Will EU flunk its big moment?
The dinner hour approaches when the EU must decide who will be its face on the world stage. It's a big credibility moment but with the clock ticking away there is, at the moment, only confusion, rumour and disagreement.
It is not even clear how the dinner will be conducted. Will there be a wide-ranging
discussion of various candidates? Will there be an early show of hands? And if it comes down to majority voting, what formula will be used?
There is mounting criticism of the way the Swedes have run the selection process.
As rotating President of the Council it fell to the Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, to try and find a compromise candidate acceptable to all. He has made two rounds of phone calls, but some diplomats say there is a lack of trust that all names are being fairly considered. It all depends on how you frame the discussion. One of those with a knowledge of what has been happening said "I've heard people talk of mistrust".
Others are complaining about a lack of transparency; that a job that is at the heart of the Lisbon Treaty should be decided by horse-trading behind closed doors is very damaging. What European voters are not being told is what kind of Europe these potential candidates believe in. One former Europe minister said, "they'll never again get away with something like this". One claim of the Lisbon Treaty was that it would deliver greater scrutiny and openness, but many are saying this has all the transparency of a papal conclave.
And then the candidate is not just being selected on who is the best qualified for the job. There are trade-offs between political groupings, between left and right, between large countries and small countries, between men and women.
There is a growing mood of suspicion. Quite a few countries are deliberately shielding their hands, waiting to see what happens when the leaders meet face to face.
There are suggestions that the Germans and the French will meet beforehand. It looks as if they will hold a joint press conference before the dinner. Some of the smaller countries will resist any attempt for these key decisions to be carved up between the French and the Germans.
In the meantime the British are still fighting for Tony Blair. Gordon Brown is likely to argue that the most important part of the Lisbon Treaty was the plan to give Europe a much stronger position on the world stage. Europe, in his view, needs a politician with an international name and, without doubt, Tony Blair is the best known.
What is unclear is how insistent Gordon Brown will be. But if the mood is for the Belgian Prime Minister, Herman van Rompuy, the British may put up strong resistance. They will point out that, for all his mediating skills, the Belgian has zero international recognition and they see him as wanting to increase Brussels's powers.
I'm 
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~37~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Others are complaining about a lack of transparency; that a job that is at the heart of the Lisbon Treaty should be decided by horse-trading behind closed doors is very damaging.
With this being such a difficult situation, because politicians are seen as untrustworthy, they should hold a referendum on it.
We should vote for our Public Face as you put it. They could perhaps do it like X factor or better still The eurovision song contest.
Complain about this comment
Gavin is trying to support his own theory here: that the leaders of the nation states will be reluctant to give up power when it comes to the crunch time.
I find this spurious reporting. To my taste, there is clearly an understanding between the major political alliances of Europe. There will be an EU president, and there will be EU taxes. And a flag, and all the other things that were struck down when the issue was put to referenda in France and Holland.
All that remains is the horse trading. Who gets what, how much and when.
My own guess is that this horse trading has already been agreed upon, and that what is happening now is that we are witnessing the individual politicians gather as much local political capital from the event as possible.
I believe the parties would not have called this conference without knowing the outcome in advance, and I also believe that the politicians who are the figureheads of those parties understand that their job is now to come out of the proceedings smelly as much like a rose as is possible under the circumstances.
And so all the leaders will thump the tables, and make grand patriotic statements designed to gather votes in their local member states.
But nevertheless, an EU president will emerge, because that is what the parties have agreed.
Complain about this comment
I have to say this continuous song and dance about Van Rompuy's alleged zero int'l recognition is really getting to me...
I'm sad to say I think int'l media such as yourselves are making a hash of two totally different characteristics, ie respect and name recognition.
Nobody denies Tony Blair has excellent name recognition. However if he isn't even capable of mustering the support of his own social-democrat/labour caucus one might wonder if he actually commands any respect among his peers...
Van Rompuy on the other hand definitely enjoys far less name recognition, but he clearly is capable of building respect...
I hate to break it to you but name recognition is the easiest thing to achieve in today's media obsessed world. Ask any mass-murderer, or big-brother celeb, or politician who financed his duck pond on tax payer's expenses... Does any of that contribute to making them a better qualified candidate for EU-council president?
So if meritocracy is what we're looking for, maybe the capacity to build & command respect should count a little more than the fool's gold which is name recognition, don't you think?
For the record, while I'm a compatriot of Van Rompuy, I do not share his political views and hence have never voted for him...
In closing, a final thought for all those who keep pushing Blair for the job (even though he's the exact opposite of what the UK always says it wanted from EU leadership, ie a low profile role that respects & does not infringe upon national sovereignty). Go back in time to when G. W. started the Iraq war. Can you even begin to imagine the disaster that would have been brought upon the EU had Tony Blair been EU council president at that time??
Complain about this comment
I fully agree about these decisions being made in smoke filled rooms. Shame on the UK government (of either party), which has consistently campaigned for just this - and then had the effrontery to complain that the EU is undemocratic
The next EU reform should be about clipping the wings of these rogues who want to wheel and deal behind closed doors. Let's have a camera and a mike at least
Complain about this comment
I find this kind of articles quite problematic for several reasons.
The first is that the entire reporting on the subject “appointments according to the Lisbon Treaty” has had a list. Expert observers in Bruxelles and elsewhere are much more concerned with the appointment of the high commissioner, the EU foreign minister, than the president. They point out how difficult this job is, and how great the expectations are. It is obvious that Mr. Hewitt is looking at this in a different way, and I shall therefore recommend everybody to seek alternative information.
Secondly the foreign minister is going to be a member of the EU commission, which means that the EU parliament will exercise some control with the office.
Thirdly: In general this is not a time to discuss procedures, but I am absolutely sure we will return to such discussions, but it is interesting that a media makes itself a part of the campaigning team of a government. It means that we now know quite precisely what the British government is thinking. I suppose everybody recognizes the problem that we do not know what the rest of the governments is thinking. Also I would expect British journalists, not least those of the BBC, to be worried about the possibility of making independent accounts and evaluations as member of a team like that.
Complain about this comment
I would like to add that I refer among others to Daniel Korski, senior analytist in the Paneureopan thinktank "European Council on Foreign Relations" in my previous posting.
Complain about this comment
"One former Europe minister said, "they'll never again get away with something like this". "
Oh! yes, they will! Because once they have achieved it, it will be written on tablets of stone as a precedent. That is what the whole process is about - to enshrine the undemocratic selection (NOT 'election')of people to fulfil roles in order to perpetuate the hegemony of the political euro-classes. Being, of course, mainly French and German polticians.
This is Tony Blair's big moment - if he is chosen, it will not be on his merits (or rather, lack of them) but simply to camouflage the fact that the French-German axis wants his successor (and there will be one) to be appointed rather than elected to a role that, by that time, will be closer to a President of a Federal Europe than a Chairman of a minor committee.
Complain about this comment
Mathiesen, I understand now what you meant in a previous thread, when you referred to the BBC's desire to state the government position.
Yes, of course, it is obvious that Gavin Hewitt writes what the British government want him to write.
But I think it would be a mistake for you to conclude that this is any kind of conspiracy. If you think Hewitt and his colleagues actively conspire to promote the government party line for the day, I think you are wrong. The English system does not operate by active conspiracy, nor does the American system.
I think Chomsky said it best: The system selects journalists who are naturally inclined to take subtle cues about what they should say, and when. If you were the sort of writer who was inclined to be critical of the established power structures, you simply wouldn't end up as a British journalist working for a major media outlet. Long before you ever graduated and applied for the job, you would find yourself subtly removed from that class of people. Radical thinkers in the UK do not become journalists. They become painters, musicians, or other such professions where free speech is permitted (and ignored).
The British class system is powerful and pervasive throughout UK society, but that doesn't mean it is actively in the minds of British citizens. Also, it is not a "top down" structure. It is not imposed on people, except insofar as traditional class values are perpetuated by the state.
You should keep in mind, when you discuss the UK, that British democracy never accepted Rousseau's dictum that democracy means that the state is owned by the people. In the UK, the state has always been owned by the aristocracy.
As I learn more about German political history, and French, I begin to understand that state ownership under socialism and communism are fundamentally continental concepts. The UK never had a real socialist movement, because the state never underwent a revolution where it was put into the hands of the "people". The state has always been the property of the aristocracy. And so the party system in the UK operates under different conditions than it does in France and Germany.
I think the continental governments have been forced to accommodate certain fundamental political principles, such as Rousseau's definitions of democracy, and that this has lead those governments to tolerate radical political thought, and to accept a far wider spectrum of philosophical debate.
Complain about this comment
Gavin asks "if it comes down to majority voting, what formula will be used?" . . . One former Europe minister said "they'll never again get away with something like this".
As i understand it, it would be a qualified majority vote using the old voting weights (i.e. requiring 255 votes from a total of 345 to pass, or more importantly 91 votes, i.e. about 26%, to block). It is just as well the old voting rules still apply for a transitional period, because if the new Lisbon voting rules (which do not come into force until 2014) were to be used it would very much allow the Franco-German alliance to impose a Benelux candidate as France and Germany together have 30% of combined population and would only need the support of two small countries (Belgium, Luxembourg) and one more the size of the Netherlands to exceed the new 35% threshold and block anybody else’s candidate. The former Europe minister would therefore be more correct to say "they cannot get away with something like this until 2014".
Even so, as the former Europe minister will know (unless it is Caroline Flint who admitted to never having the treaty) it can be quite difficult for the UK to assemble a blocking coalition, whereas the Franco-German-Benelux coalition already has 87 votes between them under current rules, which is within touching distance of the 91 needed to block anyone else's candidates and leave their guy the last man standing.
Of course the professional UK team will fully understand the voting rules and will not be relying on Tony Blair's smile, nor promises made to him in 2007 when Sarkozy needed him to renege on his manifesto promise of a referendum on the 'mini-treaty', nor on good old Continental bonhomie towards Albion and will have already have formed a coalition of the unwilling to avoid having federalist candidates like Van Rumpoy and Moratinos imposed on them? Won't they??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union
Complain about this comment
I do not think most EU politician recognise that this type of horse trading is one of the reasons in the UK the majority of the population just want to get out. What we have is the most important decision being made by a process that lends itself to corruption and has nothing to do with democracy.
It is embarrassing to be pro-EU when faced with this. Worse still we will end up with a political dwarf on the based we will not get a positive candidate but one who is disliked least and whose backers were able to offer most
Complain about this comment
I think we could not possibly have any better country to make this decision. Swedes are known for being good at finding consesuses and also they are frequently on various lists the country with the least corruption. I am sure Mr Reinfeldt will make a good choice.
Also the British media cant complain afterwards that the decision was made by Germany or France only - though I have no doubts that some die-hards-EU-haters on this board surely will!
Complain about this comment
Could someone eventually explain to me how an indirect vote for the EU president is ANY different to the one for the British prime minister, the German chancellor or even the American president?
Neihter of them is elected directly but still nobody is talking about an UKSSR GERSSR or USoASSR...
Must be fun to be euro sceptic, you don't have to follow any logic at all :D
+ if there was a direct vote than both the president and the high representative would be either french or german as we simply have the most inhabitants, would that be any more pleasing to you?
Complain about this comment
As a Belgian acedemic, I am absolutely amazed (again) about the fierce British resistance against the Belgian EU Presidency Candidate Herman Van Rompuy. Some years ago, JL Dehaene and also Guy Verhofstadt have been vetoed out by the British in their candidacy for leading the EU Commission. You 'd start to think : what have we done to the British that they hate us so much?
The argument the British put forward is always the same mantra: "he's too European, we can't have that".
Well, frankly speaking: the EU is European, or isn't it? And if some nation doesn't like that, they're free to leave the club...
Off course, we want a better EU than the one we have now. the present EU is an expensive inefficient bureaucratic machinary. But to blame this on the Belgians is quite unfair. And to think the natural instinct of a Belgian politician is to dismantle the nation-states is lacking any sense of realism. If you British people and journalists would have the chance to meet Herman Van Rompuy, you would see he's an experienced, moderate and intelligent politician who can build bridges.
Ignace Pollet, Leuven (Belgium)
Complain about this comment
Seraphim85 wrote:
"I think we could not possibly have any better country to make this decision. Swedes are known for being good at finding consesuses and also they are frequently on various lists the country with the least corruption. I am sure Mr Reinfeldt will make a good choice."
See: this is what I like to see! A fan of representation who actually sticks to his beliefs!
Seraphim does not know his own mind, except insofar as he trusts the Swedish leader to make the best decision for him. Now that is a REAL believer in systems of representation. That is someone who knows his own mind. Insofar as he knows he doesn't know best, I mean.
The rest of you folks who moan about the EU being undemocratic are just closet direct democrats who are too frightened to come out.
Still, I hope Seraphim is right. If the Butcher of Baghdad gets the job, it will be a sad day for Europe.
Complain about this comment
@Seraphim85. I agree, these posts are not directly elected, but the French President is, for example.
What I, and many others object to is that, despite all the rhetoric about greater democracy in the EU, these appointments (President of the Council, High Representative and Secretary General) indicate the opposite. The Robert Schuman website has shown that, giving interested EU citizens the information about each declared presidential candidate (in all EU official languages) produces an intelligent response. And yet the only way one could find out about their poll was via other interested websites.
However, I am a realist. National leaders are not going to give up power to anyone without either good reason or a fight. They are willing to give up power to an institution - so long as they retain some control over that institution.: hence the current form and power-balance of the EU.
@Ignace Pollet (and others with equal cause). I would fully support Van Rompuy on the grounds that he has proved so masterful at forming (and holding together) a government in Belgium where others have failed. However, I withdraw my support for exactly that reason. Who would replace him in Belgium? I believe the EU owes it to the people of Belgium to maintain some stability (and I do not mean to be patronising). There are other candidates as well qualified - and all of them of higher standing than Blair ("all front and no knickers" as my English grandmother used to say).
Complain about this comment
#8., democracythreat
Thank you for your thoughts. They can take us into a very comprehensive discussion, which I think we will have to realise is not suitable for this forum. Also I will get into problems since my knowledge about GB has its limitations.
To keep it concrete I would say that it would have been a very different reporting had Mr. Hewitt for instance referred some of the points made by Daniel Korski.
What is more important? That BBC explains what the position of the British government is or that BBC explains what this position is within the overall structure of opinions inside the EU cooperation?
As you can guess I would prefer the latter because one thing about GB is at least clear to me: In comparison with the rest of the Union the discussion about EU is very different in that country.
Complain about this comment
Oh yes!
It is so obvious the British 'Media' are pressing their UK Government's candidate's cause. At least apparently it is easy to 'see' if you read Mr Hewitt's articles, though, those of us brought up on the 'english language' are hard put to find any such indication.
Perhaps, as with so much EU business as Mr Hewitt has opined elsewhere it is all "lost in translation"!
Whereas none of the other European Nation's Media are doing anything like that!
Please, has anyone been reading the Belge, Swedish and Latvia press or see any of their 'political' news items recently?
All 3 have pratically begun election canvassing for their 2 'men' and 1 'female' standing for President of the Council.
My concern is how wholly and entirely typically undemocratic the process of selecting a President (except that is not their EU job) and a Foreign Minister (except that is not their EU title) is.
Will the actual Candidates be publicly announced? No.
Will any Candidate actually bother to inform the European Citizens of their views on these EU Posts? No.
Is there a election in an open forum by the Ministers responsible for the choices? No.
Will the Ministers announce for whom they voted? No/very unlikely.
Will this election process 'inspire' the EU Citizens to feel more supportive of the EU? No way this side of a black-hole in the space-time-continuum!
Will such a view by the ordinary EU Citizens concern the EU? Hahahahahahahahahahahahohohohohohohohohohhehehehehehehehehehehehehheheee!
Complain about this comment
Herman Van Rompuy would be an excellent choice. He has real depth and is extremely capable and unassuming. He managed to bring political stability to the country after Belgium had three prime ministers in one year. He has certainly managed to calm the two major groups in the country, the Flemish and the Wallons. Full credit should go to him Europe definitely needs such a leader. Tony Blair is extremely intelligent but he has far too many detractors who would oppose him tooth and nail. He would be too preoccupied fighting the nay-sayers.
Complain about this comment
The discussions in the British media (including Mr. Hewitt) continue to amaze me. After months (years!) of propaganda about the the dangers of the EU getting stronger through the Lisbon treaty, they now kill a candidate who isn't looking for power, and the same media seem to prefer a strong candidate like Blair who's clearly power hungry and will exercise the EU president role in a way that the British media have labeled as dangerous so far....and will he refrain from other totally undemocratic Iraq-like decisions?
But then, I'm not really amazed as I've lived several years in the UK and concluded that it's all about lack of understanding and interest about what the EU means.
By the way, my preferred candidate is the Dutch prime minister, and I'm not Dutch.
Complain about this comment
The British citizens have at least more commonsense than their jounalists as 78% of the daily mail readers prefer Van Rompuy, only 22% vote for Blair.
Complain about this comment
Did anyone thought that what the EU council president or foreign high representitive think is not really that important, if those guys/gals are there to convey the wishes of the national governments who cares what they think and what they want. As long as they can organise a meeting (make sure there is coffee & biscuites) then they've done their jobs and they can go away to write poems. Unless their roles change to something more important than that, then who cares how they are selected. For a Europhile like myself I wished they had more power and their positions realy was important but as it stands today, give it to anyone (except Blair, that is!) I'd even go as far as saying outsource it, give it to call center in India somewhere, they have 24 hours call support that would please the USA for their one phone call request :)
Complain about this comment
#5 - Mathiasen
Just about the only thing the current UK government seems to have mastered completely is media manipulation. They have the black art of 'unattributable comment', 'off-the-record briefing' and innuendo off to a tee.
Far from thinking that the BBC is acting as mouthpiece for the government and that we know 'exactly what they are thinking', my inclination is to think that they are briefing on what they want us to think they are thinking. Actually, it is not dissimilar to what is going on at the summit but the UK government kids itself that it is is better at pulling the wool over peoples eyes rather than just being seen as underhand and secretive.
As regards who might be the best candidate, I fail to see how that judgement can be made until someone writes a job description. We are pretty clear about the foreign affairs post. He will be powerful - no question about that and Barosso may well find himself with more of a rival than a number two - but he is going to have one hell of a job getting all 27 to sing from the same hymn sheet. As someone has already pointed out, the EP does have some input into that role. Much more uncertain is the role of the Council President (I do wish people would stop talking about the EU president - lest becomes a self fulfilling prophesy). The ideal candidate would probably be a high profile pen pusher which is a near impossibility. Anyone with real clout is not going to be content pushing a pen and there are no pen pushers around with a decent profile. You can almost see Blair being given the wink and telling them what they can do with it.
There is just one thought which nobody seems to have touched on. While the UK government has been pumping Blair for all it is worth and his opponents have been lining up as well, the one person who has absolutely nothing to say one way or the other is Tony Blair. Perhaps what the leaders are actually doing is working on a job description that might tempt him and the other names in the hat are contingency candidates. Just an idea.
Complain about this comment
#8 - democracythreat
". . . that British democracy never accepted Rousseau's dictum that democracy means that the state is owned by the people".
In the constitutional sense, you are right but ownership should not be confused with the authority to determine it governance. I profoundly disagree about the ongoing pervasiveness of the class system which has taken on something not far removed from comedic status in the last 30 years.
Rousseau also wrote "In the strict sense of the term, a true democracy has never existed, and never will exist. It is against natural order that the great number should govern and that the few should be governed". Rousseau, for all his passion, is not consistent and one can always find contradictions if one looks for them. It is curious, for instance, that someone who believed in the city state as a model for direct democracy should also have published "A Lasting Peace Through the Federation of Europe".
Complain about this comment
Democracythreat (8): I think you should drop the old cliche about the UK being an aristrocacy. Some of us live here after all and could be counted on to complain about it if it were true. ;-)
The UK did not avoid socialism or communism in the past by remaining an aristocracy. You only think that must be the case because you have heard of some Victorian accounts of a class-riven society that has very largely disappeared and think that if the most populous group in british society (the working class) had got a shot at directing the power of the state against its class enemies, then it would have resulted in the same dictatorships of the proletariat that appeared in Eastern Europe. It is most certainly the case that we have had numerous British governments enjoying popular support that wanted to tax ancient landowners into the poor-house, but we never had one that wanted to guillotine them or send them to the gulags as might be seen elsewhere in Europe because it was never accepted here that any majority has a right to do such things.
This concern for limits on state power saved us from Continental excess in the past and applies to the super-state today. It is the relentless 'more Europe' campaign to continually expand EU competences into ever more policy fields, combined with a zeal to over-regulate, which particularly offends from a British point of view. This is what deprives each national majority of its liberty to act according to its free will as determined in its general elections. I cannot see that direct democracy has a big role to play in addressing this problem and indeed would be concerned that it would make it worse. Direct democracy at EU level could easily lead to more cases of EU law being inflicted on small or unpopular countries as a kind of vindictive punishment, just as the 'tyranny of the majority' persecuted unpopular minorities and dissidents after many past Continental revolutions. You only have to look at eurovision song contest voting to know how many ordinary people would use direct democracy to air historical grievances.
I therefore prefer to put my trust in limits on super-state power (which unfortunately are broken by design in Lisbon), and to think that direct democracy in a multinatonal context known to lack any real solidarity would only make EU matters worse than they already are.
You are a supporter of direct democracy and I do believe that some degree of direct democracy can be beneficial at national level (in particular when constitutional changes are being made, and in allowing voters to shoot down unpopular laws that their representatives have designed). We both agree that political power belongs to the people. But i do believe there is a need for full-time representatives to design legislation and policy because most citizens have not the time, the interest, nor the skills to come up with a joined-up set of policies so that without a full-time body of representatives there would never be any coherent program of government. Direct democracy can play a useful complementing role in rejecting the worst of their designs without having to wait up to 5 years for an election, but i don't believe it can replace the need for representatives.
Complain about this comment
@At 03:12am on 19 Nov 2009, Freeborn-John wrote:
Re "I therefore prefer to put my trust in limits on super-state power (which unfortunately are broken by design in Lisbon)"
You seriously need to stop postulating this stuff and come up with specific provisions of the Lisbon treaty that show that the constitutional features of the EU are being fundamentally changed.
Concerning your juxtaposition of UK and continental political practices and history: Remember that it was the UK that asked the 6 if it could join their continental integration project. All cards were on the table, if you don't like it, leave.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to know why we're still trying to get Tony Blair into the job, unless there's a secret plan to let him destroy the EU in the same way he destroyed the UK.
Perhaps we could have an SNP politician put forward for the role, then he could use the expertise they've gained in fighting for devolution to shift power away from Brussels and back to the individual countries.
Complain about this comment
I am amused by the idea that the Belgian minister could become the new European President (almost as much as the idea that Tony Blair could do the job).
As some who has lived in Belgium for a number of years you realise that this man can't even run Belgium, never mind the European Union.
As for Tony Blair running Europe......please give me a break!
My guess is that the person chosen will come from the obscure corridors of power in France or Germany. No-one else will get a look in. It will be agreed in the back-rooms of the commission building in Brussels. There will be meeting of different factions. Different interests groups.
The person chosen will be someone no-one has every heard of, never mind voted for.
There will be only one response around Europe to the chosen person:
"Who?????"
Complain about this comment
I still think they should outsource it, the positions is for someone to organise meetings. Real power stays with the national governments, what difference does it make as to who takes meeting minutes and organises cakes? As it stands at the moment real power remains within the state, he/she does not have any influence. I think they should give it to Tony Blair as a punishment :)) just imagine him thinking he will get a job that will make him strong and famous and then, he finds himself taking meeting minutes and having to do a real job instead of just smiling:)))) it may still give him a chance to get a second UK resolution :))
Complain about this comment
#22. threnodio_II
Thank you for your thoughts. German media are now adding information to the picture: Angela Merkel will not show her hand. She will only say that France and Germany will not vote against each other.
The Swedish presidency seems to be unsure of what will happen, but Merkel is sure that there will be a solution during the scheduled summit. It reveals what her intention is, but I would be surprised if the matter is settled already today.
I definitely think we need another procedure. I also think we will have it.
Complain about this comment
This is Democracy at its best, it is no wonder that Great Britain would leave if we had a Government with the Guts to do it. What will Europe do, send in the Troops to quell the unruly Brits?
Complain about this comment
The post of EU President is one for 2.5 years only. It is designed to provide greater continuity and efficiency in place of the current 6 months presidencies. The same goes for the "High Representative" ie pseudo Minister of Foreign Affairs. That the positions are being decided without "transparency" is understandable as both report to the Council of Ministers, ie representatives of the Member State governments. The choosing process is not supposed to be the political equivalent of the annual Miss World contest!
Complain about this comment
I wonder whether the UK would accept a PM who a) wants the Scottish Pound as only currency and rejects the Sterling, b) wants to install border controls between the Counties but insists in not having a unity in judicial system so in one county you could get flogged while in another you could get hanged and finally c)would insist all men to wear skirts.
For that is Tony Blair representing: a UK who is not in the Euro, does not wants to be part of Schengen Protocol and insists on more execptions to the Treaties (Rome, Maastricht, Lisbon) than there is text in those said treaties. It used to be that most of Continental Europe wanted you in despite your quirkiness, now it seems you're only with it for the money. Your currency has failed as reserve currency, the City did not prevent but started the financial crisis, the 'special relationship' does not help anybody, least of all the UK aerospace industry since you buy US, and even the US wants to get more involved with its the future allies like China, Japan and India where the economy is growing.
So instead of bashing Europe, come to your senses, get in the game, be good Europeans, or get out. As for Mr Blair, well his successes as a special envoy in the Middle East... are notoriously absent, and now he should lead Europe into the 21st Century?
Now that's a joke if ever there was one.
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn
Re #25
You seriously need to stop postulating "...all cards were on the table..": This is a blatant lie if you are referring to the PM Heath 1973 negotiation for entry Treaty terms or to the re-negotiated terms for the 1975 UK Referendum. There was nothing specific (and not much hidden in the diplomatic language) in either of the negotiations with the '6' that clearly set out to the British Public the extent to which the EEC was intending to move toward a Federal European Union super-state.
You seriously need to stop instructing UK Citizens that "if you do not like it (the EU) then leave..": This is blatantly undemocratic (not that you ever seem to understand that term!) as the UK is a member of the EU its Citizens are perfectly entitled to campaign for the type of EU they feel would suit them, just as 26 other Nations do. Did you tell Eire, Germany, the Czechs etc. to leave because they wanted to consider the constitutional impact of the LT. If everything is up front as you state then why have at least 9 of the 27 got 'derogations'/'opt-outs' of one sort or another - - it would seem several nations do not see it as their duty to just shut-up about EU Law and Regulation as you imply membership requires - - and as each new nation negotiates its own Terms within their Treaty of Membership it would seem even the EU does not agree with you.
You need to stop postulating that nothing in the "..specific provisions of the Lisbon Treaty... show the constitutional features of the EU are being fundamentally changed": This is another blatant attempt by you to deny the most obvious of matters. If nothing was changing why would there be a Lisbon Treaty? If nothing is changing why would Eire require specific Protocols to protect its constitution? If nothing is changing why are the powers of intervention/oversight for the EU Commission, the EU Parliament and the EU ECJ being extended? If nothing is changing why would the EU be appointing new posts, e.g. President of the Council and High Representative? If nothing is changing in the EU constitution why would it need new authority to determine its negotiations with future/would-be applicants for membership?
What you could helpfully postulate on is how many of the EU Members will still be members 10 years (i.e. 2020) from now and whether the total will have gone up from 27 or declined?
How confident are you that your blanket "all cards on the table" will have successfully led to Europeans in general deciding your EU is the way forward?
Or, as in my view, the EU is an undemocratic, unaccountable and unrepresentative entity that will be unable to withstand the enormous political-social repercussions of its own overmighty centralising ambitions.
I am very confident I will be proven right in my assessment: Indeed it may that the Lisbon Treaty will come to be viewed as the zenith/high point of the EU project. This supra-national State is doomed: My main concern is whether those with their fingers as deeply in the pie as they have in Brussels will be prepared to let it collapse in on itself (e.g. as DDR, USSR), or, will they in their venality and corruption force another bloody catastrophe on the Citizens!?
Complain about this comment
#30
The answer is: Nothing, I think they would not care less if we are in it or out of it!
If we were out of EU what would be the immediate benefits to us? Please don't give me the "we would be free-will and free spirit" speach. Also the hyphothetical we would set up free trade agreements with all the nations and trade as we always have. We have nothing to trade, the past conservative government with the help of the current labour government have made sure we are all able to run trade deficits, because we don't make anything.
So back to your original answer they would not send in the troops to quell us. My question in return is what would the benefits be to us, that we can't achieve while been in the EU. Just tell me one thing we can not do that will benefit me and you while we are in the EU?
Complain about this comment
Brown is holding on to the Blair card so that at the dinner he can trade it in and request that Van Rompuy not be nominated. Instead someone else with a more toned-down approach to the EU will be nominated. Van Rompuy stuck his head out too early, the British tabloids have eaten him for supper and there is no way that Brown can afford to go back to the UK and say that he accepted the Belgian's nomination or that he could do nothing about it - Not 6 months before an election.
Complain about this comment
34. ChrisArta
"...Just tell me one thing we can not do that will benefit me and you while we are in the EU?.."
A benign dictatorship – who could say no to this?
Complain about this comment
In listening to the brief samples of BBC audio describing the various candidates for the EU Presidency, I was taken aback to have the gentleman from Belgium characterized as an "open Federast". Now, how did that slip by? In audio, the obvious tendency to easily confound it with a negative term that rhymes would necessarily confuse a listener who did might not bother -- as I might -- to replay the audio snippet, think carefully, listen hard, and resort to the urbandictionary for a not-all-that-common bit of political slang (just to make sure I was not inventing meanings).
Someone out there is trying too hard.
There are good sides as well as flaws to Tony Blair, but, really, he enjoyed such a vivid season in the sun that it would not be unreasonable to suggest someone else should be in the spotlight for a change. This EU presidency is a new concept; the role has yet to be defined and whoever assumes it first will inevitably make a splash of some kind.
Let's not attach too much angst to the uncertainties of the process and its cliffhanger overtones. Europe, on the one hand, exists with & without structures, paper agreements, institutions and Chiefs.
On the other hand, the idea -- so European -- of formalizing and enshrining in structures, paper agreements, institutions and Chiefs the very concept of a "United Europe" is still that gorgeous new pair of expensive shoes.
You keep admiring them on the shelf, taking them out, congratulating yourself on buying them, trying them on before the mirror, taking a few steps, wondering if they will pinch, worrying about getting scratches on them, debating whether they might not be a touch too classy for everyone else at the gathering -- putting them back on the shelf so they don't wear out too quickly.
And loving every second of the process.
At the end of the day, there are a number of worthy candidates. It was an honour to be considered. Everyone has to work together. No one & nothing is perfect -- yet we must all strive for perfection if we hope to get at least reasonably close to something that holds up in actual practice.
Congratulations: you have made it to this day. That means you have gotten many things right along the way. There is gold in your hearts; your purposes are good. Let the hours tick away, and it will be done, and you all shall be pleased -- even pleasantly surprised with how well it all plays out down the line.
Europe: so great, so richly nuanced in its variations on a theme. There's hardly any room for error. Enjoy your selves, you few, you happy few, you band of brothers, and cousins, and devoted friends.
Complain about this comment
#33
With some of your statements I agree, i.e. we are in it we want it to run in a particular way, also the way don't tell everyone else the same thing :) fair points!
Some of the rest is just a personal point of you, so we leave it at that :)
Complain about this comment
35. schranzo
"...no way that Brown can afford to go back to the UK and say that he accepted..."
One of twenty-seven, does the Blair premiership's broken Brown tail wag the dog?
Complain about this comment
#36
rg
Now try to tell me something serious, I appreciate humour but that was a serious I made.
Complain about this comment
Will the EU flunk its big moment? It already has. Its big moment came when it had to choose between being true to what it said were its principles, it promises to its constituents in being democratic by obeying its own rules it had agreed to or following in the footsteps of thousands of years of European despotism. When it shoved aside the rejection of the Constitutio by voters in France and Holland by creating the Lisbon Treaty and then shoved aside the voters of Ireland who turned that down, it proved that without doubt it would do as it pleased when it pleased to whomever it pleased no matter what promises it made in the past. But that came as no surprise after the Growth and Stability pact in Maastrict was similarly summarily shoved aside when those who conceived it suddenly found it inconvenient. Hypocricy, thy name is Europe.
Complain about this comment
40. ChrisArta
"...I appreciate humour..."
I'd appreciate a democratic EU
Complain about this comment
To a very large extent, the argument about who get the job of President and Foreign Affairs representative is irrelevant. It's the very existence of the positions which is the catastrophe for Europe; for all the nations of EU, not just the UK, particularly the 'foreign minister' post. Whoever get the jobs, it is to be hoped that they are ignored by the rest of the world and treated with the contempt the positions deserve both within the EU and beyond. The sooner the positions are abolished, the better for all the people of all EU nations.
Complain about this comment
Why everyone is so busy with the election of the Chairman of the European Council is still amazing me... It must be the incorrect usage of the word "President".
As long as even journalists who should know better are confusing their audience, the EU will remain something only (some) politicians understand.
Complain about this comment
#42
I'd appreciate an honest answer to my question, but unfortunatelly you are not able to do so.
It looks as if reheated soundbites is your forte:))
Complain about this comment
Oh dear, MarcusAurelliusII is at it again with his/her "EUSSR" comments. I just wish he/she would keep commentaries limited to the good old USofA as its patiently clear that the person concerned does not understand about how and why european nations have gotten together and prospered in peace since the 1950's by "uniting we stand and divided we fall" or "all for one and one for all".
Obviously in a grouping of 500 million plus citizens with multiple legal systems,voting systems, traditions, history etc etc, closer cooperation to mutual benefit has to be streamlined. Which is what the Lisbon Treaty aims to achieve. A union or possibly rather confederation but a United States of Europe? Highly unlikely. But both the (ex) superpowers, USA and Russia want to continue in their old divide et impera strategies and dominance. A uniting Europe of nation states blocks such policies...
The most recent example of the unqualified and blind following of a superpower has been the continuing calamitous support given by the UK government to the USA in both Iraq and Afghanistan in clear opposition to the citizens of the UK.
As to decision making the EU policy is one of devolving to the lowest level possible. Thus education is purely a national/regional prerogative. Furthermore, given that the total EU budget is only about 1% of national (State) budgets, let's keep matters in proportion.
Complain about this comment
I'm off to enjoy some lunch now
rg or Happybrian
or anyone else that can tell me what me and you and eveyone else like me and you can NOT do because we are in the EU would really help me a lot. If you only have slogans for me, then I'll stick to my own views :))
Complain about this comment
Me-rijn (22) said "You seriously need to stop postulating this stuff and come up with specific provisions of the Lisbon treaty. . ."
The 'broken' rules that will not prevent further centralisation of power of Brussels are in Protocol 2 "Application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality" of the Lisbon Treaty. Unfortunately the document is a PDF so i cannot link to it, but it is easy to find.
Article 6 of protocol 2 says 'any national parliament or any chamber of a national Parliament may, within eight weeks from the date of transmission of a draft legislative act, in the official languages of the Union, send to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a reasoned opinion stating why it considers that the draft in question does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity'.
Article 7.2 (yellow-card system) and 7.3 (orange card) define the 'broken by design' procedures that guarantee this will be a waste of time.
Article 7.2 (yellow card) says: "Where reasoned opinions on a draft legislative act's non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least one third of all the votes allocated to the national Parliaments … the draft must be reviewed…. After such review, the Commission … may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft. Reasons must be given for this decision". So under the yellow card system at least 1/3 of national parliaments must object within 8 weeks and the Commission can decide to maintain its proposal anyway! The yellow-card is therefore completely toothless as it sets one party in the case (the EU Commission) up as the judge who decides if its own proposal goes forward or not. The Commission will not find against itself.
Article 7.3 of the protocol also defines an 'orange card' system which at first glance seems tougher. It says if "a majority of 55 % of the members of the Council … is of the opinion that the proposal is not compatible with the principle of subsidiarity, the legislative proposal shall not be given further consideration." However any Commission proposal requires the support of 55% of member states in the EU Council or it will fail to clear the QMV blocking threshold anyway! So the 'orange card' criteria adds no ability to block measures on the grounds of subsidiarity which would not have failed anyway! The 'orange card' system is therefore a complete charade.
It is for these reasons that i say that the Lisbon rules on the limits on super-state power are 'broken' and will not prevent an unchecked centralisation of power in Brussels with consequent loss of national liberty.
Complain about this comment
As for the foreign representative for the EU: without question, the most important foreign relations the EU will be working on advancing are those that form the interface with China.
The EU-China interface is key to the future of the planet. It will go, inevitably, through steps that also require constructive work with Russians.
That means for the EU to have an effective one-voice representative with a suitable presence on the world stage, that person will have to enjoy credibility & good rapport with Chinese and with Russians, and be able to speak to them in a non-patronising, engaging and ultimately reciprocally respectful and pleasant tone. Melody, harmony, inflection, attention to minutiae (grace notes) are of great consequence in those two cultures.
So think hard and pick carefully. In some ways, this is the more important position to consider if you want to actually get further along on improving the diplomatic dynamics on the world stage, and arriving more quickly (since diplomatic wheels grind so slowly, alas) at effective solutions to the most pressing problems that all humankind must collectively address.
Complain about this comment
'44. At 11:59am on 19 Nov 2009, JohaMe wrote:
Why everyone is so busy with the election of the Chairman of the European Council is still amazing me... It must be the incorrect usage of the word "President".'
Absolutely right. 'President' is meant in the French language sense (=Chairman). The Chairman wouldn't even have a vote, let alone the authority to tell the rest of the Council what to do.See:
http://theeulobby.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/the-european-council-president-for-dummies/
I'm sure they'll buy him a nice new hammer for banging the table though.
Complain about this comment
mikeontheseesawinwarsaw
"I just wish he/she would keep commentaries limited to the good old USofA as its patiently clear that the person concerned does not understand about how and why european nations have gotten together and prospered in peace since the 1950's by "uniting we stand and divided we fall" or "all for one and one for all"."
I haven't noticed that Europeans keep their comentaries to good "olde Europe." In fact they seem to give Americans endless free advice and criticism at every turn. Funny how so many of them hate it when the shoe is on the other foot. That is why I like putting it there and keeping it there.
To the degree that Europe prospered after WWII, it was because the US made it happen in Western European nations to keep them out of the Soviet orbit while the USSR to a lesser degree did the same in its Eastern European slave nations like Poland. When the USSR went out of business, Eastern Europe floundered but now the EUSSR is transferring jobs and wealth from West to East to capitalize on cheaper labor and looser regulations. Anyone who thinks Europe prospered on its own is only kidding themselves. How did it prosper in previous centuries? By piracy stealing from other nations using their colonial empires.
One advantageous thing about dealing with or competing against an utterly corrupt entity like the European disUnion is that it is entirely predictable. You can be certain that people in a position of power can be bought off for the right price to do whatever you want them to do. That is how Saddam Hussein bought cooperation from the governments of Germany, France, and tried to buy Britain to block the US from leading an invasion of his country. What's more he did it with their own money he got from selling them oil. Europe is still paying the price and will continue to pay the price for its sellout. It's former relation with the US is broken forever.
Complain about this comment
ChrisArta
Re #34
The benefits to the UK/England (which is the bit that primarily concerns me) of withdrawal from the European Union are substantial. You asked for none of the "free-speech" stuff, so, I've dealt with that quickly and then at greater length the other benefits (as such issues cannot be dealt with easily).
What is wrong with a preference for Free-will at a National instead of a pan-National level?
It took several hundred years for the UK/England to arrive at that level of political-social interaction - - where the 4 Union Nations gradually evolve their status (with only N.Ireland resorting to extreme violence) - - to the point that a United Kingdom is disbanded by the consent (i.e. Free-will) of the people after a very lengthy association.
To put aside such a depth of political-social maturity for the sake of belonging to a supra-national entity that does not possess those values, customs, traditions etc. and is dangerously centralised in outlook seems to me a very bad deal for the Citizen.
Now, as for the UK "..having nothing to trade.. we don't make anything." This is a very common misconception!
17% of UK GDP is still determined by traditional Manufacturing (e.g. vehicles, heavy engineering equpment such as JCBs etc.) and this rises to almost 23% when the new hybrid Industries (e.g. hi-tec/hi-spec, plastic electronics, nuclear, aerospace, telecommunications, 'green energy devices' etc.).
So, around 1 in 5 British workers is still employed in some form of developmental technological/precision manufacturing enterprise. Most of those 21st century/'modern' indutries have continued uninterrupted through the current downturn.
The reason the UK is coming out of the awful worldwide recession later than many is because it entered it later than most other Nations and of course it is 1 of the World's 3 highest ranking Financial Services centres which primarily caused/contributed to and have paid the price of their Economic sloppiness and greed.
It is worthy of note that Membership or otherwise of the EU did nothing to protect any Nation from the Economic troubles: In fact, the figures for UK Unemployment etc. compare favourably to most of the mainland European Nations (e.g. Spain 1 in 3 under-23 jobless; Baltic States hovering around 15+% unemployed). That is not to say the UK is not in crisis, but, clearly being in the EU was no advantage. And as for the Continental Nations emerging earlier from the crisis: I would suggest that only Germany's figures can be taken at face value - - the idea France's/Italy's Quarterly Economic numbers can be relied upon is a bit like entrusting your daughters safety to Messrs Sarkozy or Berlusconi!
The EU and the UK apart?
The UK is a population of 60,000,000 projected to rise to 70+ million within a decade or so - - it is a huge market-place - - there is absolutely no way the EU or any other trading Nation of the World is going to just ignore it because it no longer is tied to Brussels' Directives and Commission.
Why would it be any different if it were just England with a population at 49+ predicted to rise to 56 million in the same period?
There is nothing to prevent the UK/England from representing itself at any and every level of International negotiation from Climate Change to World Trade Organisation etc.: The idea the World will turn its back is fanciful nonsense put about by EU advocates who struggle to come up with any pertinent Economic-Political-Social factor for opposing an Independent British Isles or parts thereof.
Mainland Europe would not miss the UK Membership and neither would the UK miss it. Treaties for mutual benefit would continue and new ones made as and when required: Would UK/England be at a disadvantage - - undoubtedly in some instances - - but then, so would the EU if it was one of those 'hardball' political scenarios and surely they are far less likely and will be less protracted with a UK that no longer demands this 'opt-out', 'derogation' 'codecil' etc.?
I submit the main concern for the EU paymasters/power-bases in Paris-Berlin-Brussels of a UK/England outside the EU is that a successful UK/England minus all the blanket regulation, law and interference of an overmighty EU would embarrass its ruling elite.
There is no military threat from the UK/England to the Continent and vice versa: Membership of NATO and all the 'political-cultural' bodies, e.g. UNO, G8/20, WHO, IAEA, ESA ensures an interlocking of interests between the British Isles and Europe that could only be further cemented by the successful negotiation of Treaties for Trade, Travel and Tax (a reversion to the EEC levels of inter-National commitment) between the UK/England and EU.
There are surely many mutual advantages in 'le difference'.
Indeed, in such circumstances it is more likely the EUro and Pound would be accepted across the British Isles as 2 legitimate exchanges of currency at all Retail outlets.
Pan-European businesses continue: UK/England firms owning and investing in Continental companies and vice versa as at present - - where National/EU regulation applies it would be implemented exactly as is done at present for ownership/investment in companies from the American Continent to Asia. Where does the ridiculous idea come from the the UK would fall apart economically simply because it is no longer a full member of the EU? Maybe at some future date, General Motors will think twice about retaining Vauxhall, but then, that's exactly what it did about Opel etc. whilst Germany, France and UK are all in the EU! Will Toyota (Japan) or Samsung (Korea) pull out of the UK/England just because it is outside the EU: One has to wonder if they had any economic 'free-will' if that was all they used as a measure for where to place their business when clearly so many factors also affect an overall global business-strategy. Once across the Channel is the British Lorry delivering or collecting goods on the Continent to be penalised by the EU or will common-economic-sense prevail because that 60+million British 'market' is so very tempting!?
Of course there are benefits to EU membership, but the economic constraints of not being a member have been much over-stated.
Whereas, in contrast, there is no doubt the British Isles would insist on retaining and strengthening its own Border checks - - it always amazes me how the EU 'open borders' treaty is presented as a success and its defenders point to the reinforced 'external' borders (when at the last count some 140 International Airports across the Continent mean the 'external' borders are inside every EU member Nation!) - - and in such matters the 'independence' and choices of UK/England should have no bearing on how the EU handles its affairs. Will the EU be stoppong and checking all UK Passport holders as an 'external' border entry: Possibly, but then, once checked, the British Citizen will travel everywhere as do all other 'foreign' peoples within the EU. Will Britons be excluded from jobs on the Continent - - well, as no one else is - - why would the UK Passport holder be ostracised? Shall the UK or European Tourist never venture to take the ferry-train-plane for those 40 kilometres(24 miles)!
Queues will form whilst Passports are checked and some luggage searched: If that is the cost of not being a member it is surely a very small inconvenience price indeed.
On the whole mainland Europe is an interesting and enjoyable place and its many varied peoples for the most part are delightful neighbours: Why would anything change in that overall relationship if the, in general, equally interesting, enjoyable and diverting peoples of the UK/England just decided to opt-out of 'le grande Europ design' in favour of something much more prosaic and humble: An independent Nation?
So, in (short!) I would put the question back to you: Just tell me one thing that the UK/England could not do/have done outside the EU that is of substantive, material benefit to the average Citizen?
Complain about this comment
@33. At 11:11am on 19 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
Re "You seriously need to stop postulating "...all cards were on the table..": This is a blatant lie if you are referring to the PM Heath 1973 negotiation for entry Treaty terms or to the re-negotiated terms for the 1975 UK Referendum. There was nothing specific (and not much hidden in the diplomatic language) in either of the negotiations with the '6' that clearly set out to the British Public the extent to which the EEC was intending to move toward a Federal European Union super-state."
It was quite apparent from the start of the the integration proces. In the 60's the ECJ already referred to the Treaties as "Constitutional Charter" and established the primacy of EC law. The whole integration process has a political objective as was made clear by one of the main contributors Jean Monnet (and his boss Schuman).
Re "This is blatantly undemocratic (not that you ever seem to understand that term!) as the UK is a member of the EU its Citizens are perfectly entitled to campaign for the type of EU they feel would suit them, just as 26 other Nations do. Did you tell Eire, Germany, the Czechs etc. to leave because they wanted to consider the constitutional impact of the LT. If everything is up front as you state then why have at least 9 of the 27 got 'derogations'/'opt-outs' of one sort or another - - it would seem several nations do not see it as their duty to just shut-up about EU Law and Regulation as you imply membership requires - - and as each new nation negotiates its own Terms within their Treaty of Membership it would seem even the EU does not agree with you."
You need to differentiate between certain constitutional principles of EU law (against which you argument) and mere competence-questions.
It is obvious that the question which competences should be exercised at EU level should be debated and debatable. The constitutional principles however, which you want to change, can not be altered. That is why I say that you can always leave the union and if you really have problems with certain constitutional principles of EU law, you shouldn't have acceded to the EC in the first place, because all cards (which you want to turn into a matter of debate) were on the table before your country joined.
Re "This is another blatant attempt by you to deny the most obvious of matters. If nothing was changing why would there be a Lisbon Treaty? If nothing is changing why would Eire require specific Protocols to protect its constitution? If nothing is changing why are the powers of intervention/oversight for the EU Commission, the EU Parliament and the EU ECJ being extended? If nothing is changing why would the EU be appointing new posts, e.g. President of the Council and High Representative? If nothing is changing in the EU constitution why would it need new authority to determine its negotiations with future/would-be applicants for membership?"
We need the Lisbon Treaty to facilitate the workings of an enlarged EU. We don't need the Lisbon Treaty to change matters of constitutional importance. From a constitutional law point of view, Lisbon doesn't bring major changes.
The new posts you speak of already exist: the high representative is Javier Solana, the president of the european council is now Mr. Reinfeldt. Lisbon makes this a more fixed post, instead of changing chairman every 6 months.
The powers of the Commission aren't really extended. The European Parliament, our democratic representatives have indeed more power, because they have oversight over matters that were formerly decided by the Council alone (= more democracy). The powers of the ECJ don't get extended much, it will have more power over the current 3d pillar, making it easier to ensure respect for fundamental rights in sensitive policy areas such as criminal law (=really a bad thing isn't it!?!).
And again you simple postulate all these things without backing them up. Great debating!
Re "What you could helpfully postulate on is how many of the EU Members will still be members 10 years (i.e. 2020) from now and whether the total will have gone up from 27 or declined?"
I don't postulate my friend. But I do think it will have gone up: Iceland and Croatia will join shortly. Turkey and Macedonia are other candidates. Than there are the countries that would like to join: rest of the Balkan.
Re "Or, as in my view, the EU is an undemocratic, unaccountable and unrepresentative entity that will be unable to withstand the enormous political-social repercussions of its own overmighty centralising ambitions."
Again only postulations. Just tell me where the fundamental undemocratic characteristics of the EU lie?
We have a directly elected Parliament, which has control over the Commission and can force the Commission to abdicate.
The Commission is made up of people proposed by the governments of the member states, those governments being accountable before their own parliament.
The Council of Ministers is made up of members of national governments, accountable before their own parliaments.
The ECJ is a guardian of the Treaties in which fundamental rights are enshrined.
The Lisbon treaty introduces more direct control by national parliaments (as opposed to their control through the national governments active in the Council). It introduces a civil initiative, where 1 million citizens can petition the Commission. The Lisbon Treaty includes the charter on fundamental rights and an obligation on the EU to adhere to the European Treaty on Human Rights. The Lisbon treaty also extends the democratic control of the Parliament over matters formerly kept outside her competence. Want me to cite the precise articles of all this?
Re "I am very confident I will be proven right in my assessment: Indeed it may that the Lisbon Treaty will come to be viewed as the zenith/high point of the EU project. This supra-national State is doomed: My main concern is whether those with their fingers as deeply in the pie as they have in Brussels will be prepared to let it collapse in on itself (e.g. as DDR, USSR), or, will they in their venality and corruption force another bloody catastrophe on the Citizens!?"
Send us a card when it happens!
Complain about this comment
#51
Yes the Europeans were trying to learn from the Americans how to sell him gas to kills the Kurds and other, but Americans as always been better salesman got in there there first and sold it to him by the bucket-load!!! Also the Europeans did not learn the lesson well from the Americans ow to keep slaves properly, so they didn't profit as much from slaves as the Americans did. And finaly yes you are right they were stupid enough to pay for land, they didn't learn from the Americans that it is cheap and far more economical to poison the natives and take their land. If there are any survivors lock them up in a reservation camp :) You are right the Europeans have not reached such high level or capitalism!
Complain about this comment
If the principle of subsidiarity means anything at all, then one thing which should be reserved absolutely for national goverments only, is foreign affairs. There can be no justification whatever for even the least interference by the EU centrally in the foreign policy of any of the constituent states. The creation of the 'foreign minister' post makes it clear that subsidiarity is not taken seriously by the EU and that the EU intends to intrude into areas it has no business intruding in.
Lisbon and earlier treaties make it clear that the EU intends trespassing in areas it should be barred from, so the reponsibility for this disaster lies with the governments of the constituent nations for betraying their people.
Complain about this comment
#52
You still have not told me a single thing that you and I want to do today, but the EU stops us from doing and tomorrow if we were outside the EU we would be able to do.
But also,
you maybe happy to queue to have your passport checked I'm not
you maybe happy to know that any savings you have in the bank is worth 25% - 30% less now, I'm not
Maybe I see the EU in a very simplistic way and not from a high moral level point of view, but I see it simply as following, it doesn't stop me in anyway from carrying on my daily life. I have lived and worked in other EU countries and enjoyed the freedom of movement it gives me. So I still fail to see why I'll be better off outside the EU. If someone would give me a good practical reason why, I'd be happy to listen to it.
Complain about this comment
Me-rijn
Re #53
"...want me to cite.."
No, I want you to admit that several of your arguments/points on this reply are directly at odds with how you used them in a previous debate on the authority and power of the EU Commission, Parliament and ECJ.
Now you have taken precisely the points you raised to suggest the EU was not an over-arching all-powerful body backed by the supremacy-primacy of the ECJ Judgements and turned them around to claim they were always intended and always a part of the Federal EU project.
You cannot have it both ways (oh sorry, You are 'pro-EU' so nothing is more usual than expecting everything to suit only Your version of the World): Well, which is it?
Was the EU domination of individual States always the agenda? Or, was the EU domination of individual States an evolution no one could have accurately foreseen?
Complain about this comment
#56
What I can no longer do and what I very much want to do is help choose, along with my fellow countrymen, how my country interacts with other countries by electing a government. This is something which I and all the people of the EU have now lost. It is something we could do outside the EU and indeed it is something people in many non-EU countries do do.
Complain about this comment
Artiste;
The gas was not intended for the Kurds. It was intended for Iranians to stop their human wave attacks. The idea was to keep Iraq and Iran in a perpetual state of war, the longer it lasted and the more of them died, the better it would have served American policy. Had they completely killed each other off, it would have been a simple matter to just walk in and take all the oil from both countries. The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray.
You don't really think the people who invented the United States of America were going to allow a relative handful of natives keep an entire continent of land because it was their happy hunting ground do you? Let them build suburban tract houses and get their food at the supermarket just like everyone else in America does. "This land is your land, this land is my land..." Well actually it's my land not yours. You're English, you don't get any land. Maybe they'll find you a corner where you can set up your easel.
Complain about this comment
Me-rijn
Re #53
Quote, "We have a directly elected Parliament..": The European Parliament has failed to win a Majority Madnate from European Citizens for the last 4 elections with a derisory 44% Electoral Turnout in 2009 - - "we" don't have any representation by any normal measurement - - You may claim those MEPs are a part of a 'democratic' EU, but, when I last looked 56% not voting seemed to be a clear Majority indication of no confidence in the continued existence of a Federal project among the Citizens affected.
Quote, "..EU Parliament has control over the Commission and can force it to abdicate..": The Budget was not passed 17 out of 20 times and the EU Commission just kept on going - - the one time the Parliament threatened a 'motion of censure' (which would have led to Commission resignation) the whole thing collapsed as they concocted a bent deal between them - - the Parliament is supposed to have 4 functions: Legislative, Political, Supervisory, Budgetary. In practise the Parliament is very active in Legislation and virtually powerless in the 'supervisory' and 'budgetary' roles - - no one pays attention to it and it does nothing about it because to do so would mean wrecking their beloved EU which pays them in the first place! That is not democracy in action. That is gross fraud perpetrated on the Citizens.
Quote, "..the Commission is made up of people proposed by the Governments of member States..": The Commission is made up of people appointed after backroom negotiations and fiddles between States with compromises so compromised only has-beens-jobsworths-a#se lickers get the Posts. Whether You or I approve it does not matter a jot as the ordinary Citizen has no say and that is undemocratic.
".. they (Commissioners) are accountable to their own Parliaments..": Again, an unsubtle fix-up that is totally contrary to the ideals of democracy - - no EU Commissioner is chosen by vote and they come from whichever Party is in power - - what is the purpose of a Commissioner if the National Government makes them subject to national interests? Well, they cannot be both, so they are EU apparatchiks and are worthless in responding to the Citizens' needs/expectations.
Quote, ".. the Council of Ministers is made up of members of National Governments, accountable before their own Parliament..": So? What is that actually supposed to mean? What relation does that have to the Citizens' rights within the EU to be heard, represented etc.? A National Government is elected within a Nation - - the Citizens know the candidates and vote according to their like/dislike and whichever group gets in they are accountable - - the idea the EU Minister responds to a similar Public persuasion is ludicrous.
Quote, "..the ECJ is a guardian of the Treaties..": That is really funny coming from You! A couple of weeks ago You were claiming the ECJ only has certain powers awarded under 'competencies' and cannot fundamentally affect the individual Laws passed by Nations! And yet now to Quote you, "..Treaties in which fundamental rights are enshrined..": Oh really! So, the ECJ can determine any National Law is contrary to EU Law and therefore it could be struck out, e.g. a Law taking a State out of the EU.
Quote, "..the Lisbon Treaty also extends the democratic control of the Parliament over matters formerly kept outside her competence..": That extension would be the extensions You categorically denied existed when we last debated the EU and ECJ!? The European Parliament has indeed taken on increasing authority and powers despite the lowest Electoral Turnout in its lamentable history; and, of course, anything the EU Parliament has had its powers extended to must thereby fall within the remit of the EU European Court of Justice, as well.
Or, is this some new EU that did not exist until a few minutes ago?
You can save all your citings; just come clean and admit the European Union isa supra-national power unlimited by any norms of 'Democratic' procedures.
Since the Lisbon Treaty it is the European Parliament above all else that is at the core of the con-trick perpetrated on the Citizens: It has the scope to represent all Citizens and the right to deal with any and every issue within the EU. Only no one is telling the Citizens that all those Parliamentary responsibilities come with no Rights at all to do anything of substance except rubber-stamp the Federal EU project. Afterall, if the Parliament was all-powerful (and as the Citizens' representative it is where the seat of authority and power should lay) there would not be a European Court of Justice, would there!
Complain about this comment
Re "No, I want you to admit that several of your arguments/points on this reply are directly at odds with how you used them in a previous debate on the authority and power of the EU Commission, Parliament and ECJ.
Now you have taken precisely the points you raised to suggest the EU was not an over-arching all-powerful body backed by the supremacy-primacy of the ECJ Judgements and turned them around to claim they were always intended and always a part of the Federal EU project.
You cannot have it both ways (oh sorry, You are 'pro-EU' so nothing is more usual than expecting everything to suit only Your version of the World): Well, which is it?
Was the EU domination of individual States always the agenda? Or, was the EU domination of individual States an evolution no one could have accurately foreseen?"
If you think I contradict myself you should read more carefully.
I am saying the superstate Europe does not exist and won't be introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, simply because the Lisbon Treaty doesn't come with major constitutional changes.
I said that the Federal vocation of the European Integration was nevertheless apparent from the beginning. And certain constitutional principles (against which you try to argue) were established by the ECJ long before your country joined the EC.
WHne you refere to "EU domination" you are already very biased in your question. But if you want to call it 'domination' the answer would be yes. Does the EU really dominate the individual states? This is picturing the situation as the relationship between aggressor and victim, which surely isn't the case.
The reality is that the independent states, are not independent anymore, not because of the EU but because of other evolutions. Through the EU, those member states give away part of their sovereignty to bundle it at european level and thereby safeguarding part of their independance. It's a trade of between becoming more dependent on other european people in exchange for becoming less dependent on American/African/Asian people.
This makes perfect sense as the cultural, economic, philosophical etc likeness of european countries is greater than that of european and amercian/asian/african countries.
There is a clear evolution towards more competences and powers at EU level. This is a good thing given the above explained trade off and also has other major benefits (economic growth, peace in europe, more liberties for european citizens, etc).
When I argued against your depiction of the ECJ, I did not refute that the ECJ is the supreme authority of EU law, which has primacy over national law. I argued against your blatant lies on how the ECJ operates, supposedly made up of power hungry judges, not hindered in the slightest by legal arguments.
In any case, you can not picture the current state of play as individual states oppressed by the EU, because the EU only exists by the grace of the member states.
Luckily for Europe, most of it's political leaders understand that the EU is needed. Unfortunately for some leaders, they govern a country of which it's people are more preoccupied with the picture of the person or building on the banknotes than with the monetary and economic benefits the choice for a common currency brings.
Complain about this comment
Chris Arta
Re #56
I presume to 25 to 30% less worth in 'savings' is a reference to the Pound.
Well if you mean the direct effect of the Calais Hypermarket not being such a good bargain as it was a year or 2 ago then I can see the logic of your concern. However, though the Euro may have gone up in value against the Pound, it has also seen within the Eurozone a 6% to 17% increase in prices since its introduction. Across the Eurozone a recent EU Report estimated several million European Citizens had dropped down into the category of 'under-privileged' (as in having less than 1,000 Euros per month to live on) because of failings by the European Central Bank in its management of the EUro; this is especially marked among European Pensioners where National Pension amounts have come under heavy pressure and have not been able to keep pace with the inflationary results of the Euro.
So, you see, it is swings and roundabouts!
I'm not sure how specific you or anyone expects with regard to the EU and its daily effects on life are anticipating but I would say that today I have contributed through Taxation to the EU Budget: If I was not in the EU I would not have done so and I presume the money would either still be in my pocket or the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for distribution within the UK.
You are unhappy at the prospect of having your Passport checked: I agree it is irksome, but, if it is not checked then I assume you do not mind that many others do not have their's checked. If you follow my point about the 140 'external border' entry points called International Airports across the EU then add them to the 'external' Ports and National 'external' border crossings I cannot see how the UK or any Nation within the EU is protecting itself from unwelcome/unquantifiable visitors (whether economic migrants, asylum seekers, trafficked peoples, or terrorists).
I too have lived and worked on the Continent and elsewhere in the world: The simplistic version of the EU as described by you would be the ideal and no one could really find fault with it.
All the same, why a Directive from Brussels should determine the hours of work for a motor assembly-line operative from Husqvarna to Luton, Dusseldorf, Milan, Boleslav, Sarajevo etc. is still a puzzle to me and more especially as it is a clear intrusion on the rights of the individual worker Citizen to negotiate their conditions of employment.
Complain about this comment
Me_rijn
Re #61
I did read it all very carefully.
My conclusion is that after re-reading it and your previous contrary arguments on another Blog Article that you are in every aspect actually acknowledging the following:
1) Yes, the European Union dominates all 27 National Governments
2) Yes, the European Union by use of the ECJ is the only source of legitimate Legislation within the EU
3) Yes, the "evolution of powers and competencies" towards a Federal EU legally affecting the "cultural, economic, philosophical" nature of Europe was always the intention.
AND,
4) Yes, you were contradicting your previous argument on another Article.
Re "...preoccupied.. picture of a person or building on banknotes..": That is the first time you have raised that idea and no one else had on this Blog; it raises the issue, if the EU is as benign as is claimed, what is it that so concerns the 'pro-EU' person about the foibles-cultural links-heritage of individual Nations?
Could it be because there is nothing at all about the EU worth identifying with and even after 40+ years existence? The EU still cannot claim the loyalty, interest, concern or appreciation of 56% of its Citizens during a vital election process.
I wrote once before and will remind you: There is active concern among an admittedly small minority of MEPs and indeed EUrocrats within the Parliament and Commission about how much longer the EU can claim to be representative as the electoral turnout continues to diminish?
You can send a 'card' the first time the European Parliament gets even an increase in Citizens' votes. Mind you time is running out fast: By my reckoning there are 2, improbably 3 European Elections ahead over the next 10 to 15 years before the whole facade implodes - - whether that crisis sees a more-or-less peaceful transition back to an EEC - - or, it crashes and burns, only time will tell.
Complain about this comment
Re "Quote, "We have a directly elected Parliament..": The European Parliament has failed to win a Majority Madnate from European Citizens for the last 4 elections with a derisory 44% Electoral Turnout in 2009 - - "we" don't have any representation by any normal measurement - - You may claim those MEPs are a part of a 'democratic' EU, but, when I last looked 56% not voting seemed to be a clear Majority indication of no confidence in the continued existence of a Federal project among the Citizens affected."
The democratic character of an institution is not solely determined by the turnout at the elections. I think Mathiasen also has given some calculations where the voter turnout and vote distribution at the Uk election are combined to show that in fact the British Prime minister is never backed by a majority of the people, this would than also mean that the British PM doesn't have democratic legitimicy, which isn't the case.
Still, even if you follow your too simplified a logic, you must conclude that there is not fundamental undemocratic character in the European Parliament, since you claim it is undemocratic because of low turnout. If turnout rises abvoe the holy 50% threshold, the EP is democratic once again. Note the absurdity in your argument: if turnout is 49.99% the result is an undemocratic institution, if turnout rises by 0.01% all of a sudden the institution has democratic legitimicy.
Re "The Budget was not passed 17 out of 20 times and the EU Commission just kept on going - - the one time the Parliament threatened a 'motion of censure' (which would have led to Commission resignation) the whole thing collapsed as they concocted a bent deal between them - - the Parliament is supposed to have 4 functions: Legislative, Political, Supervisory, Budgetary. In practise the Parliament is very active in Legislation and virtually powerless in the 'supervisory' and 'budgetary' roles - - no one pays attention to it and it does nothing about it because to do so would mean wrecking their beloved EU which pays them in the first place! That is not democracy in action. That is gross fraud perpetrated on the Citizens."
If Parliament refuses to give (partial) discharge for the budget, it's a sign that it is performing it's control function. So what do you want? That the budget is passed regardless of the way it is managed? The fact that the Court of Auditors gives independent and critical reports on i.a. the budget is a sign that also that institution performs good.
In 1999 the Santer Commission was forced to abdicate under pressure from the Parliament, this was triggered precisely by budget issues!
Re "The Commission is made up of people appointed after backroom negotiations and fiddles between States with compromises so compromised only has-beens-jobsworths-a#se lickers get the Posts. Whether You or I approve it does not matter a jot as the ordinary Citizen has no say and that is undemocratic."
So tell me, do the members of national governments get directly elected to sit in government? No. Not even your own Prime minister is directly elected! So why is your democratic standard so much higher for EU Commissioners than for your own government? It's the duty ofthe national parliament to control it's own government and, if it so wishes, exert pressure on it's own government in these issues.
Re "".. they (Commissioners) are accountable to their own Parliaments..": Again, an unsubtle fix-up that is totally contrary to the ideals of democracy - - no EU Commissioner is chosen by vote and they come from whichever Party is in power - - what is the purpose of a Commissioner if the National Government makes them subject to national interests? Well, they cannot be both, so they are EU apparatchiks and are worthless in responding to the Citizens' needs/expectations."
I never said that. I said Ministers in the Council of the EU and national governments are accountable to their own parliaments.
Commissioners are independent from national interests.
Re "So? What is that actually supposed to mean? What relation does that have to the Citizens' rights within the EU to be heard, represented etc.? A National Government is elected within a Nation - - the Citizens know the candidates and vote according to their like/dislike and whichever group gets in they are accountable - - the idea the EU Minister responds to a similar Public persuasion is ludicrous."
Citizens are directly represented through the European Parliament and indirectly through their national ministers in the council of ministers. The Eu minister does not exist, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
Re "That is really funny coming from You! A couple of weeks ago You were claiming the ECJ only has certain powers awarded under 'competencies' and cannot fundamentally affect the individual Laws passed by Nations! And yet now to Quote you, "..Treaties in which fundamental rights are enshrined..": Oh really! So, the ECJ can determine any National Law is contrary to EU Law and therefore it could be struck out, e.g. a Law taking a State out of the EU."
There isn't any contradiction. The EcJ is guardian of the Treaties and only has the powers that the Treaties provide. What's the contradiction?
And no, the ECJ can not determine ANY national law is contrary to EU law (national laws without connection to EU law fall outside EU law and therefore outside EU and thus ECJ competence, what's so hard to understand?). This also has nothing to do with me saying fundamental rights are enshrined in the treaty. The latter only means that the ECJ is responsible for upholding these rights when EU law applies.
Re "That extension would be the extensions You categorically denied existed when we last debated the EU and ECJ!? The European Parliament has indeed taken on increasing authority and powers despite the lowest Electoral Turnout in its lamentable history; and, of course, anything the EU Parliament has had its powers extended to must thereby fall within the remit of the EU European Court of Justice, as well."
It's not because the Parliament's powers extend that the ECJ's powers extend. Don't really know how you could come to this equation. Nevertheless, I merely stated in other topics that the ECJ's powers don't fundamentally change in reply to your statement that the ECJ could overrule ANY national law. This would mean the ECJ has general competences, which isn't the case (also after Lisbon). The fact that the ECJ now has MORE powers does not mean that it has GENERAL powers. Judging from your surprising and surprised remarks I would start to believe you haven't read the Lisbon Treaty, than I ask myself how you can ever so boldly clame that the Lisbon Treaty will trigger a superstate EU)
Re "You can save all your citings; just come clean and admit the European Union isa supra-national power unlimited by any norms of 'Democratic' procedures."
I'm afraid I can't admit it. But to help you on the way to an informed understanding of the EU (and whether you think positive or negative about the EU is the least of my worries, as long as you don't sell BS): read something about the principle of conferred powers and the principle of subsidiarity. Both are key principles in EU law.
Re "Since the Lisbon Treaty it is the European Parliament above all else that is at the core of the con-trick perpetrated on the Citizens: It has the scope to represent all Citizens and the right to deal with any and every issue within the EU."
Unfortunately, the European Parliament won't have the competence the deal with every EU issue. This should be regretted. Not surprisingly you are selling BS again: have a look at the CFSP: no competence for the parliament. Have a look at the setting of fishing quota's: no competence for the Parliament, a real pity indeed, because parliamentary power in this matter would perhaps lead to a more sustainable fishing policy (now run by short sighted fisheries ministers in the Council!)
Re "Only no one is telling the Citizens that all those Parliamentary responsibilities come with no Rights at all to do anything of substance except rubber-stamp the Federal EU project. Afterall, if the Parliament was all-powerful (and as the Citizens' representative it is where the seat of authority and power should lay) there would not be a European Court of Justice, would there!""
You are selling BS again. EVERY democratic country has a Supreme Court (House of Lords, Grondwettelijk Hof, Bundesverfassungsgericht, etc). Meaning that none of the European states (perhaps not a country in the world, as I don't know a country without a constitutional court) stands your democracy test!
Re "1) Yes, the European Union dominates all 27 National Governments"
Dominates is not a legal term. But still the answer is no, not all sovereignty has been passed to the EU level.
Re "2) Yes, the European Union by use of the ECJ is the only source of legitimate Legislation within the EU"
No not really. The ECJ isn't even part of the legislative branch. National parliaments and the European Parliament (+Council) make up the legislative branch in the EU and member states.
Re "3) Yes, the "evolution of powers and competencies" towards a Federal EU legally affecting the "cultural, economic, philosophical" nature of Europe was always the intention."
Yes, this is the Federal vocation I talked about in other posts.
Re "4) Yes, you were contradicting your previous argument on another Article."
Can't see any contradictions, sorry!
Re "Re "...preoccupied.. picture of a person or building on banknotes..": That is the first time you have raised that idea and no one else had on this Blog; it raises the issue, if the EU is as benign as is claimed, what is it that so concerns the 'pro-EU' person about the foibles-cultural links-heritage of individual Nations?
Could it be because there is nothing at all about the EU worth identifying with and even after 40+ years existence? The EU still cannot claim the loyalty, interest, concern or appreciation of 56% of its Citizens during a vital election process."
I'm not really busy with the silly little thigns like national symbols. If you need your (artificial) 'national' identity to HAVE a personal identity than I pity you. However I can see how these shallow things like national pride etc keep the shallow person happy.
Re "You can send a 'card' the first time the European Parliament gets even an increase in Citizens' votes. Mind you time is running out fast: By my reckoning there are 2, improbably 3 European Elections ahead over the next 10 to 15 years before the whole facade implodes - - whether that crisis sees a more-or-less peaceful transition back to an EEC - - or, it crashes and burns, only time will tell."
Perhaps you should tell this to the European Commission and warn them of this apocalypse, they will be very interested.
Complain about this comment
Me-rijn
Re #64
I refer you to my #63 and your own #53 and #61. You know, a bit like the Lisbon Treaty, all those references to other documents which all 'pro-EU' always claim to have read and cross-referenced with no problem at all!
Ho-hum!
You conceded: Much as you splutter for new points on here as you did on the 'democracy'/'ECJ' debates in the end your own citations and propensity for declaring your admiration for an all-powerful, predominantly undemocratic, authoritarian style of Government over the ordinary Citizens (and we were all "informed" how you feel about them) loses the argument every time.
As indeed will be the case for your EU: It does not serve the interests of the common man and it does look to promote the interests of big-business-big-government. It is in the ascendancy just now, but it is doomed project because to quote that American politician again, '..you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time..'.
I guess you fit in that first phrase of the maxim.
Complain about this comment
14. At 6:16pm on 18 Nov 2009, democracythreat wrote:
"See: this is what I like to see! A fan of representation who actually sticks to his beliefs!"
Well I have no problem with admitting that I haven't even heard half the number of names recently mentioned on those two lists ever before in my life. And I read a lot more about international politics than most people I know - so how would an election of this scale if it was direct democracy work at all? Either people vote for the few names they know - then the new president will be either German (largest population) or Tony Blair (only known name even though he is unpopular) *yikes*. Or even worse nobody would even bother voting because making a choice when you know nothing about either of those options is like playing lottery.
Complain about this comment
47. ChrisArta
"...tell me what me and you and eveyone else like me and you can NOT do because we are in the EU would really help me a lot..."
This misses the point. The EU works fine for EU enthusiasts. Why should this group's view take precedence over everyone else?
Thus Lisbon (The Constitutional Treaty) is being bulldozed into action tonight with a slap up meal in Brussels for the likes of Brown who wasn't even elected PM.
Ordinary people offered judgement in exchange for their vote on this in 2005 have been made to stand aside. This is terrific news for those who only see sunny uplands. That this comes at the expense of democratic honesty is lost on the sun worshippers.
Hence the EU could be marvellous, only for those who don't mind that it isn't founded on democratic principle.
Complain about this comment
45. ChrisArta
"...I'd appreciate an honest answer to my question..."
It's not what we can or can't do that gets my goat. It is how we got into this led into this like children too stupid to put an X in the correct box.
Complain about this comment
Re "Me-rijn
Re #64
I refer you to my #63 and your own #53 and #61. You know, a bit like the Lisbon Treaty, all those references to other documents which all 'pro-EU' always claim to have read and cross-referenced with no problem at all!
Ho-hum!
You conceded: Much as you splutter for new points on here as you did on the 'democracy'/'ECJ' debates in the end your own citations and propensity for declaring your admiration for an all-powerful, predominantly undemocratic, authoritarian style of Government over the ordinary Citizens (and we were all "informed" how you feel about them) loses the argument every time.
As indeed will be the case for your EU: It does not serve the interests of the common man and it does look to promote the interests of big-business-big-government. It is in the ascendancy just now, but it is doomed project because to quote that American politician again, '..you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time..'.
I guess you fit in that first phrase of the maxim. "
Perhaps you could also answer my comment instead of completely ignoring what I wrote.
I showed again that the claims you made concerning the effects of the Lisbon Treaty are untrue. You ignored this.
You also ignored my remark about every country having a constitutional court.
You ignored my remarks on the democratic character of the EU institutions.
So time and time again I give you reasoned arguments. Note that they are not irrefutable, but you chose time and time again to shun the real debate with real arguments and time and time again you reply with hollow meaningless statements like "you can fool, etc." and unfounded claims on the EU which you NEVER back up like "all-powerful, predominantly undemocratic, authoritarian style of Government over the ordinary Citizens".
This ominous talk might impress your fellow islanders or scare uninformed citizens, but to other people you are making a fool out of yourself.
And to make myself clear: I am not implying that citizens, if they are informed are bound to be pro-integration. So I don't really care if you are pro or anti EU, as long as you don't spread unfounded nonsense on the EU.
Last remark: I do believe that the vast majority of informed citizens are pro integration. The minority anti - integration are probably still stuck in the 19th century, believing in that anachronistic idea of the sovereign nation state.
Complain about this comment
seraphim85, you asked how direct democracy could work when most folks are ignorant.
I take exception to that judgement. I am most folks, and I may be ignorant, but I don't consider myself less able to judge issues than party politicians.
I think this issue of whether the unwashed masses are fit to decide matters, or whether party members are somehow specially blessed with a divine understanding of the world, is largely a matter of faith.
Either you believe that most people are reasonable intelligent folks, or you don't. Either you believe that being a party member or being born into the right family gives you special access to wisdom, or you don't.
Myself, I think common people are reasonable people, and I do not believe party membership confers any special wisdom, except with regards internal party matters.
I also find it distressing to hear so many people say to me, both on this forum and in person, "Oh, you know direct democracy is a wonderful idea, but the common people cannot be trusted. Direct democracy would turn into the tyranny of the majority."
I find that view distressing for two reasons. Firstly, they wouldn't know, and it is a savage condemnation of their fellows. Secondly, it is fundamentally illogical. The people who tell me the majority wouldn't know best ARE the majority. They ARE the very commoners they are speaking about.
There is an insidious and vain tendency for middle class people to suppose that they are superior to other middle class people. It is as though every middle class worker drone is desperate to take people aside for a quiet chat, and to say to their peers "We are intelligent, but all these others.... they are the mob. They can;t be trusted."
Mathiesen, who is clearly an intelligent person, cites Ibsen and his 100 year old play when describing the likely terrors of the mob. So he is talking about fiction, written 100 years ago, written for a highly class based society.... and this is his estimation of how things stand today.
To me, that is just weird. In the modern world, in modern Europe, everyone is literate. We don't have hoards of communist peasants running around shouting marxist slogans, who cannot even write their own names.
But the middle class european likes to imagine that there are such hordes of illiterates, and that the mob is ignorant and unreasonable.
You should go read the Confessions of Rousseau, if you have not already done so, and contemplate the difference between modern society and europe 200 years ago. Think about how he grew up, and what scant education and resources allowed him to formulate such complex political ideas. It is a different world, today. A different age.
Today we live in an information pool where everyone is educated.
Complain about this comment
69. Me_rijn
"...I do believe that the vast majority of informed citizens are pro integration..."
Believe what you will the Lisbon fiasco demonstrated in block capitols that EU is incapable of progress by democratic means.
Complain about this comment
Me-rijn
Re #69
Again I refer you to my previous comments.
I cannot help it that you feel I have not addressed the issues you raise when that is precisely how I feel about your contributions.
You contradicted a previous argument you made in which you claimed the EU was not intent on a Federal evolution.
You contradicted a previous argument you made in which you claimed the EU and its judicial arm, the ECJ was not the predominant force in the EU, capable of over-riding any and all National Legislation.
You contradicted a previous argument you made that described the EU Parliament as a 'democratic' institution with not only the powers but also the will to intervene on behalf of the Citizens.
You have blatantly used the same arguments to support and then oppose views expressed by those of us who are 'anti-EU': E.g. the competencies, insisting the 'competencies' matter and restrict the EU/ECJ, and then to assert that they do not.
I do not have to reply when whichever point I make you use it to assert something that in another debate you directly use for a contrary point of view.
In fact send a 'card' when you know which kind/type of EU you are actually talking about.
Complain about this comment
#59
Couldn't Americal lawyers write a better contract that stated "gas is not be used only for the mutual destruction of your nations, no other use for it allowed" I thought American lawyers are the best at that sort of things! So, that's one thing we Europeans should not learn from you :)
Complain about this comment
Was Baroness Ashton of Upholland appointed EU High Representative as a reward for leading the House of Lords in the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty over the heads of the British electorate?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS