. from another post: "the billions of pounds payed by Britain every year". Britain payed 300 Million Euro in 2007. France and Germany payed ten times more.
What about all the infrastructure projects for example in Scotland that were co-financed by the EU?
Don't these people realize that you see your money there as well?
In the year 1900 20% of the world population was European. In the year 2000 it was only 11% and in the year 2100 it will be down to 4%.
Is this now the time to divide Europe into little pieces?
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen
Re #115.
I too read the Articles and Comments about the European Court's powers.
I have looked back and can find no proof the allegation of the new (post-Lisbon Treaty) authority of the ECJ is refuted.
On the contrary - - it seems to me that the ECJ does have the power to cancel any Legislation by a National Government - - if that is the case then the ECJ must surely be able to examine any Law passed by a State inc. the enactment of legislation for withdrawal.
You should note in my previous Comments I have not said the ECJ will do so (i.e. 'reject' a withdrawal decision, or a Law banning abortion, or 'neutrality' which were 2 of Eire Citizens' concerns), only that it now has that power.
Why else would the 3 Eire Protocols have had to be negotiated if it was not fundamental to the EU and ECJ that without them Eire could have had its right to neutrality rejected by the Court?
This authority to over-ride any National Government policy is enshrined in Lisbon and cannot be denied: The ECJ is the supreme law-making body of the European Union - - there are no areas outside (bar Foreign) the remit of the ECJ - - and I disagree with the interpretation of argument in previous debates and on here that just because the ECJ has not intervened in these areas in the past it will not do so in the future.
Gunota and Your view is that the ECJ has limited authority but the ECJ has never been like that and over the 30+ years it has gradually expanded into every area which under Lisbon is directly confirmed as its right to do so.
You pro-EU and we anti-EU will have to wait and see where the ECJ intervenes in the future: By precedent I confidently and sadly state it will involve itself in the 'Politics' of Nations (if for no other reason than no Court of last resort that has such wide-ranging interests can avoid becoming embroiled in 'political' issues) and as it is an EU entity it will in almost all circumstances find in favour of the EU.
It is the pro-EU that have foisted the Lisbon Treaty on the Citizens and States and it is you who will carry the blame for the ECJ becoming the equivalent of the US Supreme Court. National and EU Legislation is now subject to the strict legal interpretation of one supreme Legal entity - - the opinions as expressed through the Ballot box of Citizens from Stockholm to Bucharest to Valletta are now at the disposal of a few legal minds and those who can afford to pay for representation before it: I.e you have your big-business-big-Government EU and the Citizen is disregarded.
You wanted it and you have got it. Perhaps only in the next few years will you realise that all those fine words about unity being strength for the Citizens is actually unity being power over the Citizens!
Complain about this comment
Gunota
Re my #13 - - I clarified that it was the result of the National Refrendum that could be overturned by the ECJ - - Of course no Court can deny the % of votes cast (unless Iran and Afghanistan!) - - however, the 'Law' resulting from the majority vote can be over-ridden by a group of judges sitting in Luxemburg
Re #84.
I have looked at the Constitutional systems of each country I mentioned in #62 and I cannot find any 'devolved' Government that has settled any of the regional disputes I suggested might benefit from such measures - - so, a little puzzled about what you meant in your reply - - I was merely pointing out that the UK is not this moribund democratic entity some Europeans like to portray as part of their pro-EU and anti-British argument on here.
On the contrary the UK has moved quite fast in the last decade to sort out its 'democratic-defecit' and in fact the only UK Nation not properly represented at a strictly National level is England. The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish all have some form of devolved Government that enables them to take 'nationalist' decisions (and rightly so) and I dare say that this move to full independence will come about within the next decade for at least 2 of those 3 Union Nations.
Whether the Basques, Corsicans, Flemings, English etc. will be as fortunate in their future 'political representation' is still very much open to debate!
Complain about this comment
A great day for Europe and most of its people
Complain about this comment
Glen Grant
Re #118.
Yes, as a totally anti-UK in the EU I too find some of the xenophobia remarkable.
It is not all one way: 'little Englanders' and 'Britannia rules the waves' seem to crop up quite often in pro-EU comments along with 'WW1/WW2' all a long time ago (as anyone under 75 could not have fought in WW2 its a trifle puzzling!) plus all the various stereotypical 'imperialist/colonialist' epithets - - as if anyone under 50 in the UK would have experienced the 'Empire' (except for bits like Gibraltar, Falklands, Tristan da Cuhna)- - strange how the Europeans seem unaware the Commonwealth was formed pre-WW2 and nations as far apart as Canada, New Zealand, India, South Africa all gained their independence from the UK between 1900 and 1950!? Even more so that they write about 'Englanders' who 'live in the past' when some 8 million Britons in 2009 have parents whose first language is not English and they originate from places as far apart as Pakistan, Hong Kong, Kenya and so on!?
One might suppose the average European history book stops somewhere around 1960!
Of course, any sensible person knows this cannot be the case - - for the UK or European education systems (at least, I know it is so for the UK, Belgium, France, Germany, Finland) - - so, we are left wondering how it is any supporter of the EU could think it a useful, engaging point of debate to write about a UK that has not existed for some 40 odd years!?
I suspect that many Europeans have this slightly begrudging plank in their eye about the historical evolution of the mainland Europe as compared to the British Isles and the add-on effects of the rise of the 'English-speaking' World. They cannot look too far back or forward without feeling the impact of the 'english' one way or the other (for good or bad) and it rankles with them.
Antipathy to 'english' is probably the second most important driving force in the foundations of the European Community - - fear of a 3rd and unrecoverable mainland European war being the primary motivation - - only now it is not so much the UK 'english' as the American 'english' that France, Germany and the rest find so irksomely intrusive.
That of course is another misreading by the Europeans: The USA is benign compared to what China, the Mid-East etc. would have in mind for Europe were it not to be unified.
Where the USA is concerned England on the other hand the typical European EU supporter claims is the '51st State' or '5th column' for Americanisation!?
Truly, judging from much of the European comment the British/English are in a no-win situation according to the average European!
An England of 49,000,000 multi-cultural, entrepreneurial, free-thinking Citizens separate from the UK, EU and USA does however, have a very positive future, but you will not agree with me on that and nor will those friendly EU supporters so free with their advice about what the UK should or shouldn't do about a past that is most definitely important and yet hardly any sort of yardstick by which to measure its future.
Then there is the average hyberbole of the pro-EU such as yourself: E.g. In 2007 France and Germany paid 10 x 300,000,000 compared to the UK!? Oh really? So, France and Germany paid the EU 3 Thousand Million Euros! Well, in that case I think the ordinary French and Geman people will be joining the queue to quit this week!
Come on, don't write such inaccurate stuff and think it will go unchallenged. It spoils your points.
Complain about this comment
@120 - that nowhere justifies your comment at post #7 what I was pointing out to you there, was and still is, the case that nowhere we here in the UK have "citizen's free will" (subjects not citizens anyhow) and by now means are our wishes represented by the party in power at any given time. Maybe the wished of about 10% - 15% of the people, but not of majority. So find another reason to complain about the EU but do not sell yourself under false pretence that you are doing it for democracy
Complain about this comment
#87 - RachelBlackburn
I agree that the distinction is a somewhat technical one and if you read back through the various threads over the last year or so, you will find I have frequently complained about the failure of all the 27 except Ireland to seek democratic consent. As I recall, I was particularly harsh on the French and Dutch for effectively rebranding it after their people had rejected the original and avoided further referenda. It is possible to make the same argument against the UK government.
"The new Constitutional Treaty . . . We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a 'Yes' vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."
At 99, CornwallCoastPath says "There's more than enough evidence in the various sections of Gavin's blog to demonstrate the essential equivalence of the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty - with all that implies". Well I am sorry but the accumulated opinions of contributors and the broad brush strokes of a journalist are simply not good enough. Read the damned things then you can comment with some authority.
So - one more time - Valéry Giscard d'Estang, the principal author of the original Constitutional Treaty (Rome II) maintains that for all intents and purposes the constitutional elements of Lisbon are the same. He would say that, wouldn't he? He does not want all his scholarly efforts to be disregarded. Barosso, on the other hand, says they are fundamentally different. Again, he would say that because he wanted a mechanism to bypass further referenda. Both are distinguished lawyers as well as politicians.
The bottom line is that, taken as a whole, there are significant differences but you can make a case for Giscard's argument in respect of the constitutional arrangements. All I am saying and have ever said about the proposed referenda is the British political parties are basically right to say that none was promised for Lisbon. Call it a fudge by all means but please get the facts straight.
Complain about this comment
#118 Glen Grant
I do not hate anyone. I simply want the right for my country to be run by people I can vote out if I do not like their policies. I have no time for an organisation that simply ignores every effort to reign it in.
PS
Your 300 million figure is so far out it would appear you have no idea of the actual figures which is many billions. We would pay that much in a week or two not in a year.
Complain about this comment
#120
Re 84: I'm sorry but you really need to take a closer look to the countries you've mentioned. Belgium is an highly decentralized federal state to a point you can call Belgium a confederation. Flanders has its own foreign minister and can directly complain to a foreign state, which it has done so by passing the government in Brussels. Spain consists of 17 Autonomous communities since the 1979 constitution with the Basque country being the most autonomous region (Madrid 'only' handles defence and foreign policy)
So when you claim that you can't see a devolved government then I must assume you weren't looking at all.
BTW can you name me a country where the church appoints members to the parliament. The only countries I can think of are the Vatican, several Muslim countries and they're all theocracies...
re: #13 the judges can overrule it but the supremacy of the supremacy ECJ is voluntarily based and not enforceable (it's a fact that you're completely ignoring)
Complain about this comment
#117 - democracythreat
"Threnodio is always proclaiming his mantra: direct democracy is not feasible in large states. But he might want to reconsider that claim, in light of RFID tech".
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to recant. I have never objected to the principle of direct democracy - although my personal belief is that it is more likely to be achieved by universal free broadband access than by RFID. But I also have a political agenda here. I believe that, as power gravitates towards the centre in this evolving state, there needs to be a counter-balance of devolution as well. Ultimately, the EU would be an organisation of sensibly sized and logical units in which a high degree of local autonomy would be possible and that could certainly run by direct democracy. Eventually, Catalonia and the Basque region would be far more relevant than Spain, Brittany and Corsica more relevant than France and so on. It would probably make the UK totally redundant but some you win, some you lose.
Complain about this comment
#94
Why do you quote gross contribution per country but then quote net contribution per capita.
Are we only the 6th highest net contributor per country??
Not according to your own statistics (I used your link to the budget site ) which shows we are expected to be the second biggest net contibutors to the tune of 57 Billion over the period to 2013.
This type of figure massaging to make the EU look a better deal is exactly why many do not like it or trust it.
I also note from your figues that 17 of the 27 countries pay less in than they take out fully justifying my comment way back at #3 about subsidising half the EU.
If as so many claim the Lisbon treaty and the EU are so good for the UK why are we continually denied the opportunity to hear those arguments and to vote on them.
Complain about this comment
#120, cool_brush_work, you haven't looked very hard have you? I see you wrote:
'I have looked at the Constitutional systems of each country I mentioned in #62 and I cannot find any 'devolved' Government that has settled any of the regional disputes I suggested might benefit from such measures'
... and then mentioned the Flemish. We already had a first step towards devolution way back in the '70s brother.
Perhaps if you had looked a little better you would have noticed that there is such a thing as the Flemish 'Government' and that Belgium is a Federal State, with quite a few local 'governments'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_Parliament
Seems like you didn't look to far for the Basques either, because your statement there only makes sense if you're an ETA supporter.
Are you?
As for the Corsicans, I'd have thought you were a fervent fan of referendums. Or is this only when they go ... your way?
Complain about this comment
RCMoya612. 109
OK if you want detail. Article I of the Lisbon Treaty amends Article 1 of the "GENERAL PROVISIONS" of The Treaty on European Union.
Could you please say where I am to find "Article 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS" in the Treaty on European Union.
I have looked in the official document which can be downloaded from the EU bookshop and can't find it.
At this stage and without wanting to go into too much detail, if I am correct then the Lisbon Treaty is a defective document and can be challenged in court, No doubt the European Court!
Complain about this comment
@ cool_brush_work
Re "For your information, the Lisbon Treaty now provides the ECJ with primacy-jurisdiction over every area of National policy except Foreign Affairs - - the Lisbon Treaty is indeed a simplifying treaty - - it really is much easier now for that Court to over-ride any Legislation passed by any National Government and hence that includes Laws enacted following Referendum results.
If you don't believe it: Ask your MEP."
and
"This authority to over-ride any National Government policy is enshrined in Lisbon and cannot be denied: The ECJ is the supreme law-making body of the European Union - - there are no areas outside (bar Foreign) the remit of the ECJ - - and I disagree with the interpretation of argument in previous debates and on here that just because the ECJ has not intervened in these areas in the past it will not do so in the future.
Gunota and Your view is that the ECJ has limited authority but the ECJ has never been like that and over the 30+ years it has gradually expanded into every area which under Lisbon is directly confirmed as its right to do so."
Well, this isn't how debating works is it?
You postulate something and instead of backing up your VERY bold claims, you simple state "Ask your MEP".
WHy don't you cite us the articles that give the ECJ the power you claim it will have after Lisbon comes into effect.
I'll refute your argument the proper way. By citing articles and giving legal reasoning:
The ECJ doesnt have and will not have the general power you claim it has/will have. What is true is that the ECJ is the only and supreme interpreter of the Treaties. Does this mean the ECJ has general powers? No, because article 5 TEU clearly states that the EU's (including the ECJ) competences are governed by the principle of conferral. If competences aren't conferred, the ECJ doesn't have competence. Who decides to confer? The Member states. Of course it's theoretically possible that the ECJ 'reads' a competence in the Treaty that was never intended by the Member States, but such flagrant abuse of power by the ECJ would be corrected by the Member States, because they can (at any time they want) amend the Treaties.
Concerning the Charter of Fundamental rights: If you would have taken a look at the document, you would know it ONLY applies to the EU institutions and the Member states BUT only when they implement EU law. If they don't implement EU law, they can violate the charter as much as they want. So again, your claims on the Charter are false.
There you go, legal reasoning and properly cited articles. Now you back up your claims the same way please :)
Complain about this comment
80. At 10:37pm on 03 Nov 2009, invictager wrote:
"Is there anyone you have not labeled a liar in your desperation to appear correct."
Mirror mirror...
Complain about this comment
51. At 8:58pm on 03 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
"The Federal EU is without any Popular Majority Mandate in its Parliament for 20 years; at every Referendum held in the last decade prior to the 2nd Eire on LT ('2nd' and therefore not legitimate - - afterall, the 'democratic' EU wont be offering a 3rd, will it) the EU's federal expansionist policies have been rejected by the Citizens, and yet, it continues culminating in ratification of a Treaty which not 1 of the other 26 National Governments was prepared to put to a ballot and your 'democratic' EU certainly did not insist should occur."
So in your opinion to deny that any referendum ever turned out positive - what was wrong with the two referendums in Spain and Luxembourg about the constitution which both turned out in favour of the EU or are you just being polemic as some others here?
@ 64:
"And as for your allegation that Germany pays twice as much as the UK – your argument not only fails to take account of Net contributions, you also fail to mention that Germany has a larger economy and population than the UK, so of course, you pay more in NET contributions [BTW Holland is the largest contributor per head of population]."
Well the thing that matters most is actually the net payment per capita and not as you mention the net payment overall and by that the UK is only on spot 5 or something, but you can read that here if you want to:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eu_budget"
So I won't deny that the UK pays it's share but seeing the overall situation of the economies within Europe, claims that the UK pays more then comparable countries pay are very far fetched. The GDP per capita of Germany and the UK is comparable (UK slightly higher) and still you contribute less per capita (net). Explain to me how the UK is treated unfair again please.
Personally I consider every Euro spent into the EU and by that a peaceful Europe spent far better than on useless wars such as Iraq or spent on saving the bonusses of some banksters, however that may just be me.
@ 93 Webalice:
"You've got your own Ode to Joy, don't you?"
Yes we do but apparently it's lyrics are in German and must not be posted here for that reason :-)
Complain about this comment
@125 So, your statement then implies that you are happy with the current or previous governments decisions and you have no problems with the current situation, because if you had any problems you would have excersized your rights and would have voted them all out!
Complain about this comment
ChrisArta
Re #123
Never have tried to "sell" myself - - that has been the sadly all too casual and uncaring role of successive UK Governments' relations with the EU for the last 30 years!
I repeat "Democratic" principles within individual States took a last breath with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty: It is pointless to rehearse again all the gains made by the EU and the losses suffered by the Nations over the years of the creation of a Federal European Union.
How you can use the unchallengeable fact that no Political Party in Government can ever truly represent the wishes of all its supporters never mind the Citizens of a Nation as a reason to abandon National authority and self-determination for a Federal version Governing 450,000,000 is something that yet again I leave to your own confused notions of what is the meaning of 'Democracy'!?
By all means you rejoice in the EU's new found strength and its victory over the Citizen's (not now nor ever 'Subject' that is a the terminology of a Passport - - see the Bill of Rights 1689) Free-will, if you are so disposed.
That it will prove a pyrrhic triumph I have no doubt at all.
Complain about this comment
@28 do you really stand by your argument that the UK contribution subsidises half the EU? Are you that delusional or you are just making a bit of fun now?
Complain about this comment
#132
I have not said anyone is a liar. I leave the petty insults to those such as you who cannot advance a single reasonable point in favour of their chosen position.
Complain about this comment
#91 - JorgeG1
Good post - absolutely agree.
Complain about this comment
87. At 11:36pm on 03 Nov 2009, RachelBlackburn wrote:
"May I refer you to the Labour election manifesto for 2005, chapter 7:
"The new Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively, and that Britain keeps control of key national interests like foreign policy, taxation, social security and defence. The Treaty sets out what the EU can do and what it cannot. It strengthens the voice of national parliaments and governments in EU affairs. It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a 'Yes' vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."
Note the repeated use of the word "treaty" there. You can weasel until you're blue (with yellow stars) in the face, but if there's a better description of Lisbon than "the new EU constitutional treaty" then I haven't heard one!"
Again the euroseptics are little on facts but high on hyperbolic rhetoric :-(
You obviously do not read many legal documents do you, try reading your car or house insurance document, does that carry on referring to the full title after the first mention or does it just use the term "Policy", the same is true in the cited manifesto above, the treaty is named in full (Constitutional Treaty) and then just refereed to as 'the treaty' there-after. Anyway, the Lisbon treaty does not create a new 'Constitution for the EU', if that is wrong you will have no problems in citing the relevant parts within the Lisbon Treaty that create a new constitution rather than amending the present treaty that constitutes the EU.
A subtle but important difference...
Complain about this comment
#134
My statement implies nothing of the sort. In fact it implies nothing at all. It states quite clearly that I wish to be governed by people I can vote for or against depending on their policies.
Tell me how I can vote for or against an EU commissioner or the new president.
Complain about this comment
#128 - invictager
May I enquire why everyone is so focussed suddenly on the budget? Lisbon is about administrative streamlining and constitutional niceties. It has nothing to do with contributions.
Unless, of course, you are looking for a big stick with which to beat concessions out of the Commission post ratification. Now you would not want to drag this out in the manner of John Major's beef war catastrophe would you?
Mr. Cameron?
Complain about this comment
88. At 11:38pm on 03 Nov 2009, arealist wrote:
"If you are an older European - you will have seen the way this reasonable idea of an Economic Free Trade Zone – has morphed into a Political system that primarily benefits the political elite – paid for by the people of Europe."
What you actually mean is, the old EEC benefited the Free Marketeer elite, the EU benefits the citizens of Europe (sometimes against the Free Marketeers), all incarnations of the EEC/EC/EU have benefited the political elite, as does all political systems the world over.
Complain about this comment
#136
So who does subsidise the 17 countries who are net recipients other than the net contributors?
Are you saying that none of the UK's billions of net contributions go to those countries who receive more than they pay?If so where does our net contribution go?
Complain about this comment
@ 88. At 11:38pm on 03 Nov 2009, arealist
"If the EU is such a great idea – how come so many people don’t want it – and how come the politicians are so careful not to let you vote on it".
This is one of the Europhobes' favourite hobby horses. They make it sound as if "every time the EU people have been consulted about the EU they have said no".
Why do they keep saying that? Very simple, they have been brainwashed by decades of selective, misleading disinformation, and often plain lies, propagated by the British media about the EU.
Here, although not accusing him of lying or deliberately misleading, god forbid, Gavin H. makes his contribution (I assume he himself has heard it so many times that has taken it as the Book of Revelation):
"The treaty started life as a constitution but it was rejected by the French and Dutch. It was re-born as a treaty although it was largely the same document."
"It was rejected by the French and Dutch." How many times have we read this from the British media? We have learnt it by heart. Well, I have taken the time to pull some statistics that you will never, ever, see reported in the British media, whether it is funded by us, taxpayers, or owned by wealthy Australian neocons:
There have been, if my info is correct, SIX popular referenda on either the LT or its predecessor the EU Constitution:
Results in favour:
- Spain: 77% in favour (Constitution) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005
- Luxembourg - 57% in favour (Constitution)
- Ireland: 2 to 1 in favour (LT)
Resulst against:
- France: 55% against (Constitution)
- Netherlands - 62% against (Constitution)
- Ireland: 53% against (LT)
Let's imagine for a minute that all the above individual results had taken place in constituencies, of equal population, within the same country and that the British FPTP system applied, so we pool the results into one bigger pot and this is what we get:
Results in favour: 54%
Results against: 46%
Result: the LT and/or the constitution would have been passed. (If the Europhobes do not accept this then they don't accept British 'democracy').
Now, isn’t this slightly different to the 'news' passed on to us by Mr Hewitt and the rest of the British media?
Then, please take a look at the various – rock solid in most cases – parliamentary majorities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe#National_processes_at_a_glance
These are the elected representatives of "the people" FGS! Even if they (Europhobes) have been brainwashed to "learn" that the Constitution or the LT was rejected by the French and Dutch (and everyone else by implication), I wonder why these parliamentary votes are not considered 'democratic' by the Europhobic camp? By that logic, all laws approved by elected parliaments in any country in the world (including the British parliament, e.g. tax laws) lack democratic legitimacy because they haven't had a 'popular mandate'.
It would help if the Europhobes learnt some facts. But that is nigh on impossible when the British media peddles endless misleading propaganda about the EU.
Complain about this comment
91. At 00:04am on 04 Nov 2009, JorgeG1 wrote:
[removed, lots of good stuff that I agree totally with]
"UKIP, now that's sanity... (by comparison)."
I would have used the word "honesty", rather than sanity, they do not believe that the UK should be within the EU, unlike the Tories who (seemingly) think that they should be able to have their bread buttered on both sides...
Complain about this comment
@140 I'll tell you after you tell me how I can vote for a King/Queen I want and how I can vote for the primeminister I want (please note not the one the party chooses for me) and how I can vote for the lords of my choise.
Complain about this comment
#141
Good point.
What I was in fact trying to get across is that we spend an enormous amount of money paying into the EU but have not ever been asked if we want to continue doing so.
In many eyes Lisbon is just the latest manifestation of the slow march to a very centralised Europe.Why is it that other European leaders are quite open about this but British politicians simply stick their head in the sand and dny we ever lose any powers.
I actually have no great problem with what we joined but fail to see the benefits of the subsequent desire to interfere in virtually every aspect of my life. As I understood it the EU had a founding principle of subsidiarity where it would only legislate if national governments could not do so on their own. What happened to that principle.
As I have already said if the EU is so good for the UK then stand up and say so. Persuade the doubters like myself that we gain from our membership and that it is worth the cost.
My main gripe is with the blatant deceit employed to advance the cause.
Complain about this comment
@143 no all I'm saying is that your claim is ridiculus in the UK subsidises helf the EU!!!! and you either makes that claim but you don't believe it i.e. its a joke or your seriously deluted if you believe it!
Complain about this comment
95. At 00:27am on 04 Nov 2009, Alan wrote:
"If, as many assert, the new "arrangements" are supported by the majority of people in Europe then please prove it."
Look at the election results across the EU, both national and EU (all carried out since the original 'Constitutional Treaty' and some since the Lisbon Treaty): How many EU member states have anti EU, or even eurosceptic, governments and how many anti EU, or eurosceptic, MEPs have been elected, sorry but the proof is in those election results, even in France (were they voted down the original 'Constitutional Treaty') the electorate still returned a highly pro EU Government and President...
Complain about this comment
Me-rijn
Re #131.
It would seem from my reading earlier today that you might well bethe same Me-rijn who had a lengthy debate with ikamaskeip on this subject.
I will say I and I suspect others followed that debate and picked up on the points you both made: Your points then were well made but hardly conclusive as it seemed you relied entirely on the status quo of how the EU has been whereas ikam looked to what was likely to come about given how Lisbon pulls together all the different treaties. In my opinion you lost the argument as basically the Lisbon Treaty is D'Estaign's Constitution by another name and route and you tried to argue what is written is all that can possibly occur whereas Lisbon directly showed the EU will get its way no matter what any National Government or Citizens' votes would indicate as their preference.
One of your points being that every point by the anti EU person is not debate and you alone know what debate is supposed to be! In so doing you neatly presented then and now this idea that because something is written in EU Legislation and copied by you then it is sacrosanct, but, then you propose that when it is the ECJ it is not so! The ECJ so far as I can understand its powers has an absolute right to intervene in any National Legislation: If you are denying this is reality then please explain how the ECJ could possibly function as the determining Legal authority on any issue when according to you its judgements may be challenged (which is diametrically the opposite to the true Legal situation) - - the ECJ is unchallenged ruler of 450,000,000.
You can try to alter, imply, obfuscate as much as you may like, but the ECJ is the EU Supreme Court. That's it: You don't like or agree with my view then ask your MEP which EU body has the determining power for any and all Legal disputes within the EU: the National Governments, the Commission, the European Parliament, or, the ECJ?
I am sorry you find it difficult to accept the Legal framework your pro-EU stance and those of many others has led to. However, that is the way it is, and it is those pro-EU fault if in time the European Citizens find themselves wholly disenfranchised in 'legal' terms because whatever 'policy' they may choose/select to support through the Ballot Box at National and indeed European level may be amended/circumvented/banned by an all-powerful European Court of Justice.
Don't attempt this 'citing' of legal reasons etc. it is just so much wishful thinking by you and others. The EU has a legal arm that is paramount and everytime you quote the ECJ cases it has heard etc. you actually undermine your own argument. This ECJ does not pay attention to your written 'competences' in the manner you try to ascribe to it. In legal definition how could it ever have taken on more and more Case Law across every Nation and the EU itself without crossing over all those boundaries at various stages over the years?
It is my contention that now Lisbon is ratified there is no obstacle to the ECJ taking total centre stage control of the 'Law' of the EU which therefore makes any National Legislation open to its intervention. This will not occur overnight, but the encroachment of the ECJ into all parts of National and European interests is going to develop no matter how many ways you try to confine its power because it is the ECJ that has that power to decide what it is entitled to make a judgement on.
Don't like it: Ask your MEP?
Complain about this comment
#144 - JorgeG1
Nice try but people who are convinced of the righteousness of their cause are hardly going to allow anything as tedious as facts get in the way.
Complain about this comment
#146
Not disagreeing with you.
All I ask is a proper debate and the chance to vote on the arguments.Too many people who appear in favour of the EU/Lisbon spend their time trying to put down the doubters rather than putting forward a positive opinion on the merits of the treaty.
Complain about this comment
#97. At 00:36am on 04 Nov 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
"I cannot see why David Cameron avers that a referendum cannot now be held simply because the Czech Republic has signed the treaty. All treaties can be broken and if it is the will of the British people - who have been promised a say in the matter - to break it, so be it."
No they can't. Of course the UK could just declare UDI from the EU...
Complain about this comment
109. At 02:40am on 04 Nov 2009, RCMoya612 wrote:
"* SuffolkBoy2 @ 104: I'd stop doing that, ol' chap. That passport is mighty expensive. And that's a BRITISH passport, not strictly an 'EU' passport;"
...and the property of the Crown, not for the holder to do as s/he pleases with, wilfully defacing/damaging a Passport is a criminal offence if I remember correctly...
Complain about this comment
democracythreat, @117
I understand the future of the European monarchs are not exactly worrying masses of Europeans at this turning moment :o)))), and even less so - worry you :o))))) but we Russians are trained to worry for the tsar first thing any changes. An automatic response. Esp., you know we forgot about one temporarily in the mess of 1917, where he travels Siberia how he fares, and the next thing, you know.
Complain about this comment
@invictager, not for one second do I claim that the UK does not put more in than it takes out, but it does not subsidise half the EU.
Complain about this comment
#148
Ok. Let me clarify,the figues produced by Starbuck11 show the UK's net payment contributes to subsidising the countries that are net recipients.
Do you disagree that our 57 billion goes to those countries and would completely pay for a good number of their deficits.
Complain about this comment
117. At 04:59am on 04 Nov 2009, democracythreat wrote:
"I think this is the best blog entry Gavin has written so far. It is clear, direct and to the point. Well done that man. Hopefully the standard will remain."
There seems to be some confusion here;
"Czech president swallows bitter pill
Gavin Hewitt's Europe Blog Administrator | 16:21 UK time, Tuesday, 3 November 2009
[Blog entry ...//...]"
Are these the words of Gavin or some other BBC journalist/correspondent?
Complain about this comment
I am curious. Some EUsceptics pinned hopes of delaying or wrecking Lisbon on the German Constitutional Court. When that did not work, they turned their attention to the Czech Constitutional Court. British folk who do not like the way they are treated by the state or government institutions seek judicial reviews. The UK sets up it's own Supreme Court to replace the Judicial Committee of the Lords. In the States, the Supreme Court has ultimate jurisdiction over what is and is not legal. It is the same the whole world over. Someone has to decide how law applies in practice.
Yet suddenly when the EU decides it is right and proper to have a ECJ to adjudicate about the force of EU law, it becomes an anti-democratic, all powerful, ultimate law making institution which threatens our basic freedoms. Why?
It is a primary function of the judiciary, whether in Luxembourg, London or elsewhere to interpret the law and protect citizens against the worst excesses of government. So I ask again, why is the ECJ any different?
Complain about this comment
Can´t we give the UKIP/BNP lot a little island of their own somewhere?
They could build their own wall around it as high as they wanted.
The rest of us could continue to enjoy the peace and prosperity that cooperation and integration with Europe has brought us without having to listen to droning voices that belong to the past.
Now, suggestions for the exact location of their island ...?
Complain about this comment
@150. At 11:01am on 04 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
"The ECJ so far as I can understand its powers has an absolute right to intervene in any National Legislation: If you are denying this is reality then please explain how the ECJ could possibly function as the determining Legal authority on any issue when according to you its judgements may be challenged (which is diametrically the opposite to the true Legal situation) - - the ECJ is unchallenged ruler of 450,000,000."
Than you understood wrongly. It has no absolute right to intervene in national legislation. What is so hard for you to understand about the following:
ECJ = Supreme Court of EU
EU Treaty says "Eu only has CONFERRED powers"
thus
ECJ (as an EU institution) only has conferred (=LIMITED) powers
therefore
ECJ can not have general powers. Only has powers over EU law and watches over proper implementation by member states of EU Law.
And of course, the ECJ isn't immune. It's a result of the Treaties and the treaties are written by the member states. If the member states decide to leave the Union or to dismantle the ECJ through a treaty change, the ECJ can't stop them.
"You can try to alter, imply, obfuscate as much as you may like, but the ECJ is the EU Supreme Court. "
I thought it was quite obvious, from the beginning in 1957 (and if not in 1957 than surely in 1973) that the ECJ is a Supreme Court. In some cases it even has more power than the Supreme Court of the US: the ECJ can rule against a state (the supreme court can't). I don't see a problem in this. In fact it's the only viable way of integrating. Don't forget, you british tried to run an alternative, the EFTA, but it was a huge failure. One of the key differences was that no sovereignty is passed from the national to the supranationa level in the EFTA.
"That's it: You don't like or agree with my view then ask your MEP which EU body has the determining power for any and all Legal disputes within the EU: the National Governments, the Commission, the European Parliament, or, the ECJ?"
I hope it's understood by now that you are wrong here. The ECJ only has power over legal disputes if they concern EU LAW, if there isn't any EU law involved the ECJ has nothing to say.
"It is my contention that now Lisbon is ratified there is no obstacle to the ECJ taking total centre stage control of the 'Law' of the EU which therefore makes any National Legislation open to its intervention."
Again. Where the hell do you read this in Lisbon? Where is this mysterious article that enlarges the powers of the ECJ? The only national legislation that was is and will be open to 'intervention' is national law that conflicts with EU law. And (I am really repeating myself) EU law isn't general, because the EU only has conferred powers, therefore the ECJ hasn't got general powers, because it only has competence over EU law (which isn't general).
So please, give me that article that gives general powers to the EU (and therefore to the ECJ). Or give me the article in Lisbon that opens a door to possible general powers for the ECJ.
Again, I am not asking my MEP, I'm asking you. Because YOU are making (false) claims.
Complain about this comment
dt;
"However, I find the comments on the EU passport to be ironic, in the context of democratic practice."
If I had an EU passport....I'd use it...while I still could. My household would already be packed up.
Threnodious II, what happened to the original Threnodious? What did you do with him? Did you tie him up too and put him in the closet next to granny? Threnodious II, what a big mouth you have! :-)
Complain about this comment
@161
My problem is not with the ECJ or the EU come to that, there have been many benefits to european intigration since the begining, especially around agriculture, trade, preventing trade wars, and protectionism, and this should continue, my problem is what may happen in the future, it seems to me that the lisbon treaty is the next stage to a united states of Europe.... and this is something that scares me and suprises me, after what has happened over the last 100yrs, with 2 world wars, and the cold war, why would any country especially the eastern european countries who have been controlled by others for so long want to go down that road again after gaining independence???
Though we all have MEP's and nation heads supposed to be looking after our interests as voters I don't really see the EU as democratic at all,
The problem as I see it is that we in the UK have problems with the EU as do lots of other individuals in the 26 other EU countries, but there is no political party that covers the whole of Europe that we can vote for or complain to, we are reliant on our sitting government to voice voter concerns, but if that government is pro europe and by the looks of it pro lisbon treaty then we will not get heard.
How to change that?? that seems to be the next question
Duncan
Complain about this comment
Gunota
Re #126.
I live in Belgium. I never denied the 'devolved' constitution, but, pointed out whatever its situation the Fleming and Walloon population do not seem reconciled to the present system (e.g. no National Government for 10 months a year ago!).
As for Spain - - well, if the Basque Separatists are satisfied with the devolution I must have missed the news item!
Please, I trust you are not suggesting in a 'Democracy' that it is unacceptable to have Faiths represented at National Government level!?
I have no religious beliefs at all, but respect the right of Citizens of Faith to have some among them in suitable posts to advise Government on Religious matters; indeed, I would say one of the weaknesses of the UK system is that the House of Lords does not have enough representatives from outside the Christian Community. You also appear to misunderstand the authority and power of the H of L which is Constitutionally extremely clearly defined and unlike the EU's all-powerful ECJ it is bound by conventions that cannot be removed/converted by it.
People of faith are also a notable absence from the EU Commission and Parliament (a sort of 'divine-defecit'). Perhaps the EU would benefit from more involvement by men and women of religious-will (as distinct from 'Political' or 'Free'-will) representing an inter-Faith community and drawn from religious leaders? The UK Religious leaders appointed to the H of L is a good example - - they are Faith leaders chosen by their followers so hardly unrepresentative of their communities - - and surely, the offering of a non-secular view of matters is something not to be dismissed in a true 'Democracy'?
Democracy must encompass as broad a 'church' of views as possible - - this is where the EU's ECJ is such a danger - - the narrowness of 'legal' determination of the 'Law' is an affront to the principles of 'Democratic' tradition.
A situation made all too clear in the UK for example by the International Court of Human Rights (not the ECJ) ruling that a prisoner who was serving a sentence for rape was entitled not only to keep prize money won in a draw whilst in prison but need not pay from that money compensation to the victim of the rape!
Law is a very strange thing to have as the final determiner of what is Right and Wrong in society.
As someone once wrote, 'Law is needed for order in any good society but any orderly, good society is much more than Law.'
Something you, Me-rijn, ChrisArta, Mathiasen etc. seem to have somehow overlooked in your eagerness for the all-embracing confines of the legally based European Union.
PS: ChrisArta
Re #146.
Why would you vote for a King or Queen? I really cannot follow your point! The Monarch of the UK, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain etc. are Hereditary positions - - none of them affect the EU or ECJ debate - - just cannot fathom what these Nationally recognised families have to do with the issue of 'Democracy' in 2009?
Complain about this comment
@105 " So you call the creation of a pan-European dictatorship "moving forward" !!"
I really feel sorry for you and the way you have been indoctrinated by the Murdoch propaganda. Which dictatorship?
Complain about this comment
at 95: "If, as many assert, the new "arrangements" are supported by the majority of people in Europe then please prove it."
Well, here is one from a small country: At the recent elections in Belgium, there was only one party in Flanders with a anti-EU program. They got only about 15% of the votes in Flanders.
And as Boilerplated pointed out in #149, most elected goverments in Europe have a pro-EU program.
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn
Re #161
Quote: 'In some cases the ECJ has even more power than the US Supreme Court.' 'The ECJ can rule against National States.'
You wrote it and then you proceed to deny this is the case!
As You appear to be so confused on your own argument it is fair to only deal with the 'CONFERRED' meaning as it can have a dictionary definition from which I am able to illustrate my point that because it is written does not mean it is the only possibility. Actually, I also dealt with everything else in other replies and to paraphrase yourself, what the "hell" is the point of You repeatedly telling people we misunderstand, misinterpret, misinformed as if you are the centre of all that is undeniable!?
You win no friends and certainly no debate on the EU/ECJ by your insistence only You have the 'knowledge'.
CONFER ('conferred, conferring') means to "grant or bestow" (a title, degree, favour, etc.): According to the English dictionary.
The EU and its member States have 'conferred' on the ECJ broad based 'competences' to hear cases. This 'conferring' does not mean it cannot be diminished or enlarged according to circumstance. Those circumstance have significantly altered with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty which does create conditions for a fully fledged Federal EU Constitution.
The ECJ will find itself drawn into considering more and more cases of a 'political' nature and the word 'confer' has no relevance in those circumstances other than that is what the ECJ panel of Judges will be doing.
I could replace 'confer' with 'limited', and the same relevance.
'EFTA' does not stand comparison with the EU and again has no relevance to this debate.
Complain about this comment
#166
Do Turkeys vote for Christmas.
Belgium is a net recipient from the EU so why would anyone expect it to derail the gravy train.
Complain about this comment
#162 - MarcusAureliusII
"Threnodious II, what happened to the original Threnodious?"
It's the new log-in system, Marcus Erroneous. The Beeb seemed to think I would remember who I was. I was born in the first half of the last century for heaven's sake. Second childhood and all. Firefox is supposed to remember who I am, not me. So I invented a new me.
Complain about this comment
#160
Us UKIP lot(never that other mob)already have a litle island to call our own. It's called Britain and it's location is well known.
Complain about this comment
#164 - cool_brush_work
Representatives of faith groups are entitled to stand for election just as much as anyone else. Or should people of faith be allowed to 'conscientiously object' to democracy and get their seats as of right?
Complain about this comment
#160 - Briton_Abroad
St.Helena - after playing host to the ultimate European Unionist, it should make a refreshing change for the locals.
Complain about this comment
#168: "Do Turkeys vote for Christmas"
Did you vote to go to war in Iraq?
Complain about this comment
Duncan Halford, @163 "why would any country especially the eastern european countries who have been controlled by others for so long want to go down that road again after gaining independence"
Duncan, because it's good to be together, even when you are controlled by others, yes, at this bad cost.
and they have experience of it more than the "Old europe"; as I understood, were not the minor driving point in the process of the EU furthering get together.
I think the "new Europe" was driven in their desire to unite further and quicker by 2 forces: 1. practical expereince that absence of trade barriers, cultural diversity, opp. to work elsewhere - take any item of the "for EU list" - it applies within the EU as it were within the "Eastern Block" - that there are good things in tossing countries together they know 2. They thought it's far better to get united with the Old Europe than save god with Russia again what if any surprises it changes her mind, hell know, and other scares. :o)
You won't beleive it but it is good to be together, in our Russian 300 yrs Empire times, and in the USSR experience - even with all the defects of old systems and communism all the imperfect and plain wrong old models of uniting.
We miss "all the folks" "where are they gone" etc. now in Russia. It's a great "feeling of the elbow" - not in terms that that elbow pushes you :o) but that there is a hand to lean on, rely upon if stumbling, nearby, the feeling that there is a friend's hand and he stands nearby, at a touch distance.
Ironically, Russia and Europe now again move in different directions, :o) (what's new): we are learning "how to live alone", while Europe is learning "how to live together".
(personally, :o) Simply a shame! banged out our USSR on all corners, only a lazy didn't pinch and kick it :o) - kept telling us how nasty it is to hoard independent nations together - and now are doing the same!
:o)))))) Ce la vie. :o(
Complain about this comment
#140. invictager wrote:
"My statement implies nothing of the sort. In fact it implies nothing at all. It states quite clearly that I wish to be governed by people I can vote for or against depending on their policies.
Tell me how I can vote for or against an EU commissioner or the new president."
Vote in the next EP elections, the main party groupings are all planning pan European campaigns focussing on getting their man as Commission President (The important President, not just a fancy Chairman.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
#152. invictager wrote:
"Not disagreeing with you.
All I ask is a proper debate and the chance to vote on the arguments.Too many people who appear in favour of the EU/Lisbon spend their time trying to put down the doubters rather than putting forward a positive opinion on the merits of the treaty."
I try to, but generally no one replies. How can I be sure any Eurosceptics even both to read it? Infact, on one of the older blog entries I wrote out point by point what I thought was good about the Lisbon treaty.
P.S. Found it, Post #111 of "Klaus opting out".
Complain about this comment
#173
No.Did you?
Complain about this comment
#175
Thank you. I will take the time to read it. I may not agree with you but I will respect your opinion and not just label you a liar or a racist because our views diverge.
You must have seen above what I put up with merely for having an opinion.
Complain about this comment
In this sense, Russia did influnce the EU roll-together. Sorry, or - give us credit! :o))) depending on your view. As I understood the whole project was trundling or trotting or tip-toeing or taking leaps, from 1957 - at different speeds, nowhere in a hurry. But only with the in-flux of the Eastern European countries (released by Russia. And - scared to stay in her shadow) - the wheels of the project began turning quick.
Complain about this comment
#175
Found it and read it.
Very reasonably argued and you at least acknowledged what we all know about the referendum not being given because the answer would be wrong.
I will say I do not particularly agree with your final paragraph but as I said we are all entitled to our opinion.
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work and Seraphim85
Posts number #15, #51, #119, and #133
If, when you mention the country Eire you mean Ireland, please use the correct name of the country. Ireland is the official and recognised name of the country according the the Irish constitution. Éire should only be used when referring to the country in the Irish language.
As I have mentioned before, using Éire when referring to Ireland is the same as using Deutschland for Germany, Belgique/Belgïe for Belgium, Danmark for Denmark, Norge/Noreg for Norway, etc. I note that you refer to all these countries using the English langauge form of their name, so why not for Ireland?
Please note also that you spell the Irish version incorrectly. It should be Éire.
Complain about this comment
@163. At 12:00pm on 04 Nov 2009, Duncan Halford wrote:
re "The problem as I see it is that we in the UK have problems with the EU as do lots of other individuals in the 26 other EU countries, but there is no political party that covers the whole of Europe that we can vote for or complain to, we are reliant on our sitting government to voice voter concerns, but if that government is pro europe and by the looks of it pro lisbon treaty then we will not get heard."
Ironic isn't it? You don't want a federal superstate, but to have your voice heard, you'd need a federal eurosceptic party to vote for. Lets hope that in the future we will be able to vote for real European Parties instead of local parties running european elections.
@167. At 12:35pm on 04 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
re "You wrote it and then you proceed to deny this is the case! "
What part of "SOME cases" don't you understand? If I had written "in ALL cases" you'd have a point, now you don't.
re "You win no friends and certainly no debate on the EU/ECJ by your insistence only You have the 'knowledge'."
I don't need to win friends nor debates. I don't claim only I have the 'knowledge'. I do claim that only I (from the two of us) has explicitly cited Treaty articles that back up the claims made.
re "The EU and its member States have 'conferred' on the ECJ broad based 'competences' to hear cases. This 'conferring' does not mean it cannot be diminished or enlarged according to circumstance. Those circumstance have significantly altered with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty which does create conditions for a fully fledged Federal EU Constitution."
And each time you fail to cite any clause of the Treaty that "has significantly altered the conditions". If they are significantly altered, point to us the article(s) that has (have) embodies(/d) this significant change.
re "The ECJ will find itself drawn into considering more and more cases of a 'political' nature and the word 'confer' has no relevance in those circumstances other than that is what the ECJ panel of Judges will be doing."
This is a bold claim. How and why will the ECJ find itself drawn into considering more and more cases of 'political' nature?
Why does the word 'confer' have no relevance? Who do you think those Judges in Luxemburg are? Power Hungry bureaucrats? In fact they are the best and brightest legalists of the 27 member states, they have academic and judicial experience in their own member state. (BTW, the judges are appointed by their own governments to interpret the Treaty those governements wrote themselves, enough national supervision if you ask me!)
I don't see why the risk of 'judges acting on behalf of a personal or partisan agenda' is bigger for the ECJ judges than it is for national judges. Because this risk ALWAYS exists, so if you believe that the ECJ judges give rulings as they please, unbothered by what the Treaties actually say, you should give reasons why this 'agent shirking' is fundamentally more probable for the ECJ than for another (supreme) court.
re "'EFTA' does not stand comparison with the EU and again has no relevance to this debate."
You're right, that's my point. The Uk government didn't want to accede to the EEC (or ECSC) because it didn't like the supranational elements (ia the ECJ), so it started the EFTA, without supranational elements. But then it saw that the EFTA was a failure compared to the EEC and already in 1961 it begged the EEC members to let her join in.
@ 168. At 12:48pm on 04 Nov 2009, invictager wrote:
re "Belgium is a net recipient from the EU so why would anyone expect it to derail the gravy train."
Belgium isn't net recipient anymore after 2004 enlargement
Complain about this comment
@146 The answer is alot! It is just an example that, one can not always directly elect every single official if we like it or not. All I'm pointing out is that there are certain people or groups od people in the UK that I can not elect directly to same goes for the president of the European council, so that's one more person that I have to live with, that I can not directly elect. Obviously you can also see that, but you don't want to admit it. The difference between us is that I see democratic deficits everywhere, you see them everywhere, but you are selective on the ones you complain about. Be fair and complain about all of them. If you were to sit down and take a good look then you will discover, as I have, that there is nothing extra undemocratic in the EU than we can not already find closer at home. So my attitude is to relax and try to find out what benefits can I extract from the EU for me, instead of cry high murder for something that is not.
Complain about this comment
#176: oh, so the democratically elected government in the UK went against the will of its people?
I don't want to be cynical, but every democracy has it's shortcomings. And there are many flavours of democracy. Some will find it curious that democrats accept a monarch, accept appointed religous leaders, accept that you can win an election with support of 20% of the people, accept that the heirs of the Normands still own most of the land.But then every other flavour of democracy has its shortcomings as well. There are certainly many weaknesses in the EU system as well. My main concern is the waste of energy and money that goes is fighting the system. I therefore would welcome a democratic vote in every country on the simple question: IN or OUT. Then everybody could turn their energy and money into positively developing their future.
Complain about this comment
#181
I stand corrected re Belgium.
I was using the firgues supplied by a link that suggested they would be net recipients in the period to 2013 of 6.4 billion.
Complain about this comment
#183
I would welcome the same.
Complain about this comment
As one point here that many europhobes love going about seems to be the (in their opinion) fact that the EP was not elected by the majority of the electocrate.
I therefore did some calculations:
In the european election this year at least 588 out of 736 seats went to strong pro EU parties. Saying this I must admit that it is probably even more but I only counted the 4 blocks I was certain about them being in favour of the EU. However that is 79.89% of all seats. Now only 43,1% of the permited population throughout Europe was voting at all. So you have to multiply the two figueres to see that in fact *only* 34,4% of the electocrate that could have voted for the EU actually did so.
And I say *only* for a reason as I did an equal calculation for the last election in the UK in 2005. 27 Million people took the chance to vote which was ~61% of the electocrate. However only 9.55 Million votes went to the now governing Labour party, which is only a 35.39%. If you multiply those two figueres then you get to a 21.6% of the electocrate actually voting in favour of the recent UK government.
Now I Have to admit that the number for the EU is not as bright as it could be but seeing the far far worse number for the UK I wonder why you don't complain about the UK government not having the backup of even a quarter of the UK electocrate while you keep whining about the EU?
(While I am at it anyway the figures for the US are about the same as for the EU: 52.8% votes for democrats with 63% of the electocrat voting. So even Mr. Obama only has the expressed support of 33,3% of the Americans)
I hope these numbers finally help to stop that nonsense debate going on here about how unelected the EU is compared to national goverments.
Complain about this comment
137. At 10:20am on 04 Nov 2009, invictager wrote:
"#132
I have not said anyone is a liar"
Yes you have, ever time you miss-quote the Lisbon treaty (even if that miss quote comes from somewhere else, often as a repeated half quote, out of context quote or outright lie of a 'quote'), either cite from the Lisbon treaty, cross referred to the (now defunct) Constructional treaty were needed, or don't cite at all.
A repeated lie is still a lie...
Just to help you along:
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm
Complain about this comment
#141. At 10:31am on 04 Nov 2009, threnodio_II wrote:
"#128 - invictager
May I enquire why everyone is so focussed suddenly on the budget? ..//.."
Because the euroseptics have lost the argument on Lisbon, now they want a new 'attack-dog'.
Complain about this comment
180. At 1:22pm on 04 Nov 2009, amcbru wrote:
"cool_brush_work and Seraphim85
Posts number #15, #51, #119, and #133
If, when you mention the country Eire you mean Ireland, please use the correct name of the country. Ireland is the official and recognised name of the country according the the Irish constitution. Éire should only be used when referring to the country in the Irish language."
Erm mate if you had spent a little more time to read the actual posts instead of just complaining about the use of the word Eire, you could have seen that I was only quoting someone else. Even when a quote is wrong as this one seems to be you are usually not supposed to change it are you?
Complain about this comment
160. At 11:37am on 04 Nov 2009, Briton_Abroad wrote:
"Can´t we give the UKIP/BNP lot a little island of their own somewhere?
They could build their own wall around it as high as they wanted."
Transportation was removed from the statute book many years ago! A better idea is to allow them (the political parties) some rope, you know the type, that works much like a lasso does, except in a downwards motion only...
Complain about this comment
163. At 12:00pm on 04 Nov 2009, Duncan Halford wrote:
"my problem is what may happen in the future, it seems to me that the lisbon treaty is the next stage to a united states of Europe...."
Then you have failed to grasp the basics of the Lisbon Treaty and how such decision making has been changed, until now (well 1st Dec 2009) such decisions were basically in the hands of the Council of Ministers and not the wider EU.
Complain about this comment
170. At 12:51pm on 04 Nov 2009, invictager wrote:
"[in reply to comments @ #160
Us UKIP lot(never that other mob)already have a litle island to call our own. It's called Britain and it's location is well known."
But yet to secure but one national MP, isn't it ironic that the only members of parliament UKIP can get elected are in the EU (via PR)... So sorry, 'you' do not run (never mind own) any little island and it's certainly not called Britain, so stop being so pompous!
Again the euroseptics have to resort to miss-information and outright lies...
Complain about this comment
#164 @ ikamaskeip. Basque Separatists aren't satisfied but they're also in a minority as seen in local election results. Likewise there's also a group of people in Scotland that aren't satisfied with the current situation and want full independence (luckily they don't see a reason to blow up cars to make a point) Last time I checked when the threats of split up in Belgium seemed real the Belgian people show their support to Belgium by hanging out their flags.
Having said that you're right that I've misread your post, my apologies for the misunderstanding.
>"Please, I trust you are not suggesting in a 'Democracy' that it is unacceptable to have Faiths represented at National Government level!?"
Considering a good deal of European countries have a Christian democratic party or another religious party in their parliament (some of these parties are also represented in the European Parliament) I'm going to say there's nothing wrong with having faith represented at National Government level.
But tell me are the House of Lords church members elected by the followers or appointed by the top of the Church. Is the top of the Church of England elected? Nope.
Even the European commission has a more democratic legitimacy then the Lordships, and that's saying something.
About the ECJ: the only reason why the ECJ has supremacy is because the national supreme court recognizes it as such. The opposite is also true: if the national supreme court stops recognizing the ECJ then the ECJ won't have any supremacy. You obviously disagree with this, can we we agree to disagree?
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments @ #180:
"cool_brush_work and Seraphim85
Posts number #15, #51, #119, and #133
If, when you mention the country Eire you mean Ireland, please use the correct name of the country. Ireland is the official and recognised name of the country according the the Irish constitution. Éire should only be used when referring to the country in the Irish language. "
I'm with "cool_brush_work" and "Seraphim85" here, whilst you are correct, in these blogs (where all nationalities read the content) the use of the Irish language title of Éire (or Eire if one can't access or post the unicode charter) saves miss understanding with NI.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat, @177
yes, know Lev Sergeevich, as Petersburger, Ioffe physics' institute employee. didn't know he invented that? spying device, known in foreign letters. Here he's known as "the man who could all" :o) For which talents, of course, he was packed away to Gulag, for 10 yrs.
But even in Gulag he "could do all" as spent there only 1 year, after he LOL had automatised the trolley ? eh? carrying ? whatever they were to carry out of the shaft onto the mountain, uranium? from the mine, any way, system, so that his whole Gulag sat lazy whistling while the trolleys moved themselves up and down and mining was automated, their Gulag did 10 year "norms" in 2 weeks. They moved him to another work and there he stopped it all as well. This effect of "no corrective labour" for the prizoners was not expected, so he was extracted out of Gulag before he'd ruin the whole beautiful system :o))))).
He was a Frenchman by the way, a French emigree family who became Russians. (as it happens to people :o)))))
He impressed Lenin with the first motion detector system, put a vase with flowers on a nice table by Lenin's office door, and one other beautiful table across, and whoever crossed - there started a buzz.
He impressed us when joined the Communist Party in 1991 - when absolutely all quit it and tore the party memeber tickets. Asked why so suddenly, at the age of 93 especially - great use! he said "I promised Lenin, but they never took me in - my whole life! as a supicious inventor."
He impressed Stalin with the "longvision" in 1926. Party Committee sat in Stalin's office in Kremlin and watched Stalin, how he strolls the Red Square - in a small box with a screen called "longvision". This was found a total no-go, any body can see any body? even dear darling Stalin? in a small stupid box witha screen? and immediately secretised and he was prohibited mass production. So the TV was known later, as done by another emigree, Zvorykin.
Nevermind this all is past and grown over with the grass, but re the subject of the thread I think the new EU is simply no USSR and no empire and there is nothing to be scared of (presently) by eurosceptics because - the first question - where is the "ataman"?! /Chieftain.
There is an English "at-a-boy", in Russian it is ancient "at-a-man".
Like, "the at-a-man of the cossacks was..." "the ataman of the gang was" :o)))))
Without a quality leader this is all still is, how to say, democracy :o)))
And politicians became somewhat? smaller? lately, petty cash sized, compared to the "good old days" :o))) So I don't think there is any risk to acquire a real quality charismatic chiftain. :o)))
Complain about this comment
And I regret to say :o) it was Lev Termen, whose wooden eagle wall panno (decoration) was given as a present to the US ambassador, on the occasion of the 4th of July (aj iaj iaj :o( , and the next 7 years emitted us the signal of all said in the room about it. When the Americans finally gutted the eagle out, Lev Termen changed to reading the sound from the glass in the window :o( :o)))) !
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated, #194
How on earth could there be confusion with NI (Northern Ireland), when the world and his dog know that it is part of the UK.
People know that Ireland means Ireland. When referring to the part which is in the UK, then people refer to it as Northern Ireland.
It's not asking for much. Just that the country be referred to correctly.
Complain about this comment
re removed comment @ #19:
[This is what was removed, less the factually correct description of someone who dislikes/hatred of foreign countries and/or their inhabitants. UKIP and the BNP are inward looking political parties, those who support them are thus also inward looking people by definition.]
[quote]
#9. At 6:54pm on 03 Nov 2009, invictager wrote:
"The UK government has hardly been sovereign since we signed up to this wretched club. I see UK law over-ruled every day of the week by EU law."
You were free to vote UKIP at the last election, you are free to vote UKIP at the next, or indeed BNP, [....//censored//....]...
[unquote]
Just to add, there are many 'England Only' laws that I do not like or approve of, some brought to the statute book with the help of MPs from the devolved countries, I don';t call for England to leave the UK though, why do the euroseptics think that the UK should leave the EU just because they dislike certain laws, if ever there was a case of chucking the baby out with the bath water the comment by "invictager" @ #9 is one such example, never mind factually incorrect - again more lies from the euroseptics, the UK is still a sovereign state and will be post 1st Dec 2009...
Complain about this comment
P.S.
I think I made a strong case for the benefits of the cultural diversity in the EU, by Lev Termen's case :o).
Should his both parents be Russian - would we be able to read the American Embassy in Moscow in 1945?
"Reading" from the window glass, for 1952 - not bad either. :o)
Complain about this comment
re #195 and 196:
WebAliceinwonderland, your comments in the above comments have what relevance to the Lisbon treaty, it's ratification or the Czech Republic - exactly?...
Complain about this comment
170. At 12:51pm on 04 Nov 2009, invictager wrote:
"#160
Us UKIP lot(never that other mob)already have a litle island to call our own. It's called Britain and it's location is well known."
Hey, hang on a minute, I think you are pushing your luck. UKIP is not entitled to any island as it cannot claim to represent the island of Britain. I have checked here
http://www.europarl.org.uk/section/your-meps/your-meps
and cannot find any single Scottish MEP from UKIP, neither from NI, which I am reliably informed it is considered part of the UK. There is only one Welsh MEP out of the thirteen that they have, and that gentleman is probably as Welsh as me (my apologies to him, of course, if I am wrong). I wouldn't be surprised if they themselves realised that all their MEPs were English and they needed an alibi to claim title to their pompous name.
So, for starters, UKIP has got its name wrong, it should be called EIP or, at best, EWIP, or perhaps LEIP, take your pick. But UKIP? On what grounds?
Complain about this comment
197. At 3:26pm on 04 Nov 2009, amcbru wrote:
Boilerplated, #194
"How on earth could there be confusion with NI (Northern Ireland), when the world and his dog know that it is part of the UK."
It depends on how clear someone is about meaning north or south, and as someone else pointed out (to me...) on the BBC blogs, saying "Southern Ireland" is even more incorrect than saying Eire. All I'm saying is that it stop any confusion.
Complain about this comment
117. At 04:59am on 04 Nov 2009, democracythreat wrote "I think this is the best blog entry Gavin has written so far. It is clear, direct and to the point. Well done that man. Hopefully the standard will remain..."
30 minutes to go before Cameron ends the long Tory 'dance of the seven veils' on EU policy and reveals what 'not letting matters rest' amounts to. . .
So in the absence of hard news, i too would like to praise Gavin Hewitt for the quality of his blog (and indeed TV studio reports) since taking up the BBC Editor role and also, which is just as important, their neutrality.
In pure quality terms i think this one cannot be the best, as it is a kind of brief historical summarisation, where it is difficult to add much additional value, but in terms of neutrality it is spot on. I always thought that Mark Mardell did report each individual topic neutrally, but sometimes had doubts about the editorial selection of the topics to cover and those to bury. So far i would praise Gavin in cricketing terms, for bowling 'line and length' from both the reporting and editorial ‘ends’. And while spin-free reporting and story-selection is all one can really ask for from the BBC, there has certainly been some quality too.
The running commentaries from an ongoing summit are also perhaps stories where it is difficult to add much (even if these have to regarded as a core part of reporting on the EU). But there really have been several very high quality blog posts in recent weeks in the sense of highlighting important topics, and providing interesting background insight. One was the Greek island report on so-called illegal immigrants. I had some doubts at first about a BBC jaunt, but the final report confounded that. Some others i thought were very good were the reports on Gert Wilders and on Nick Griffin appearing on BBC Question Time. Not the prettiest of topics to be sure, and maybe not so important in themselves, but they set a topical scene around which important issues could be discussed (which is after all where the blog format works best) and where Gavin was able to bring past experience covering the Danish cartoons or working men's clubs into play.
Ok. 10 minutes to go now until Cameron lowers the veil :-[
Complain about this comment
#200 - Boilerplated
For all the enthusiasm and frequency of your posts, you are obviously a relative newcomer. To those of us who have been around for rather longer, WebAlice is an institution. She says what she likes, when she likes - bless her. Relevance may not be her strong suit but I would forgo the pearls of wisdom for something as trivial as being off topic.
Complain about this comment
201 - JorgeG1
"But UKIP? On what grounds?"
Perhaps they want independence from the UK?
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (93):
Alice, We are the champions was written by legendary Freddie Mercury, recorded and performed by Queen, an English rock band.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_the_champions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_%28band%29
In the game of westernization you just received a new card...
"Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200"
You are to be released after going into YouTube and after you have made due your incursion by listening Queen and learning its true place in the collective memory of pop culture.
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated @200.
Honestly, I think my comments here so far were very relevant, even being tongue in the cheek. I thought I am am speaking too open, and camouflaged myself a bit. But must be over-camouflaged :o) so that the message became totally unreadable, and looking odd.
Anyway sorry, we Russians are good, except know no limits :o). But quite agreeable, when given a hint in time that it's time. I mean I will go shopping now, and you can have a break from me.
Thank you, threnodio.
Complain about this comment
203. At 3:56pm on 04 Nov 2009, Freeborn-John wrote:
"So in the absence of hard news, i too would like to praise Gavin Hewitt for the quality of his blog"
But according to the header to this, and the last, blog it's not by Gavin, not sure what is happening but the link in the header doesn't lead to all the other blogs written by Gavin thus far on Europe.
Again a euroseptic can't get the facts straight, if they can't notice something as simple as who wrote a blog what chance have they of understanding something like the Lisbon Treaty! [/irony]
Perhaps Gavin is filming elsewhere, on holiday or off sick?...
Complain about this comment
David Cameron has sent the strongest possible signal he wants out of the EU completely (see his news conference this afternoon.)
David Cameron wants to make UK law superior to ALL EU law - is he an idiot or does he fully well realise that this must exclude the UK from the EU entirely - roll on WW3!!!! What an idiot!
WE had such high hope of you David and you have already disappointed - the Tories need a new leader - bring back IDS or even John Major or heaven help us all Margaret Thatcher - any one of them would not have been as downright silly as David Cameron.
Complain about this comment
Gunota
Re #193.
It is a real turn of events when an EU supporter starts trotting out the House of Lords' Religious leaders as further example of how 'democratic' the EU Commission is!
Especially, as the Commission are 'appointed' after nomination by National Governments and in the English expression are there at best because it is 'buggins turn': The H of L Religious Peers are there as leaders of the recognised State 'Faith' of the UK (though that is long since defunct - - if ever accurate - - and as I've indicated could do with being far more inclusive of the 'old' and 'new' faiths multi-cultural UK has encompassed) and most certainly are in post within their Bishopric by recognition of their devotional duties by their peers and congregations.
Now, with the best will in the world the idea any EU Commissioner is in post except as the respective National Governments' Apparatchik 'has-been' or 'rewarded jobsworth' is to stretch the bounds of credibility beyond even an EU vision of reality! In strictly 'democratic' terms the Commission is no better or worse than the H of L and to pretend otherwise is an EU-supporter flying in the face of how the EU functionaries are awarded their posts.
One has only to look at the unseemly in-fighting and shameless scramble now going on for the fabled EU Council President and Foreign Minister posts across the 27 Nations to see precisely how the EU works in all its glaringly corrosive dealings at the centres of power!
This is the EU the supporters like to claim is the new, better version of 'democracy' brought about by Lisbon: A tawdry, greedy system that has no relationship to the interests or aspirations of the Citizens.
As for the 'christian' etc. members of the EU Parliament etc. that is not the same as having responsible, authoritative people that may speak on behalf of a Faith. It is a part of the concern I have with the EU that it has by necessity this broad-brushstroke approach to its Citizens. 450,000,000 represented by 750+ MEPs... oh come on people, wake-up, it is a complete travesty of 'democracy' in action. One-size of EU policy to manage 450 million lives and 27 Nations: If you actually write it like that it resembles Disney's 'Fantasia' in its factual reality and those that support it the classic, time-honoured 'Dumbo' who have failed to recall 2,000 years of similar, failed attempts to control and direct the lives of vastly differing people and nations on the mainland and the British Isles.
It does not matter what the UK's present constitutional system it has infinitely more to commend it than the idea of 27 Nations pooling their 'government'. There is no point at all in pointing to the USA as the example of 'federal democracy' in action: The USA is about 250 years old - - it is one of the oldest 'democracies' in the world - - the EU is as old as the Lisbon Treaty ratification last Sunday evening!
Complain about this comment
209. At 4:54pm on 04 Nov 2009, John_from_Hendon wrote:
[re David Cameron's new policy on the UK's relationship with the EU]
"What an idiot!"
Don't be to harsh on him, after all he is in the same position as Mr Foot was when he lead the Labour Party in the early 1980s, trying to keep both sides of the party happy and away from 'fisticuffs at dawn' (meaning a party implosion)...
I certainly agree that his speech was high on rhetoric, directed towards the Murdoch reading public I suspect, with little or no substance, either he doesn't understand the Lisbon Treaty or he is pulling the wool big time.
Complain about this comment
210. At 4:56pm on 04 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
"The USA is about 250 years old - - it is one of the oldest 'democracies' in the world - - the EU is as old as the Lisbon Treaty ratification last Sunday evening!"
Yesterday actually, Tuesday, again the euroseptics can't even get the basic facts correct. :-(
Ask yourself how far back European history goes, and the various stages of it's democracy are, now ask yourself how far back US history goes back (and do NOT include the native Indian history, just the new lands settlers) and there democracy, that is since the creation of the US Constitution...
Also, 24hrs after the signing of the US Constitution the US Constitution was only - err - 24hrs old, just like the Lisbon Treaty is, your point was what - exactly?
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn
Re #181.
No you don't cite evidence that supports your case: You cite evidence you claim/interpret backs your view, but many of us see those examples ina very different light from the perspective you have.
It is difficult to put it any other way than I do not agree with you and you are wrong: Which is pretty much as you write you do not agree and I am wrong (the basic difference being: You refer to being able to understand so much more about how the EU 'competences' function whereas I refer to you misunderstanding the purpose of 'competences' in relation to the ECJ).
Time will reveal which of us is right/wrong: If you are right the ECJ will have little or no effect on the functioning of the EU's 27 National Governments beyond rudimentary points of order for the smoothe running of the EU, however, if I am right the ECJ will increasingly overtake the National Governments and the EU Parliament as it is called upon to determine matters of Law in the 'Political' field and replaces the Citizens' views of what is correct policy with finite legal decisions.
Complain about this comment
If Croatia wants to join the EU, they had better hurry up about it because it requires a treaty of accession and treaties, we are told, will be put to referenda if Cameron gets his way.
Oh, and the plan was for the new opt-outs which enabled the second Irish referendum to be written into the same treaty and - quite possibly - the Czech opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights. So, since he can't get the British electorate out of Europe, it's over to 'Plan B' and let them run the place instead.
Heaven help us, even by modern standards of incompetence, this has to be one of the most badly-thought-through, knee-jerk-reaction type responses in modern British political history. And to think that only days ago, we thought them fit to replace the Brown mob.
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated
Re #212
"again the Euroseptics.."
I'm sorry, are you trying to be funny or very, very rude!?
If this is your standard of response no wonder you get referred to Moderators so often.
Actually, in #210 I was meaning the Czech President signing it which I understood to have taken place at the weekend: If I wrong then so be it, but, how you think that excuses your unpleasant brand of comment/label of those of us engaged in proper debate I fail to understand.
It is indicative of the typical EU supporter to become aggressive and start name-calling as their debating points fail.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone know where I can find a copy of the lisbon treaty the is fairly easy to understand, as I will admit that I have never read it
Duncan
Complain about this comment
#215 - cool_brush_work
You berate Boilerplated for his rudeness and then go on to publish a sweeping generalisation which is equally offensive in saying "It is indicative of the typical EU supporter to become aggressive and start name-calling . . . "
Some of us have consistently attempted to argue using nothing more offensive than reason and informed opinion. If you do not feel able to do the same, at least have the courtesy of not tarring us all with the same brush.
Complain about this comment
To Duncan Halford (216):
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm
In the left choose Full text of the Treaty, in the next page choose the 'Consolidated versions of the Treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon'.
Happy reading!
Complain about this comment
threnodio_II
Re #217
Well, the old saying would seem to apply: You are known by the company you keep!
Alright, accepted, not all EU supporters are rude name-callers - - at least, so far as I can tell from having joined these Blog sessions - - You appear to be 1.
I am bound to say you appear to be in a distinct minority on this particular Article page.
Complain about this comment
Tories!!
You have to dump Cameron.
I hope and think it possible that you are working on it even now.
Complain about this comment
@219, hey what about me?
Complain about this comment
#210. ikamaskeip
-"It is a real turn of events when an EU supporter starts trotting out the House of Lords' Religious leaders as further example of how 'democratic' the EU Commission is!"-
My intention was the opposite: pointing out how undemocratic the Lordships are. You missed it.
-"The H of L Religious Peers are there as leaders of the recognised State 'Faith' of the UK"-
Except they have no democratic legitimacy they're appointed by undemocratic body with no approval needed by any democratic body. It's really that simple...
#213. ikamaskeip wrote -"No you don't cite evidence that supports your case: You cite evidence you claim/interpret backs your view, but many of us see those examples ina very different light from the perspective you have.
It is difficult to put it any other way than I do not agree with you and you are wrong."-
ikamaskeip someone in this blog entry wrote the following: "You win no friends and certainly no debate on the EU/ECJ by your insistence only You have the 'knowledge'." I think this applies to you, especially in post 213.
-#219. ikamaskeip wrote: "at least, so far as I can tell from having joined these Blog sessions - - You appear to be 1."-
Honestly I haven't called you any names nor have I generalized you, although I wish I could say the same of you to me.
Complain about this comment
#222 - Gunota
Ikamaskeip is more than capable of answering for himself but, since he does not seem to be around this afternoon, I think only fair that someone should point out that he is not the author of #210, #213 or #219.
Complain about this comment
Jukks, you are absolutely right (at 206) (accidentally), but I don't need to go to prizon (yet) because I figured out myself it's Queen about the moment I hit the "post comment" button. That other "preview" thing still seems to me to be there purely symbolically.
I just wanted to sharpen teeth at you :o))))) a little, and got distracted :o)
Complain about this comment
"Of course the UK could just declare UDI from the EU..." (Boilerplated, 153)
UDI ... wasn't that about Rhodesia declaring itself free from its colonial master? Is that what we are now: a colony?
"At 99, CornwallCoastPath says "There's more than enough evidence in the various sections of Gavin's blog to demonstrate the essential equivalence of the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty - with all that implies". Well I am sorry but the accumulated opinions of contributors and the broad brush strokes of a journalist are simply not good enough. Read the damned things then you can comment with some authority". (threnodio_II, 124)
I agree that accumulated opinions of contributors and the broad brush strokes of a journalist are simply not good enough - but what on earth has that got to my comment at 99? If YOU want to comment with some authority, I suggest YOU read through the blog and look at all the entries relating to comparison of the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty. Among them you will find references to BBC and Wikipedia articles confirming the near-equivalence of the treaties. Or perhaps you believe that the BBC and Wikipedia are also part of the evil Murdoch empire?
It's interesting, though, that you refer to both the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty as "damned". In that, at least, I think you'll soon be proved correct.
Complain about this comment
@ At 5:29pm on 04 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
Re "No you don't cite evidence that supports your case: You cite evidence you claim/interpret backs your view, but many of us see those examples ina very different light from the perspective you have."
Your point being? I give 'evidence', you don't. My 'evidence' is indeed interpreted by me, but than it's up to you to refute my analysis, which you don't.
The claims you make aren't even backed up by (interpreted) 'evidence'. That's my point
Re "It is difficult to put it any other way than I do not agree with you and you are wrong: Which is pretty much as you write you do not agree and I am wrong (the basic difference being: You refer to being able to understand so much more about how the EU 'competences' function whereas I refer to you misunderstanding the purpose of 'competences' in relation to the ECJ).
Time will reveal which of us is right/wrong: If you are right the ECJ will have little or no effect on the functioning of the EU's 27 National Governments beyond rudimentary points of order for the smoothe running of the EU, however, if I am right the ECJ will increasingly overtake the National Governments and the EU Parliament as it is called upon to determine matters of Law in the 'Political' field and replaces the Citizens' views of what is correct policy with finite legal decisions."
The thing is, the Lisbon treaty doesn't fundamentally change the powers of the ECJ. I asked you to give me the article that does, which you refuse. The only thing you keep repeating is "Lisbon will ..." without pointing to specific articles of Lisbon.
So for the past 50 years, nothing of the sort you are predicting about the ECJ happened. Lisbon doesn't really change the powers of the ECJ (again, if it does CITE ME THE ARTICLE), but somehow you manage to make a fuss about the eminent dictatorship of the ECJ after Lisbon.
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about, if you do, give me the article(s) that change(s) the powers of the ECJ...
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn
Re #226
'...so for the past 50 years nothing of the sort you have been predicting happened..'
Are you just out of the political nursery centre!?
'Nothing' changed!?
From a European Iron and Steel Community to an EEC (Common Market) to a European Union (Maastricht) to a Federal EU (post-Lisbon) - - no, of course you are right - - 'nothing' in the least has changed in 50 years.
Honestly, I just don't have to argue with you anymore - - you put it all succinctly in #226 - - You have absolutely no idea about what has and is going on in the European International field of Politics.
It is pointless to debate this any further. I did wonder how you keep coming back on the same old track as if quoting stuff makes it the reality? Now I understand the blockage.
Debating with you is the equivalent of head against brick wall as you seem incapable of the most basic acknowledgement/knowledge of the way the European project has developed.
Almost everything predicted by Europe's political leadership for the development of a 'united states of Europe' from as far back as Churchill, Schumann, Adenauer, Pompidou etc. has evolved in the last 40+ years.
If we look back over the last 2 decades from Maastricht onward the 'Federal' project has come to the fore as 'predicted' by each EU Commission President from Delors onward.
It would seem from your responses you are not even aware there was and is a 'European project'!
Look, try to get this idea and keep it in mind: I believe, rightly or wrongly, the UK should not be a member of the present form of the European Union and especially after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. I also happen to believe, rightly or wrongly, the whole vision of a European Union particularly post-Lisbon is a very bad, unworkable (in the longterm) idea for almost all of Europe's Nations and therefore the 400,000,000+ Citizens presently enduring it.
You do not agree with the above - - how many more times, ways, versions do you want me to explain - - rightly or wrongly you have another perspective!?
Complain about this comment
Me-rijn (227): The power of the ECJ is to interpret EU law (both treaties, and secondary legislation created under the treaties). In cases of ambiguity, and there is a lot of that, EU law means what the ECJ says it to mean. This is a very considerable power which the ECJ has long-used to re-interpret EU law to the maximum federalist extent possible, and certainly greater than the governments and legislators who wrote the treaties / EU law could reasonably have imagined.
Since there is no appeal to an ECJ ruling it is very difficult to correct their judicial activism. In the most difficult cases, it would be necessary for 27 governments to agree to re-write an EU treaty to precisely define that they mean something different to what the ECJ would like it to mean, and such unanimity is difficult to achieve. And there is some evidence that when EU law has been re-written to correct an ECJ interpretation, the ECJ has simply looked for other ways to justify its original interpretation. Judges should not make the law in ways contrary to the intentions of the people we elect. That is especially true in the case of EU law whose supremacy permanently pre-empts the law of the democratic national parliaments that are the only bodies in Europe that can claim a true democratic legitimacy.
Since Lisbon extends the scope of EU law into numerous new policy fields, it establishes the ECJ has the definitive arbiter of what EU law means in all these numerous new policy fields. And that most certainly does increase ECJ power. The Charter of Fundamental rights for example will allow it make rulings in areas of criminal law.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John
Re #228
Very well put and hopefully clarifying and adding to some of mine and others' views on this vexatious issue of what body has ultimate 'Legal' authority within the EU.
Hopefully, some of the EU supporters will start to reconsider their view that the ECJ is a benign force with limited powers and reassess exactly what a dangerously supreme power it is they have set in motion.
Complain about this comment
@227. At 11:31am on 05 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
Re "'Nothing' changed!?
From a European Iron and Steel Community to an EEC (Common Market) to a European Union (Maastricht) to a Federal EU (post-Lisbon) - - no, of course you are right - - 'nothing' in the least has changed in 50 years."
Nothing fundamentally changed concerning the powers of the ECJ. If something did change, give arguments please.
And where in lisbon do you see a Federal EU? Give ARGUMENTS instead of simply postulating that the EU becomes a federal state.
Re "It is pointless to debate this any further. I did wonder how you keep coming back on the same old track as if quoting stuff makes it the reality? Now I understand the blockage."
Quoting doesn't make it the reality, but it sure gives ARGUMENTS. Which you don't give, you simply state things and that's it.
Re "Almost everything predicted by Europe's political leadership for the development of a 'united states of Europe' from as far back as Churchill, Schumann, Adenauer, Pompidou etc. has evolved in the last 40+ years.
If we look back over the last 2 decades from Maastricht onward the 'Federal' project has come to the fore as 'predicted' by each EU Commission President from Delors onward."
The federal vocation was there all along, so why bring it up now? It's not because John Mayor succeeded to have the word federal scrapped from the Maastricht treaty, that the federal vocation dissapeared.
Re "You do not agree with the above - - how many more times, ways, versions do you want me to explain - - rightly or wrongly you have another perspective!?"
I don't care if you disagree or not. My point is that your are spreading stories (in casu about the ECJ), presenting them as facts, but refusing to back up your claims with ARGUMENTS.
You have been going on about the Federal Union and the all mighty ECJ, without giving one single argument, without pointing to an article in Lisbon that gives the powers to the ECJ you claim it will have.
This is not a matter of perspective, it's about simple facts: you claim the ECJ will have general powers, whilst this ISN'T the case (plain fact). And when I ask you to give me arguments/articles to back up your claim, you refuse. That has got nothing to do with perspective.
Look here below:freeborn john disagrees with me, but at least he gives arguments! Read it slowly and out loud A R G U M E N T S
@At 12:51pm on 05 Nov 2009, Freeborn-John wrote:
Re "Me-rijn (227): The power of the ECJ is to interpret EU law (both treaties, and secondary legislation created under the treaties). In cases of ambiguity, and there is a lot of that, EU law means what the ECJ says it to mean. This is a very considerable power which the ECJ has long-used to re-interpret EU law to the maximum federalist extent possible, and certainly greater than the governments and legislators who wrote the treaties / EU law could reasonably have imagined.
Since there is no appeal to an ECJ ruling it is very difficult to correct their judicial activism. In the most difficult cases, it would be necessary for 27 governments to agree to re-write an EU treaty to precisely define that they mean something different to what the ECJ would like it to mean, and such unanimity is difficult to achieve. And there is some evidence that when EU law has been re-written to correct an ECJ interpretation, the ECJ has simply looked for other ways to justify its original interpretation. Judges should not make the law in ways contrary to the intentions of the people we elect. That is especially true in the case of EU law whose supremacy permanently pre-empts the law of the democratic national parliaments that are the only bodies in Europe that can claim a true democratic legitimacy."
You're right. But if the ECJ gave an interpretation that is really contrary to the intentions of the treaty writers, they (the writers) would have no problem finding unanimity to amend the Treaty. The member states are masters of the Treaty, not the ECJ.
Re "Since Lisbon extends the scope of EU law into numerous new policy fields, it establishes the ECJ has the definitive arbiter of what EU law means in all these numerous new policy fields. And that most certainly does increase ECJ power. The Charter of Fundamental rights for example will allow it make rulings in areas of criminal law."
Untrue. The ECJ wouldn't need the charter to make rulings on criminal law. It simply has this power, because now Justice and Home affairs fall under it's authority.
If you think this is a deterioration from what we have now, you should think again:
Criminal policy at the EU level is now formed in the council of ministers, without control from the European Parliament or supervision by the the ECJ. Through Lisbon, the parliament will have competence in criminal policy (giving it more democratic legitimicy) and the ECJ will be able to guarantee that citizen's rights are respected (which it can't now).
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn
Re #230
You cannot keep writing that you are presenting 'facts' and 'evidence' when you are merely proposing that your reading of the 'fact'/'evidence' can be the only interpretation.
Every example you give highlöights how extensive is the power and authority of the EU over NationalGovernments and from that stems the authority and power the ECJ may use as it is the EU's supreme Legal body.
This has nothing to do with 'competences' but everything to do with 'Legality': Within the framework of the EU lays the path to an ECJ that could be called upon to decide on any National Legislation. Simply look at how the ECJ has grown in its Legal reach over the last 30+ years.
Lisbon pulls together all the diffeent strands of EU Treaties into a collective umbrella Treaty and all 27 Nations by ratification have acknowledged and accepted the ultimate authority is with EU's organisations.
Try to understand - - this is indeed a 'story' and it is to be found in documents across the whole range of European affairs - - with no fictional ending at all. If the EU remains in place as it is presently constituted then one branch of it, the European Court of Justice will in time be asked/used/found to hear cases that involve determining entirely 'political' issues. These ECJ powers cannot be divorced from the EU and so both must be done away with or at least significantly reduced in their position of 'primacy' over National Governments.
Now as for the 'arguments', try this, "..and where in Lisbon do you see a Fedral EU..?" and a shortwhile later, "... the Federal vocation was always there.."
Who wrote that?
You did!
End of argument.
Complain about this comment
53. At 8:59pm on 03 Nov 2009, invictager wrote:
"..//..we had a referendum in 1975 about joining the EU."
Err, we joined in 1973... [../factually true comment censored/..]
To suggest that we had a referendum in 1975 on joining the EU, when the EU wasn't even formed until the 1980s, is simple incorrect and being very economical with the truth...
Complain about this comment
231. At 2:22pm on 05 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
If the EU remains in place as it is presently constituted then one branch of it, the European Court of Justice will in time be asked/used/found to hear cases that involve determining entirely 'political' issues. These ECJ powers cannot be divorced from the EU and so both must be done away with or at least significantly reduced in their position of 'primacy' over National Governments.
Are you saying that there should be no court or that it shall not be asked about political issues? Because I thought that was one of the very basic ideas of the separation of powers.
Our national court of justice lately decided that the overhang seats in our parliament are not democratic and that they thereby need to find another solution for the next election in 4 years. I think this is one of the only political issues you seem to refer to and yet I think it is very important that the court was to decide about this as both ruling parties were getting an advantage from the overhang seats for deades and neither of the two would ever have changed it and so only court was able and willing to remove this (admittingly minor) lack in democracy.
I am afraid I don't know whether such a court exists even in the UK but as you still have the (not very democratic in my opinion) first past-post-system, I actually doubt it.
Complain about this comment
Re "You cannot keep writing that you are presenting 'facts' and 'evidence' when you are merely proposing that your reading of the 'fact'/'evidence' can be the only interpretation."
You really are thick aren't you? If my reading would be the only possible interpretation I wouldn't bother asking you (and repeatedly asking you) to give your reading/your arguments.
Re "This has nothing to do with 'competences' but everything to do with 'Legality': Within the framework of the EU lays the path to an ECJ that could be called upon to decide on any National Legislation. Simply look at how the ECJ has grown in its Legal reach over the last 30+ years."
Don't know how many times I have to keep telling you, but the ECJ doesn't have any say over national legislation that has no link with EU law. Only when EU law is involved does the ECJ have competence. So stop saying the ECJ can decide on ANY National legislation OR give ARGUMENTS.
Re "Lisbon pulls together all the diffeent strands of EU Treaties into a collective umbrella Treaty and all 27 Nations by ratification have acknowledged and accepted the ultimate authority is with EU's organisations."
Lisbon is in fact two treaties, not one umbrella treaty. Shows how much you know about it I guess. And what's that about the ultimate authority, ultimate authority over what? Not a general authority, that's for sure.
Article 2 TFEU lists the exclusive competences of the EU: they are very few: trade, customs, fisheries conservation, that's about it.
What authority are you talking about than?
Re "Now as for the 'arguments', try this, "..and where in Lisbon do you see a Fedral EU..?" and a shortwhile later, "... the Federal vocation was always there..""
Aaah, we debated for 3 days and now you give me the first argument. Good!
But try to understand the difference between vocation and present reality. It isn't the same.
The reason why I brought up the vocation is because this vocation was evident before your country joined. The supremacy of EC law was also established before your country joined. No fundamental increase in powers of the ECJ after your country joined. These aren't just 'choices' in the integration process. They are fundamental to a successful integration, you can't have another type of integration without these elements. The failure of the EFTA proves this.
So: your claims on the ECJ are partly false (NO general power, not before and not after lisbon).
The points you raise about certain elements of the EU construct are true, but these elements were present from the beginning. However, it is your country that asked to join our project, your country knew what it signed up to, we did not come asking you to join. So if you don't agree now, you in fact didn't agree when you applied for membership. Than you need to get out.
It's as simple as that, don't bother spreading lies or misrepresentations on the powers of the ECJ..
Complain about this comment
Me-rijn
Re, Everything you have written on these Articles!
It is my postulation/interpretation/consideration the following is a reasoned and logical view of the present European Union Legal authority: Could you just simply reply 'Yes, agree', or, 'No, disagree' to each part.
1) For over 30 years the ECJ as a branch of the EU has many times ruled that EU Law has supremacy and is superior to National Laws.
(see Case Rulings going back as far as 1975; i.e. I didn't bother to look prior to then)
2) The ECJ has in the past ruled that EU Law could not be effective if an Individual Citizen could not challenge National Law on the basis of its alleged incompatibility with EU Law.
(See Costa v Italian Energy)
3) Whilst it is possible for any Member State or collection of Member States to challenge the validity of EU Law no Member State has ever done so other than by recourse to the ECJ and have always accepted the ECJ ruling as final.
(See Kreil v Germany Armed Forces)
4) As an example of the primacy of EU Law and the authority of the ECJ Judgements it is a fact Germany altered its Constitution to comply with EU Law regarding the case of Tanja Kreil - - the case is immaterial - - the fact Germany amended its Constitution to accept an ECJ Judgement reinforces the ECJ as the ultimate Legal power within the EU.
5) Points 1 to 4 illustrate that the EU's European Court of Justice is the effective authority and power within the EU for determining Legality of any Member State or Individual Citizen's actions within the confines of the European Union.
I claim Points 1 to 5 endorse and make clear my view that the ECJ is the supreme Law making body of the EU and therefore was and will be the determining body for any and every Legal issue upto and including whether a State enacting a Law to withdraw from the EU is permissible.
Please note: As I have written many times before, that is not to say the ECJ will decide such a Law is illegal/legal, only that the ECJ will have the authority to do so, should such a matter be brought before it.
Complain about this comment
Seraphim85
Re #233
"overhang seats in Parliament..."
I do apologise for my obtuseness and assure you I am not being deliberately awkward, but, what are 'overhang seats'?
Apparently you think I might have referred to this in a previous Comment but I have absolutely no idea what you mean by 'overhang seats'?
I would be grateful for an explanation.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
#232
Completely sad of you trawling back two days looking for mistakes and still not getting it right.
What was actually said at 53 was
"#47
I would have thought it reasonably apparent to anyone( other than you obviously) that it was a direct reply to Mike Elliot writing at #27 that we had a referendum in 1975 about joining the EU"
The relevant part being I was replying to someone else saying that we had a referendum about joining in 1975.
I'm sure you just accidentally forgot to include the beginning of the sentence because after all you have already pointed out at #187 that people who misquote things are lying. tut tut.
Complain about this comment
Re "1) For over 30 years the ECJ as a branch of the EU has many times ruled that EU Law has supremacy and is superior to National Laws.
(see Case Rulings going back as far as 1975; i.e. I didn't bother to look prior to then)"
Yes.
Primacy was first laid down in the Costa v. Enel case of 1964.
The reason is simple, if EU law didn't have primacy this would have several results:
1. the rule of lex posterior derogat lex priori would apply, meaning that whatever was decided on EU level could be undone at national level by passing a simple national law.
2. the special exceptions provided for in the treaty that enable the member states (under certain conditions) to derogate from the general obligations resulting from the treaty would become meaningles
3. etc
This would in effect mean the end of any viable economic integration, therefore primacy is needed.
Re "The ECJ has in the past ruled that EU Law could not be effective if an Individual Citizen could not challenge National Law on the basis of its alleged incompatibility with EU Law."
I would disagree. Most of the time EU law creates obligations for the member states (in some cases, e.g. competition law for legal persons), therefore the obligation for the member state exist, regardless whether that obligations creates rights on the part of citizens. It is true of course that if EU law creates rights for citizens, the latter should be able to exercise them.
I checked the costa case for your statement, but didn't find anything.
Re "3) Whilst it is possible for any Member State or collection of Member States to challenge the validity of EU Law no Member State has ever done so other than by recourse to the ECJ and have always accepted the ECJ ruling as final."
True, this is so because according to the Treaty (which the member states wrote themselves) the ECJ is the only institution competent to interpret the treaty and to solve disputes arising from the application of the treaty. In article 292 EC, the member states have prescribed that they won't solve such disputes in any other way than described in the treaties.
Therefore it's a simple obligation on the part of the member states, explicitly provided by themselves.
Again this is necessary, because otherwise the member states would be able to go 'court shopping', picking whatever means of dispute solving they fancy. This would again endanger the viability of the entire project of economic integration.
It's logical as wel. Just like a country only has one constitutional court, with exclusive competence on constitutional matters, there is only one court competent on Eu law: the ECJ.
Re "4) As an example of the primacy of EU Law and the authority of the ECJ Judgements it is a fact Germany altered its Constitution to comply with EU Law regarding the case of Tanja Kreil - - the case is immaterial - - the fact Germany amended its Constitution to accept an ECJ Judgement reinforces the ECJ as the ultimate Legal power within the EU."
No, disagree. The ECJ isn't the ultimate legal power within the EU. The ECJ didn't give that specific ruling just because it fancied doing so. The ECJ gave that ruling because German law was in breach with EU law, and in fact Germany welcomed the ruling to get rid of an outdated and discriminatory clause of the Basic Law.
This is important: the ECJ could only give the ruling because EU law was involved (in casu: non discrimination directive). If there wasn't any EU law involved, the ECJ wouldn't be able to give that ruling, therefore the ECJ can not be the ultimate legal power in the EU you claim it is.
Re "5) Points 1 to 4 illustrate that the EU's European Court of Justice is the effective authority and power within the EU for determining Legality of any Member State or Individual Citizen's actions within the confines of the European Union"
What do you mean by "within the confines"?
The ECJ is the effective authority and power within the EU regarding EU law and it's implementation in the national member states yes.
As said, a single authority is necessary, otherwise the entire project of (economic) integration collapses. Nothing remotely exotic, special or undemocratic about this. It's the same in every national state.
Re "I claim Points 1 to 5 endorse and make clear my view that the ECJ is the supreme Law making body of the EU and therefore was and will be the determining body for any and every Legal issue upto and including whether a State enacting a Law to withdraw from the EU is permissible."
Disagree, the ECJ doesn't make laws. Parliament en Council make laws. On what grounds would the ECJ rule against a member state that has withdrawn from the EU? The ECJ can't.
Article 50 TEU (LISBON!) provides the explicit possibility for a member state to leave the union. This clarifies this hypothetical situation: the ECJ wouldn't have any competence.
Re "Please note: As I have written many times before, that is not to say the ECJ will decide such a Law is illegal/legal, only that the ECJ will have the authority to do so, should such a matter be brought before it."
Disagree, who would bring the member state (which isn't a member state anymore) before the Court? How can you bring a (by then) third country before the ECJ? It's impossible.
Thank you for refering to cases (= arguments) it makes debating more interesting.
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn wrote:
Re "1) For over 30 years the ECJ as a branch of the EU has many times ruled that EU Law has supremacy and is superior to National Laws.
(see Case Rulings going back as far as 1975; i.e. I didn't bother to look prior to then)"
Yes.
Primacy was first laid down in the Costa v. Enel case of 1964.
The reason is simple, if EU law didn't have primacy this would have several results:
1. the rule of lex posterior derogat lex priori would apply, meaning that whatever was decided on EU level could be undone at national level by passing a simple national law.
2. the special exceptions provided for in the treaty that enable the member states (under certain conditions) to derogate from the general obligations resulting from the treaty would become meaningles
3. etc
This would in effect mean the end of any viable economic integration, therefore primacy is needed."
You have correctly summarized the reasoning of the ECJ in Costa, however you have not read the subsequent legal history, nor the subsequent judgements from the ECJ itself which overturned this reasoning.
The key to understanding the flaw in this legal reasoning for supremacy is the word "jurisdiction". You conclude that primacy over every branch of law is needed because viable economic integration is needed to fulfill the terms of the trade treaty.
So let me give you a basic hypothetical situation that follows this reasoning, and you will soon see the mistake:
Imagine that a French company starts selling a chemical spray that reacts with the black pigmentation in the skin. When the spray is applied to people with dark colouration, the reaction is violent and the skin blisters. So the French start marketing this product all over Europe.
Now, imagine that in Germany somebody says "this is not Right! This is every kind of wrong! We cannot allow this sort of product to be on the market! It must be made illegal!"
So then the French company goes to the EU TRADE COURT (which has "jurisdiction" over trade treaties) and say to that court "The germans have broken the EU trade agreement. they do not let us sell our product in Germany. We demand the right to export this product to Germany."
By your reasoning, and indeed the reasoning of the ECJ in Costa, the EU TRADE COURT has primacy over all law, and therefore when it makes a ruling on TRADE LAW, this over rules the German Court ruling on fundamental human rights. It has "primacy" in a completely different jurisdiction than trade.
If you guys knew EU law at all well, you would know that this is precisely what happened (without the fictitious example of the racist chemical spray).
The ECJ declared that it was the supreme law making power in Europe, and then the German constitutional court made a ruling that said "This cannot be. The ECJ does not have jurisdiction over human rights. Human rights are in the German constitution, and we cannot allow a court that does not care about human rights, and which rejects cases brought before it on human rights grounds, to over rule our judgements. SO LONG AS the ECJ refuses to hear human rights cases, we do not accept the primacy of the ECJ to make law that binds German courts."
Now this was absolutely true. The ECJ had been explicit about its lack of interest in human rights. In every case where people tried to argue human rights based arguments, the ECJ judges had claimed that they had no power to make rulings.
So after the German court made this "so long as" ruling, the Italian constitutional court made a similar finding. And then pretty much everybody understood the point, and made the same ruling.
Then the ECJ made the same ruling, and the commission got to work to totally change the mandate of the ECJ and, all of a sudden, the EU became focused on human rights.
So you see, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and it does not reflect well on you guys that you are justifying the legality of the ECJ based on judgements that were abandoned (for excellent reasons) a long time ago.
If you have followed what has been said, and if you go away and learn the EU law properly, you will discover some remarkable patterns in the evolution of EU law. Firstly, the ECJ always seeks to extend its jurisdiction, and the commission always seeks to change the treaty between the states to justify this extension. Secondly, the ECj always refers to the desire for "an ever closure union" when it extends its own jurisdiction. That tiny little phrase is the reason the ECJ gives itself to justify the ever present hunger for more legal power.
Thirdly, and most importantly, there can be no question that the EU, by way of the ECJ, has been making it's law JUDICIALLY.
Why is this important?
To understand the importance of judicial law, one must understand the distinction between laws made by parliaments, and laws made by judges.
In a democratic system, the people vote on the law and the judges must enforce that law, even when they disagree with it. An example is Switzerland, or California.
In a representative system, the elected or appointed representatives of the people make the law, and the judges enforce the law, even when they disagree with it. An example is the UK, before the abdication of sovereignty and responsibility by the house of lords.
In a dictatorial or oligarchical system, judges make laws as directed by the dictator or oligarchs.
So perhaps you might understand now that when lawyers who know the history of the EU legal evolution say that the EU is undemocratic, they are not just talking about the lack of citizen participation. What they are saying is that in the EU, judges make the law. Not the people, not their representatives.
This is the history, and this is how the EU has evolved from being a trade dispute body to being the ruler of us all. Steadily, stealthily and relentlessly, the ECJ and the commission have been making laws that give more and more power to themselves, and which take more and more power away from the representative parliaments of Europe. Europe has been transformed from a system of representation into a system of oligarchy and rule by secret committee. the members of that secret committee have been the executive branches of the major political parties of Europe.
In a very real sense, the EU is the story of how the political parties of Europe have managed to rid themselves of the inconvenience of elections, and the need for certain members to undergo the ordeal of public scrutiny.
It has been fascinating to watch, especially for someone like me, who is a former student of the soviet system. That is to say I studied the soviet system, I did not study under it.
Law evolves, it changes and it follows patterns. It is a fascinating dance, perhaps best described as the generational conflict within families who have been selected to carry the torches of various tribes.
A few people like me are arrogant and self centered enough to believe that we understand certain principles that make some systems of law superior to other systems of law, but in truth even I suspect that the law grows everywhere like a wild weed, and not as a cultivated orchard blossom.
One thing is for certain, however: As much as you love the EU, it will never love you back. the law is never a person, and it is always indifferent to the fate of human beings. it will burn you down as likely as it may protect you, and without reason to defend yourself it will crush you and grind to a pulp, to feed the satisfaction of those who have learned to dance to its tune.
There is nothing benign about the law. There is nothing human or tender about raw power.
Complain about this comment
Re "You have correctly summarized the reasoning of the ECJ in Costa, however you have not read the subsequent legal history, nor the subsequent judgements from the ECJ itself which overturned this reasoning.
The key to understanding the flaw in this legal reasoning for supremacy is the word "jurisdiction". You conclude that primacy over every branch of law is needed because viable economic integration is needed to fulfill the terms of the trade treaty.
So let me give you a basic hypothetical situation that follows this reasoning, and you will soon see the mistake"
I do not conclude that primacy over every branch of law is needed. And no need to give a hypothetical situation, you could have just refered to the Cassis de Dijon case, it makes debating more easy.
If you yourself have read the Cassis de Dijon case, you would have known that exceptions are still possible: not only those based on the exceptions made possible through current art 30 EC, but also the mandatory requirements (exception to the treaty rules in the benefit of short term national interest, not literally written in the treaty, but established throug case law).
Re "The ECJ declared that it was the supreme law making power in Europe, and then the German constitutional court made a ruling that said "This cannot be. The ECJ does not have jurisdiction over human rights. Human rights are in the German constitution, and we cannot allow a court that does not care about human rights, and which rejects cases brought before it on human rights grounds, to over rule our judgements. SO LONG AS the ECJ refuses to hear human rights cases, we do not accept the primacy of the ECJ to make law that binds German courts.""
If you would have kept up with the evolution after the first Solange-case before the german constitutional court, you would have known that the german court afterwards has ruled that the human rights are protected at the EU level at a sufficient degree, so that the problem is solved.
Also please cite the ruling in which the ECJ "made the same ruling". Don't just postulate this, give actual cases.
Re "If you have followed what has been said, and if you go away and learn the EU law properly, you will discover some remarkable patterns in the evolution of EU law. Firstly, the ECJ always seeks to extend its jurisdiction, and the commission always seeks to change the treaty between the states to justify this extension. Secondly, the ECj always refers to the desire for "an ever closure union" when it extends its own jurisdiction."
Tell me than, who changes the Treaty? The member states or the Commission? Right the member states, without any decisive say by EU institutions.
Re "That tiny little phrase is the reason the ECJ gives itself to justify the ever present hunger for more legal power."
The member states can decide to delete that 'tiny little phrase' from the Treaty, but they never chose to do so. Very funny you should picture the ECJ has power hungry judges, just like I presume you'd picture the Commission as power hungry bureaucrats, whereas national politicians and judges are all saint ;)
Let me ask you who chooses the judges that sit in the ECJ? Is it the Commission? Parliament? Council of Ministers? European Council? No, it's the national governments that send a judge they chose themselves to go to Luxemburg. How do you explain this than? Surely these judges don't present themselves to their governments as power hungry legalists? Surely they only 'metamorphose' once they arrive in Luxemburg?
Why don't you read the Tobacco case (look! no 'hypothetical' case, but a real one!), where the ECJ stated that, regardless of primacy, the EU doesn't have general powers. How does this than relate to your claims?
Re "Thirdly, and most importantly, there can be no question that the EU, by way of the ECJ, has been making it's law JUDICIALLY."
You have a point here (although technically, the ECJ only interprets EU primary and secondary law, and doesn't 'make' law). However I don't see much problems in it. Afterall, the member states can always change primary and secondary law, making certain 'interpretations' impossible.
Re "In a dictatorial or oligarchical system, judges make laws as directed by the dictator or oligarchs."
Kritocracy is the word you are looking for.
Re "This is the history, and this is how the EU has evolved from being a trade dispute body to being the ruler of us all. Steadily, stealthily and relentlessly, the ECJ and the commission have been making laws that give more and more power to themselves, and which take more and more power away from the representative parliaments of Europe. Europe has been transformed from a system of representation into a system of oligarchy and rule by secret committee. the members of that secret committee have been the executive branches of the major political parties of Europe."
The Commission doesn't have law making powers. Only the Council and Parliament have. Perhaps you should study EU law some more, you really make fundamental mistakes concerning the basics of it ;)
Complain about this comment
237. At 8:56pm on 05 Nov 2009, invictager wrote:
"[re #232]
Completely sad"
Yes, that some sad euroseptic has to resort to having comments removed because they don't like the truth being told.
"of you trawling back two days"
Wouldn't need to if someone hadn't decided to censor my comment rather than defend their economies of truth.
"looking for mistakes and still not getting it right. ..//rest of the rant not repeated//.."
Oh right, so you are saying that you didn't write those words that I quoted (in #232 and the earlier now removed comment) from your comment, if so you best inform the BBC that your account has been hacked...
Anyway, back to the issue of when the UK joined the EEC, (now the EU); Stop being economical with the truth (again), one only has to look at political historical fact to know that the UK joined in 1973, then decided to stay - via a referendum - members in 1975. Funny that, the UK has a referendum and decides to stay within the EEC/EU yet the euroseptics don't like the democrat will of the people when it doesn't deliver what they want, they don't know the meaning of the word "democracy".
Complain about this comment
me_rijn, I did not cite cases because I find that this is a method of discourse entirely unsuitable for a public forum attended by intelligent non lawyers. And also because I would have had to refer to sources to verify my memory of names that are not important.
In any case, I am not impressed by your ability to drop case names, because your understanding of the overall process of law does not inspire my confidence. It is not that I think "you are wrong!". You simply haven't convinced me of anything, except that you wish to be known as someone who knows the names of some legal cases.
The reason I gave an hypothetical example rather than a mere reference was because I wished to explain the underlying reality behind the evolution of the judgements. When one can explain the law using everyday terminology and language, do you not suppose that makes the application of the legal argument more achievable?
Now, regarding your claim that "kritocracy" was the word I was looking for: It wasn't, because I didn't know it existed. Now that I do, and I have come to understand what it means, I must observe that it is not a word I should have used even if I had known what it meant.
I now gather it means the practice of the judge making decisions based upon personal preferences.
Clearly, I was referring to a system of law where judges are appointed to enforce rulings based upon the preferences of those who appoint them.
Careless language is not improved by a smattering of legal references, Me_rijn, and a legal argument is not improved by vanity.
Now tell me something.
Complain about this comment
me_rijn:
"Very funny you should picture the ECJ has power hungry judges, just like I presume you'd picture the Commission as power hungry bureaucrats, whereas national politicians and judges are all saint ;)"
I must have been less than clear on this point. I wrote:
"Europe has been transformed from a system of representation into a system of oligarchy and rule by secret committee. the members of that secret committee have been the executive branches of the major political parties of Europe."
That was not a casual line. If you research the party membership of every Commission president since the birth of the EU, you will find that the job has swung back and forth, with the regularity of a pendulum, between the nominees from the conservative and socialist parties of continental Europe. The power sharing has been so even, and so little discussed in public, that i find it impossible to believe it is not the result of a privately negotiated deal amongst the established party structures in Europe.
Go on, You know you want to. Go look at who has been commission president, and to which party they belonged.
Complain about this comment
Re "me_rijn, I did not cite cases because I find that this is a method of discourse entirely unsuitable for a public forum attended by intelligent non lawyers. And also because I would have had to refer to sources to verify my memory of names that are not important.
In any case, I am not impressed by your ability to drop case names, because your understanding of the overall process of law does not inspire my confidence. It is not that I think "you are wrong!". You simply haven't convinced me of anything, except that you wish to be known as someone who knows the names of some legal cases.
The reason I gave an hypothetical example rather than a mere reference was because I wished to explain the underlying reality behind the evolution of the judgements. When one can explain the law using everyday terminology and language, do you not suppose that makes the application of the legal argument more achievable?
Now, regarding your claim that "kritocracy" was the word I was looking for: It wasn't, because I didn't know it existed. Now that I do, and I have come to understand what it means, I must observe that it is not a word I should have used even if I had known what it meant.
I now gather it means the practice of the judge making decisions based upon personal preferences.
Clearly, I was referring to a system of law where judges are appointed to enforce rulings based upon the preferences of those who appoint them.
Careless language is not improved by a smattering of legal references, Me_rijn, and a legal argument is not improved by vanity.
Now tell me something."
1.How nice of you to completely ignore my remark on the tobacco case. It doesn't come as a surprise though, because the ECJ's ruling in that case completely contradicts your entire argument about the supposed primacy over ALL law.
2.Nice of you to ignore my remark about the Solange cases. Not a surprise though, because you'll have realised your argument is already long outdated by the German constitutional court's OWN jurisprudence.
3.Nice of you to refuse to give me the case in which the ECJ has supposedly backed up the first Solange case before the German Constitutional Court.
4.Nice of you to ignore my remark about which institution has the real law making powers at EU level.
Concerning kritocracy: very interesting! In your last post it was still the evil commission, teamed up with the ECJ. But now you acknowledge that the national governments, including your own, are in the conspiracy as well (for it is they who appoint the judges of the ECJ).
So what are you in fact arguing against? Against the ECJ? Or against the national governments that have given the ECJ power and that decide on who are the judges in the ECJ, the national governments that are still the main legislator at the EU level through the council of ministers...
Complain about this comment
236. At 4:15pm on 05 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
"I do apologise for my obtuseness and assure you I am not being deliberately awkward, but, what are 'overhang seats'?"
You shouldn't apologise for that. I just used wikipedia for the translation this time and as the header of the corresponding page there said "overhang seats" I assumed it would exist in the english language. After consulting a translation page for it it looks as if you don't have a word for it really.
Anyway in brief: here 50% the parliament gets elected directly by voting for the persons and the other 50% get into parliament as each party makes up a list before the election with their candidates. So if party XY gets 3 persons into parliament directly and wins 20 seats by the votes for the party then the top 17 persons of the list (which are not going to parliament directly anyway) fill the remaining seats. However if a party manages to get 70 candidates directly into parliament but on the other hand would only get 60 seats by votes for the party itself then all 70 used to become members of the parliament. This led to the party being represented stronger as it should be accodring to the votes for the party. (Another silly sideffect is obviously that we have to pay for more parliamentarians thanks to this). It gets even more complicated when you take the various districts into consideration but I guess this explanation should suffice for you to understand what I am talking about.
The highest court of justice here said that this is not how democracy should work and so they forced the politicians to find another way until 2011 (I think). As both the SPD and the CDU frequently won more seats thanks to this as they should have neither of them would have stoped this slightly undemocratic glitch by themselves and so i think it is actually good that there is a court which can control politicians when they have to.
Complain about this comment
#241
Let me go through it slowly for you.
1 Yes I wrote the words you say but as you well know I was quoting someone else who wrote them previously because I told you so(#53)
2 You edit the sentence to suit you and claim I am lying because the vote was not to join but to remain. (#232)
3 I point out again that I was quoting someone else, and give the full sentence, (#237) but you completely ignore this and pretend that by writng the words in whatever context then I must accept them.(#241)
4 Using that logic then you must be equally guilty as you have also written those words but I suppose you didn't have the brains to think of that did you?. Have you forgotten your own claim at #187 that a repeated lie is still a lie. Shame on you.
Lastly you then resort to claiming I had your posts censored. Why on earth would I want to censor the posts of someone who makes europhiles look like they have no argument in favour of the EU.
You are a eurosceptics dream poster as every time you resort to petty insults and plain,good old fashined,stupidity like the scenario expalined above you do my job for me.
Complain about this comment
me_rijn:
Fair play. I will address your arguments.
"1.How nice of you to completely ignore my remark on the tobacco case. It doesn't come as a surprise though, because the ECJ's ruling in that case completely contradicts your entire argument about the supposed primacy over ALL law."
I don't see how this can be possible. After all, I was not referring to my own reasoning, but rather the reasoning of the German courts, the Italian courts, and the ECJ itself.
Now the ECJ may have said that it does not have primacy over all areas of law in a certain case, but how does this prevent it from declaring primacy over any given area if and when it sees fit to do so?
Where is the detailed formulae for deciding which areas of law the ECJ will see fit to devolve to member states? How can we know what area of competence the ECJ will see fit to encroach upon next?
My whole argument is based upon the premis that the jurisdiction of the ECJ has crept forward in fits and starts, and further that this is judicial law making by the pet judges of political parties with a specific agenda to gain power. i just do not agree that one conciliatory judgement absolves the ECJ from this charge. Now you may argue that this judgement will hold fast as a precedent written in stone, but I can only refer back to the ECJ's contradictory stance on human rights jurisprudence that lead to the dispute over Costa. Indeed, the ECJ has rejected the idea of firm precedents in European law, claiming that it is not bound by common law notions of a judiciary that is bound by precedent. Instead, it prefers to interpret the treaty as that treaty evolves, and considers itself free to ignore its own precedent.
And I am not going to cite a case to support that claim, as this is an established distinction between the application of common law when compared to the napoleonic system.
If you feel this is wrong, and that the ECJ is indeed bound by its own precedent, I invite you to make that claim.
You see, I do not respect your isolated arguments because I do feel you are making a coherent case about the way in which EU law has evolved. You pick and choose between cases in order to support your argument that the ECJ acts within set boundaries of law, presumably to show that the ECJ has not steadily increased its jurisdiction over time.
I reject that approach to the argument, because it seeks to over rule the broad history of the ECj with isolated arguments. That seems insincere to me, as if you seek to use the method of legal argument to establish something which is clearly not true according to a common sense reading of the totality of the ECJ's law.
"2.Nice of you to ignore my remark about the Solange cases. Not a surprise though, because you'll have realised your argument is already long outdated by the German constitutional court's OWN jurisprudence."
I ignored your argument because it seemed confused and illogical. My point was that the German court rejected the ECJ's claim of general supremacy in Costa. You then made the point that the german court eventually accepted the jurisdiction of the ECJ, once it accepted that the EU treaty had evolved to allow the ECJ to rule on human rights issues.
Forgive me, but you are fighting a straw man. Yes, I agree. Eventually the German courts accepted the ECJ's jurisdiction. So what? How does that affect the claim that the ECJ overstepped it's mark in Costa, and demonstrated a willingness to claim supremacy that was not legitimate given the state of the law at the time?
I was making the point that the ECJ has a history of making law that oversteps its legitimate mandate, and further that the commission has consistently redrafted the original treaty in order to facilitate this practice of steady encroachment on the sovereignty of member states law. i never made the argument that solange remains good law to this day. Why should I address you straw man argument that it does not?
"3.Nice of you to refuse to give me the case in which the ECJ has supposedly backed up the first Solange case before the German Constitutional Court."
What is your argument here? That the ECJ was right, or that i am unable to supply you with precedent on demand?
I will not be bullied with legal technicalities if you will not stick to the context of the debate. You made the claim that the ECJ was entitled to claim supremacy in law based on the Costa ruling. I responded by saying that this reasoning was faulty. i explained why, and took issue with your argument that Costa was good law and sound reasoning.
Now you demand evidence from ECJ case law that the ECJ has rejected the reasoning in Costa. That is insincere. Either the Costa reasoning is good law based on legitimate reasoning, or it is not. Be clear about which position you wish to take. it seems to me that you wish to acknowledge solange and yet retain Costa, depending on the argument you are projecting at any given time. That is unreasonable. It speaks of a desire to justify the ECJ's jurisprudence without regard to the evolution of the law. that is insincere.
You may begin to understand why I shun the exchange of precedent in favour of a consistent position based upon the totality of the law.
"4.Nice of you to ignore my remark about which institution has the real law making powers at EU level. "
I thought your statement on this point was trite and frankly absurd. You said:
"The Commission doesn't have law making powers. Only the Council and Parliament have."
Now you and I both know that the Commission drafts the law, and that it retained a complete monopoly on the right to choose which laws would be drafted until very recent evolutions in the treaty which gave increased powers to the European parliament. Even now, the parliament has strictly limited powers to propose legislation in Europe, and the Commission retains a monopoly on the right to draft law in the most significant and extensive areas of law.
So your claim is that the commission does not have law making powers, but this claim is based upon an exceedingly narrow definition of what constitutes "law making".
I would argue that your claim only holds if we understand that "law making" means "law ratifying". If we take "law making" to mean "law drafting, and choosing which laws to draft for ratification", then your statement is absurd, wrong and palpably insincere.
I am using that word a lot to describe your arguments, no?
Insincere. This is how I view the EU's commitment to democratic influence upon European law, and this is how I view the arguments that are generally put forward to claim that the architects of the EU really want an active democratic system to govern Europe.
Why?
Because the ECJ rejected the need for human rights until the German courts refused to take part in the power stealing games any further. THEN the commission saw fit to address the lack of human rights in the European project. Not before.
Because the whole of Europe was crying out about the democratic deficit for years and years before the Commission and the ECJ finally got the message into their thick skulls that they could not simply ride roughshod over the aspirations of the European people for democracy and a voice. THEN the commission redrafted the treaty to create the European parliament. NOT beforehand.
Because when the Commission finally saw that it needed to address the democratic deficit or lose any chance or remaining in the hunt for more power, THEN it did so in such a way as to create a purely figurehead and toothless parliament with no powers to do anything except observe the ECJ's lawmaking and embezzle taxpayers money. Not before.
Because when the people of Europe remained bitter about the farce that was the first incarnation of the European parliament, and continued to demand that their voices be treated with respect, THEN the commission decided to redraft the treaty to give the European parliament just a little bit of say in how laws were made. Not before.
If you cannot see this pattern of behaviour, then so be it. But my argument is that the encroachment on the sovereignty of member states has been consistent, prolonged over many decades, and undertaken with a brazen contempt for the rights of the European people to have any say in the laws which are to govern them.
I have made that argument sincerely, and until you lower yourself to my level and make a case in ordinary language that this has not been the way European law has evolved since the inception of the treaty of Rome, then you are nothing more than a man who is trying to win a legal argument rather than a man who is trying to discover the overall state of the law.
that may be acceptable behaviour if a private client is simply paying you to win a case in court, but it will not serve to convince me that your are sincere in your reasoning, and until you do establish that you are sincere, you will not command my respect and you will not sway the opinions of the peanut gallery.
I put it to you, sir, that your insincerity is both a slur upon the legal profession and an insult to the intelligence of those who read your catalogue of isolated and unconnected points.
Being able to cite cases does not make you more intelligent than the man in the street, and until you lower yourself to speak to that man, I will not accept that grace our profession in the slightest.
I bitterly resent the arrogance of insincere lawyers who think they can brow beat the man in the street with terminology and puff. I have to walk the streets as a lawyer, and I am keenly aware of the low regard in which our profession is held. i am ashamed that we cannot reasonably expect the man in the street to trust us, nor to have faith in the rule of the law. The rule of law has been replaced by the rule of the party, and the man in the street in not stupid enough to fall for it.
Our profession is disgraced by insincerity, and I will not pretend that we deserve a better reputation.
Make your case honestly, or be silent. that is your duty to the law, if you choose to believe in the rule of law beyond the domination of society by party hacks posing as honest men.
Complain about this comment
Re "1"
Tobacco case was about a total ban on tobacco, voted by the Council of ministers and the parliament. Germany brought this before the court. Council and parliament argued that the community had competence, because this measure facilitated the realisation of the internal market on advertisment-bearing products. The ECJ held that this made no sense and that a total ban in fact means a general regulation, without a link to any of the objectives of the Treaty. Therefore the EC did not have competence to enact such a measure and the measure was annuled.
Is it a precedent? No. But it does show that the ECJ follows some basic rules. Competences are attributed and linked to the objectives, if this is not the case, there can be no competence. Therefore primacy over ALL law is a misrepresentation of the situation. The primacy is linked with attributed competences and the objective sof the community.
I have not studied common law. So I can't say if the common law concept of precedent is comparable to the precedents that also exist in the ECJ caselaw. What I can tell you is that the ECJ has a very constant caselaw, because it applies a teleological interpretation of the treaties: when a matter needs to be resolved, the ECJ will often look at the intentions of the treaty writers and the rationale behind an article. This leads to an (in general) very consistent caselaw, but as you note also an activist caselaw, because, simply put, the ECJ will give a pro-integration ruling as a result of a teleological interpretation.
So yes, you could say the ECJ is quite activist. But is this a problem? I don't think so. If it is a problem, than you have taken account of it before becoming members, because the 'activism' of this court was evident before the UK joined.
Re "I ignored your argument because it seemed confused and illogical. My point was that the German court rejected the ECJ's claim of general supremacy in Costa. You then made the point that the german court eventually accepted the jurisdiction of the ECJ, once it accepted that the EU treaty had evolved to allow the ECJ to rule on human rights issues."
The Treaty was not amended between the Solange I and Solange II ruling... The supremacy was always legitimate.
Re "I was making the point that the ECJ has a history of making law that oversteps its legitimate mandate, and further that the commission has consistently redrafted the original treaty in order to facilitate this practice of steady encroachment on the sovereignty of member states law. i never made the argument that solange remains good law to this day. Why should I address you straw man argument that it does not?"
You do realise that the only institution having authority to define and interprete the mandate of the ECJ is the ECJ itself? So on which basis do you claim the ECJ has overstepped it mandate? The member states never reacted negatively through a treaty change to the rulings of the ECJ, must be that the ECJ didn't overstep it's mandate. If it did, why didn't member states react?
Re "What is your argument here? That the ECJ was right, or that i am unable to supply you with precedent on demand?"
My point is that you are claiming something simple but don't give the evidence. You say the ECJ has given a specific ruling, the only thing I ask is which ruling you are talking about.
It's obvious the Costa reasoning is good law. It's also obvious the German constitutional Court can say whatever it wants about EU law it all doesn't matter, because the ECJ is the sole authority.
Re "4"
To me, law making is indeed law ratifying. But this matter is cleared up now. You are right that the Commission has a crucial role in the decision making proces.
Re "Because the ECJ rejected the need for human rights until the German courts refused to take part in the power stealing games any further. THEN the commission saw fit to address the lack of human rights in the European project. Not before.
Because the whole of Europe was crying out about the democratic deficit for years and years before the Commission and the ECJ finally got the message into their thick skulls that they could not simply ride roughshod over the aspirations of the European people for democracy and a voice. THEN the commission redrafted the treaty to create the European parliament. NOT beforehand."
It's not the Commission's role to alter the Treaties. The Commission is a result of the Treaties, which are written by member states. THe latter are masters of the treaty. So you are pointing at the wrong actor.
I wonder as well why you mention the ECJ. The ECJ has one instrument: the treaties. So you are now pleading for an activist ECJ that democratizes the EU through rulings, regardless of what the Treaties say?
Also only the German Constitutional Court said that the fundamental rights of the Basic Law were unsufficiently protected by the ECJ. You claim the italian court gave a similar ruling, but I haven't heard about non-German Solange cases.
Also the Parliament existed all along since 1957, first time directly elected in 1979 and through each treaty change it's powers got extended.
Re "Because when the Commission finally saw that it needed to address the democratic deficit or lose any chance or remaining in the hunt for more power, THEN it did so in such a way as to create a purely figurehead and toothless parliament with no powers to do anything except observe the ECJ's lawmaking and embezzle taxpayers money. Not before.
Because when the people of Europe remained bitter about the farce that was the first incarnation of the European parliament, and continued to demand that their voices be treated with respect, THEN the commission decided to redraft the treaty to give the European parliament just a little bit of say in how laws were made. Not before."
You are losing your credibility with this UKIP-talk. The commission created nothing. The commission doesn't give powers to the parliament. The creation and power attribution to the parliament are written into the treaties. The treaties are written by the Member states, not the commission.
Re "If you cannot see this pattern of behaviour, then so be it. But my argument is that the encroachment on the sovereignty of member states has been consistent, prolonged over many decades, and undertaken with a brazen contempt for the rights of the European people to have any say in the laws which are to govern them."
Your argument has one big problem than. Since the ECJ revealed itself as an activist court (since 1958) we had 6 treaty changes (7 with the constitution). Each time the member states had the possibility to curtail the powers of the ecj and/or to take back part of their sovereignty. What happened was that the ECJ powers were kept intact (In Lisbon the member states even provided that the ECJ could fine a member state in a first ruling, instead of only in a 2nd ruling as provided for by Maastricht 1992) and that the competences of the EC/EU have been enlarged each time. In every treaty change the powers of the Parliament have been enlarged aswell.
Re "Being able to cite cases does not make you more intelligent than the man in the street, and until you lower yourself to speak to that man, I will not accept that grace our profession in the slightest."
Hasn't got anything to do with intelligence. It's just common sense.
If you say "The ECJ has ruled X" without citing a source or reference your point can not be verified, therefore I ask you to cite the case in which the ECJ said X.
It's quite silly that I should ask this, as it's more or less normal to cite sources or give references if you claim something.
If I say "The House of Lords has rule that blacks don't enjoy equal rights as whites in the UK" I hope you'd ask me to give the precise ruling. (Not to say that your claim is comparable to my fictitious claim)
Complain about this comment
Vaclav Klaus demands special human rights conditions for the Czech republic. I was expelled from Sudeten Germany as a baby and I consider the EU´s decision unbelievable. Germans and Hungarians lost their homes after being 800 years there, their culture and history will be lost forever, coming generations will be uprooted. Is there a double standard for European and non-European countries? EU will never be able to point morally at other offenders. A hard decision for a lot of exiles and displaced people in eastern Europa and all over the world.
Complain about this comment
Bavaria, the EU will always be able to point morally at other offenders because those who point morally at others are never the sort to consider their own position first.
People who are concerned with their own moral position first always end up being upset and ashamed by their own tribe, and then when they do get around to looking outwards at others, all they see is "humanity".
The act at looking at your own sins first is what generates understand and compassion for all human beings.
Casting the first stone at others is never done by those without sin, but only by those who fail to consider their own sin.
So don't worry, the Christian democrats and the christian socialists of the EU will be casting their stones everywhere.
Complain about this comment
@Democracythreat
Why not also answer my comments in the comment above bavaria's?
@Bavaria
The charter of fundamental rights was in fact never applicable to your situation, so Vaclav Klaus never got 'an opt out', just like the British and poles didn't get an opt out.
They only got a clarification that the charter never was and would never have been applicable to purely internal matters.
So you can ignore democracythreat's answer as well ;)
Complain about this comment
I did not respond, Me_rijn, because you have not convinced me that you are prepared to be sincere in your discourse.
I am convinced you are a lawyer, but that is all. And that is not enough.
Go talk to some lawyers who are happy to preen themselves and speak down to the lower classes. I am not that kind of lawyer.
Complain about this comment
me_rijn, I have read your comments with care, and I although I would dispute numerous points of fact in your claims of EU and ECJ law, I am prepared to accept the basic argument you have presented as follows:
1. The ECJ has always been an "activist court", which I take to mean that it has always seen its role as a lawmaker, rather than a mere adjudicator of the treaty.
2. The member states did not explicitly reject this "activist" role, and therefore they ratified the court as a new and supreme law making power in Europe.
3. The commission does indeed draft new treaties and the statute law of the EU, however because the heads of state or the heads of cabinet portfolios (the council) ratify these laws, the commission cannot be held accountable for the lack of democratic features in the law so drafted. All the blame for the lack of democratic features must lie with those who ratify, not with those who draft the law.
4. Costa established that the ECJ has the supreme law making power in the EU, despite the fact that the ECJ had no mandate to enforce human rights law. This remains good law, which evidently means that when an ECJ ruling on trade provisions conflicts with constitutional provisions on human rights, the trade provisions take precedence. In effect, trade law and the laws of corporate bodies and public institutions has been deemed to supersede human rights law as and when required.
OK. Fine.
It is, in a very limited sense, and honest argument. You admit, at point 1, that the ECJ was always intended to take sovereignty away from democratic institutions. You admit, at point 1, that when the political parties who created the ECJ and the commission and the council via the treaty did so, they always intended that a panel of judges would make the law of the EU as well as adjudicate on it. That is to say, the political parties who created the EU structure fully intended to take law making away from the elected assemblies in the member states and give that power to the appointed judges of the parties choosing.
You admit that it was for the ECJ and the political parties who created it to TAKE the supreme power of lawmaking from the people, and that if the people wanted to stop this transfer of power then it was up to them to ensure that their governments made explicit and definitive moves to block the transfer of power by overruling the ECJ. Now you don't say how this might have been done, and you will admit that it is a fact that this argument demands that constitutional law be considered, from the very outset, subordinate to the schemes of political parties creating institutions under the guise of a treaty.
I would argue that a constitution that needs to fight for its life, that can be simply replaced because foreigners decide to replace it, is no constitution at all. Indeed, I fail to see how constitutional law can be constitutional if foreign gathers of foreign politicians can over ride it and take power from it, without consulting the people who are ruled by that constitutional law.
However, I understand that you are making the argument that this is indeed the case. That much is perfectly clear.
You continue to proclaim the evil minded and fundamentally dishonest fiction that ratification is lawmaking. You refuse to accept that the very structure of the EU is designed to take law making power away from elected representatives and place it into the hands of appointed party members, the ECJ and the commission. You insist, at 3. above, that the council's ratification is a proper and meaningful way for the people of Europe to participate in the law making process.
Now I call this fundamentally dishonest because it is abundantly clear that the council of heads of state or ministers are always high ranking party member or the most dominant parties within the member states.
Furthermore, the architects of the EU structure were able to predict that this would always be the case. Even a child could have understood that the senior cabinet members of elected governments across Europe would always be the most senior members of the two most dominant political parties. This is what we call the "two party system". Although minority parties might force the large parties to form coalition governments that reflect the wishes of those minority parties, the largest parties will always be able to nominate a leader of the coalition, and the majority of cabinet appointments. In other words, the EU ratification process was always intended to leave the entire control over every aspect of the EU lawmaking procedure to the highest ranking members of the dominant political parties in Europe.
Now as it happens, the highest ranking members of the dominant political parties in Europe are precisely the same people who designed the EU treaty and structure. Therefore it is correct to say that the EU structure and treaty was specifically designed by a known group of individuals in order to transfer the entire law making and ratification process into the hands of ONLY the same individuals who had designed the structure itself. Or put another way, all outside influence on the law making power in Europe was taken and given to the select leadership of the major parties across the member states.
Or put more simply still, the entire structure of the EU was specifically and deliberately designed to remove power from elected representative in member states and to place that law making power in the hands of a few senior party members from the largest parties in Europe. that was the point. That is what the EU is designed to do.
At 4., above, you reject the fundamental reasoning in solange, which argues that the german people cannot be ruled by a court which does not honour their human rights provisions in their own constitution. You demand that Costa is good law, regardless of the underlying conflict with fundamental principles of constitutional law (ie that it cannot be changed by a trade court set up by foreigners)
So that is what I understand from your submission.
And once again, I charge with absolute insincerity.
You know and I know that you are making this case on this blog because nobody is going to read it or understand it. But you would never, never in a million years make this argument upon behalf of the EU founders in the national assemblies of the member states.
And we both know why.
You can provoke me by sneering at my love of democratic practices on this blog, and you can get away with it. You are the embodiment of the arrogant and proud EU party man who feels he has achieved a very great coup.
But if you were to sneer at the legislative assemblies (parliaments) in the member states, and if you were to so arrogantly proclaim to those elected representatives what you are proclaiming to me, you and I both know there would be a riot.
Not one member state assembly would allow such a brazen statement of the deliberate and deceitful manner in which the EU has been designed to steal power from the people to stand.
You know that. Hence your smug arrogance.
I understand you, me_rijn. You are a party man. You have seen the EU take the power of law from the representative system of elections and establish that power unto itself. i concede, it was a neat trick. those few of us who understood what your party was doing were unable to explain it to the masses or to convince them that they were losing what little claim to power they possessed.
So what do you want from me?
A cookie?
You are a man who delights in the concentration of power. So? So what? Do you think I have not seen such people before?
Do you think I have not met people who understand the way parties work, and how political power can become concentrated by parties who set themselves against even representative democracy?
Most of all, do you imagine for one minute that this scheme to divest the people of Europe from what few political rights they possessed reflects upon your own intelligence, merely because you comprehend the scale of the deceit and the theft of power?
If so, you are mistaken.
I do not live in Europe, and I have watched Europe slide into a system of not even representative democracy with a mixture of disgust and resignation. I am aware that most european states have a two party system that has little to recommend it over the one party soviet system of representation. i do not lament the passing of corrupt regimes like the UK, France or Germany, regimes which were equally well calculated to deny their inhabitants any meaningful say in their own affairs.
To me, the EU is just another rude joke on the people of Europe. It is just one more exercise of class based domination over the lower orders that are deemed to lie beneath the aristocracy who populate the executive of the major political parties.
So I do not see the EU as a new threat. It is just a new incarnation of the same old farce, and your tangible pride in its sophistication strikes me as vain and misplaced.
Most of all, I see this new structure as vulnerable. Not because it fails to take power away from the common people, but precisely because it does so in such a neat and total manner. I believe your kind have taken too much this time, and that this time you will not be able to stem the tide of revulsion and the demands for change which must follow.
Just as the Swiss and the Americans rose up in revolt against aristocrats who made sport with their fundamental rights, so are the people of Europe capable. And now they have an even better reason than they did before the EU. Prior to the EU, the people of Europe were confused and opiated with the pathetic drug of nationalism. You and your party hacks have taken that away, just as the foolish soviets did.
I fear your have taken away half the bread and games, and that cannot help the stability of your scheme in the longer term.
But we will see. I have my faith in the people, and you have yours in the aristocracy who populate the party system. You claim the power to make law, but you had it anyway.
You and your kind will keep, and your time will come. Sooner or later this retarded edifice of power your party has created will be torn down, and direct democracy will take its place.
And if it does not in my lifetime, then the people of Europe have the government they richly deserve, and I am content with that.
But you, you are a dinosaur, and this party system is rotten fruit on a dead vine. It is not a question of when this system will fall into the mud and be cast forever into antiquity, but only when.
Until then, count your trinkets and sneer at the common people, and listen to your priest as he tells you that god made the different classes of men to properly order their affairs, and that you have been chosen to guide them to their salvation.
Throw your jesus christ pose for all you are worth, because to me you are just a silly little rich kid with a priest in one ear and a vain mother in the other. You can't save anyone, and when you die you will be forgotten, except as an obstacle to human progress, human reason, and human dignity.
You belong to the party because you are too frightened to belong to humanity, and that is all the epitaph you will get from me.
Complain about this comment
Long post, you got my argument, except for this part:
"The commission does indeed draft new treaties and the statute law of the EU, however because the heads of state or the heads of cabinet portfolios (the council) ratify these laws"
The Commission does not draft new treaties, it only drafts legislation. Treaties are drafted by and ratified by member states. It's an important difference. Only the member states are accountable for the contents of the treaties.
But than you add a theory about the political parties to this argument. You even say that most European states have two party systems, giving the power in Europe to two parties. This of course is manifestly untrue, two party systems are a rarity in Europe.
I would make my case against national parliaments as well. You don't seem to understand that the national parliaments have ratified the EC/EU Treaties, they appear to be very willingly victims in your senior party members conspiracy.
You seem to ignore that after the Lisbon treaty, the European Parliament is a real co-legislator in the decision making process, how does this than relate to the power concentration in the Council of ministers? Power is shifted away from the Council! (and the EP has received ever more powers in consecutive treaty changes!)
You say power is taken away from the people, while it is not. Technically speaking, it's already taken away, given at a national parliament. The only change is that now more power is getting shifted to a higher level (the european instead of national level). I guess your views on democracy are along the anarcho-liberalist line of thinking (nothing wrong with that), but you should loathe the EU as much as the national state (both equally artificial entities!)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS